I don’t see what its relation in size to Penn 15 has to do with the ability to lease the building
It did not benefit from the MER. The Vanderbilt Corridor Rezoning was a separate rezoning amendment done to the zoning of Midtown before the MER went into affect. It has different specifications for zoning than it’s larger and inclusive counterpart in the MER.
2 Likes
You don’t understand how a relatively small building doesn’t require an anchor tenant, whereas one with over $2m sf does? It’s pretty clear.
2 Likes
Yes, I obviously know how a smaller building can be easier to fill than a larger one.
I don’t see why the comparison in size specifically to Penn 15 matters. And if you wanna be pedantic, they could any building on spec. They just don’t want to because that’s risky.
The success of 1 Vandy could theoretically translate to success here more easily than a comparison with a building in a very different neighborhood.
1 Vandy and 341-7 Madison are both Midtown East high-rises close to Grand Central with midsize floor plates. East Side Access is open and most of the office stock in the area is old.
I think Robert might be underselling the rents this place could command.
I think that upper floors will easily rent for well over $100/sf.
The blockbuster rents will come from 350 and 175 Park.
1 Like
What?
building area is around 940,000sf
1 Like
Thanks.
I thought that they diminished both the height and the square footage. Yimby posted in December that there will be about 750k sf of office space. Here’s the quote:
“…The 11th-tallest building on our December construction countdown is 343 Madison Avenue, a 49-story commercial skyscraper in Midtown East, Manhattan. Designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox and developed by Boston Properties, the 844-foot-tall structure will yield 750,400 square feet of office space, ground-floor retail, and multiple cellar levels. The steel-framed building will rise from a plot bound by East 45th Street to the north, East 44th Street to the south, and Madison Avenue to the west….”
4 Likes
thats true, it could have been reduced. the number i had was from late 2021
1 Like
The floor plates will be relatively small too, so I assume that it will attract boutique law, finance, and tech firms.
Have you seen clearer renderings of the water features at 270 Park? It looks like there will be water walls on the Madison Ave side.
Yes, the building is now ~750,000 sqft, it was downsized in a refiled permits sometime in August of last year.
So generally yes, this building is small enough that BP probably has no problem building it on spec. But I agree with mcart in this situation, that any size building can be built on spec and that there are just more risks in doing so for larger buildings like 2 WTC (which is almost over 1 million sqft larger than 15 Penn). I believe that is where the discrepancy in understanding comes from, but that doesn’t mean taunts need to be thrown around.
3 Likes
Obviously, any building can be built on spec if you have the money. There’s practically no risk for building a 750k sf building in this area. However, with the possible exception of a Saudi Sovereign Wealth fund, no 2m sf+ tower will get financed without a large anchor tenant.
And that is exactly what mcart mentioned afterward, he just didn’t understand why 15 Penn in particular was chosen as the example thats all. That doesn’t mean he’s a child as lowkeylion commented.
I don’t want to start a spiral like what is going on at the Pedestrianize NYC thread (that’s a whole mess) because it doesn’t really matter for this building, but I feel like that’s just speculation that larger towers can only be financed with large anchor tenants because that’s not always the case in specific regard to developments in NYC.
2 Likes
I mentioned 15 Penn because someone mentioned Vornado’s trepidation to build it without a tenant.
And that may have been overlooked because SideStreet did not explicitly mention 15 PENN in their comment, only Vornado in general compared to BP’s outlook on the market. 
There’s no conceivable way that BP will build 3 HY on spec. It’s too big.
That’s not the point I was trying to make though, 15 PENN was brought up without it actually being mentioned, that is why mcart was confused when you compared it to this project, because SideStreet only mentioned Vornado, not 15 Penn.
My bad for the confusion, I should have been more specific to Vornado’s 15 Penn site although they don’t seem poised to develop much at all for a few years.
It seems like 15 Penn isn’t happening without an anchor tenant as the location isn’t desirable enough to get lenders to fork over $3B for a giant spec new office building.
I’m surprised Vornado tore down the hotel at all in such a touristy part of town.
As for this site, I’m pretty mystified BP downsized this tower by ~85K sf of usable space (~833+ to 750K).
Normally I would assume a firm would try to maximize the size of a building for a given site.
Maybe the site was deemed too small such that designing beyond a certain height became inefficient for an office building? Or maybe BP thought they could sell the extra air rights in the future for cash?
1 Like