New Design for Tower on City Hall Park

Judging from the website of developer Roe Corporation, the plan has changed for 265-267 Broadway, currently the site of a five-story building: There’s a different design, and it’s 45 stories instead of 42. (Let’s hope the website is the up-to-date version, because it’s much better than the cheap-looking old one), I don’t know whether Roe has the financing yet, and my sense is that it needs a variance from the city to build that high. Schlockitect Gene Kaufman was the architect for the design released in August; whether he’s still on board is unknown. More on the project, from the company’s website:

The site has approximately 50 feet of frontage along Broadway and is expected to be redeveloped into a mixed-use 45-story building with a boutique hotel at the base and for sale residential condos above. The 109-room boutique hotel is expected to be affiliated with a nationally branded hotel company. [LOL at the meaningless of this. Motel 6 is “nationally branded.”] The hotel component is expected to offer a lobby lounge, an outdoor garden, and guest registration on the lobby level; a three-meal food and beverage outlet on the 2nd floor, guestrooms located on the 3rd through 14th floors, as well as the 16th and 17th floors; and an amenity level located on the 15th floor featuring a gym, a spa, and an outdoor terrace. The amenity space will benefit hotel guests and residents. The residential component will be located on the 19th through 45th floors. All of the units will have private outdoor space in the form of a terrace or balcony. In total, the proposed development will contain ±153,720 square feet of above grade gross building area.

Besides the first two renderings below, the website has a video that shows the building from various angles; the subsequent renderings are screenshots from the video. One curious detail: The design appears to incorporate the facade of the existing building. Perhaps that’s purely an aesthetic choice, or perhaps it allows the developer to file permits for an addition rather than a demolition.



  1. Much better, but the west wall looks completely windowless. Why?

    • My guess would be for the elevator banks. The lot is already small, and most of the building is set back, making it even smaller. The elevators have to go somewhere, and there likely isn’t enough room in the middle (without compromising the living space).

      • It will be interesting to see what the revised filing states. The original filing mentioned a 46 foot deep rear yard; 30 is required for legal residential use. (The original application was for a new 42 story building.)

        If the new building is built with a shallower yard and they could not get a light-and-air easement from the neighbor, they could not put legal windows on the west wall anyhow.

  2. Looks like they switched from a cheap knock-off of 56 Leonard to a knock-off of 30 Park Place

  3. It will be a joining a dubious club of too tall bland glass towers.