Left rectangle ads redesigned
Robert Ripps book
History of Tribeca Buildings
New Design for W. Broadway Condominium
There’s a new design, above, for 65 W. Broadway* posted on the plywood. It’s more handsome than the previous one, although that rendering had less detail than this one, where (if you click on it), you can get a decent sense of the brickwork. According to the Schedule A form filed with the Department of Buildings, the building—designed by BKSK Architects—will be 10 stories (up from eight, as in the initial reports), with retail on the ground floor (and below ground) and 23 apartments.
J., a reader who also noticed the rendering, had a few questions. “It doesn’t appear to fit zoning (no setback after five stories on Warren for part of the building, and going up over 120 feet with another story). This is zoned as an R8A residential district, so the building needs to be set back from a narrow street 15 feet (aka Warren) after 85 feet and 10 feet on W. Broadway. There is also a 120-foot cap on buildings according to those zoning rules. Also with a FAR of 6six, I’m not sure how they take up all the lot up to six stories but can still build higher.” I don’t know how much of that is accurate, but if the developer, Cape Advisors, does hope to build in ways that contradict the zoning, it’ll have to get a variance from the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals. I don’t believe that’s happened, because it would also go before Community Board 1. As for building taller, of course, it might have bought air rights from a neighboring building. (James, any thoughts on this? And is there a way to find out whether air rights have been purchased?)
*Cape Advisors lists the project as 59-61 Warren on its website, and it has also been referred to as 70 W. Broadway. But the rendering and DOB paperwork call it 65 W. Broadway, so I’m going with that.
Below: The buildings that were torn down and the site as it looks now.
10 Comments
Comment:
Medium rectangle #1 (top)
Right column rectangle ads
Mega rectangle
Restaurant guide icon
1) the proposed zoning diagram is posted on the DOB BIS website.
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/BScanJobDocumentServlet?requestid=8&passjobnumber=121190497&passdocnumber=&allbin=1086176&scancode=ES798246374
2) There is an open “challenge” period now through Jan 6.
See https://www1.nyc.gov/site/buildings/homeowner/challenges.page
And go here to challenge:
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsDocumentSummaryServlet?requestid=7&passjobnumber=121190497&passdocnumber=&allbin=1086176
3) The Zoning diagram notes regarding setbacks:
REQUIRED SETBACKS AS PER ZR [ZONING RESOLUTION] 123-662:
15′-0″ SETBACK @ WARREN ST & MURRAY ST ABOVE BASE.
10′-0″ SETBACK @ WEST BROADWAY ABOVE BASE.
60′-0″ MIN. BASE HEIGHT.
85′-0″ MAXIMUM BASE HEIGHT.
120′-0″ MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
4) The Zoning diagram notes there are permitted dormers above the base and permitted obstructions including:
PERMITTED OBSTRUCTIONS ABOVE MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT
ELEVATOR AND STAIR BULKHEAD PER ZR 23-62(g), ACCESSORY MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE PER ZR 23-62(g), PARAPET WALLS PER ZR 23-62(j)
5) The proposed building is only 25 feet wide on Murray Street. The diagram notes that to the east there are two existing buildings (the 3-story buildings–of total area 50 FT x 87 FT–sold back to the old tenants) on the other 50 feet of frontage on the Murray Street side of the zoning lot and “EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN ON LOT”. The developer can probably use that FAR above the 3 stories without a further transaction since the development site and the two existing buildings are already on a single lot and need not be merged (as one would in an air rights purchase.) The ZD does not show a further merger with the building to the east on Warren Street.
P.S. The Zoning diagram states “82.96′ BASE HT”
How does a dormer exception allow for the extra height after the base on the warren street side – I thought dormers are for getting light into higher floors?
See ZR 123-662: “In addition, in all Districts, within a required setback area, a dormer may be provided in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(1) of Section 23-621.”
See 23-621 (c)(1)
R6 R7 R8 R9 R10
(c) In the districts indicated, for #Quality Housing buildings#, the permitted obstructions set forth in Section 23-62 shall apply to any #building or other structure#, except that within a required front setback distance above a maximum base height, the following rules shall apply:
(1) Dormers shall be allowed as a permitted obstruction, provided that on any #street# frontage, the aggregate width of all dormers at the maximum base height does not exceed 60 percent of the width of the #street wall# of the highest #story# entirely below the maximum base height. For each foot above the maximum base height, the aggregate width of all dormers shall be decreased by one percent of the #street wall# width of the highest #story# entirely below the maximum base height.
57 and 59 were bought by NY dolls. They probably sold the air rights to pay for the buildings. Originally they we’re going to knock those buildings down too
Such beautiful buildings of another era, destroyed. And for what? This anonymous structure, apparently. Obscene that they couldn’t have saved at least a couple of the best of those old 19th century structures. The whole thing makes me sick to think about. I hate walking past that site.
The proposed new building looks nice to me.
Dear Neighbors,
You get what you vote for: a vote for De Blasio was a vote for this demolition and replacement.
In any case, we will consider a challenge.
Lynn Ellsworth
For, Tribeca Trust
I would hardly blame all this overbuilding on De Blasio. These permits take years and many were started by Bloomberg. Hate on De Blasio but there is plenty of blame to go around.
Re: “Anon
May 21, 2018 • 3:45 am
57 and 59 were bought by NY dolls. They probably sold the air rights to pay for the buildings. Originally they we’re going to knock those buildings down too”
No one knows that they genuinely intended to knock those buildings down too. At the very least, the developer could not get the other tenants out from the other buildings without *saying* that they were going to knock down the NY Dolls’ buildings.
I understand the demolition clause to evict the commercial tenants in each of the buildings required the eviction of all the commercial tenants including NY Dolls. Given the restrictive zoning on adult uses in NYC, that existing location was probably worth more to NY Dolls than those 3 floors (the existing occupied FAR, excluding the air rights) were worth to the developer. One cannot confirm there were talks or even an understanding of some kind between the developer and NY Dolls’ owner prior to the exercise of all those demolition clauses in all those buildings.