HAP Investments has purchased a development site in Tribeca for $46 million, where it is planning to build a 40-unit condominium project, sources told The Real Deal.
The site is located at 65 Franklin Street, right by Broadway, and HAP purchased it from Miami-based Crescent Heights Realty, which was co-founded by Sonny Kahn, Russell Galbut and Bruce Menin. The property contains 64,430 buildable square feet, although this can increase to 77,000 with additional air rights. The price per square foot works out to about $714 for HAP.
crawdad-- Tribeca doesn’t need tall buildings unless you don’t care much about the fabric of an area filled with beautiful old industrial buildings. Some neighborhoods should largely be left alone. Let midtown be midtown and tribeca be tribeca.
No, they shouldn’t. Unless you plan on not letting anything else get built in NYC, no they absolutely should not. Your comment implies that you believe these neighborhoods hold some special value that let’s them be undevelopable while others are not.
This is a highly subjective opinion that can be used on virtually every plot of land on the planet and just leads to NIMBYism.
Yep. I believe in the inherent value of beautiful architectural history, just like I believe in saving Cezanne paintings. Too much of American architecture has been trashed. Building new in places where there is nothing worth saving, or nothing there at all. But replacing good architecture makes me wince.
You believe in the subjective value of what you subjectively believe is beautiful. Something that isn’t shared by everyone and should not stop new construction. Besides we already have a system for protecting historical architecture and beautiful buildings, as you should know if you’re interested in NYC development. There is no reason to paint an entire district with the same brush.
I think this is where adaptive reuse can come in handy. The Meatpacking District is a great example. Saving the “beautiful” and cultural value of neighborhoods by keeping the facade, etc, while building new above or around it. The city needs new housing and inventive ways of adding it *without * bulldozing more of it’s history.
mcart - the LPC doesn’t always do a great job of protecting history, as we all know lol. But a system nonetheless
I can agree to this. Stuff can built on top of existing structures maybe pulled back from the edge. Would reduce the footprint of the building but does have the benefit of keeping the current feel.
And renovation, expansion etc could keep the current style of the building.
Maybe even rules that developers have to build their new buildings in the style of the current area, though I’d prefer this to be restricted only to small areas. Architectural diversity is what’s great about big cities
I actually think this building, 65 Franklin, threads the needle pretty well and is a good example of modern development in a largely pre-war area with restrictive zoning. The buildings it replaced were not too special, it has a contemporary design that’s contextual and not just jarring glass, and it adds some modest height and density.
**DeSelby–I agree with you. Mcart–your reply to me was a bit harsh. It’s as if I’m disabled from thinking large buildings in Tribeca should not be built. The LPC, IMO, does not do a good job of protecting NYC’s architectural history. So I am free to disagree that the existence of the LPC means I can’t favor preservation of the fabric of an historic neighborhood by objecting SOMETIMES to the construction of large buildings. I’m not painting a huge area with the same brush. Flexibility is good. Maybe the powers that be will be will at times decide that a building is just too big to be appropriate. Let’s just agree to disagree rather than basically suggesting that I am irreparably wrong-haeaded.
I’d say almost anywhere in Manhattan should have large buildings. But no, I neither said nor implied that you were “disabled”, or stupid, or anything of the sort. And I have absolutely no idea where you would even get that from.
