The two buildings that are likely to be demolished to make way for a new apartment building.

A developer has filed permits to build a 15-story apartment building rising 197 feet at 2461-2463 Broadway, at the corner of 91st Street.

Right now there are two buildings on the site: a five-story rental building with a Bank of America and dry cleaners at the base, and a two-story building that houses a law firm and a Le Pain Quotidien. The rental building was built in 1920 and has 20 units, according to Streeteasy.

NY YIMBY reports that there will be 33 apartments in the new building, at an average 1,780 square feet, “indicative of condominiums.” The first two floors will have retail businesses. No demolition permits had been filed as of earlier this month.

Photos by Gus Saltonstall.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 34 comments | permalink
    1. wombatNYC says:

      I’ve always enjoyed the curves of this building as well as the Sam Hop laundry services and signage.

    2. ScooterStan says:

      Re: “…a 15-story apartment building rising 197 feet….”

      15 stories !! One Hunnert and Ninety-Seven feet!!! Oh, the HORROR !! 😱

      Think of the SHADOWS!

      Think of the CROWDS!!

      Think of the CONGESTION!!!

      O.M.G. There goes the UWS!! We are all doomed.

      Someone start a petition! Someone hire a lawyer! Someone make up signs for a demonstration! Maybe we’ll get on TV.

    3. Jens says:

      Bill DiBlasio sold out Browadway to the developers, turning it into another 2nd or 3rd Avenue canyon. The incredible weakness of CB 7 doesn’t help. CB7 sold us out to bike paths and Citibikes costing us 1/2 of our parking. The East Side CB is mich stronger and takes care of its people.

      • AnDee says:

        Jens – Citibikes costing us half of our parking? Really? Where please?

      • Nathan Bryan says:

        Who cares about parking?

      • EricaC says:

        Jen, it is all a question of balancing both interests and benefits. Yes, Citibnikes cost some parking, though obviously not 1/2 (hyperbole is not helping your credibility). And yes, providing for bike riding is inconvenient in some ways. But reducing car usage is beneficial far beyond the individuals who use the bikes – in terms of air pollution, crowding, wear and tear, etc., not to mention improvements in community health from more exercise, better air, etc.

    4. Sean says:

      Out with the old in with the new.

    5. James says:

      This is great, the neiborhood needs gentrification badly it has been getting run down since the drug infested Holmes’s shelter opened on 92nd

    6. bill says:

      according to hpd site this bldg. may have rent law tenants…maybe a big buyout or they died

      • robert says:

        HPD, Rent Stable/Rent Control, DHRS etc doesn’t matter.
        There has always been a way to void all of them 1-claiming that the owner will be using the preemies for them self’s. Or 2 in this case a plan to demo the property

    7. Sherman says:

      This building is dingy and grimy and it makes this stretch of Broadway look rundown.

      Hopefully a new building will bring vitality to the area.

    8. Paul RL says:

      This is great news, as the stretch of Broadway in the 90s is in major need of revitalization. The clusters of homeless shelters and supportive housing that have been dumped on us have taken their toll, but this project, as well as the other pending developments are sure to help improve our area.

    9. Carlos says:

      Pains me to say this, but it could be a lot worse. Most buildings on West End are about 15 stories so it will be similar in size to them.

    10. saul says:

      I predict the next to go will be 92nd st corner ,where petco is. I pick up items there sometimes, for a while store is looking empty stock wise.

      • Kenneth says:

        Saul –
        If there is room on your list – add the property on the west side of Broadway between 93/94 – The former shoe store/Radio Shack/ Europan – that has been sitting there a long time waiting for something to happen – perhaps to acquire the corner property as well.

    11. John French says:

      That corner building has been there since at least 1903 as I have a photo of the subway being built in 1903 and that building is there. Probably dates back to

    12. Wendy says:

      How ironic & sad , that a S.R.O. nearby — was gotten rid of , some years ago. @ 1956, some of U.W.S. was lovelier in some ways. I’ve complaints @ some of ‘affordable housing”; &, some of social work + our gov’t in some of N.Y.C.. p.s. “The Sparrow has found a House….”, [Psalm]….

    13. B.B. says:

      As a pre-1973 building apartments most certainly should have been under rent control if not stabilization; but asking rents seem to say otherwise:

      In any event both properties were sold last year for around $37 million and as per have a vast amount of unused buildable rights.

      People need to get used to more of this happening along avenues in Manhattan. So many blocks are lined with low rise buildings that went up early in the last century thus before one or more NYC major rezoning schemes.

      In particular the 1961 rezoning scheme introduced the concept of FAR and so forth; meaning all those low rise buildings on avenues often have vast amounts of buildable (but empty) space basically left on the table.

      This is happening on the UWS and UES as well. An entire block between East 80th and East 79th on First Avenue has been bought up and is being emptied out of retail tenants.

      Eddie’s Market is gone and the only two remaining retail tenants on that block are Savitt Cleaners and Italian Village Pizza. The latter is supposedly moving south on First somewhere.

      On the residential side nearly all those low rise walk-up buildings have been emptied of tenants. A few hold outs remain, but they aren’t long for this world I shouldn’t wonder.

      For all those moaning about “how can this happen?”, simple. The 1961 zoning resolution for the most part on the UES, UWS and a few other areas confined density to the avenues/corners. Mid-blocks especially the “brownstone” streets are zoned for just that.

      If anything many apartment buildings in certain areas actually have a negative amount of building rights; that is if they were torn down anything that replaced would have to be smaller because the new FAR imposed as of 1961 means they exceed space allowed.

      Example of this on the UWS is that former SRO on corner of 57th and 9th Avenue. Reason why it was and isn’t being torn down but redeveloped from existing structure is that due to zoning anything that replaced the building would actually have to be smaller.

    14. GasGuzzlingGus says:

      Yea, please don’t take away our free parking so we can keep sitting out there all summer with A/C on and all winter with the heat going.

    15. AJ says:

      NOOOOOOOOO. Do we need another multi million dollar condo building? The neighborhood has lost ALL its flavor. Pushing more middle class, working people out. How dare you!

    16. B.B. says:

      A quick bit of research shows mention of 251 West 91st street (the other lot address for the corner building) going back to 1914 (in court records). As such it most certainly was built before 1920.

      In fact there was a scandalous divorce case between two residents of this building (Mr. Frank R. Poss vs. Mrs. Lillian K. Poss), that commenced in 1913.

      Have not been able to determine when it happened but at some point the building converted to condos. This explains the very high asking rents one found, and also explains the ease of which buyer acquired the property and plans for quick redevelopment. By that one means there aren’t any rental tenants including RS to deal with.

      Prior to the Chinese laundry the basement level was home to “The Cellar Café”, which was part of NYC’s “café society” which is often associated more with Greenwich/West Village.

      The late great jazz musician Bill Dixon had his “October Revolution in Jazz” at this space back in early part of 1960’s.

      • Paul RL says:

        Thanks B.B., very informative as usual. I’m confused though, about the of conversion of this building to condos and it’s subsequent sale. Wouldn’t each condo owner have to be bought out individually?

    17. Jimbo says:

      You go WENDY—we LOVE you–the G family–94 Street……………………..