Condos Replacing Former Collegiate School


A rendering of the new building, by CookFox Architects.

Developer Ken Horn just finalized the $158 million purchase of the former Collegiate School on 78th Street and West End Avenue and a building next to it that the school also owned. Collegiate moved down to the Riverside South development at West 61st Street this year.

Horn bought both the former school at 260-262 West 78th Street, and the adjacent building at 378 West End Avenue, the Post reported.

“As already approved by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, the more recent school building will be demolished and a new, 19-story residential condo designed by CookFox will be created with a new core and elevator bank to seamlessly connect with the West End Avenue building on the southeast corner of West 78th Street.”

We have known this would eventually happen for years, but the closing of the sale makes it clear that construction is likely to begin soon. Below, see the site as it looked last year, via Google Streetview..

 

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 22 comments | permalink
    1. Jane Bevans says:

      I believe that the Collegiate School is situated on 77th Street and West End Avenue. The Apthorp is a full block from 79th to 78th from West End Avenue to Broadway.

    2. Shirley Z says:

      In the end it’s all about $$$$$$$- as much as the Real Estate traffic can generate! Charm? Neighborhood? Skyline? Human Scale? of no consequence if there’s money to be made! Thank God for Historic Preservation & Land Marking or the UWS would already look like the UES! If WE Collegiate Church weren’t land marked they’d tear that down too, history be d..md!

      • A.C. says:

        They bought the land though… as in, here, I will pay you $158 Million so that I can build here. The church is still being used. They made a deal with the owners of the land – the church – and the church okayed it, and they got $158 million for their land, I don’t see how this is all about the money. The $158 million was more valuable to the church than the land, and the land was more valuable to them than the $158 Million… It would be something different if they just said: “Here, I am gonna build this, deal with it.” They made a trade.

        • dannyboy says:

          A.C. – there are more people involved than Ken Horn and the Collegiate Church. You must know that,you are commenting on a NEIGHBORHOOD blog.

          • A.C. says:

            Dannyboy, so the basic rules of capitalism don’t apply? They’re making a deal for their property. This is how real estate and construction works with smaller projects (Not for things like Hudson Yards.)There is literally nothing wrong with this building, actually, if it weren’t red, that would be perfect. This will contribute to the neighborhood positively.

            Seriously, what’s wrong with this building? It’s not too tall, even by your definitions (Look at the rendering, it’s not much taller than the building in encircles.) It’s not displacing anyone, because Collegiate is already by Waterline Square, it’s not out of context, economically or physically, it’s not abusing any zoning laws, there was no bait and switch tactic. Seriously, name something wrong with this building! It’s made to generate profit for the developers and tax revenue for the city… like literally every other residential project ever built.

            But I will ask this for the umpteenth time…

            What. Do. You. Want. Instead? Leaving the school to rot? an empty lot? Repurposing the structure? Honestly! I want to know. This will help in the long term. You guys always try to shoot down buildings, but you never state what you guys want to see instead. Maybe that’s why you guys lose your battles all the time.

            Honestly, is there a single building going up that you guys want? Short buildings like these, every single building being built you’ve had something to complain about. I will admit, I’ve said this many times, above 72nd Street, I don’t like most of the buildings going up due to the overall blandness of them, but I accept that they are going up in the end. What is it that’s so bad about development?

            This is the same mentality that almost got 80 Flatbush Avenue nixed, but one thing with 80 Flatbush that didn’t come up here was that Stephen Levin proposed a height cut, and made it clear what they had wanted, and in the end, like they voted yesterday, a compromise came about, keeping all the public benefits while still cutting the FAR by about 13%. If you guys were to state what you wanted as an alternative, real progress can be made.

    3. Renee Goff says:

      Disgusting!

    4. A.C. says:

      That design is cool, but the red kinda stifles it a bit for me… But it’s smart hugging 378 West End like that. Utilizing the space to it’s fullest. Hopefully they’re smart about what goes in, I highly doubt there will be any affordable apartments, but hopefully there are more than 30 Condos in it.

      7.5/10

    5. Sherman says:

      I think it looks pretty cool that they can refurbish an old landmarked building and combine it with an ultramodern one.

    6. Jules says:

      More apartments being constructed in the city? Of course!
      And where is the money for the subways and buses and other services to support all these people moving into new apartments all over Manhattan? The UWS being the most neglected and dirty area anywhere. Such a shame. The developers get richer and the rest of us are without a voice it seems.

      • Jay says:

        “And where is the money for the subways and buses and other services to support all these people moving into new apartments all over Manhattan?”

        It’s being provided to the state and NYC government. If you think they aren’t spending that money wisely, I suggest you vote for someone different.

      • Sean says:

        Yup the area around Collegiate looks real dirty. I don’t think so.

      • Leon says:

        New apartments generate tax revenue. Tax revenue pays for infrastructure. High end apartments generate more tax revenue per capita than low end apartments, so the ratio of tax revenue to additional people to burden infrastructure is optimal.

        And if you think “The UWS being the most neglected and dirty area anywhere” then you really live in a bubble. We are all extremely fortunate to live in such a nice neighborhood. Our complaints are trivial compared to what most New Yorkers deal with.

    7. Jeff says:

      This is an astonishingly creative use of land, with the whole wraparound from 78th to West End.

      But it’s hard to tell from the rendering whether it’ll be a tastefully modern addition to the neighborhood or an ill-conceived blight.

      • Boopsie says:

        From the drawings it doesn’t look as hideous as it could be. We’ll see how well it blends in once it’s built.

    8. AC says:

      I’ve been complaining about the overburden on our infrastructure for over a decade and our local leaders continue to turn a blind eye. Subways are overcrowded; exiting the 72nd street or 79 street subway station is a nightmare; parking on the streets in impossible; pedestrians are not being protected; and yet we’re still allowing developers to build without giving something back to the community.
      🙁

      • A.C. says:

        I like the name bro…

        But honestly, that’s something for the MTA to worry about. If we based our construction around how crowded the subways are, then the most of the projects going up shouldn’t have gone up. Stopping construction due to overcrowded subways, while well-intentioned, is stifling. And also, if I am right, not many of these people are going to take the subways, they’ll all probably drive for better or worse.

        The MTA needs to get it’s act together.

    9. PaulCons says:

      The school had it’s main entrance on 77th street for YEARS… BUT it did construct a secondary building with an entrance on 78th.

      The property the school was on was leased from the church. It was the church not renewing said lease that forced the school to look elsewhere to re-build itself. The developer BOUGHT the land from the church, not the school.