24-Story Building Planned to Replace Starbucks and Offices on 60th Street

Developers are planning to build a 24-story residential building with commercial space on Broadway and 60th Street, the current home of a 12-story building with a Starbucks at the base. Global Holdings Management Group wants to construct 173 residences along with commercial space at 1841 Broadway, according to The Real Deal. There are no demolition plans for the building yet, YIMBY reports.

The building on the site now was constructed in 1924, according to Streeteasy.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 16 comments | permalink
    1. Various Artist says:

      Boo!

    2. AC57 says:

      If the building is so short to blend in, and not take away the spotlight from the Time Warner Center, then fine. For literally any other reason, we can and should build taller.

      And to those who will inevitably say this, 24 stories, especially that far south and east, is actually short.

      • Tom P says:

        Do I remember correctly that when this building went up during the depression that the plan had been to build a much higher building and that the foundation was laid to support it.

    3. Kathleen says:

      It would be helpful to see a current photo of this site.

    4. Barbra Matis says:

      Another too tall building with ridiculous prices.
      All the businesses will be displaced and the Upper West is turning into mecca for the boring 1%.

      • Jay says:

        Would you be happy if we just bulldoze the entire UWS and replace it with single family homes and half acre yards? Seems like you would..

      • Rick says:

        24 stories is not “too tall” for Broadway, especially that far south. And you’re weeping for the loss of a Starbucks? Seriously?

    5. Elisabeth Anderson says:

      Was it NOT built higher years ago because of the shadow that would be imposed on Central Park?

    6. wombatNYC says:

      I hope this does not displace the ” spare change ” lady that’s been out on broadway sidewalk all these year . She’s adorable

    7. John Broughton says:

      Is this not a landmark building?

    8. Tom says:

      Super convenient Starbucks for a quick jolt. Will be missed!

    9. John says:

      I think another 100 story tower for the billionaires would help the housing crises for them. Why not build it here?

    10. roxy says:

      I know a professional who rents a suite of offices in this building. They signed a 10-year lease 3 years ago and put thousands of dollars into renovating the space. They were summarily told they would need to be out in 3 months. How is this possibly legal? Ah, New York real estate.

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        it’s legal because small commercial tenants have absolutely no legal protection.

        Ask all the YIMBYs on this site and they’ll tell you that it is unfair to landlords and developers to give small commercial tenants any form of legal protection. why do they feel that way? unless they are landlords, developers, or work for such, i have no idea.

        • Sherman says:

          Hi Bruce

          You have no clue what you’re ranting about.

          There was very likely a clause in the tenant’s lease about compensation in case the landlord had to break the lease early.

          I worked at a company early in my career in which the landlord made us vacate the property before our lease expired but the owners of the company were actually very happy because they got a huge payout from the landlord.

          Sherm

        • AC57 says:

          That is such a huge generalization and a very inaccurate statement. This is the largest building to be demolished on the Upper West Side, at least in my lifetime, which may not say much. All the other projects went up on abandoned lots, facilities that had replacement, or just parking lots. This is an unfortunate occurrence for the occupants of the building. Admittedly, I don’t know how this works entirely, but it’s always a little sad to see the current occupants get moved. Again, with my little knowledge, I think the landlords could chip in and find a new temporary location, and the new owners could provide them with new facilities at a similar price, but again, I have no idea how it works; and it’s just my opinion. But as a pro-development person, this is a somewhat painful part of the process.