Plans Change for Proposed Building at 91st and Broadway: More Floors and a Cantilevered Section
A diagram of the building that was filed with the city.
By Carol Tannenhauser
A recent deal between a developer and a building owner could bring a cantilevered building to the northwest corner of Broadway and 91st Street.
In 2017, developers Hampshire Properties and Adam America Real Estate filed permits to build a 15-story apartment building rising 197 feet at 2461-2463 Broadway. On December 31, 2019, however, the developers reached an agreement to buy air rights from 2465 Broadway — the low-rise building next door housing the Equinox sports club. The air rights will allow them to build to 19 stories. The agreement also gives them the right to “cantilever” the new building out over the existing Equinox building. (Cantilevers hold up a surface or room without themselves being supported at their outer end.)
The site as it looked in April 2019.
One neighbor raised concerns to West Side Rag about the potential design, which she says “will be out of character for this neighborhood,” as well as the track record of one of the developers. The Real Deal reported this month about a current lawsuit involving Adam America.
The board of managers at 51 Jay Street is suing Adam America Real Estate and Slate Property Group, the project’s sponsors and developers, alleging breach of contract, fiduciary duty and fraud.
The condo board claims the 74-unit luxury warehouse-to-condo conversion “fell far short of the developers’ promises” due to a multitude of construction defects, according to its complaint filed in Kings County Supreme Court on Jan. 3. The lawsuit claims Adam America and Slate knew of the problems but sold the condos to unsuspecting buyers anyway.
In January 2019, Adam America sued a contractor on the Jay Street project “for project delays, over-billing, and defective work,” according to The Real Deal.
Here is another cantilevered building developed by Adam America on the Lower East Side.
100 Norfolk via Adam America Real Estate.
Adam America and Hampshire did not reply to requests for comments.
Some neighbors say they plan to attend a Tuesday meeting of the Community Board to air their concerns. It starts at 6:30 at Rodeph Sholom, 7 West 83rd Street.
“One neighbor raised concerns to West Side Rag about the potential design, which she says “will be out of character for this neighborhood,”….
Objection denied. Build it.
All this really means, is that the individual expressing the ‘opinion’ doesn’t like the style of the building, or more likely perceives that the construction will inconvenience her in some way.
This cannot be the basis for blocking construction of a building, and even less for impeding progress generally on the UWS.
There are too many derelict building on the UWS with structrual defects, plus sub-standard plumbing and wiring. They should be razed and replaced with stable, modernized and MODERN structures, negativniks be damned.
and what happens to the people living in all these buildings you plan on tearing down?
Relocate them into better, newer housing, wherever it exists.
Why would you oppose improving people’s living conditions?
The building it will replace is already down, and there were no residents. It was a two story taxpayer. Its used to be an OTB, which became several other things that never lasted and then a small no descript restaurant
Incorrect. The building that used to be at 91st and Broadway was a six-story building that had 20 rent stabilized apartments.
I’m sorry, but how is this prospective 19-story building out of character with Broadway? If anything, the 3 story equinox and 2 story Petco store on that block are out of character with the neighborhood!
The lower east side Bldg is hideous. I cannot support that in my neighborhood.
The image in this post of 100 Norfolk St is not very flattering. The video in the link below better represents the building in context.
https://vimeo.com/272370292
A cantilevered glass and metal structure is completely out of context with the architecture of the neighborhood. If it looks anything like 100 Norfolk it will stick out like a proverbial sore thumb on our streetscape. Also not considered is infrastructure. We have new construction going up on 91st, 93rd, and 96th streets and Broadway, as well as 93 between Broadway & Amsterdam. If each apartment has 120-150 units, that is thousands more people using our subways, grocery stores, and other retail establishments. Has anyone thought of this?
The current population of the UWS is about the same as it was in 1970. I think we can manage.
I would think that the retailers would love it.
Just because the built 100 Norfolk like that does not mean this one will look that way
On the UWS, 230 West 78th Street is a cantilevered design and you wouldn’t know it unless you watched it being built.
You don’t notice the cantilever at 230 W 78th, because the new building meets seamlessly with the smaller, older building.
That’s not what they are planning here. They are planning the same thing as 100 Norfolk, where the new building juts out over an old one.
No, this one will look worse. Because at least at 100 Norfolk, the cantilever is somewhat hidden on a side street. This cantilever will be right on Broadway, visible to all.
Both the old Whitney Museum and the Guggenheim Museums are prominent cantilevered structures. Both are out of context in their neighborhoods and landmarked. Its a trend that new construction technologies are being used to take lemons and turn them into lemonade.
Some additional examples:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2014%2F01%2F12%2Frealestate%2F12JUMP1%2F12JUMP1-articleLarge-v2.jpg%3Fquality%3D75%26auto%3Dwebp%26disable%3Dupscale&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2014%2F01%2F12%2Frealestate%2Fcantilevered-buildings-of-new-york.html&docid=J9hshdyGwnBUqM&tbnid=4bda-NC8J6hNWM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwih-uiJwrHnAhWag3IEHV4nDOQQMwhOKAAwAA..i&w=600&h=398&bih=979&biw=1680&q=cantilevered%20buildings%20in%20new%20york%20city&ved=0ahUKEwih-uiJwrHnAhWag3IEHV4nDOQQMwhOKAAwAA&iact=mrc&uact=8#spf=1580600126795
Is there a mandate on this development to support a percentage of units for low-income housing?
It abides by the C4-6A contextual zoning and falls underneath the MIH height requirements. So no
People here want “contextual height”. Once again, you’re gonna get it
What a shocker!
The Developer pulled a fast one… again.
After all the B.S. from Extell, how could anyone fall for this again?
Pathetic.
I still don’t like it. It’s ugly.