Developer modified seven-story project’s facade details in response to concerns expressed at prior hearing. On November 16, 2010, Landmarks approved Real Estate Equities Corporation’s revised proposal to construct a seven-story residential building at the corner of Franklin and Varick Streets in the Tribeca West Historic District. At the proposal’s prior hearing the Commissioners asked the project’s architect to modify the design by strengthening the building’s base and increasing the amount of masonry in its facades. Commissioners also disliked that the City’s underlying zoning regulations would prohibit the building from extending to the property’s southern lot line. 7 CityLand 142 (Oct. 15, 2010).

At the November meeting, Landmarks staff member John Graham said the revised design was intended to ensure the building would be contextual with the district. (read more…)

In 1999 Landmarks approved plan for new six-story structure, but owner died before developing site. On September 7, 2010, Landmarks considered Real Estate Equities Corporation’s proposal to construct a seven-story residential building on a vacant corner lot facing Finn Square at 137 Franklin Street in the Tribeca West Historic District. The site had once been occupied by a one-story building built in 1985. In 1999, Landmarks approved the then-owner’s plan to demolish the building and construct a six-story structure. The building was demolished, but the owner died, leaving the project in limbo and the lot vacant.

At the hearing, Real Estate Equities Corporation’s Brandon Miller argued that the vacant lot’s development would complete Finn Square. Architect Markus Dochantschi, from studioMDA, explained that the proposed seven-story building would be clad in red brick and feature a black granite and metal base. Arched bays would span the building’s height on the visible facades, and a black metal and epoxy cornice would top the structure. Lateral bands of angled glass-tile panels would be installed at four levels of the facade. According to the architects, the building would not cover the entire lot due to underlying zoning requirements. (read more…)