277 Canal Street Giant Proposal

By Brian J Pape, AIA

The 1973 designation of the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District had far-reaching implications for the city due to the unique character of the neighborhood that is celebrated today. The SoHo–Cast Iron Historic District Extension Designation Report of 2010 describes approximately 135 properties located on the blocks immediately to the east and west of the district. Many buildings date from the same period of development as those in the previously-designated historic district and exhibit similar architectural characteristics.

Recently, 277 Canal Street, at Broadway, has been presented by the owners and consultants in public hearings before the Community Board 2 (CB2) and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The LPC Designation Report provides the history of this Renaissance Revival-style commercial building built in 1927-28 by the D & D Land Improvement Company a few years after the area around Broadway and Canal Street was established as a major transportation hub by the opening of the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit line under Broadway. It listed David M. Oltarsh as the architect and general contractor and the façade bears his name in bronze lettering. This building includes a subway entrance and passageway on Broadway. It is evocative of the changes that were taking place in SoHo as a result of transportation improvements and new forms of mass entertainment in the early decades of the 20th century. The altered marquee (with iron anchoring and non-historic signage) has …an attic-level lunette with diamond-paned fenestration…which is topped with a gabled parapet with medallions and surmounting urns.

When the owners previously applied for an enlargement of the building, the CB2 Resolution (except signage master plan) and LPC findings for the 2023 preservation approval stated that the existing three-story building is not representative of the key period of significance of the historic district, primarily represented by its 19th century cast iron store and loft buildings. Its height does not define its typology, therefore constructing a large vertical extension will not detract from the architectural style of the building or the special historic and architectural character of the District Extension. There is historic precedent in the district of vertical building extensions constructed in plane with the original building base and designed to be an integral part of the façade (though not at this scale); Broadway and Canal are wider than other streets within the district and feature corner buildings which are often notably larger than the buildings on the side streets. The existing building features a larger lot area and longer street frontages than typical district lots. Therefore the taller height will fit well with the overall scale of the streetscapes (though not at this scale).

That would seem to be the end of the findings and a path to move forward. Enter United American Land LLC (UAL), a family-owned real estate development company based in New York City, with over 70 properties in NYC, predominantly in historical buildings that are adaptively-reused, restored and developed. UAL is pursuing new acquisitions and developments, and have re-introduced a new design for 277 Canal (aka 277-289 Canal Street and 418-422 Broadway).

Instead of the 2023 version of the 12-story development with brick pilasters and rectangular window groupings that closely matched the original building’s architecture, the new design proposes a 21-story, 240-foot high skyscraper to capture the City of Yes and Transit Improvement zoning amendments. The next tallest building is the nine story masonry building across Canal Street, SE corner. It is probably normal for a developer to want to maximize their allowable building size, except that other limitations in place that must be honored too.

The arguments for building out-of-character are simple and straight-forward: Transit Improvements for the subway station come with bonus floor area (to help pay for the improvements); by changing the building use to residential (except at street levels), the City of Yes zoning gives bonuses for providing 31 “affordable” housing units (out of 143 units); the original building will be restored to its original quality. But does any of that justify almost doubling the height and mass of this new building where none now exist? The community says no.

When owners come to the community about adding to existing historic buildings, change in character is considered, and there is even language in the law that says additions should be not substantially visible, or in this case, must be compatible with the character of the area. This design fails in all respects.

Besides the excessive height and bulk of the new design, the other issues raised in public hearings were aesthetic, color and material choices. By avoiding any zoning requirement to have setbacks as the building façade rises from the street, the designers have locked themselves into blank, boring, overwhelming lot-line walls, devoid of windows or any depth to the façade. These walls are facing both Broadway and Canal, prominently on display and visible from many blocks away. The adaptation of the little “lunette with diamond-paned fenestration” over the marquee (“Drawing from the tympanum and pediment in the existing building”) to inspire a sweeping group of bent arches at the top levels seem totally out of place with the previous rectangular motif. Precedent would have shown that the top floor openings and arches would be notably smaller. On top of that, the bulkhead structures sitting on the roof are covered with dark metal panels that are visible, bulky and disorganized, taking away from the masonry detail of the main building. The top floors are entirely clad in light-colored terra cotta, looking awkwardly like the add-on that it is.

This is an historic district that must be considered if we are not to lose the character that defines the city and neighborhood, as residents and community members have strongly proposed.

When an owner wants to change an historic building, that owner is expected to show the community how their changes will benefit, not damage that community. The benefits proposed for this building change could have been incorporated into the previous proposal ─ shorter building, same number of affordable housing units, restored facades, and the same subway station improvements now being proposed.

---

A video of the event, moderated by human rights attorney Steven Donzinger, is available on the YouTube channel of the New York Society for Ethical Culture.