Permits Filed: 151 Mercer Street

151 Mercer Street151 Mercer Street -- image from Google Maps

Construction permits have been filed for 151 Mercer Street, which will soon become Tory Burch’s five-story flagship store. Demolition on the site’s old building is imminent, and the development has completed its navigation through landmarking. O’Neil Langan Architects is designing the project.

The store will measure nearly 10,000 square feet, and the building will feature a rooftop terrace. 151 Mercer Street will have a historically-minded design, which also explains how the project flew through landmarking without any hitches; within the traditional design there will be subtle contemporary flourishes, including “weathered steel cladding with blackened steel trim.”

151 Mercer Street

151 Mercer Street — image via the HDC

The Historic Districts Council’s website has a rendering of 151 Mercer Street — obtained during the landmarks’ approval process — and the building will look completely contextual with its SoHo surroundings. At five stories, it won’t make an impact on the skyline, but the presence of a new flagship store will certainly add to pedestrian activity.

Completion of the new building is likely by 2016. The first round of permits were denied approval on January 30th, but the hold-up is likely a simple technicality.

Subscribe to the YIMBY email newsletter and receive the latest new development news in your inbox.
Follow the YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

For any questions, comments, or feedback, email [email protected]

The Chatsworth Horizon
.

4 Comments on "Permits Filed: 151 Mercer Street"

  1. bill russell | June 30, 2015 at 11:30 pm |

    When will TB stop destroying its historical neighbors?

    From the NYC DOB website for 151 Mercer Street:

    06/26/2015 A3 FULL STOP WORK ORDER SERVED 2619 06/25/2015
    FULL SWO ISSUED DUE TO NO MONITORING BEING PROVIDED EX/ID # 2456

    06/11/2015 L1 PARTIAL STOP WORK ORDER 2619 06/10/2015
    PSWO ISSUED NO DRILLING OPERATIONS VIO ISSUED FAILURE TO SAFE GUARD WATER PENETRATING.ADJ PROP

  2. bill russell | October 5, 2015 at 11:47 pm |

    http://nypost.com/2015/09/19/tory-burch-construction-damages-landmark-building/

    “Tory Burch construction ‘damages’ landmark building”

    The fast-tracked construction of designer Tory Burch’s Soho flagship store has wreaked havoc on a neighboring landmark building, causing doors to jam and an elevator to break down, according to a lawsuit.

    Herbert Moskowitz, owner of a 130-year-old luxury rental building at 153 Mercer St., says drilling for Burch’s new headquarters at 151 Mercer St. has caused “extensive damage” to his property.

    The foundation has shifted half an inch, making the elevator for the five-story building inoperable, and interior doors don’t close, the Manhattan civil suit says.

    The landlord has had to reduce rents — where a two-bedroom goes for over $10,000 a month — and can’t find tenants for vacancies, according to court papers.

    He claims the city’s Department of Buildings, which has since issued violations against Burch and stopped construction, gave her waivers to cut through red tape at the expense of safety.

    A spokesman for Tory Burch said, “the company denies the allegations made in the complaint. We always strive to work with the finest partners and maintain high standards on any project we undertake .”

  3. The Real Deal: Tory Burch sued again over Soho flagship
    Neighbor claims work at 151 Mercer caused damage to his property

    LEXI DEC 22, 2016 10:30 AM

    Tory Burch’s flagship in Soho is turning into a fashion flop, with a second neighbor suing over property damage related to construction of the four-store store.

    Michael Salzhauer, who owns a three-story building at 149 Mercer Street, claims that his 200-year-old property incurred structural damage as a result of drilling at Burch’s planned store at 151 Mercer. In his suit, filed Wednesday in New York Supreme Court, he describes cracks and water leaks in his cellar, which he claims Burch has refused to repair. In addition to Burch, the suit names construction manager Skanska and engineers Thornton Thomasetti and Langan Engineering Environmental Surveying & Landscaping Architecture.

    In the suit, Salzhauer said damage to his property appeared after Burch began construction in 2014.

    He claims that despite an agreement to fix such damage, Burch has refused to do so.

    Representatives for the designer could not immediately be reached.

    It’s the second time the fashion designer has been slapped with a lawsuit related to her planned flagship store.

    Landlord Herbert Moskowitz also sued the designer in 2015, claiming that work on the store caused extensive damage to his property at 153 Mercer.

    Moskowitz sought $500,000 in damages, and asked for construction to be halted until damage to his property could be rectified.

    But the designer struck back — claiming in a countersuit that Moskowitz’s “frivolous litigation” had delayed work at 151 Mercer.

    Her suit claimed that his opposition to the project cost her “millions of dollars” stemming from lost profits, construction costs and rent obligations.

    The store was originally slated for completion in July 2015.

  4. Bill Russell | January 12, 2017 at 2:52 pm |

    Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, JJ.
    2729 In re Tory Burch LLC, Index 154246/16
    Petitioner-Respondent,
    -against-
    Herbert Moskowitz doing business as
    Manhattan Realty Company,
    Respondent-Appellant.
    _________________________
    Peluso & Touger, LLP, New York (Robert Reed Moore, Jr. of
    counsel), for appellant.
    Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, L.L.P., New York (Richard Wasserman of
    counsel), for respondent.
    ___________________ Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.),
    entered July 11, 2016, which granted petitioner a license to
    enter respondent’s adjoining property in order to take steps to
    protect respondent’s property during renovations to the facade
    and roof of petitioner’s building, unanimously reversed, on the
    law, without costs, the petition denied, and the proceeding
    pursuant to RPAPL 881, dismissed.
    The petitioner failed to make a showing as to the
    reasonableness and necessity of the trespass referenced in the
    order where, at the time of its petition, none of the items
    sought had been memorialized in specific plans filed and approved
    by the Department of Buildings, and the project was under a stop
    work order (see Mindel v Phoenix Owners Corp., 210 AD2d 167 [1st Dept 1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 811 [1995]; see also Matter of
    Board of Mgrs. of Artisan Lofts Condominium v Moskowitz, 114 AD3d
    491 [1st Dept 2014]). Further, the court erred in including
    those items in the license that would be permanent encroachments
    on respondent’s buildings (see Broadway Enters., Inc. v Lum, 16
    AD3d 413 [2d Dept 2005]). The parties’ disagreement over their
    respective rights, if any, arising from a party wall in use prior
    to petitioner’s demolition of the building formerly at 151
    Mercer, is not relevant upon this limited petition.
    We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and
    find them unavailing.
    THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
    OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
    ENTERED: JANUARY 12, 2017
    ___________________

Comments are closed.