GFP Real Estate has been selected to redevelop the city-owned site at 100 Gold Street into a large-scale mixed-income residential development in Manhattan’s Financial District. The new property will contain approximately 3,700 housing units, with at least 25 percent planned to be permanently affordable. The project is part of Mayor Eric Adams’ “Manhattan Plan,” which aims to create 100,000 new homes in the borough over the next decade. The property is located at the corner of Gold and Frankfort Streets.
The redevelopment plan for 100 Gold Street includes the relocation of existing city agency offices, such as the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD), to newly acquired office space funded by the disposition of the current site. Plans feature a new 40,000-square-foot public open space, a public fitness center, and a new older adult center replacing the existing Hamilton-Madison House facility. A temporary location will be provided during construction to avoid service disruptions.
100 Gold Street, via Google Maps.
Originally constructed in the 1960s, the current building located at 100 Gold Street has been deemed in need of significant investment. The project emerged from a RFP process led by the New York City Economic Development Corporation and is expected to enter a uniform land use review procedure in 2027, following environmental and site due diligence.
Transit nearby 100 Gold Street include Fulton Street, served by the 2, 3, 4, 5, A, C, J, and Z trains; Brooklyn Bridge–City Hall, served by the 4, 5, and 6 trains; and Chambers Street, served by the J and Z trains.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
good luck developer under the new mayor……….
Rage bait comment with zero intelligence and 100% xenophobia for a person who hasn’t even been sworn in as the new mayor, yet.
Why don’t you just sit down, eat your words, and shut the fuck up you twat.
take a chill pill needle nitz
How about not siding with a wannabe radical extremist like Cholly Nick, BrooklynLove?
LOL
the radical extremist is the Uganda colonizer now entering city hall.
Im just an old New Yorker who wants the best for NYC.
NOte, I wrote “good luck……” and you nutbags when off on me personally.
Look inside yourselves and ask why the hate.
I merely speak the truth.
peace and love to all
Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud Vincent. Cholly Nick has been making such sociopathic comments lately.
brecasuse I speak the truth Laura.
dont worry, you self entitled progressive now rule the roost.
dont go by me, just listen to what ZM and the NY DSA say and their written polices.
They literally want to take away private ownership of property. and they are doing it death by a thousand cuts.
Rent stablized buildings are selling for a fraction of what they once did.
If buildings do not make a reasonable return and loss money, they will not be maintained, and will lead to abandonment and the loss of units for New Yorkers. Dont believe me woke transplants from midwest? We have been here before in the 1970s. Google it.
Personal attacks on me Is the usual M.O. of the far left instead of arguing facts.
Must you inject bitter and hysterical partisanship into everything? You have no idea that he “couldn’t care less about the physical city.” I predict he’ll be a surprisingly excellent steward of the city’s architecture and urbanism.
I guess you have not listened to everything that comes out his mouth or has written.
And his DSA cohorts.
LIsten – for the good of the City I hope I am wrong about him.
Not bitter just concerned and sad for my city
I am naive, we have been here before.
Youngersters should read up on NYC and the “bad old days”
@cholly
Why do you say that? Zohran is supportive of City of Yes, voted in favor of the recent housing amendments and has repeatedly said we need to build more.
GFP is a class act and I trust what they do will be appropriate and tasteful.
@cholly nick: We only use 3 full stops, not 9!
I wish all developers good luck, not because of an incoming mayor who seems supportive of a proposal just like this one, but because if there was a business that could possibly be more difficult than keeping a restaurant open more than a year, it might just be a developer actually getting a project from the drawing board to completion without bankruptcy.
Food for thought: If you think Zohran’s proposals seem over-the-top, it might be a good thing to consider just how much the wealthy classes have failed America by abusing capitalism to enrich themselves.
Would love to see a breakdown of the unit count because I’m kind of stunned at the overall number. 3,700? Is that a ton of studios? The building in the rendering looks smaller or the same height as 8 Spruce Street just nearby, which I believe has 899 units in it. Even if you double that to account for the additional massing in the proposal, you’re 2 thousand under. These must be fairly small units.
Will be interesting to see how the units are configured!
8 Spruce has Studio through 5 bedroom units and I’m confident the average scope per unit is larger there.
8 Spruce seems to have a services base whereas this development seems to have a residential base.
This design has nearly twice the land area and I think the floor area per level well be roughly double that of 8 Spruce.
So nearly double the area, plus more residential levels due to a residential base and what will likely not be a lot of 5 bedroom units and it seems possible.
I lived in a tower in Shenzhen that was tiny compared to 8 Spruce and my building was filled with nearly 700 units. The block had 5,000 units. They were functional but… small.
I’ms ure the units are larger, definitely (and probably only go up to 3 bedrooms). But I still think it sounds like a lot of density even if the mass is doubled and the podium entirely residential. Plus, it sounds like they only used half the site, if that’s possible, as there’s 40,000 SF of public open space on a roughly 80,000 sf lot.
Keep dreaming with the affordability.
3,700 units is impressive. Lower Manhattan needs all the housing it can get. So many beautiful old buildings that would make perfect housing conversions.
Wow – 3700 units on a ~2.2 acre site is some incredible density. Curious how many stories that will be.
“Coincidentally”, the developer is a big contributor to the Adams campaign.
Maybe someone else could have provided a better deal for the City?
I’d be willing to bet 57,642 tacos that every developer who bids on these projects donates to politicians. All of the politicians, and wanna be politicians. $45k. That’s what the donation to Adams’ campaign was. You think that’s the only donation they made?
This is an absurd rendering and plan. 3,700units is just not possible and what of light and air for Southbridge just south of it? The Wall Street effect is back? And right up against the Brooklyn bridge? Please convert the office bldgs that sit empty and build something that works with the landmark status of the area that doesn’t dwarf everything else.
Would you have said the same thing when Frank Gehry built his tower at 8 Spruce Street next door? Or David Adjaye’s 130 William Street? Or Robert Stern’s 30 Park Place? Or Vinoly’s 125 Greenwich Street? Or that new tower going up at 111 Washington Street?
Developers will continue to build new towers in this part of Manhattan, while old offices are converted too. Nothing wrong with having new construction, but you shouldn’t limit construction to just office conversions.
exactly Kevin.
Part of my “good luck” was meant for the inevitable lawsuit from the affordable tenants of Southbridge. Talk about NIMBYs, they fought the development on the parking lot at the seaport for years.
again…. a parking lot….
and haters, save your unhinged breath. You sense of entitlement knows no bounds.
lol southbridgers will get this shrunk way down or stalled just like they did to the hughes seaport plans.
100 Gold Street-What a Dump
I hope this project happens especially if it ambitious in providing a large number of units to low income individuals and low income families