The public review process has begun for 100 Gold Street, a three-tower mixed-income development in the Financial District, Manhattan. Designed by CetraRuddy Architects and developed by GFP Real Estate, the project will yield approximately 4,000 homes, including around 1,000 permanently affordable, rent-stabilized units. The development will also include an older adult center replacing the existing facility operated by Hamilton-Madison House, roughly 40,000 square feet of public realm improvements, and a 40,000-square-foot publicly accessible fitness center with community programming. The property is located at the corner of Gold and Frankfort Streets.
Rendering of 100 Gold Street. Credit: CetraRuddy Architects.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the start of public review this week with an updated plan that adds roughly 300 homes to the approximately 3,700 units proposed at the time of our last update in December 2025, when the city selected GFP Real Estate through a competitive request for proposals. The building will use a cross-subsidy structure to rise at no cost to the city, with proceeds from the site’s disposition funding the relocation of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development and the other agencies it houses into modern office space. According to the city, the project will nearly double the number of permanently affordable homes built in Manhattan Community District 1 over the past decade.
Rendering of 100 Gold Street. Credit: CetraRuddy Architects.
Renderings depict three residential towers as bronze-toned slabs that would rank among Lower Manhattan’s tallest structures. Based on the renderings, the tallest appears to rise at least 1,000 feet and the two companions roughly 800 feet and 450 to 500 feet; exact heights, floor counts, and final unit counts will be determined through the review process. A ground-level view shows a landscaped public plaza with mature trees, stone seating, and planting beds fronting a glazed ground floor, while a separate image previews the older adult center as a dining hall wrapped in floor-to-ceiling glass and lined with wood columns.
The city will hold a scoping hearing next month to begin the formal environmental review, which will continue through the fall. The project is expected to enter the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure in 2027, setting up months of public review before Manhattan Community Board 1, the borough president, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council.
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
hell yea
Just make sure the one bedroom apartments built for low income and middle income arr not 250 square feet but at least 650 feet . Many new buildings are only giving 200 feet and claim $3700 a month is a fair rent .
Congratulations on an interesting project
Raquel Ramati
These towers make a meaningful dent in housing, But a 1000 foot tall tower built basically on top of this beautiful bridge, really destroys its irreplaceable vibe..
When people look at the Brooklyn Bridge from a distance they are looking at the span over the river. These towers are set back 5 blocks from the waterfront near, and even further from the iconic spans. They will blend into the background when viewing the bridge from a distance, and the experience when going over the bridge will be improved as these will help to create a sense of arrival into a dense city when entering Manhattan. I just ran over the bridge last night and was looking at the current building and southbridge buildings and how underwhelming they are. This will be a huge improvement.
Monath, let’s not let perfect be the enemy of good here. This will provide much-needed housing. Please just stop it.
“Just stop it”?..imbecile. If this, the opinion phase of this project isn’t the time to be ‘perfect’, when is?
.Look at that tower at the approach to the Manhattan Bridge, it ruins the rhythm of the bridge to skyline, do you really like that look? Well, that’s what will happen here if this tower doesn’t get downsized some..
Can you provide more detail about your operational definition of “ruining the rhythm,” and why you think your personal preference against seeing a tall building in lower Manhattan is important enough to justify denying homes to possibly thousands of people during a catastrophic housing shortage?
Chill Winston
The Manhattan Bridge’s tower is literally right next to it whereas these proposed towers are 5 blocks distant.
I have a similar concern Monath.
Great addition to the skyline!
The 78 story Gehry building at 8 Spruce St has 900 units.
How are they going to get 4,000 into this space?
(BTW: I worked with people who are headquartered in the City’s agencies in that building, I know exactly how big the footprint is)
I know it’s on Gold Street, but it doesn’t have to be… gold.
Yes – amazing, fidi is becoming such an incredibly vibrant community!
Yes, gold colored glass on Gold Street is just a bit too obvious and it also brings to mind the projects of a certain gold-loving tyrant.
Are we now again okay with glass boxes on such an important and historic view corridor from the Brooklyn Bridge to Downtown Manhattan? This gold glass box will completely dominate the famous view from the bridge. Can we not choose something that is not gold and all cheap glass?
If you add gold to molten glass, it comes out ruby red.
This a good remedy for 1) addressing the housing crisis, 2) addressing the Elizabeth Street Garden issue and 3) adding 24 hr vibrancy to FidDi.
Early gut feeling is that the first conceptual rendering was better looking.
With all due respect to some opinion-guardians here:
I don’t mean to be facetious; but if one’s primary concern is a skyline vantage point being somehow interrupted by a bridge tower, would it hurt one too much to maybe change one’s own vantage point?
I mean that’s one thing. But calling for an actual *decrease* in a tower’s height on the basis of that logic is IMHO borders on the ridiculous.
The good points enumerated here suffice to render moot any POV that can be flagged as immediately questionable.
IOW, I agree so strongly on this project’s benefits that anything that could’ve been said about the demise of Downtown is being proven BS.
IOW most commonly stands for the text abbreviation “in other words”
IMHO stands for “in my humble opinion” or “in my honest opinion.”
In case somebody is as ignorant, as I am
Looking at this really makes me angry because I’ve been saying for the last 20 years that they should bring the Twin Towers back, make them 200-300 ft taller, a shiny blue finish to make them more modern and 50 ft wider on each side. And right around that exact area near the Verizon Building would have been perfect SMH. I hope they bring them back in Chicago at least, because New York probably ain’t ever gonna do it.
Those are some strange opinions.
ULURP will identify, and presumably address, impacts on physical and social infrastructures and one also hopes maybe resolve the fundamental issue of adding nominally 6,000p (1.5 p/apt X 4,000 apts) to a food desert.
I hope CB1 seriously considers this last point.
Is this really the best way to address a housing shortage?
Yes, I know we live in an era of marginally bridled capitalism.
WMS