Standing one block away from the Manhattan West complex is 441 Ninth Avenue. Located between 34th Street and 35th Street, the site sits among a hive of construction projects that have since sprouted in this section of Midtown. The mixed-use project will soon consist of a new 17-story addition above an existing eight-story 57-year-old building. There will be several retail spaces on the ground floor, as well as office and commercial space above. Cove Property and Baupost Group are the developers of the 700,000 square foot project, named “Hudson Commons.” Kohn Pedersen Fox is in charge of the design for the new extension.
Developer Carthage Real Estate Advisors has revealed new details surrounding a major redevelopment of the Ennis Francis Houses in Harlem. If approved, the long-dilapidated housing block would be demolished and replaced by two new residential buildings offering a combination of affordable and market-rate homes.
Permits have been filed for a five-story mixed-use building at 189-16 Hillside Avenue in Jamaica, Queens. Located between 189th Street and 190th Street, the corner site is a little over a half mile east from the Jamaica-179 Street subway station, serviced by the E and F trains. Sherajul Islam of Aryana Holdings, Inc. is listed as the owner behind the applications.
Permits have been filed for a seven-story residential building at 163 Johnson Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Located between Manhattan Avenue and Graham Avenue, the corner site is four block east of the Broadway subway station, serviced by the G train. The Grand Avenue subway station, serviced by the L train is nine blocks north of the proposed development lot. Yoel Werzberger of Watermark Capital LLC is listed as the owner behind the applications.
On January 28, the Department of City Planning released the Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) for the proposed Residential Tower Mechanical Voids Amendment, which seeks to limit non-residential floor heights in future apartment towers within high-density districts. The 48-page document, which outlines the proposal and its impact, reveals a troubling foundation of groundless speculation, elusive language, and self-contradictory statements. The proposed amendment ultimately promises to stifle flexible planning, and fails to present a convincing argument in its support.