Canal Street Rising . . .

[Front_Porch]

good news for those of us who love One York and the little corner of SoHo right near it . .

Changes Afoot on Manhattan's ‘Last Frontier'

BY BRADLEY HOPE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 4, 2007

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/63938



There is one conspicuous omission in the advertisements for One York, a sleek, glassy condominium building set to open in the spring of 2008: Canal Street.



The building's façade faces the busy thoroughfare, known for its discount vendors, intense traffic, and jewelry exchanges, yet the marketing team chose to describe it only as "elegantly poised between TriBeCa and dynamic SoHo."


Like many brokers and community officials, the developer of One York — which is named for a small side street that runs along the building's south side — Stanley Perelman, says he believes Canal Street as most people know it is disappearing.


"For a long time this area, this street, attracted schlocky retailers — it was a void," Mr. Perelman, who is also managing principal of JANI Real Estate, said. Now, however, "all of these retailers are going to be gone and this is going to be a different, dynamic neighborhood."


Canal Street is being squeezed by SoHo to the north and TriBeCa to the south, with an increasing number of developers buying up the tenements there and raising rents.


"Canal Street is the last frontier," the head of retail brokerage at Prudential Douglas Elliman, Faith Hope Consolo, said. The area is poised to become "the next Lower East Side," she added.


Along the entire length of Canal Street, developers are buying up sites for redevelopment. At a onestory building at Lafayette and Canal streets, for example, developers are planning to tear down a building that now houses several discount vendors and replace it with a five-story, glass office building with retail space and wraparound, electronic signs.


"We don't see the future of Canal Street in what's there, which is mostly trinkets," one of the developers, Earle Altman, said.


Mr. Altman and co-developers Jay Casely and Keith Lipstein said they were considering several options for the building, including a banking center with a major financial institution as the anchor, or a jewelry exchange similar to what can be found in Hong Kong.


Other developments include a 20-story glass hotel at 370 Canal St., and a five-story commercial building under way at Canal and Centre streets by veteran Chinatown developer Alex Chu.


At One York, Mr. Perelman has sold 55% of the 35 units, including a seventh-floor apartment for $20 million to the telecom entrepreneur Michael Hirtenstein, who is spending another $10 million in upgrades. The building's duplex penthouse, which is 6,600 square feet, is on the market for $25 million. Mr. Perelman also said he is in talks with prominent restaurateurs about a large space on the ground floor of the building.
With all these new buildings, in addition to the numerous other projects on the outskirts of Canal Street, including the nine-story SoHo Mews at 311 West Broadway and the 45-story Trump SoHo, there will be many more retail spaces to accommodate a growing number of pedestrians.


In preparation for these changes, rents in the area are already beginning to rise. On Canal and Washington Street, for example, the rent on a 1,200-square-foot space has increased to $150 from about $75 a square foot in just three years, an executive vice president at Lansco, Robin Abrams, said. Farther east, at 198 Canal St., a 4,500-square-foot space is renting for $350 a square foot. In contrast, the average rate for Manhattan retail space is $107 a square foot, according to the Real Estate Board of New York.


"That's just crazy," Ms. Abrams said. "This used to be the area where you went to Uncle Steve's electronics store to get an alarm system for your house." Once a well-known restaurant or a gallery moves in, others will follow, she added.


The landlord of 254 Canal St., Michael Salzhauer, said banks are also flocking to the area, and at his building, which has two banks as tenants, they are paying $350 a square foot.


"For a long time I thought that Chinatown was going to crowd out SoHo," Mr. Salzhauer, whose grandfather bought the building in the 1950s, said. "Now I see SoHo crowding out Chinatown, especially the western part."
As gentrification comes to Canal Street, local Chinese business owners are considering ways to band together, draw more tourists to the street, and increase their revenues so that they can afford the higher rents and stay in Manhattan.


"If you don't maintain the vitality of your neighborhood it will go by the wayside," the executive director of the Chinatown Partnership Local Development Corp., Wellington Chen, said. Already some stores have started moving to Flushing, where rent is lower and parking is widely available, he said. "It would be a shame to lose this truly unique cultural place to forces at work here. The old Jewish neighborhood is gone. So is the old Irish neighborhood. Little Italy is just a few blocks now."



ali r.
{downtown broker}

[ZippyTheChimp]

Scraped together some photos of Canal St buildings.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4405/canalst01pb3.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst01pb3.jpg) http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2933/canalst02uy6.th.jpg (http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst02uy6.jpg) http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3972/canalst03th8.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst03th8.jpg) http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2087/canalst04jh5.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst04jh5.jpg) http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2518/canalst05ia2.th.jpg (http://img338.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst05ia2.jpg)


http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8518/canalst06au0.th.jpg (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst06au0.jpg) http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6271/canalst07hy1.th.jpg (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst07hy1.jpg) http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/2209/canalst08rl0.th.jpg (http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst08rl0.jpg) http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/537/canalst09nt6.th.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst09nt6.jpg) http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/6717/canalst10us5.th.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst10us5.jpg)

[ZippyTheChimp]

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/409/canalst11ns7.th.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst11ns7.jpg) http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1319/canalst12hi8.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst12hi8.jpg) http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/5471/canalst13zp2.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst13zp2.jpg)

[BrooklynRider]

There's a site that has just been cleared next to that peach colored bank building in post #2 (photo 2).

[lofter1]

The pink one isn't a bank -- it's the Canal Street Station Post Office.

Next Door Site: The address of the cleared site is 370 Canal (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=120237&postcount=309) and it's going to be a (Drum roll) ....

Chang / McSam Hotel (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=167173&postcount=15)

[Front_Porch]

Thanks for the photos, Zip.

ali r.
[downtown broker]

[lofter1]

The stretch of buildings in Zip's FIRST PICTURE in THIS POST (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190023&postcount=3) (313 - 329 Canal Street) is one of the great blockfronts in Manhattan. Those buildings sit on the north side of Canal between Mercer / Greene Streets -- and fortunately are all within the SoHo Cast Iron Historic District (http://www.canalspace.com/historic-cast-iron-landmark-district-map.htm) so they will not be destroyed. Personally I'd like to see the signs maintained just as they are now, as they add to the pictaresque quality of the setting. Plus they let you know where to go if you need a fan or some plastic or a bit of electronics.

Attached is a combo-panarama of that block ...

***

[MidtownGuy]

Very, very sad.

[londonlawyer]

The stretch of buildings in Zip's FIRST PICTURE in THIS POST (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190023&postcount=3) (313 - 329 Canal Street) is one of the great blockfronts in Manhattan. Those buildings sit on the north side of Canal between Mercer / Greene Streets -- and fortunately are all within the SoHo Cast Iron Historic District (http://www.canalspace.com/historic-cast-iron-landmark-district-map.htm) so they will not be destroyed. Personally I'd like to see the signs maintained just as they are now, as they add to the pictaresque quality of the setting. Plus they let you know where to go if you need a fan or some plastic or a bit of electronics.

Attached is a combo-panarama of that block ...

***

As this photo confirms, Canal Street has many, many magnificent, historic buildings. I'll bet the buildings with the dormers are from the 1820's or 1830's. But for some crap, Canal is a beautiful street. It just needs new tenants and a white washing.

[lofter1]

Why new tenants?

Clearly they sell stuff people need and use.

Where else are you going to go to get sheets of plexi in various thicknesses and sizes? Among other useful and hard to find things.

Seriously.

[czsz]

Yeah really...the tenant mix adds just as much to the character of Canal as the architectural diversity. I would hate to see it "whitewashed"...though it's probably inevitable. It'll look just like 14th St. or 23rd in a decade or two.

[lofter1]

Don't care to see that ^^^

Stretches of 23rd Street are as dreary as anything I'd care to come across. Don't need that down here.

[londonlawyer]

Why new tenants?

Clearly they sell stuff people need and use.

Where else are you going to go to get sheets of plexi in various thicknesses and sizes? Among other useful and hard to find things.

Seriously.

Canal deserves more than Asian guys selling junk and car stereo shops.

[czsz]

So...it "deserves" to look like any other street in Manhattan? The raffishness is what makes Canal interesting. Leave it to the banks and Marc Jacobs outlets? I'd never visit.

[londonlawyer]

So...it "deserves" to look like any other street in Manhattan? The raffishness is what makes Canal interesting. Leave it to the banks and Marc Jacobs outlets? I'd never visit.

It warrants nice shops. When one walks through Tribeca, one finds interesting and unique shops, restaurants, bars and caffes. Junk shops can relocate elsewhere.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Strolling north.

Nice shops Tribeca...nice shops Canal...nice shops SoHo.

Doesn't sound as interesting.

[stache]

What drives me crazy about Canal is the onslaught of pedestrians, who seem to be mainly looking for counterfeit merchandise.

[londonlawyer]

Strolling north.

Nice shops Tribeca...nice shops Canal...nice shops SoHo.

Doesn't sound as interesting.

So, in your opinion, London, which has block after block after block, of nice, well-maintained shops is not interesting?

[Fabrizio]

I can see both arguments here.

A major road with beautiful, historic buildings should equal a place that's "nice" in the traditional sense.

My problem is NOT the cheap merchandise but the ugly way things are diplayed and sold... and I think that's the difference between NYC and London/Paris/Rome etc.

NYC allows those ugly canopys and signage and filthy windows. In European capials you might see cheapo stores in the center of town but the owners have more pride and the public has certain expections: beauty and neatness count.

In my town, it would normal to see a butcher shop, a hardware store, and some discount place sitting right next to an elegant clothing store. This kind of mix is normal... but everthing is generally well maintained and attractive.


--

[czsz]

The haphazardry and chaos of New York is what makes it unique among such cities. Kundera called it "accidental beauty" and drew a severe contrast to sterile Geneva. There are enough European capitals with tidy shoprows, an similar streets in New York; can't we let Canal be?

[londonlawyer]

I can see both arguments here.

A major road with beautiful, historic buildings should equal a place that's "nice" in the traditional sense.

My problem is NOT the cheap merchandise but the ugly way things are diplayed and sold... and I think that's the difference between NYC and London/Paris/Rome etc.

NYC allows those ugly canopys and signage and filthy windows. In European capials you might see cheapo stores in the center of town but the owners have more pride and the public has certain expections: beauty and neatness count.

In my town, it would normal to see a butcher shop, a hardware store, and some discount place sitting right next to an elegant clothing store. This kind of mix is normal... but everthing is generally well maintained and attractive.


--


I agree with you. The buildings on Canal are really beautiful, but they need to be cleaned. They also deserve better tenants than guys selling fake watches, etc. I'm not suggesting that they need Gucci and Brooks Brothers. However, as I noted, in Tribeca, NoLita, and the prime blocks of the UES, there are very nice, independent book shops, clothing stores, antique shops, cafes, restaurants, etc. These would be fitting for a potentially beautiful street like Canal.

[Fabrizio]

As I mentioned... I see both sides to the issue. But gosh...Canal is so wide... the buildings are very old and beautiful...

Again... I don't mind the merchandise but I really hate this type of vinyl canopy signage... loathe it:

http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst01pb3.jpg

http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=canalst06au0.jpg

[antinimby]

Junk shops can relocate elsewhere.Like where?

[londonlawyer]

Like where?

The Bronx, Queens, Staten Island....

[antinimby]

So Manhattan is now off-limits to places selling bargain merchandise?

What happens when someone like you in the outerboroughs also think these "junk" shops don't belong there either?

Off to Yonkers or Passaic they go? And then where after that? Pittsburgh...Chicago...Denver...and then maybe eventually the Pacific Ocean, right?

The fact is that a place is interesting and rich if it has a variety of shopping choices for people to choose from. Making Manhattan one big upscale (or more likely) national chain mall will make it less interesting.

[londonlawyer]

So Manhattan is now off-limits to places selling bargain merchandise?

What happens when someone like you in the outerboroughs also think these "junk" shops don't belong there either?

Off to Yonkers or Passaic they go? And then where after that? Pittsburgh...Chicago...Denver...and then maybe eventually the Pacific Ocean, right?

Those shops are remnants of the days when Canal St. was for the hoi-polloi. Now that multi-million dollar apartments are rising on and near Canal, there is a need for nice things -- not junk.

Is Central London sorely missing out because it lacks rag-tag junk stores?

[antinimby]

Excuse me but those luxury apartments should know what the area was like before they come in there, so no I don't think the retail there should be reconfigured to their tastes.

When you move into an area, you adjust to the surrounding, the surrounding shouldn't have to adjust to you.

Boy, this world is becoming such a me-me-me place now.

And stop comparing NY to Central London. While it may be a very nice place, that is not the end-all be-all, standard for a city.

[londonlawyer]

Excuse me but those luxury apartments should know what the area was like before they come in there, so no I don't think the retail there should be reconfigured to their tastes.

When you move into an area, you adjust to the surrounding, the surrounding shouldn't have to adjust to you.

Boy, this world is becoming such a me-me-me place now.

And stop comparing NY to Central London. While it may be a very nice place, that is not the end-all be-all, standard for a city.

You're entitled to your opinions. I disagree.

P.S.: London and Paris are model cities, and NY, on a physical level, should emulate them. If you prefer grit, I suggest that you move to Sao Paulo.

[antinimby]

Some could say that Paris and London have a few things to learn from NY too.

Like they say, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence..."

And no, Sao Paulo does not have the patent on grit. It wasn't that long ago that NY was known the world over for being one of the most gritty cities.

By the way, I could just as easily say that if you want wall to wall, refined luxury, I suggest that you move to Paris or London.

[londonlawyer]

Some could say that Paris and London have a few things to learn from NY too.

Like they say, "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence..."

And no, Sao Paulo does not have the patent on grit. It wasn't that long ago that NY was known the world over for being one of the most gritty cities.

By the way, I could just as easily say that if you want wall to wall, refined luxury, I suggest that you move to Paris or London.

I was in Sao Paulo last year, and it is the most disgusting city that I have ever seen. With the exception of perhaps some cities in Africa, it is the nadir of urban life (from a physical perspective, at least).

I used to live in London and regret leaving. If I had an opportunity to move back or to live in Paris, I would seize it immediately.

[antinimby]

Well, NY is neither Sao Paolo or London or Paris and we shouldn't try to emulate any one of those cities.

We may have a little bit in common with every one of those cities and that is what makes us so great.

You sound like an elitist and there's nothing really wrong with that. I believe people have a right to be what they want to be (within the extent of the law of course) so if Paris and London suits you more, then by all means, go.

However, judging from my own experience, once you're there, I know you'll miss this city soon enough and then you'll be longing to come back here. That's natural.

Getting back to Canal St. There's no need to intentionally push out the bargain shops. Eventually, the market (if it does) will take care of that all by itself.

However, that would be a sad day for the city because that would mean another piece of Manhattan will be stripped of its uniqueness and the complete homogenization is one step closer.

[ZippyTheChimp]

So, in your opinion, London, which has block after block after block, of nice, well-maintained shops is not interesting?No, New York would not be as interesting if it were a copy of London. You could probably say the same for London.

You seem to want everything to be the same.

[londonlawyer]

No, New York would not be as interesting if it were a copy of London. You could probably say the same for London.

You seem to want everything to be the same.

Obviously, NY and London are unique cities. I'm not suggesting that NY attempt to carbon copy London. I am stating, however, that Europeans, in general, take more pride in their cities than Americans. As demonstrated by London's new skyscrapers, they, unlike cheap American developers, build interesting structures. Cheap, Macklowe-esque boxes are not constructed in London.

European owners also take more pride in their properties. Canal Street, as an example, is lined with stunning, old buildings, and yet the owners (i.e., the Sol Goldman's of the world) don't maintain them and don't care how they look as long as they generate rent. Those beautiful, old buildings deserve to be cleaned and maintained, and they warrant nice shops -- not junk stores run by low lives that sell fake watches and pirated DVD's.

Are South Kensington or TriBeCa boring because they are clean, well-maintained and have nice shops? I don't think so.

[antinimby]

American developers aren't all cheap and not all new buildings in London are all that great either.

If every street in Manhattan resembled "Kensington or TriBeCa" then yes, it would be boring including those places themselves because they would not be any different from any other street.

Is that so difficult to understand, london? ;)

Why do you want everything in upscale London neighborhoods (however nice they may be) be replicated everywhere else?

[londonlawyer]

....Why do you want everything in upscale London neighborhoods (however nice they may be) be replicated everywhere else?

Why do you like grunge? What's interesting about the fake jewelry shops that line Canal?

[antinimby]

Well, I'm glad you ask because maybe you'll learn something.

First, I am not necessarily a fan of grit or grunge as you put it. I do, however like to see variety.

Variety is always more interesting than conformity and homogenity. Most people come to this city because it has places like Canal St. and Times Square and Wall St. and Greenwich Village and Central Park and Fifth Ave.

They all offer different and varying things and they all add to the richness that is NY.

If we lose the grit and every neighborhood street has an H&M next to a Starbucks next to a CVS next to a Chase branch, then this city will no longer be any different from the next city.

Look at Canal St. Does it resemble any other street in the city or for that matter, in the world? No.

That is something you want to hold onto, not whitewash away like it was worthless.

Judging from the crowds, apparently most people like it the way it is now than some neat street no different than ones you find in any number of cities.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Londonlawyer, you completely miss the point.

You introduced London into the discussion, when the point was that Canal St doesn't have to be a copy of Tribeca and/or Soho.

You want Manhattan to be scrubbed and homogeneous. Just because you don't think an area isn't boring doesn't mean everyone has that opinion.

And you're not obligated to like Canal St.

[londonlawyer]

Londonlawyer, you completely miss the point.

You introduced London into the discussion, when the point was that Canal St doesn't have to be a copy of Tribeca and/or Soho.

You want Manhattan to be scrubbed and homogeneous. Just because you don't think an area isn't boring doesn't mean everyone has that opinion.

And you're not obligated to like Canal St.

You miss the point, Zip. Firstly, I did not mention anything about homogeneity. TriBeCa and the prime blocks of the UES don't look the same or feel the same, they don't have the same stores, etc. All they have in common is that they're beautiful and well-kept, just like South Ken and Chelsea in London. I, like Europeans, do like the "scrubbed" look as you call it.

Just because you and others find value in run-down stores that sell fake Guccis, fake Rolexes and pirated DVD's doesn't mean that we all do. I, like Londoners and Parisians, despise them. I also despise people like Sol Goldman's heirs who own dilapidated buildings in prime areas and don't spend a dime on improving them.

London:
http://www.hohpe.com/Gregor/Travel/2001/London/sloane_street.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Knightsbridge-tube-station-sloane-street-entrance.jpg/450px-Knightsbridge-tube-station-sloane-street-entrance.jpg
http://whitehall.125west.com/assets/images/Whitehall_London.jpg

New York:
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4405/canalst01pb3.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8518/canalst06au0.jpg
http://girlfriendsgetaway.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/canal-street-265-is-a-long-narrow-shopping-mall-of-tiny-purse-shops.jpg
Those car stereo shops and DVD stores really are interesting! What was I thinking? It's cool too how the beautiful buildings in the second and third photos are poorly maintained and have cheap vinyl awnings! It makes one quite "intellectual" to appreciate delapidated things!

Canal Street, in its current dilapidated form, clearly is superior to the scrubbed streets of London.
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/07/guns/image/01_audley_house.jpg

How boring and mindless the Brits are! They have flower boxes. That's so superficial and so less interesting that the filthy exteriors and vinyl awnings on the Canal St. buildings.

[czsz]

There are plenty of Londoners who appreciate the frenzied electronics district of Tottenham Court Road, or the immigrant flavor of Brick Lane. And Paris has a gentrification cycle similar to New York's because people there are constantly seeking out the next edgy, sooty neighboorhood (this decade the Marais, the next Belleville and Menilmontant...many Parisians even like their Chinatown, which is architecturally a socialist nightmare and not quite sparkling itself).

[lofter1]

Part of the reason that SoHo / Tribeca survived was exactly because property owners like Sol Goldman et al held onto those properties forever -- and didn't put a dime into them. Therefore they started to empty out. Then folks who saw the potential of the spaces / buildings moved in. Goldman and his heirs got a little rent an were happier than when the spaces were empty. That is business -- downtown style. New York rolled on.

Had Goldman and similar landlords put money into those downtown buildings / areas back in the 50s, 60s , 70s there's a chance that developers would have been enticed and grabbed up thsoe properties -- and torn down what were then thought of as dilapidated monstrosities (but what we now recognize as great old buildings).

I recently took the photo of that block of Canal between Mercer & Greene because the buildings along that stretch are just starting to be restored. Where Mercer Street intersects Canal the buildngs on both sides of Mercer are undergoing renovation -- and the ground floor tenants are out. It remains to be seen what will go in. But with the big money that is apparently being spent on these two buildings there's very little chance that the new retail spaces will offer either assorted plastic or electric motor parts.

[londonlawyer]

There are plenty of Londoners who appreciate the frenzied electronics district of Tottenham Court Road, or the immigrant flavor of Brick Lane. And Paris has a gentrification cycle similar to New York's because people there are constantly seeking out the next edgy, sooty neighboorhood (this decade the Marais, the next Belleville and Menilmontant...many Parisians even like their Chinatown, which is architecturally a socialist nightmare and not quite sparkling itself).

Tottenham Court Road is not nearly as disgusting as parts of NY. Also, I have many, many British friends and can't say that I know any who regularly visit Tottenham Court.

[stache]

LL, please consider the crowd you run with. I have a feeling it's not in the style of the old Dinkins 'beautiful mosaic' model.

[lofter1]

Not sure of the point of these pictures (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190339&postcount=38), LL ...

But looking at them one might erroneously guess that it was NYC and not London which was pockmarked with bombs during WWII -- thereby giving NYC an excuse for all the nasty looking "tax-payer" infill that we see next to grand old buildings.

[ASchwarz]

Londonlawyer, you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Both cities have plenty of gorgeous and ugly neighborhoods.

Your London pics show Knightsbridge and other fancy West End neighborhoods, and ignore the ugly neighborhoods on the South Bank or in East London. These pics are all in neighborhoods comparable to the Upper East and Upper West Sides. Obviously Canal Street does not look as refined as Madison Avenue or West End Avenue.

Even London's center has areas with lots of crap. The buildings around Euston include lots of crap. Same with the Kings Cross area. The eastern end of Oxford St. has plenty of crappy buildings and tacky stores. London's Soho and Chinatown have mostly nice buildings, but have lots of horrible businesses. Commercial areas south of the Thames (Brixton for example) have a mix of nice buildings and crap, which is also pretty typical in the outer commercial areas of NYC. There is even more crap in the immigrant neighborhoods east of Docklands. Portions of North London around the old Arsenal stadium also have lots of crap.

IMO, the crap on Canal will be gone in a few short years. Those junky corners are likely to be demolished and replaced with condo or commercial structures. The new ground-level retail will reflect the affluence of the surrounding neighborhoods.

[londonlawyer]

Not sure of the point of these pictures (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=190339&postcount=38), LL ......

My point was two-fold: Firstly, scrubbed and nice is hardly boring as the London photos show, and by the same token, filty buildings with cheap DVD stores is hardly exciting as the Canal Street photos show.

My second point is that it's appalling how New Yorkers lack pride in their property. The buildings on Canal are beautiful. They simply need to be cleaned and to get better tenants. (That comment set off a firestorm from people who think that cheap and filthy is somehow interesting and cool.)

These buildings are beautiful. (Look at the details on the ones on the top above the garish "gold" and "pashmina" signs.) They deserve to be cleaned and to have better tenants than the junk stores that currently infect them.
http://girlfriendsgetaway.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/canal-street-265-is-a-long-narrow-shopping-mall-of-tiny-purse-shops.jpg
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8518/canalst06au0.jpg

[londonlawyer]

Londonlawyer, you are making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Both cities have plenty of gorgeous and ugly neighborhoods....

Hardly. I was simply posting the UK photos to show that polished and nice is hardly boring. I wasn't suggesting that Canal Street is comparable to Knightsbridge. Nevertheless, like Knightsbridge, Canal Street -- like SoHo to the north and TriBeCa to the south -- has beautiful buildings and should be restored. No one will lose sleep over the loss of car audio stores and people selling fake Rolexes.

[stache]

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8518/canalst06au0.jpg

By any chance are these exposed floor plates that I am seeing in this photo?

[lofter1]

Ha ha ^^^ Good find (although the EFPs there are just an optical delusion) ....

The four buildings seen above foreground all sit at the north-east edge of the Tribeca East Historic District (on Canal just east of Broadway), which has a somewhat haphazard northern boudary (see MAP (http://hdc.org/boundariestbcmap.htm) below -- note that the dark blue "proposed" extensions to the Tribeca East district have not yet been designated and thereby lie outside the district). All of the buildings shown in the previous pictures with the bulbous yellow awnings sit outside either the Tribeca or SoHo protected historic districts (mostly in the area between West Broadway / Church / Canal / Lispenard -- note that on the map what appears to be "Broaday" is actually WEST Broadway -- Church is one block to the right of that and Broadway is the unmarked roadway two blocks to the right).

http://hdc.org/img/Tribeca-map.jpg (http://hdc.org/boundariestbcimages.htm)

Numbers on the map ^^^ correspond to the TriBeCa Image (http://hdc.org/boundariestbcimages.htm)numbers
http://hdc.org/img/Tribeca-key.jpg

[infoshare]

By any chance are these exposed floor plates that I am seeing in this photo?

No, probably just a brick inlay design feature of the facade. From what I recall the method poured concrete construction (http://www.uvi.edu/Physics/SCI3xxWeb/Structure/BlockConstruction.html) was developed around 1930: so those lines you see are not likely to be floor plates. A building of that vintage probably has a wood beam floor.

If anyone know a bit more about how these buildings were constructied: please chime-in.

[antinimby]

Hardly. I was simply posting the UK photos to show that polished and nice is hardly boring.To me, it is boring. NY's already got plenty of places like those. Not impressed. Snore.

Doesn't even match 1/10th the energy on even one of the side streets leading to Canal St.

I wasn't suggesting that Canal Street is comparable to Knightsbridge.And we don't want it to.

Nevertheless, like Knightsbridge, Canal Street -- like SoHo to the north and TriBeCa to the south -- has beautiful buildings and should be restored. No one will lose sleep over the loss of car audio stores and people selling fake Rolexes.You may not, but many others will. Just because you don't appreciate certain special things doesn't make them inferior. Tons of British tourists go to Canal St. because it's something they don't find in their homelands.

It would be insane to change what you are just to blend in with the others. Canal St. might not be Madison Ave. or Fifth Ave. but it is just as interesting, if not more.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry city's got some kind of upscale shopping district but many don't have the hustle and bustle that is Canal St.

Many may try to recreate the energy found in this city's streets but often it just doesn't feel the same.

[krulltime]

European owners also take more pride in their properties. Canal Street, as an example, is lined with stunning, old buildings, and yet the owners (i.e., the Sol Goldman's of the world) don't maintain them and don't care how they look as long as they generate rent. Those beautiful, old buildings deserve to be cleaned and maintained, and they warrant nice shops -- not junk stores run by low lives that sell fake watches and pirated DVD's.

Not all the old buildings in London have nice looking storefronts. ;) By Olga (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138815)


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/1305119869_aff3639465_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1126/1306003502_fae4fbd7bd_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1249/1306004396_19bdb8551c_o.jpg

[krulltime]

Yeah I will be sad to see a fast change on Canal Street, but there will be other streets somewhere else where the grittness of Canal will eventually take place, I am sure.

[antinimby]

^ But the sad part is that the kind of retail that will appear in a "cleaned up" Canal St. is more likely to be chains and bank branches and nothing like the upscale, chic stuff that londonlawyer had in mind.

Not all the old buildings in London have nice looking storefronts. ;) By Olga (http://http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=138815)And you know what the ironic thing with that is? Londoners will probably point to those sort of scenes to proudly proclaim how they have diversity and grit, too. :)

How dumb are we to get rid of things that others are just beginning to try to copy?

[czsz]

Yeah I will be sad to see a fast change on Canal Street, but there will be other streets somewhere else where the grittness of Canal will eventually take place, I am sure.

Yeah, but they'll be straight and gridded streets in the sleepier outer boroughs. No urban environment can equal the high-density chaos of Lower Manhattan, and it would be a shame to lose the last remaining parts of that which remain coupled with high energy grit.

Londoners will probably point to those sort of scenes to proudly proclaim how they have diversity and grit, too.

Yup, great cities have all things for all people. How else would it be accurate to say "when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life"? One can certainly become tired of either the sterility of the West End or the grit of Brixton; London retains attention spans by having both.

[MidtownGuy]

^Well put.

[londonlawyer]

...Canal St. might not be Madison Ave. or Fifth Ave. but it is just as interesting, if not more....



I respect your opinion, but I am curious as to what you could possibly find interesting in stores selling fake watches, cheap jewelry, knock-off Gucci bags, pirated DVD's and car stereos.

By the way, practically every tourist whom I know that visits Canal comes away stating (quite rightfully) that it's filthy and disgusting. If you like Canal, you must have massive orgasms when you walk on Fordham Road.

By the way, regardless of our disagreement about the merits of the stores that are in these buildings, I find it odd that anyone who appreciates architecture could find it acceptable for these magnificent old buildings to be defaced and poorly maintained.

http://girlfriendsgetaway.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/canal-street-265-is-a-long-narrow-shopping-mall-of-tiny-purse-shops.jpg

[ablarc]

^ Fix the buildings and leave the stores.





(Everybody somewhat happy.)

[czsz]

How are those buildings remotely "defaced"? Most of them have been sporting gaudy awnings from their birth. This is Lower Manhattan...its history is dominated by the cacaphony of immigrant shopfronts, not the austerity of the bourgeois high street.

Londonlawyer, you insist on thinking of Canal Street in isolation. I think most would want to see such buildings "restored" (to what?) if this were 1975 and dirt, color, and chaos were the rule and not endangered elements of an old New York being gradually purged for a new. As it is, Canal Street is one of the only places one can experience this sort of environment in Manhattan, if not the world (since we all agree Canal is architecturally distinct). There are plenty of similar buildings which have been powerwashed of all life throughout the borough. It's no loss to leave Canal Street as a preserve for those who enjoy its atmosphere.

For the record: I don't buy anything on Canal Street, and wouldn't mind if its merchants sold something more useful (in particular I find it annoying that they all close so early down there). But I wouldn't want to lose the color, variety, and multiplicity of its shopfronts. And for the record, I find Fordham Road quite fascinating too, though it doesn't quite sport the architecture of Canal.

[lofter1]

It should also be made clear that most of the loft-style buildings (5-6 stories, built circa 1865 - 1880) were built as warehouses -- and for the most part did not have elegant interiors. There were retail / wholesale businesses on the first floor and storage of goods on the upper floors. It wasn't until the later part of the 1800s that the upper floors became manufacturing sites (sweatshops with immigrant girls in shirtwaist dresses working 12 hour days). Now in the (few) buildings that have not been converted to residential or office space in the last 25 years most of the interiors are "rough" space -- wide plank pine floors, tine ceilings, plaster & lathe over brick on the interior walls with exposed heating, sprinkler & plumbing pipes. Simple and utilitarian.

When folks moved into the se empty buildings in the 50s - 70s they made use of what came with the buildings. Not so much "restoration" as working with what you've got. And adding on where it was needed (more plumbing, more electric).

What happens now-a-days is not "restoration" but full gut re-hab & renovation -- the buildings are stripped down to the brick walls and floor joists and all new materials from floor to soup & nuts are put in.

As far as the exteriors go, the storefornt in-fill between the cast iron columns / stone pillars are easily replaced. In the historic districts such in-fill is done with far more care and attention to what we get on the blocks that are not protected -- where cheap extruded aluminum storefronts seems to be the current style of choice.

Awnings have been a point of contention in historic districts. Some folks prefer to see the bones of the buildings unadorned. While others -- often the business which will occupy the space -- want awnings. as they offer a place to display the name of the business.

A number of years ago the new owners of the magnifcent cast iron Haughwout building (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/SOH/SOH030.htm) (Broome / Broadway) wanted to install awnings in the windows there and found they had a had a major battle on their hands. Some lovers of cast iron who declared that they were the true protectors of SoHo past came out swinging against the awnings, declaring them historically inappropriate. Such proclamations were shown to be a bit over the top and just downright incorrect when photographs of the Broadway corridor (http://www.grantstomb.org/hist2.html) clearly show awnings on windows everywhere (no AC in the old days -- had to keep that damned hot sun out since folks were working on those upper floors).

Broadway at 13th Street (President Grant's funeral 1885):

http://www.grantstomb.org/images/funeral.jpg

[londonlawyer]

How are those buildings remotely "defaced"?...

If you think that these pre-Civil War buildings are being treated properly, then we simply don't see eye to eye.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8518/canalst06au0.jpg

[czsz]

There's a difference between defacement and proper treatment, beyond which one can argue what proper treatment consists of. These buildings have pretty much been continually maintained as little as possible to avoid their collapse from their construction on, as is the case with so much of New York. Is "proper care" something only the wealthy can provide?

[londonlawyer]

There's a difference between defacement and proper treatment, beyond which one can argue what proper treatment consists of. These buildings have pretty much been continually maintained as little as possible to avoid their collapse from their construction on, as is the case with so much of New York. Is "proper care" something only the wealthy can provide?

I disagree with your perspective. With respect to your last comment, since every building in those photos is probably worth at least $5m, each and every owner thereof is wealthy. This is particularly true when you consider that each owner probably owns many such buildings.

[lofter1]

BLUE AWNING: 272 Canal Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=8&allisn=0000390567&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=) (aka 48 Cortland Alley)

YELLOW AWNING: 274 Canal Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=6&allisn=0000390563&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=)

Both are used as office space above / retail below and seem to have the same owner under different corporate names. They also seem to be one connected structure and are landmark designated within the Tribeca East Historic District.

Back in 1987 the storefront at 272 Canal was the site of a robbery / shooting: 2 Are Shot in Chinatown Holdup (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDB123EF935A15753C1A9619482 60&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FJ% 2FJewels%20and%20Jewelry)

In 1859 a building at 274 Canal Street was home to Spiritualist Andrew Jackson Davis (http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/booklengthdocuments/AMilobook/6Davis.html)

During the Civil War, while living in New York City, Davis helped found the Moral Police Fraternity (http://www.spirithistory.com/63mpf.html).

[londonlawyer]

BLUE AWNING: 272 Canal Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=8&allisn=0000390567&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=) (aka 48 Cortland Alley)

YELLOW AWNING: 274 Canal Street (http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobDetailsServlet?requestid=6&allisn=0000390563&allboroughname=&allnumbhous=&allstrt=)

Both are used as office space above / retail below and seem to have the same owner under different corporate names. They also seem to be one connected structure and are landmark designated within the Tribeca East Historic District.

Back in 1987 the storefront at 272 Canal was the site of a robbery / shooting: 2 Are Shot in Chinatown Holdup (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDB123EF935A15753C1A9619482 60&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FJ% 2FJewels%20and%20Jewelry)

In 1859 a building at 274 Canal Street was home to Spiritualist Andrew Jackson Davis (http://www.bchistory.org/beavercounty/booklengthdocuments/AMilobook/6Davis.html)

During the Civil War, while living in New York City, Davis helped found the Moral Police Fraternity (http://www.spirithistory.com/63mpf.html).

Thanks for the info.

There are many two story buildings on Canal with dormered roofs that appear to date from about the 1820's.

[lofter1]

Whether or not the owner is "wealthy" or cash poor is beside the point.

The owner of our buildng bought it 25 + eyars ago for a pittance. A bunch of us had already estalished our residential tenancies in the building well before this guy bought it. He then barely put a penny into it for the better part of the next 20 years -- and usually did so only when he was compelled to do it, either by the threat of court or under order from a judge. That was how he chose to do business.

Meanwhile he used the value of the building to leverage other property purchases in Manhattan. From what I've heard he did minimum maintenance on those puildings as well. So he was land rich, but didn't spend the cash. Except for the big new house he built in Brooklyn.

Then about one year ago the owner found a new long-term tenant for a large portion of the building which he had let sit empty & available for years. The agreement with the new tenant mandated that the owner put some money into the building (the tenant was to put in 6x as much). Not surpirsingly they are both now at each others throats and have filed numerous legal actions against the other. In the end only the lawyers will get rich.

That is how stupid the owner of our building is. He could have saved 5x the money it subsequently cost him to maintain the building, but he claimed that since he owned the building no one could tell him how to operate or maintain it.

The judge instructed him otherwise :cool:

In the end he had to pay to repair & maintain the building plus pay a lot more than that to his lawyers. Both payments nearly killed him as he HATES to part with his money.

[stache]

OK this debate is starting to go around in circles. If anyone is interested, I (or another poster) could start a thread about the part architectural decay plays in historic preservation.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The point being missed here is that, except for a handful of buildings, Canal St is not landmarked. Who thinks these old buildings are going to be fixed up with nice little shops?

[londonlawyer]

The point being missed here is that, except for a handful of buildings, Canal St is not landmarked. Who thinks these old buildings are going to be fixed up with nice little shops?

That the buildings are poorly maintained is sad enough. The worst is still to come, since I agree with you that some horrible developer eventually will raze these gems. NY can really su.ck.

[lofter1]

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4405/canalst01pb3.jpg

... filthy exteriors and vinyl awnings on the Canal St. buildings.

That horrid yellow "PRO SOUND" awning has come down.
However, there are NO new docs at NYC DOB or Dept of Finance to indicate
that there are any big changes in store for this little taxpayer.

And the McSam hole -- oh, sorry ... I should write McSam "hotel" -- next door
remains a fetid pool filled with all sorts of machinery, and this is nearly
a full year after they started digging there -- does any developer in
NYC take longer to dig a foundation?

Here's what was under that nasty yellow vinyl awning at 374 Canal ...

***

[antinimby]

I despise McSams. Rather have the "Pro Sound" or even a weedy vacant lot instead.

By the way, I have feeling that ornate, Beaux-Arts beauty on the left there may not be safe from developers (Sam Chang, the bastard) wanting to tear it down one day.

[londonlawyer]

That horrid yellow "PRO SOUND" awning has come down....

That's great news. Hopefully, all of those crappy little buildings will come down and Chang will flip the property to a competent developer who will build something worthy of the magnificent beaux artes building on the corner.

[brianac]

370 Canal Street

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/images/construction/project_updates/080807_370Canal_horiz_160.jpg

The hotel is scheduled to be complete in 2008.The McSam Hotel Group, a developer based in Long Island City, Queens, is building a 20-story Sheraton at 370 Canal Street (at the intersection of West Broadway). The hotel will feature 360 guest rooms and is scheduled for completion in 2008.

Daily Activities

The following information was last updated on April 16, 2008.
Screw pile installation completed mid-February 2008.
Concrete started January 14, 2008.
Foundation work will continue until June 2008.
Superstructure work will begin in April 2008 and continue until January 2009.
11 Lispenard, a building next door to 370 Canal, to be braced from pile cap© 2007 Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center/LMDC

[lofter1]

Chang / McSam recently sold the 370 site to Magna Hospitatility (a company
out of Rhode Island). Since the sale the pace of construction has picked up.

As of last week it it seems the underpinning problems are now under control
and the foundation is nearing completion (pic attached).

McSam sells unfinished Sheraton at 370 Canal St. for $83 million

The Real Deal (http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/mcsam-sells-unfinished-sheraton-at-370-canal-st-for-83-million)
Febraury 27, 2008

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trd_three/images/11867/canalhotel_articlebox.jpg (http://ny.therealdeal.com/assets/11867)

Sam Chang's McSam Hotel Group has sold a Sheraton Hotel being built at
370 Canal Street to Magna Hospitality Group for $83.5 million, according to
city records. The 20-story, 360-room hotel is slated to be completed this
year. Concrete construction began last month. The deal is the second
unfinished hotel that McSam (http://ny.therealdeal.com/articles/mcsam-supersizes-in-lower-manhattan) has sold to Rhode Island-based Magna this
month. It also sold 505-513 West 43rd Street, the site of a planned 198-
room budget hotel, to Magna Hospitality Group for $42 million. That property,
near 10th Avenue, was not due to be completed until mid-2009. Magna
Hospitality Group manages some of Chang's New York hotels. The Department
of Buildings issued three stop-work orders (http://curbed.com/archives/2007/05/29/strike_3_for_mcsam_at_370_canal_hotel_site.php) for the Canal Street project.

TRD

[ZippyTheChimp]

I used to park my Fiat where the pink wall on the right ends.

[avngingandbright]

What's the word on this hotel of Chang's here?

[lofter1]

No longer a Chang / McSam project (see article above); it will be a Sheraton.

Following a very lengthy period of foundation construction it is now two stories out of the ground. A slew of new permits have recently been approved by DOB. It should rise fairly quickly.

[avngingandbright]

Is it going to look like a cheap-ass Sheraton, or will it be tall and sleek?

[lofter1]

Tall and sleek?

LMFAO

Architect: Gene Kaufman