1000 Canal St

Description: New construction of a ten-story hotel with ground floor commercial space. 

ARC Recommendations: 

6/15/21: The ARC noted that the proposed setback of the tower at the Canal St. elevation did help to modulate the building mass somewhat, however, the setback needs to be increased as the building still overwhelms the existing low-rise construction. They did not agree that setting back the mass of the building to better relate to the Canal St. scale should necessarily allow the height of the tower element to be increased.  The ARC also made the following recommendations:

• The floor-to-floor heights should be increased to better relate to the adjacent existing buildings. The height of the Canal St. portion of the building could be increased to accommodate the increased ceiling heights.

• The treatment of the window openings at the lower volume should be studied; plain punched openings may not be the most appropriate option, given the level of articulation and depth seen in the windows in the neighboring buildings. The windows do not have to be treated the same on both parts of the building.

• The treatment of the second floor fenestration is out of place and should be similar to the treatment of the third and fourth floors.

• Both the shorter and taller volumes should have a capping element, but it does not need to have traditional detailing.

The proposed mechanical equipment and pool deck furnishings should be included in the drawings, especially the elevations. 

5/18/21: The ARC noted that while the recessed balconies work on the Roosevelt Way façade, they are less successful on the Canal St. side. The massing on Canal St. results in the appearance of two separate tall, narrow buildings. There should be more cohesion between the two sides. The ARC also expressed concerns that the building overpowers the adjacent existing buildings on Canal St., which are all low-rise. They suggested exploring a massing strategy that has a lower portion on Canal St. that steps back to the taller mass, rather than using a single height throughout. The ARC requested to see more of the context in the perspective views. While the current perspectives provide an idea of the overall scale of the adjacent buildings, it is difficult to see how the new building relates to other compositional elements on those buildings, such as balconies and galleries, floor heights, bay spacing, and opening proportions.

4/20/21: The ARC noted that dividing the building into two different contrasting materials cut the building in half instead of following the presented “tripartite” design concept, which gives the design odd proportions. It also doesn’t have a strong cap element. The primary Canal St. elevation should be more differentiated from the side elevation. They also suggested that the number of balconies may be excessive, particularly as other buildings in the context of the same height typically don’t have upper floor balconies. There is an opportunity to group the balconies on the Roosevelt Way elevation to make them more of a design feature. The gallery is very low for the height of the building; it would work better if it were two stories. Overall, the ARC found that the design is confused and trying to combine too many different architectural styles, and they agreed that further study is needed. There are both modern and historicist elements included, and the design needs to move more definitively in one direction or the other.

Context Photos:

Current Drawings:

Previous Drawings:

Second Review: 

First Review:

Street View: