You know that show Downton Abbey? Where the servants have to come and go through separate entrances and bow their heads when they see a noble? Well, there could soon be a version of Downton Abbey right here, on the Upper West Side!

A 33-story building slated to be built on Riverside Boulevard between 61st and 62nd street will have an entirely separate entrance for people of lower socioeconomic means: a door for the poor, or as we call it, a “Poor Door.” The affordable homes will be oriented towards the back of the building, while market-rate units will have a view of the Hudson.

“This ‘separate but equal’ arrangement is abominable and has no place in the 21st century, let alone on the Upper West Side,” Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal told us. “A mandatory affordable housing plan is not license to segregate lower-income tenants from those who are well-off. The developer must follow the spirit as well the letter of the law when building affordable housing, and this plan is clearly not what was intended by the community.”

Of course, New York real estate is filled with “poor doors” and “rich doors.” Buildings that are just across the street from each other often house people with vastly different incomes. But developments like this stand out because the developer will earn credits by building it that are likely worth tens of millions of dollars. By building affordable housing, a developer gets to add more floor area to a development beyond what the zoning code would normally allow. In the 10069 area code, homes have been selling for $1,359 per square foot, and in nearby 10023, they’re selling for just under $2,000 a square foot. Under those market conditions, an additional 50,000 square feet added to a development, for instance, could bring in a cool $100 million.

The building in question, known as 40 Riverside Boulevard, is owned by Extell Development Company and various entities of private equity giant The Carlyle Group. The proposed building is pictured at left in a rendering from Goldstein Hill & West Architects, who revealed to Crain’s two years ago that it would include luxury amenities like full-size basketball courts and swimming pools. It’s part of the set of luxury towers stretching from 59th to 72nd streets along the Hudson River, much of which was formerly owned by Donald Trump.

The building at 40 Riverside Boulevard is slated to have 274 units — 219 of them for sale as condos, and 55 for rent to people making 60% or less of area median income (60% of area median income is $51,540 for a family of four, according to NYC HDC; affordable 2-bedrooms will rent for $1,099 a month). The people living in those apartments will be chosen by lottery. The developer says that by building the affordable units it will earn credits allowing it to sell rights to other nearby developers that will let them add more floor area.

The city calls this inclusionary zoning. Of course, the irony is that the poor are excluded from renting apartments in the market-rate side of the building. The “affordable” part of the building is completely separate from the luxury section, with its own entrance and elevator.

The last page of the plan we posted below says: “The affordable units will be on floors two through six in a ‘building segment’ which contains only the affordable units and has its own entrance as required by the Zoning Resolution.”

Many developments in the city do intersperse affordable apartments with market-rate ones. But the rules governing this particular development are apparently different, as an HPD spokesman told us:

“Sections 23-90 and 12-10 respectively of the Zoning Resolution permits the development to be designed as currently proposed.  The tenants of the affordable apartments will have access to amenities in their building such as a community room/lounge on the ground floor. The project is still undergoing design review; however, so details on all amenities are not available. The project will comply with all applicable laws and codes prior to acceptance of Extell’s affordable housing plan.”

Essentially the developers say they have to build a separate entrance because the affordable housing section of 40 Riverside is not directly related to the building it is attached to from a legal standpoint. As Community Board Chair Mark Diller wrote to us: “Even though the off-site housing portion of this building is attached physically to the rest of the building, the developer’s argument is that it is separate ‘off-site’ since it does not relate to the rest of the building, and therefore falls under the portion of the Zoning Resolution that requires a separate entrance.”

An Extell spokesman did not respond to questions about the development.

Community Board 7 wrote a letter to the city Department of Planning and the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (pasted below, underneath the Extell plan) that asks the city to include “appropriate safeguards to avoid a situation in which the Affordable Housing tenants are relegated to the status of second class citizens.”

It’s reminiscent of the city’s plan to build market rate apartments in housing project developments with entrances facing away from the projects.

Anyway, what better symbol to hold onto in the waning days of the Bloomberg administration. This way to the Poor Door!

Top photo by beatlequeen. Photo illustration by West Side Rag.

RSC Affordable Housing Plan

40 Rsd Letter


NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 65 comments | permalink
    1. westsideMoms says:

      that photo is highly inflamatory.

      the reality is that 50 folks are getting brand new apartmetns subsidized by others: developer , condo, tax payers.

      so there is another door? big deal. they don’t like it, then buy the condo (hey I can’t afford it either) but I dont have some sense of entitlment like others.

      fyi – the second entrance exists at 101 Chambers and its not an issue.

      • Chickstar says:

        Excuse me “westsidemoms” but because of the “affordable” apartments Extell will receive huge tax breaks from the city. So in that case all should be considered equal. The only sense of entitlement I see are for the wealthy who will buy these apartments. If they don’t want to mix with the commoners than they should just not live in New York City, go back to the suburbs!

        • westsideMoms says:

          If Chickstar’s comment is not the epitamy of arrogant misguided sense of entitlement , I do not know what is.

          • Terri J. says:

            I agree with Chickstar—they receive huge tax breaks in exchange for providing these units. I would say it smacks of “separate but equal” but even that would be giving them too much credit.

        • Pat says:

          It is amazing how one of the wsu moms makes lots of arrogant, self entitled, ” I am a cut above those people” comments. As someone who has been blessed with my 40 year job which has allow me to always live in a “luxury condo”. Although I raised my daughter in a safe environment until she spent 7 years in Ann Arbor, MI undergrad and law school after practicing as a Corportate and Finance Attorney for years she is humble and does not treat people who make less money with an “I am a cut above you attitude”. Of course a separate door is symbolic of separate, but equal which never was equal. It was blatantly built this way with the attitude of ” they should be glad no matter what b/c they make less”. We are not talking about non working people.

      • Truther says:

        elitist much? Taxpayers and market-rate tenants DO NOT pay for the lower priced units — that’s a fallacy. Also, the developers get huge tax breaks for doing this, so it’s not like they’re suffering or anything. And your attitude that because someone isn’t making a million dollars a year they don’t get to occupy the same space as you? Wow. Typical for this area. I was born on the UWS and people like you ruined my neighborhood.

        • Far Away in BK says:

          “Taxpayers and market-rate tenants DO NOT pay for the lower priced units — that’s a fallacy. Also, the developers get huge tax breaks for doing this, so it’s not like they’re suffering or anything.”

          Truther, how do you not understand that a tax break for the developer is a subsidy from taxpayers? The city forgoes extra tax revenue in order to offset the income that the developer loses by offering units at below-market rents. The benefit goes to the tenants who get cheaper housing. Meanwhile, the developer presumably breaks even and the tax break from the city raises the tax burden on all other taxpayers. Capsice?

        • jules says:

          The UWS had so much character before 2000.
          It’s become a town for tourists and suburbanites. No one with any imagination or savvy gets to live here any more. New Yorkers used to be edgy smart on the ball people. You’ve only got to look at them wandering slowly aroud the streets and subways. Brain dead.

    2. JoeyWall says:

      The entitlement is just so rampant, it is disgusting.

      I could apply to these affordable programs,but I don’t. Why? Because I CHOOSE to live here. It is an expensive personal choice, not a right. I could live elsewhere in much bigger accommodations.

      The same politicians that support these (dare I say vote-buying) policies oppose common sense solutions to our housing shortage, like increasing transportation options to the outer boroughs and allowing for increased density along those new routes.

    3. JJ McGinley says:

      Meanwhile , it’s OK to receive “free” food stamps , welfare and section 8 housing for sitting around doing nothing

      • Chickstar says:

        Meanwhile it’s okay for these corporaton to receive huge tax breaks, which WE THE TAXPAYERS have to pay off..right?

        • westsideMoms says:

          I am so tired of the lefty response by “chickstar” and her ilk.

          the corporations get welfare so we should to!

          ummm ,,,,,,NOT.

          two wrongs do not makea right.

          I learned that in first grade.

          sorry you did not

          • Westsideresident says:

            Apparently, one of the things westsideMoms didn’t learn in first grade was how to spell, use grammar and punctuation properly, and the difference between to and too.

            But thanks for sticking up for the wealthy developers and showing your lack of intelligence while doing so!

        • DrEvil007 says:

          Corporations do not pay taxes; they collect taxes from individuals. They get the money from their shareholders through lower profits, from their employees through lower wages and benefits, and from customers through higher prices. If leftists understood economics thay wouldn’t be leftists.

      • julie shite says:

        Sorry are you saying this is a preferable lifestyle? You gotta be kidding.

    4. UWS Resident says:

      I couldn’t agree more with west side mom. you’re getting a highly subsidized apartment, oh and now you want a view? Hell why not a terrace? Maybe you would like a pool and a fitness center as well? I pay ten times what they do and there is no way in hell I could afford a view. You’re striking gold kids. Stop whining.

    5. Will says:

      A separate door is not what renders these folks second-class citizens . . . entering a lottery to win a tax-payer-subsidized home instead of living where they can afford takes care of that all by itself. Walking through the same door will not change the fact that they are living beyond their means at taxpayer expense, though it might make it easier for them to pretend that they are not.

    6. Amsterdam100 says:

      This is a stupid article, and Linda Rosenthal should be ashamed. Every single condo-rental hybrid building in the city has separate entrances. Obviously they’re separate uses, with separate common areas and the like.

      Why on earth would the developer combine the entrances? The subsidized units won’t have access to the same amenities anyways. You want the same entrance and then some trap door for the subsidized renters? Maybe some hulking bouncers guarding the condo amenity rooms?

    7. NikFromNYC says:

      If UWS building owners are forced to take such losses then coop and condo owners should likewise be forced to offer one of their bedrooms up to house random junkies.

    8. Patrick says:

      What was somehow missed in this article is entrance to the ‘affordable’ homes is on a quiet street next to a park. And many of those units will have nice views of that park. I can only dream of a place like this to live in.

      Sincerely, market rate renter

      • 9d says:

        I would gladly take one of those apartments and would gladly use a separate entrance!

        However, I exceed the income limits, so I spend a whole paycheck on market-rate rent for a tiny studio. These people will actually enjoy better apartments than many market-rate renters.

        Note: only 32% of NYC rentals are market rate. The rest are subsidized in one form or another (rent stabilized, NYCHA, Section 8, etc).

    9. Scooter Stan says:

      But it NEED NOT BE CALLED THE “POOR DOOR” (which, of course, will quickly become the “Po’ Do'”

      It just requires some MARKETING SPIN. For example, it COULD BE CALLED:
      1) “The Door of Upward Aspirations”
      2) “The Door to Erase Income Inequality”

      3) “The Stashoo O’Liberty Door” (i.e. “send me your poor, your humble ….”

      • KT says:

        Wow, I am shocked by all the negative comments. Do we seriously think this city would be better if only rich people could afford to live here? The building doesn’t need to take the benefits afforded to it by creating affordable units. By CHOOSING this, I think they have an obligation to offer them in a socially responsible manner – not relegating the affordable unit renters to second class status.

        • Chickstar says:

          Spot on KT.

        • Midtown Renter says:

          Agreed!! Thank you thank you for posting.

        • DanDan says:

          Can you explain why the renters will be relegated to “second class status” if they use the rental entrance, as opposed to the condo entrance, which is the exact same sitaution in every other rental-condo hybrid in the city?

          The renters don’t own the condo units, or the condo spaces. Why would they be allowed into the condo portion of the building?

          How would you even handle this logistically? You would have a single entrance, and then some big sign directing the renters to enter the basement or something?

          Because it isn’t the same space/systems/spaces. It would be like opening the office portion of Time Warner Center to shoppers, or opening the hotel portion to the office workers.

          • westSideRRRR says:

            Do not look for logic from the communists who think society owes them EVERYTHING . an brand new apartment at under market rent subsidized by other is not enough!

            this ridiculous “incentive” program just makes everything more expensive for everyone else but the luck moochers.

            for better or worse (worse) this is two buildings, a condo and a rental. Memo to lefties, the amenities cost money and will cost the condo owners money going forward,,,,oh wait, the condo owners should subsidize the renters gym and pool too? because that is good for society? give me a break… .

            FYI go to see 101 chambers (condo) and 89 Murray (rental) in Tribeca..

            no one is complaining. these renters should be greatful !

            when is enough enough for the self entitled mooching class?
            and their handmaidens like Rosenthal.

            FYI, plenty of “affordable” housing on the west side, millionaires are not moving into walkups

        • Bruce Bernstein says:

          I’m with KT and Chickstar. The comments section on West Side Rag seems to have become a hang out for acolytes of the plutocracy.

          by the way — if you don’t want to live in subsidized housing, please refuse to take the mortgage interest tax deduction the next time you fill out your income taxes.

    10. Phil says:

      I think you guys are all totally missing the point. Everyone lives in the same building, maybe not “legally” but architecturally and freaking logically. The residents should alll go in the same front door. Period. Why is that wrong to ask for? This isn’t about entitlement or anything else. There’s a door, and everyone should be allowed to use it. Why redirect people elsewhere? Didn’t the US finish with relegating people to side entrances a long time ago?
      This is much simpler than your oddly sensitive responses are all making it. What are you getting so defensive about? The Downton reference is a humorous one, but it’s accurate because down this line of thinking lies the philosophy that we’re valuing people’s based on their wealth.

    11. Ana says:

      I think a lot of the people writing comments here are missing the point. The “lucky” few who get chosen to humbly live among the rich won’t care about having a view, all they care about is being able to live in a safer neighborhood and have what they view as a nice and new apartment. The message they’ll get is: fine, we have to waste 55 units on you but we’re not letting you in through the front door; you’re coming in the back way.

      What kind of message is that! Is not about them whining because they won’t have a great view of the Hudson, or acess the basketball courts or pool. Is about them being treated like garbage, you know, we don’t want our wealthier neighbors to have to see that! So now NY is a place that accepts social class and wealth segregation. What has happened in my city?!

      • Alexandra says:

        Couldn’t agree with Ana more. EVERYONE benefits from mixed-income housing. If your neighbors are all equally invested in taking pride in their home space, then ultimately the space will reflect it. It has nothing to do with wealth.

        ALSO…”subsidized by tax payers…living beyond their means”…THESE PEOPLE PAY TAXES TOO.

      • webot says:

        what happened to your cityY it improved. and folks want to live here.

        when in the city history did condo owners have to subsidize renters in their own building? ask yourself if you bought here would you think that is fair?

    12. Marc C says:

      Who are we to say this door symbolizes poverty.
      It can be looked at the other way around.
      The condo door is for the suckers that are overpaying!!

      • Dea says:

        Yes @Marc C,
        I would KILL to be able to afford to live in a great city like NYC, full of culture, options, cuisine and more. I chose to move to Texas and yes life is cheaper here but at what cost. I think that the condo owners are suckers, for paying inflated prices. The subsidized apt renters are lucky and I’d swap places in a heartbeat. Signed, please get me out of Texas.

    13. Beth says:

      Hopefully, the new school in this area will be built soon, so this new building doesn’t add to the overcrowding of local schools.

    14. Jackie says:

      I am horrified at the arrogant remarks from this article- not everyone makes it, but they still work hard and need a place to live- there’s nothing wrong with looking out for the whole community. What people should be offended by is Extell’s deal. By permitting a small percentage of the building to those who make less than the rest of us, they get HUGE leeway in their actions. Google Extell and find out what a lovely organization they are. IF we should be bashing anyone, they’re the ticket. I live next to a low/middle income housing building and there are no problems. Folks work and raise families, and kids play on the playground. You wouldn’t even “know”. So stop bashing those who, for reasons you may never know or experience, need help even if they work their asses off. Instead, be grateful for what you have. Shame on you all!

    15. Pedestrian says:

      This development will get all sorts of perks including tax abatements to accommodate the “poor”. As a result the poor should be treated like kings not made to enter a separate door. It is like a financial Jim Crow. This is BLOOMBER’s legacy. You don’t matter if your poor or middle class. When are the voters of NYC going to say NO to the pampering, pandering and bankrolling developers are given.

      • westSider says:

        What giveaways Pedestrian?

        Tell me – how do you expect to house all these folks moving here if you do not encourage development? – remember this is a former train yard here.

        Let me speak slowly so you understand.

        It costs money to cover the tracks and BUILD a building – a lot of money… developers take huge risks (just go back to 2008 and see the loses) and are entitled to make a profit (this is America, right?).

        ALSO, where you and I live and all of the buildings that we cherish and make up the UWS where built by….OMG , developers.. shocking I know, but that is the fact.

        ask anyone in real estate and they will tell you that Bloomberg does not coddle to real estate interests -he has doubled and tripled and qudroupled the taxes on all manhattan properties (via assessments ), added tons of regulations and red tape, tickets for everything that the tenants do (throw garbage on the sidewalk as you walk by? landlord pays the ticket,,,,,), and makes it even more diffiicult to build WITHOUT giving away 20-30% of the building undermarket… if you think this is apartheid, (they are getting the apts for cheap ! for chrissake) , then what is every condo or rental without subsidizes?

        basically you are communist.
        and that just does not work

        • Bruce Bernstein says:

          Hey “WestSider”: i thought you pledged not to use that screen name. You are MISLEADING people into thinking you are the same person as “West Sider”, the author of the article.

          you can have your opinions but you don’t have the right to assume a misleading identity.

        • Pedestrian says:

          Ad hominem attacks are not a discussion or support for your position.

          The tax breaks the developer will take advantage were structured to support the provision of affordable housing. As a result the developers will lose nothing. They will benefit big time. One developer recently benefited to the tune of $50 million on just one project!

          Objecting to the fact that billionaire developers will get billionaires more from taxpayers funds including mine is neither communist or socialist. Just because someone happens to disagree with you doesn’t make them a communist.

          If you want to discuss the facts and the policies fine but name calling is inappropriate.

        • teachmom says:

          They are not getting a apartment for cheap they are getting a apartment that is AFFORDABLE they make 35,000-40,000 which any where else would be a livable wage but not in N.Y. I really can’t believe some of the comments it’s so disheartening.

    16. Bruce Bernstein says:

      there are so many issues here. I am really happy to see CHickstar and Ana and Alexander and Pedestrian and KT (and others) taking on the usual right wing / plutocrat apologists commenters on West Side Rag — and doing it so well.

      obviously the “second door” is to a large extent symbolic for the gated communities, increased income inequality, forcing of poor, working, and middle class people out of Manhattan, and other societal trends. in and of itself it is not a big deal. when it is combined with the ideas we see expressed here by the right wingers and the general trends it represents, it becomes a big deal.

      i love the way the pro-plutocrat faction rants and raves about “subsidies”. Besides the huge subsidies to the billionaire developers, the largest CASH subsidies here go to many of the wealthy condo buyers, through the mortgage interest deduction. this amounts to the equivalent of full rent on these so-called “subsidized” moderate income apts many times over.

      let’s also note that these are working people making $50K a year. In other words, school teachers and cops and secretaries. Suddenly we are all “freeloaders.”

      finally, many of the rich condo buyers will be either absentee investors or “pied a terre” second or third homers… many overseas rich. the moderate income renters will actually LIVE in the apts!

    17. ann bluestein says:

      Off to court we go. This is more than objectionable, it is totally medieval.

    18. Publius says:

      Interesting points-of-view, with food for thought on both sides even if some commentators are downright mean-spirited. . . . Hmmmm, maybe we should return to having two poor doors: one for “Colored” and one for “Whites Only.” . . . Does anyone remember when Columbia University was going to build (it was never built) a private gymnasium in public Morningside Park with separate entrances, times, and uses for the C.U. community and the neighborhood community?

    19. Axel Foley says:

      I think we should get rid of all the rich people in New York; and then we can rename New York “New Detroit”.

      • Bruce Bernstein says:

        really, Axel? that is your objective analysis of what is going on in New York? and on the Upper West Side?

        • westSider says:

          I wish we could just get rid of Bruce Bernstein and his misguided intolerant lefties who have no understanding of how things work and really just like to complain.

    20. NikFromNYC says:

      Each future Google millionaire that moves to Williamsburg instead of the UWS due to apartments being locked out by rent control and this taxpayer draining housing lottery is lost local economic stimulus lost just this year, but every year and every decade. Bye bye Nick’s and hello bank billboards, all because wives of the 1% want to score white guilt brownie points to preen in moral vanity.

      • westsideMoms says:

        What can expect NIk, when NYC (ironically the city of business) condemns those who succeed – but provides UWS rooms for $3000 per month at taxpayer expense to those who do not work?
        The logical center has no place here, only the extreme left wing rules and heaven help those who disagree with them.

        Just look at everyone of the Dems running for Mayor – De Blasio says it everytime about raising taxes for the Rich.
        I am not rich, but I do know we want them here spending away.. all those struggling artists who moonlight as dog walkers, trainers, waiters, babysitters, etc etc know that they can earn a living here and still work on their art. the top 50,000 familes in NYC pay 95% of the city income taxes.

        Or we can be another Detroit where nobody of means actually lives within the city limits. How is that working out?

    21. RS says:

      Hey, I have an idea, let’s have EVERY wealthy family be forced to host peasants into their homes.

      Worked so well in Soviet Russian.

    22. Patrick says:

      In defense of the “poor door” at luxury developments: OPINION

      Imagine if the federal government abolished food stamps and replaced them with need-based price mandates on supermarkets. That is, supermarkets would be required to make a percentage of their sales at regulated “affordable” prices to needy families. The regulated prices would often be below cost, so supermarkets would raise prices on everybody else to make up for the loss.
      Since we don’t want any “classist” dietary divisions, the regulated products would span the range of tastes and prices: if rich people are buying lobster, so must poor people, even if that means the program can feed fewer people overall.
      Supermarkets would probably complain about the cost of all this, so the federal government would give them compensating tax breaks.
      It would also contain their losses by capping participation in the “affordable food program” and creating a waiting list. Once you got in, you could buy cheap food as long as you want it, but until then you’d be stuck waiting and hungry.
      Why make this change? Well, food stamps cost money, but this program would have no direct cost to taxpayers. And while food stamps often lead to poor people buying food from cheap supermarkets in poor neighborhoods, this program would end food segregation, ensuring that people of all economic classes eat similar foods from similar sources.
      This idea probably sounds insane to you, because it is. But it’s roughly the same as New York City’s “inclusionary zoning” strategy for providing affordable housing.
      We require and incent developers who build market-rate housing to also sell or rent some units in the same developments at cut-rate prices. The idea is that affordable housing shouldn’t just be affordable and livable; it should be substantially similar in location and character to new luxury housing. If rich people are getting brand new apartments overlooking the Hudson River, so should some lucky winners of affordable housing lotteries.
      Hence the outrage over the “poor door” at a planned luxury condo project that Extell will build on Manhattan’s Upper West Side: market-rate buyers will use one entrance, while tenants in the project’s affordable housing component will use another. Affordable apartments will also be on low floors and, unlike many of the market-rate units, they won’t face the Hudson River.
      Getting mad about the “poor door” is absurd. The only real outrage is that Extell had to build affordable units at all.
      New York’s housing advocates are right about one very important thing: upzonings are a windfall for landowners and the city should be asking for something in exchange for allowing more development. But what it should be asking for isn’t luxury apartments with river views to give out by lottery. It should be asking for cash.
      That is: Upzone land so more housing units can be built to meet supply. Let developers decide what to build and what to charge for it based on market forces. Charge developers substantial fees to access those newly-created development rights. Collect full-freight property taxes on new property that gets built. Use tax and fee proceeds to pay for projects of broad use to New Yorkers, including housing subsidies.
      Even though they are an artificial creation, it is probably best to think about development rights in New York City as a natural resource. If there’s oil under your land, the value of the land is the value of the oil less the cost of extracting it. If you have buildable land, its value is what you can sell a developed property for less the cost of construction. When the city upzones land, it creates value out of thin air; the instinct to demand something from landowners in exchange for this creation is perfectly reasonable.
      But windfalls from upzoning are a limited resource: You can charge the developer the value of the windfall, but if you charge more he won’t bother to build. And the more you charge in the form of a mandate (such as an affordability mandate that reduces rents generated by a development) the less you can charge in tax.
      Let’s imagine that the city forces Extell to get rid of the “poor door” and spread the affordable units throughout its new project. Since the affordable units will therefore be on higher floors with better views, Extell will earn a smaller profit. Now, the deal economics are probably so compelling that Extell would build anyway. But all that indicates is that the city could also let Extell proceed with the “poor door” plan and charge them an additional fee, revenues from which could have been used to create more affordable housing elsewhere in the city.
      Or, it could simply let Extell build whatever it wants and charge an even larger fee and even more in tax.
      The city’s choice to impose so many mandates is undermining its tax base. Often, the city awards tax abatements to developers in exchange for building affordable housing. As of 2012, property tax abatements in New York City lead to $2.9 billion in annual lost revenue, about 20% of actual property tax collections in the city. About half of those abatements relate to programs that promote new construction of affordable housing.
      That is, even though they are off-budget, New York’s inclusionary zoning programs have a very large fiscal cost.
      Inclusionary zoning looks like a much worse deal when you realize it’s not free. If the city received an extra $10 million to spend on affordable housing, it would be crazy to spend that upgrading the views of existing subsidized tenants rather than helping more people afford more apartments. But that’s effectively the choice the city makes by pursuing inclusionary zoning instead of just permitting and taxing market-rate development.
      Our country’s nutritional support programs recognize that food is a market good and the way you make it affordable is by helping people buy it on the open market even if they have few financial resources. New York would do well to realize that applies to housing, too—and to stop freaking out about the poor door.

      • Pete says:

        Patrick, you seem to be assuming that building average-income housing is a requirement for all buildings. But this is an opt-in program, isn’t it? The developer could just as easily build an all market-rate building (I am friends with a developer who does this all the time). The fact that the developer here chose to do it as a mixed building suggests that it was more profitable to do it that way. That’s a huge subsidy — much more than I get when I make a charitable donation.

        • TrumpPlacer says:

          I think the 80/20 was negotiated by Trump when he first agreed to build the massive project on the site that was landfill. Could be that Extell took over the existing contract that Trump laid out years ago when he built Riverside Blvd & Freedom Place.

          Trump sold to his Chinese co-Investors when only 4-5 buildings were completed (72-66). Extell took over and most likely could not alter the original plans by much. I’m thinking that this is the case because that original contract stated that Trump was supposed to lower the West Side Highway, it was argued that the disruption to traffic was too great; buid a new school; build retail and commercial space, etc. Those buildings are still required to maintain Riverside South which is not officially NY Parks Dept like Riverside Drive is. This is also why the soccer field at 65th Street along the bike path is private.

          There will always be massive backlash about those buildings when they 1st blocked the views of all those high rises on West End. I am sure these poor door stories are perpetuated by the same angry people.

          I lived at 180 (rental) when there were only 4 buildings on the Blvd. Then I bought at 100 before it was built. No one who ever got the affordable housing spots in the rental or the condo complained. As someone else mentioned in these posts – the alternate door faces a park and the winds on the Blvd in the winters are brutal…I would always enter the buildings on the side and I payed market rate.

    23. Julie says:

      westsideMoms, did you mean 200 Chambers? Or perhaps 101 Warren? I’m interested in what other 80/20 buildings in the city also have separate entrances for market rate vs. affordable rentals… but I don’t see any residential building at 101 Chambers. Thanks!!

      • westsideMoms says:

        sorry correction – its 101 Warren (condo)

        aka 89 Chambers (rental)

        its the building Bed bath and beyond , Whole foods and SoulCycle

    24. Rachel says:

      It seems like a lot of people here are ignoring the fact that this city is getting more and more expensive all the time and there are fewer and fewer areas/neighborhoods that actually offer affordable options. Plus every luxury complex that’s built means that much less land that’s available for affordable housing…and the more high-end buildings in an area, the more property values are going to go up overall.

      Just because developers with deep pockets decide to move in and build high end units, does that mean the moderate or lower income people living in a given area should be forced out entirely and be expected to retreat further and further away until the whole of Manhattan is populated solely with multi-millionaires? Meanwhile the safe/commute-friendly parts of the outer boroughs are quickly shooting up in value too. Maybe some people want to live in a homogenous bubble of wealth, but I know that’s not the New York I want to live in.

      I’m not even a candidate for affordable housing, I just think the entitlement, arrogance and contempt for fellow NYers displayed in a lot of these comments is totally disgusting.

      • webot says:

        Rachel – your entire statement shows absolutely no logic and understanding of economics or markets.

        Sadly, the politicians pander to folks as ignorant as you.

      • PJ says:

        Thank you very much. I may not have worded it better.

    25. A major injustice is happening, as if there aren’t hundreds of poor doors in the city. Its an election year. It is about control of the West Side. The incumbents are term limited. The Community Board and the elected officials want to show that they can make developers bow down to their demands. They hate Extell, its not business its personal. They are unhappy with the deal they have brokered. They are not happy with the capitalist system in place that allows developers to make a profit. In their opinion, too much was given to the developer. They don’t like the architecture or environment that is being created. They have no other way to make change because they themselves are ineffective. Focusing on political dogma rather than solving problems, pandering to the politically connected and money are the status quo. Elected officials need to keep friendly term limited officials in office by re-electing them to new positions. The public is tired and has lost interest in them. What better way to motivate the poor voters to show up in low turnout primaries when others won’t by making them think that there is major crisis occurring.

    26. Teachmom says:

      Please, you know the affordable housing is not only for the dirt poor. Teachers start at $45,000 but if they happen to teach on UWS they would have to travel hour and half to find a apartment they can afford. So is it wrong for a teacher to apply? A separate door for low income crazy, door why don’t just put colored on it.

      • westsideMoms says:

        Oh yes , its for the Teachers! also the Nurses!

        typical liberal jiberish…

        and they should put “colored” on the door? how disgusting, these a great apartments with a seperate entrance? big deal . big your battles you self entitled idiots. Also, plenty of affordable teacher apartments alot closer then 1.5 hours from the UWS – Have you heard of Washington Heights, Harlem, Inwood,? The sense of entitlement by special interests in this town knows no bounds.

    27. Jeanette Pulsifer says:

      I don’t see the name of the building anywhere, only 40 riverside blvd manhattan, or how to apply for the lottery since it will be completed in 2015

    28. Worried says:

      Im very reluctant to take a side because there are arguments to be made for both. However, to me, something just FEELS wrong about creating separate entrances for those of different classes. At the same time, is it fair for only a portion of residents to have to pay for amenities that all tenants will enjoy? probably not…

      the one comment i will make though, is how upsetting it is to hear people use the word “communist” or even “socialist” as a derogatory term. communism is a beautiful idea in theory, and if you think a more egalitarian society is something to fear and berate then you have serious entitlement issues…

      when will you ever learn, America…

      a Canadian

    29. I’m Looking for Low Income One Bedroom Apartment