The lot at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, as seen from above just before final demolition last month. Photo by an anonymous tipster.

It may be empty now, but the lot at the corner of Amsterdam Avenue and 69th Street will one day be filled with the neighborhood’s tallest building, and that’s an alarming thought to some locals.

Developers are set to construct a new 668-foot-tall condo tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, the former home of Lincoln Square Synagogue. To get approvals for such a tall building (rendering at right), they cobbled together air rights from several surrounding structures, according to a recent article in Crain’s.

Community groups Landmarks West and the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development (CESD) have invited urban planner and zoning expert George Janes to speak to concerned locals about the development at a meeting on Wednesday.

The meeting starts at 7 p.m. and will be held at the new Lincoln Square Synagogue at 180 Amsterdam Avenue.

While the building appears to have the necessary approvals, the CESD vows that “this is a done deal that will be undone.”

The lot after demolition. Photo by Stephen Harmon.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 105 comments | permalink
    1. John says:

      What are the primary objections?

      • Chrstine E says:

        Are there adequate police, fire, school, sewage, sanitation, transportation, other services to support such a concentration of residents? Is there no city planning? Environmental and social impact assessment? Apparently all one needs to do is buy air rights.

        • Chris says:

          Its buildings like these, and their residents, that pay for all of those social services in this city. That can’t possibly be the issue.

          Environmental impact of building on top of an existing slab of concrete. If that’s any issue, then nothing could be built in this city.

        • John says:

          OK. So the objection is that the project needs more assessment. Fair enough.

          If a thorough assessment checks out, will objections be dropped? Or is the real objection that this is a big glass tower.

          • Jess says:

            I live nearby and this is really throwing everyone for a loop… There are all kinds of objections, ranging from light to already overcrowded schools and subway platforms, to environmental issues… From my perspective – all of these are valid, however there is also the mere fact that that this building will be 51 stories hihh. THIS IS FOUR STORIES LESS THAN THE CHRYSLER BUILDING. It will be the tallest building on the UWS. It will change the landscape of the neighborhood permanently, possibly ushering in a new era of real estate development.

            • John says:

              I live a few blocks away.

              Perhaps concerns about things like schools and subway access should spur a conversation about adding schools and subway lines to the UWS. If we assume the resources of the city are fixed, we essentially stop all development in its tracks. I think we can do better.

              As for aesthetics, this corner is among commercial and large scale residential buildings. It’s tall but not ridiculous. A few brownstones would look more out of place. There are already 50 story towers on 60th street (and other tall buildings nearby) that haven’t caused major disruption. They’re full of families and good citizens that contribute to the UWS.

              I’m not sure why this would usher in an new era of vertical development. Aren’t air rights limited? And I’m not sure that would be a bad thing. There are plenty of cute streets full of Brownstones that I think should be preserved, but there are opportunities to expand the UWS’s citizen base too by adding residences. This is a good one.

      • Jerry says:

        Does anyone think it’s strange that the meeting will take place at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, and the new building is being built on the former site of this synagogue?

      • Saynice says:

        The primary objection is size. The footprint of the building is too small for a building that tall. Every other recent building in the area has been built with that in mind. This project has essentially “borrowed” footprint from space not connected to the land. It will be considerably taller than buildings in the area that followed the rules and have a bit of extra land surrounding them.

    2. amy says:

      UWS is now a condo farm void of inhabitants that contribute anything to the community.

      • Jeff says:

        I agree this building sounds too tall for the neighborhood. And I know that UWS rents have become staggering since I first moved here 20 years ago (although at least they’ve leveled off in the last year or so). But I’m not sure how you have concluded that the “inhabitants” of new construction somehow don’t contribute to the neighborhood. These are human beings who may or may not have more money than some others, and who have chosen to live in a wonderful vibrant neighborhood that they probably imagined was also welcoming. I may object to the new buildings, but certainly not the people who want to be my neighbors.

      • John says:

        Wow. This building doesn’t even exist yet, and you’ve already passed judgement on its future residents. If they put up a 10 story building instead will it be more likely to attract model citizens?

      • Rodger Lodger says:

        They don’t commit crimes. That’s a contribution.

        • Christina says:

          Rodger Lodger… How do you know “they” don’t commit crimes. “they” aren’t even residents since the building hasn’t even been built!!! Besides crimes are committed by all types of people and all types of economic backgrounds!

      • Paul RL says:

        Hmmm let’s see, Amy…..they’ll shop, pay lots of taxes, provide jobs for people who will staff the new building, get involved at their kids’ schools, perhaps do some volunteer work and maybe even run for a Community Board seat. You know, stuff that neighborhood residents do. Can you please explain how this is not contributing anything to the community?

        • Steve says:

          Unless I’m wrong, the new residents won’t pay property taxes for 20 years. A lot of new construction gets a 20 year property tax abatement. The problem is with our existing rules, not with the people who might move into the building.

          when the City allows more development, it should also make the developers contribute to the neighborhood infrastructure in terms of expanding access to public schools, public transportation, better sanitation and sewage, affordable housing for the people who already live here, etc.

        • Bruce Bernstein says:

          they’ll do some or all of these things if they live there. a very large number of these luxury condo apartments serve as pied-a-terres and are unoccupied most of the time.

          they do make it much less of a “neighborhood.”

      • Blarvin says:

        Ah, Amy. The dark cloud passes over us again.

    3. Robert Sweetnam says:

      Preserve the integrity of the upper west side.
      Those tall apartment buildings are NOT wanted in our neighborhood.
      Do not change the character of this family-centered area.

      • Nathan says:

        Manhattan is full of tall buildings already, many of which have families. This building does nothing to change that. All the objections thus far are pure NIMBYism. And I really don’t understand why—why would you live in Manhattan if you’re so opposed to tall buildings?!

    4. Neighbor says:

      This is why the air rights issue has to be reexamined. Luxury apartments for the 1% hurts NYC, doesnt help it

    5. Marianne says:

      Please stop this too tall building from being erected on a very small footprint. It will wreck the neighborhood!

    6. JamesT says:

      The real estate developers are killing the goose that lay the golden egg by making it uninhabitable. Rent greed killed retail. Rent greed has killed neighborhoods because renters come and go quickly. You never know your neighbors anymore. The city will be a bastion of culture for the uber wealthy sitting in their towers and a vast sea of empty condo investments owned by profiteers overseas. Who’d want to live or visit here? The exodus has already begun.

      • Jeff says:

        “The exodus has already begun.” No one wants to live here anymore, it’s too crowded.

      • John says:

        Really? People in my social cohort, most with young kids, are trying to find ways to stay in the city rather than leave. It’s my impression that a generation ago young families would be fleeing to the suburbs. Do you have any evidence there’s an exodus occurring?

        While this type of building is for the 1%, it does supply more housing which pushes down the comparative price for everyone (the 1% need to live somewhere, and I’d rather not have to compete with them for Brownstone apartments). We’ve seen this in dropping rents recently and bigger concessions to renters.

        This comment reminds me of the old Yogi Berra quip, “No one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.”

    7. AC says:

      When I made a stink about the tall building proposed on the parcel located on B’way between 77/78 streets 7 years ago; or the two buildings that were proposed on West 77 Street 4 years ago; or the tall structures on West 79 Street and the one on West 80th and B’way 3 years ago; or even the latest one on 81 and B’way , , , no one wanted to assist in challenging the Developers or the Politicians who gave theme the green light.

      NOW, the ‘locals’ want to get involved in stopping the over-development? Sorry to say , , , a few years to late for my support. As I was told back then, we shouldn’t stop progress. Good Luck!

    8. Phoebe says:

      I think enough is enough, when it comes to blocking views, blocking sunlight, ugliness, etc., but when someone says that people who lives in condos contribute nothing to a neighborhood, or that they are not family-oriented–what does that even mean? It’s an assumption, I guess, that people who live low to the ground are nicer? Huh? It is sad–that it seems that people are nicer to their dogs than to their neighbors, and the dogs are nicer than their people…but that has nothing to do with building more of those towering monstrosities. Educate me! Their are fortresses and then there are Fortresses. Let in some light! Thanks.

    9. Phoebe says:

      Oops re their for there

    10. Paul RL says:

      My only objection is that the building looks like it’s going to fall over. Other than that, great news! I’m not sure why some people are assuming new residents and families will not benefit our community. I don’t get it. Without them, we stagnate.

      • John says:

        Agreed. It’s a NIMBY impulse to claim that the “new” people are going to be somehow worse than the “old” people even if they can’t articulate exactly why.

    11. Phoebe says:

      So wealthy people never contribute? Not to the city funding services and not to charity? They never have families? Renters never stick around? Stats? Practice here for the meeting!

    12. ronny says:

      so what can we do to stop this building from being built?

      • ScooterStan says:

        Re: “so what can we do to stop this building from being built?”

        Hopefully NOTHING! Sure, let’s all play the NYC Power-Game and show how powerful is our pathetic little group (CESD? Who ever heard of them?) by putting a TEMPORARY stop on construction.

        That will leave the site not only forever blighted by construction fencing but also, without lighting, dangerous at night.

        To some mean-spirited class-warriors that would be so much better than having a completed and attractive building on the site.

        Of course, for the building to proceed would be an ego-deflater to the NIMBY crowd, proving that, no matter how much faux-populist rhetoric they spew, it was never sufficient to stop progress.

        • Independent says:

          Is this the same Scooter Stan who has made a number of comments condescendingly insulting both Trump supporters as well as Republicans in general?

          • ScooterStan says:

            Re: “Is this the same Scooter Stan who has made a number of comments condescendingly insulting both Trump supporters as well as Republicans in general?”

            Mais OUI, Monsieur !!

            Or, in the slightly-altered but still wonderful lyrics of Camelot’s “C’est Moi”:

            “C’est moi, c’est moi, I’m forced to admit /

            ‘Tis I, I humbly reply /

            I’ve never lost in battle or game /

            I’m simply the best by far /

            especially when insulting Trump supporters /

            and laff at their stupidity…har-har !!

    13. Donna David says:

      FYI: Mayor Bill de Blasio approves and supports this.

    14. Patricia Gilman says:

      I am astounded that these developers don’t give a hoot for the neighborhood or the environment. It’s disgraceful

      • Nathan says:

        It’s much better for the environment to build one tall tower than a couple hundred single family McMansions. Dense development is inherently environmentally friendly.

    15. Joy says:

      When is this meeting!?

      • William H Raudenbush says:

        7 p.m.
        Lincoln Square Synagogue at 180 Amsterdam Avenue.

      • William H Raudenbush says:

        Wednesday, the details are in the article, it won’t let me copy paste.

    16. SW says:

      The issue is a result of our local elected officials who get money from Developers and are given zoning variances. Also, sorry to say that Lincoln Square Synagogue sold the air rights to their old and new locations.

    17. Dixie says:

      Where are our elected leaders?? We need more housing for the middle class, not for more rich people!!

    18. James says:

      I live on 71st Street. The building will block sunlight to the plaza at the 72nd Street 1 2 3 stop for most of the year when the sun is lower in the sky. The building will also block the Sun for the buildings on the east-side of Broadway.

      The building is being placed in an area with school which are overcrowded to the point that the neighborhood has just re-zoned them to relieve overcrowding. There is also a public playground and school yard on 70th street which will have this building erected directly next to it, blocking it’s sun during all morning hours.

      The area is zoned for a smaller residential building; this lot was achieved through what I’ll call “capital engineering,” it’s not what the city-planners intend at all.

      Does anybody know if buildings this large must have plans for how their loading zones and/or garbage disposals will be accomplished without contributing to double-parking or unsightly trash on the street? For example, Trader Joe’s delivery trucks block an entire lane of 72nd Street for multiple hours seven days a week, creating a mess at 72nd and Broadway, and the building doesn’t even park the truck in the loading zone which is part of the building. Big buildings also contribute to huge piles of task on the street.

    19. Gina says:

      Let’s face it these deals are put together
      sometimes a decade before we see the
      whole in the ground. These Wall Street
      Billionaires like our ex mayor Bloomberg
      encouraged skyscrapers, that is where they do
      do their investments. The community Boards
      find out when it’s to late and have no power
      to reverse the course. Big bucks are paid for Airspace
      Little by little all the prewar buildings will be sold to the highest bidder. It’s only a matter of time. Only the rich will be able to afford to live in this wonderful and historic

      • John says:

        You have it backwards. Only the rich will be able to afford to live in the city when all development halts because of NIMBY objections. Just look at San Francisco which is seeing skyrocketing rents because of a refusal to allow development.

        This corner is surrounded by buildings of a similar type if not height (most uglier than this one). It’s not like they’re not demolishing a row of brownstones on 82nd street. Also, I’m not sure why putting up a five story building instead accomplishes other than limiting apartment supply.

        I welcome this building and its future residents.

      • Independent says:

        “Let’s face it these deals are put together
        sometimes a decade before we see the
        whole in the ground.”

        Do we ever see the whole in the ground?

    20. William H Raudenbush says:

      I would recommend that all of you take a brief look at the Craine’s article linked. There’s a graphic there that pretty much sums up how antiquated zoning laws are allowing developers to play Rorschach Test when it comes to drawing lots and gobbling air rights from many other properties. We can and should push with all our might for sensible zoning and development reform. I’ll be saying a few words at the meeting, I hope all of those who can make it, do.

    21. Jay says:

      CESD is wasting time and money.

      If you want to change the permitting process, call your representative.

      We live in New York City. Things change. There are fewer people living in the UWS than there were in 1990. We can fit a few more.

      • Cato says:

        “There are fewer people living in the UWS than there were in 1990. We can fit a few more.”

        I’ll have to tell that to all the people elbowing me on the subway on my commute — the same commute I’ve been making since long before 1990. It was never this bad.


        • nimbysgoaway says:

          How does your commute relate at all? The city has increased in population regardless of this.

          NIMBYS make me sick.

        • Independent says:

          1.) Cato was responding to Jay, who had claimed that the population of the UWS has decreased since 1990.

          2.) Regardless of whether that is true or not, the increased crowds that Cato and others report witnessing and experiencing are surely not only made-up of UWS residents.

          3.) Do the people who actually live in a community not have a say in matters, such as this, that directly affect their daily lives?

      • Judith Davidsen says:

        It seems impossible that there are fewer people on the UWS now than in 1990–can you give us your sources for this claim? thanks

      • Sue L says:

        Hmmm–“Things change”? Indeed they do, but there are times when too many of us seem to confuse “change” and “progress.” They aren’t necessarily synonymous!
        I’m sure the former was used before the destruction of Penn Station in 1963, the Schwab Mansion in 1947, the Folk Art Museum in 2014, nd too many others to mention here.
        There needs to be more–and more serious–questioning beforehand, especially in the city’s current economy, and the whole “permitting” process needs to take into greater account the QUALITY of the prospective change.
        Air rights aren’t everything, nor is height for its own sake’

      • BabaYaga says:

        Oh buddy do I hear you, back in 1889 I could tie my horse up anywhere. Now the citibike stations have taken all of horse posts. Its ridiculous.

    22. Sherman says:

      I live nearby and I’m 100% in favor of this building.

      The development and constantly changing skyline are what makes Manhattan exciting.

      If you don’t like it move to Omaha.

      • Jen says:

        Thank you for the suggestion. A lot of us don’t like your comments, however none of us suggested you should move to Omaha. Have respect for other people opinions that differ from greed that you constantly support throughout all the forums.

        • Jay says:

          Respect goes both ways..

          “Have respect for other people opinions..”

          Then you say,
          “A lot of us don’t like your comments”
          “… greed that you constantly support throughout all the forums.”

          • Jen says:

            I will keep it in mind, Sherman. Sorry, meant “I will keep it mind, Jay”

    23. sayitasis says:

      Everyone that is against the project, just like the school re-zoning, is all about personal benefits (or lack thereof)… lets cut out the community benefits stuff….
      im sure you are all complaining because its blocking the view of their ugly lincoln terrace apartments

    24. NYYgirl says:

      I totally get that these new zatso condos/rentals/whatever block some of the precious sunlight still found in these neighborhoods but does anyone actually believe that the children of people who can afford any of these apts will be attending the overcrowded public schools in this zone? Really?! Would love to see (any) stats on the percentage of these public school students in as far as if they come from the recent luxury apts built in the area!!! As in real proven numbers! Does anyone know this?

      • Independent says:

        Good question about school attendance. I would also be interested in seeing the stats.

      • Saynice says:

        The argument about whether kids in luxury buildings would attend public school was made when the Trump buildings went up. That’s what led to the overcrowding at PS 199. There are only so many private schools in NYC and even those that can pay do not always get in. Now you have children who live virtually across the street unable to go to their neighborhood school.

      • Christine E says:

        Unfortunately the DOE thinks like you, and has no plans to add schools in sync with new buildings. They would rather stick their heads in the ground. There are many wealthy families in public schools, this building is no different.

    25. bz says:

      We should take inspiration from Jane Jacobs. It is possible to fight and make a difference. She took on Robert Moses and won. Surely Upper West Siders who oppose this project can fight this…but it will take time and an enormous commitment. I hope West Siders are up to it. I surely am.

    26. Anonymous says:

      Now that the rezoning of PS199 is done, the neighborhood needs another cause to fight over and this is the perfect one. I hope I get a ring-side seat!

    27. drg says:

      “”Preserve the integrity of the upper west side.
      Those tall apartment buildings are NOT wanted in our neighborhood.
      Do not change the character of this family-centered area.””

      Regardless if the building is too tall for its footprint, the “character” of THIS particular stretch of the UWS is a ship that sailed years, years ago.

      Like maybe under the banner of “urban renewal” when they tore down real neighborhood prewar walk ups to build a “non-neighborly” Lincoln towers.

      This particular stretch of Amsterdam below 70 St is and has been a veritable wasteland for 20+ years… couldn’t get any less character

    28. Jean says:

      No longer the west side I knew growing up.
      ( 1955 and moved out in 1978 ).
      I don’t recognize it any more.

      • Independent says:

        You consider /all/ of the change that the UWS has undergone since 1978 to be /negative/?

    29. Old Judge says:

      We are very fortunate that so much of the UWS is landmarked — much of it fairly recently. Imagine buildings like this up and down West End Avenue or super-tall sliver skyscrapers on the side streets.

    30. Reed says:

      This structure makes perfect sense for the community. I see no reason why people see this as a problem for the southern portion of the Upper West Side. Southern Upper West Side gets more luxury housing and your northern neighbors get more low-income supportive housing along with taller structures that break existing zoning regulations. Reinforce the concept of opportunity and better standard of living below West 86 Street and continue to add more poverty and despair to Manhattan Valley…your northern neighbors.

    31. Bobby says:

      rabble rabble

    32. B.B. says:

      “Zoning allows for a 600-foot-high residential tower of nearly 400,000 square feet, and the partners intend to build luxury condominiums on the site.”

      As to how this all came about:

    33. Gretchen says:

      And what if this building was for Section 8 housing, the Rag comments would have a real meltdown.

    34. Tostonesfix says:

      My goodness UWS residents are a big group of whiners and complainers. Every article in this Rag is accompanied by all this boo-hoo doom and gloom commentary. This shouldn’t happen, that shouldn’t happen. You know what, it’s happening. It’s life. Get out and live and stop worrying so much about your little few inches. You don’t own this city and just because you have lived here a long time doesn’t mean you speak for all residents. This is a huge city that is going to grow, like it or not. You’re going to need to learn to share.

    35. Kate says:

      I live across the street and can’t imagine how out of place a 668-ft. structure will look like. A rendering doesn’t do it justice.

      Or the strain on UWS infrastructure.

    36. Richard Chused says:

      The assemblage of air rights for this building is odd. As the Crain’s article indicates, the rights were cobbled together from an oddly shaped parcel bobbing and weaving across open spaces and parking areas in the Lincoln Towers complex. Although I suspect this project is much too far along to stop (serious digging for the foundation is now ongoing) it’s opponents might do well to think about a zoning law change that bars use of oddly shaped zoning lots that look like the most creative racist gerrymandering in districts for the United States House of Representatives. Requiring that zoning lots conform to the boundary lines of pre-existing lots might do the trick. In addition, the city might consider requiring developer concessions for school construction when large new buildings likely to attract families are planned in neighborhoods with a shortage of student seats.

    37. Doug M says:

      Serious question: what fraction of the units will actually be inhabited by their owners? What fraction will be bought by anonymous LLC’s for money-laundering/capital-flight from overseas?

      • Independent says:

        Good question.

        It does seem rather perverse, when real estate and housing are such limited resources as they are in Manhattan, for so much of them to go to wealthy investors. All the more so foreign ones. On the other hand, if the neighborhood and the City seem overcrowded now, just imagine how much worse it would be if all that currently unoccupied residential real estate were to become occupied.

    38. Melissa says:

      My Old synagogue should have not been sold for 19.5 million dollars. My temple could have been saved with the lastest upkeep. We don’t need a tall building in the area. This is just creed.

      This should be a holy site.

    39. UWS Craig says:

      The bottom 40 floors should be reserved for affordable housing. There is a lack of supply of affordable housing in the west 60s and 70s, and the bottom 40 floors could supply affordable housing for several hundred families who would be wonderful additions to the community. The cost of this could be paid for by charging a higher price for the higher floors and making sure the higher floors have a separate elevator and some exclusive amenities to make it worth it.

      • Independent says:

        “the bottom 40 floors could supply affordable housing for several hundred families who would be wonderful additions to the community.”

        How do you know that such residents would, in fact, be “wonderful additions to the community”? Or at least, that they would be any more likely to than the full-paying residents would? Just because the former are relatively low-income? If yes, would that be any better than assuming, as at least one individual in a previous comment did, that the latter (full-paying owners) would not “contribute anything to the community”?

        “The cost of this could be paid for by charging a higher price for the higher floors”

        Would enough people actually pay the higher price as opposed to finding a lower one elsewhere?

        And even if yes, imagine a building where all the people on the higher floors knew that they had paid considerably more for their apartments than they otherwise would have, simply in order to subsidize the cost of the apartments on the lower floors. Couldn’t that easily foster an environment of decidedly unhealthy relations between the residents of the upper and lower floors? (Resentment, animosity, shame, etc.)

        “and making sure the higher floors have a separate elevator and some exclusive amenities to make it worth it.”

        Wouldn’t such an elevator be branded a “poor elevator” and condemned as most deplorable? Likewise for any amenities that would be made exclusive for the wealthier residents; would they not be branded as instances of hateful and bigoted “segregation” (perhaps even as “economic racism” and any number of other Cult-Marx/SJW epithets?

    40. B.B. says:

      Just to put things in perspective, planned building for 200 Amsterdam is not breaking new ground. Four blocks south are 150 Amsterdam Avenue and 160 West 66th Street, which are forty-two and forty-five stories, respectively. Then you have that very tall building on West 62 that is over 50 stories.

      The lot for 200 Amsterdam Avenue is zoned for R8. When the synagogue was there it only used 0.8 of allowed built FAR. For residential that lot has Zoned FAR of 6.02 with a maximum of 30,100.0 sq. ft. The synagogue left remaining 26,100.0 sq. ft. on the table so to speak.

      How did this happened? Well quite simple; when the synagogue was built in 1965 it didn’t use all available FAR, and or successive changes in zoning meant the building was sitting on quite a lot of undeveloped space. The Lincoln Square area is known for this and indeed we’ve seen many smaller buildings torn down to have property redeveloped using full FAR potential. The American Bible Society building is a recent example.

      To understand FAR in terms of NYC zoning:

      In addition to the generous unused space developers piled on by using various provisions of NYC zoning such as combining lots for instance. This is all legal again which is why the project is going ahead “as of right”.

      People who complain about the this or that building in NYC should understand in a majority of cases it is the byzantine and vast set of zoning regulations that are the cause.

      People worrying about such tall buildings spreading into the rich heartland of the UWS especially mid-block, needn’t. Side streets of those areas are largely zoned R8A (Brownstone district). The avenues like West End can be 10A as well.

      • Independent says:

        Thanks for all the info.

        Are we supposed to know what FAR stands for?

        As for the effects that this building would have on the area, I am neither convinced that they would be as positive or even as harmless as the proponents and supporters claim nor as dire or negative as the opponents claim. Rather, I suspect that the truth falls somewhere between those two extremes and I remain undecided on the matter at the moment.

        • B.B. says:

          “Are we supposed to understand what FAR stands for”?

          Well no, but if you didn’t supplied a link that explained everything quite clearly.

          If you want to have a serious debate about a matter, and or protest against something it does help to do some research. No?

      • GG says:

        This guy B.B. always has the best posts.:)

        Better than the articles half the time, no offense UWS Rag.

    41. Bz says:

      The real estate industry trolls are on overdrive.

      • Independent says:

        So anyone who supports a project like this can only be an industry shill? Is that what you really believe?

        (And yes, you obviously must have meant shills; trolls are those who post incendiary comments just to provoke the expected reaction and then sit back and watch as the fur flies.)

    42. Sara says:

      The school that is one block away (PS 199) is already so crowded that there is a waiting list for residents in the school district. Before there is any new development there should be a serious discussion about new schools for the area.

      • W 68th St says:

        There’s a new school building opening in 2018 just a few blocks away.

    43. Nastynan says:

      I don’t mind the proliferation of residential buildings on the UWS. I do mind the fact that the people who would love to live in these buildings and who make
      contribution to the city in more ways than you can name, can’t afford to live in these buildings. And there’s no contribution of taxes to the city for twenty years? Ridiculous! This was started by Bloomberg who invited foreign investors,, this I object to.

      • B.B. says:

        To best of one’s knowledge 200 Amsterdam is being built as of right and without any sort of tax abatement scheme. Hence you notice *NO* affordable housing lottery or anything of a similar nature.

    44. drg says:

      Let the situation in nearby Connecticut make NY government pause:

      Governor Malloys annual tax increases on the 1% have backfired, between high wealth individuals leaving the state, as well as withholding the declaration of capital gains.

      A relatively small percentage of top earners pay a disproportionate amount of state tax, making budget planning extremely volatile.

      NYC needs to maintain its upper tax base for the good of all its citizens. 100 new multimillion dollar apartments mean additional transfer tax and real estate tax from the residents… and presumably all 100 wont be foreign oligarchs, so it means income taxes as well

    45. 92nd Street says:

      To Hell with the UWS, gentrify the whole thing.
      Ground floor tenants: Banks. We need more Banks!
      Residents: Millionaires! You Middle Class losers need to move to Hudson County.
      Daylight? Get rid of it.
      Architectural Style? LOL – Tall Glass Buildings that resemble Dubai or any City that has no culture.
      Resource Increases? – Not going to happen, come on.

      NYC is changing, wave bye bye to Neighborhood identity.

      Look at Midtown, remember the Chrysler Building?
      One Vanderbilt will block it out completely from view except from the East.
      Don’t worry though; One Vanderbilt will be an Iconic Masterpiece that the World will marvel at for the next 50 years and will be associated with the greatest City in the world.
      No, it won’t.
      So long UWS, next step figure out how to destroy landmark buildings on CPW and West End Ave.

      • Jay says:

        Where do you hitch your horse on the Upper West Side now that the stables in Central Park are gone?

    46. B.B. says:

      Like it or not, NYC’s zoning laws sometimes do “work” as planned.

      The Windermere (former SRO on corner of 9th and 57th), is still standing in part because if it were demolished current zoning would mandate any replacement structure to be much smaller. When you consider how “hot” that part of West 57th Street has become, coupled with it being a corner lot, that is no small feat.

      • The zoning regulations enacted in 1961 are effective but outdated. Reaction to changes in neighborhood have created numerous unnecessary amendments to the code. Landmarking of vast areas add additional complexity and conflict. Uninformed citizens demand additional protections that may not be needed. Elected officials scare residents with faulty arguments without any real proof of need. Resulting regulations are unevenly applied resulting in really tall buildings getting built in or near low rise neighborhoods.

        We need a new zoning code for NYC that addresses the density issues that reflect 21st century standards. At minimum outdated items such as air rights transfer should be stricken from the code in dense residential neighborhoods like the UWS. The code needs to be simplified and made more uniform.

    47. Wendy says:

      Another UGLY , too tall building ! Too many row-houses , wooden houses with porches, S.R.O.s : have been torn down in N.Y.C.. n.b. Some of Columbus, IN for some architecture. n.b. the Woman who invented a self-cleaning house. Also, “Mon Oncle”, the movie. Furthermore, houses w/hay bales, or, glass [empty ?] bottles in some of the Walls. Oi vay ! P.S. I’ve drawn floor plans, houses for decades, as a hobby. A certain Birdcage which I miss…..