New Project Set to Become Upper West Side’s Tallest Building

Remember a few weeks ago when the tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue (69th Street) was about to be the tallest building on the Upper West Side at 668 feet? Well, it’s already been eclipsed, at least theoretically.

Extell Development plans to build a 775-foot tower at 50 West 66th Street, which was formerly the site of Congregation Habonim synagogue. There will be a synagogue at the base of the building. The new building has a gold tint and is expected to include 127 condo apartments, according to Curbed.

Unless we’re missing something, this appears to be a distinct change from the last drawings released for this site, which were considerably shorter. Preservationist Group Landmark West has been raising alarms about this site for months. In an August email the group warned that a building there “will not only steal light and air from neighbors but cast significant shadows across public assets.”

Rendering of new building on the right.

The architecture firm says the new building “sensitively respond[s] to its context.”

“Snøhetta is leading the design of the new residences at 50 West 66th Street in Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Embracing features found in the neighborhood, the design reveals its base, body, and crown in contemporary terms. The striking geometry expands New York City’s rich legacy of tower design while embodying an identity formed by human scale at the street. Situated at the heart of the neighborhood’s cultural core, steps from Lincoln Center to the west and Central Park to the east, the building will join the neighborhood, sensitively responding to its context and referencing the area’s architectural character with a natural palette of refined materials.”

Images by Binyan Studios.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 83 comments | permalink
    1. John says:

      Kind of generic, but it at least has some interesting design elements. I just wish it had more apartments. 127 seems low for a building of this size.

    2. Florence Janovic says:

      Is there some irony in the fact that both these monsters are on sites that formerly housed modest synagogues?

    3. Wijmlet says:


    4. jezbel says:

      I used to live at the building 2 doors closer to the Park at 10 W. 66th Street. Lived there many years in a mid-level apartment facing north. It’s a narrow crosstown (with bus service M66) which is dark and crowded. We objected when the narrow condo condo went in next door because it was taller. This, taking the place of Habonim is travesty and an affront to everyone who lives on the Upper West Side. And a gold glass facade will look like Dallas, TX 20 yrs ago when all the buildings were gold glass monstrosities. This is appalling.

    5. Pedestrian says:

      “Sensitively responds to its context”! Where do they think they are Shanghai? It’s appalling.

      • Josh says:

        A skyscraper? Where do they think they are, Manhattan!?
        Tastes differ. Some people like the density of Manhattan, some people don’t. That’s great! I guess I will just never understand why people who hate tall buildings so much don’t move somewhere without them.

        • jezbel says:

          I’ll tell you why it’s disliked so much. Because it’s out of context to find them on the Upper West Side. This place has been a bastion of sanity and reason forever. It’s been a little artsy, a little cultural, a breathe of fresh air to the City and unlike the Upper Ease Side. We’re always been proud of those descriptions. Putting high density, high rise apartments on the UWS will make it just like the rest of the City. Making it less special. We moved back to the City after 25 years out-of-town and I’m thinking that maybe I’ve outlived what I loved most about this place. Sad to see.

          • OriginalMark says:

            You will find people here who think bigger is always better. They don’t really understand architecture or style and they don’t appreciate the concept of neighborhood character.
            They are symbolized by a certain US president who also thinks that bigger is always better and that gaudy is always more beautiful.

            • Independent says:

              “They are symbolized by a certain US president who also thinks that bigger is always better and that gaudy is always more beautiful.”

              (Since you had to go there.)

              As opposed to the would-be President he defeated? I mean, nothing says ‘modesty’, ‘restraint’, ‘humility’, ‘good taste’ and ‘refinement’ like promoting endless, ever-bigger wars and invasions around the world does…

            • OriginalMark says:

              Independent – I know it’s scary to assess Trump without making a comparison to Clinton.
              But I’m sure you can do better.

          • DM says:

            Translation…I lived in the suburbs for 25 years, moved to the upper west side because it felt like a suburb to me and now I’m leaving because its becoming to much like a umm city. Bye bye.

            • Independent says:

              So, by your logic, only when a city becomes dominated or saturated with skyscrapers does it truly become a city? Wouldn’t that mean that the entire City of New York was only a suburb for…how many years?

              Do you have any idea how utterly preposterous that is?

          • Goldie Glashaus says:

            “Out of context” translated means “I don’t like it”, and “I don’t want anything to change. Ever!”

            Give everyone a break and move on. You’re right, nothing left to see here.

        • Stephen Marsalese says:

          Tall Buildings on the UWS were going to happen sooner or later!

    6. Mike says:

      It should be noted that the 65th street side of this block houses the previous Lighthouse Guild building, which is currently being gutted and is directly behind this structure’s lot. It would not be farfetched to believe that the Lighthouse site would be gobbled up by Extell in order to broaden the footprint of this new tower.

    7. David says:

      Build we must for a better New York!!

    8. Adam says:

      The building site also includes the former Jewish Guild for the Blind building, which is coming down soon. If you notice, the picture of the building on the site’s fence appears to be only about 43 stories (if the poster is even still there). So now it appears the plan is for around 75 stories. Why stop there? Why not 100 or 150? I’m not opposed to new construction, even very tall construction, but what does not seem right is that most of this priece-level of Manhattan real estate is being bought up by foreign investors, often aided by tax breaks, who may not intend for anyone to occupy the space. This creates a kind of ghost-town feeling about the place and the neighborhood. And as far as the businesses in the area, they aren’t going to be getting a wave of new customers either under this scenario. I hope this perspective turns out to be wrong and the new project contributes to a healthier upper west side for the people that actually live here.

    9. Che says:

      The building’s fine, just too high in its visual context, moreover, how will the quality of life there be affected (e.g., when is a building too big to be a community in itself? Are there any supermarkets at all in the Lincoln Square vicinity: whereon earth do people there get their food from? Shall kids walk to school amid the crazy intersection there and NYC’s careless drivers. Where will they play after school?

      Extell built Ariel East and Ariel West despite belated protests (the ‘hood was caught unawares, I hear). Now, Extell is launching a new tower at the southwest corner of 96th & Broadway. It’s already not be very merry or safe at that intersection, especially in July-August whether atop or in the subway station. The summer temperatures at that intersection are something else!
      Sbove all, will the height of the building suit the context?

      Extell’s aesthetics are okay, I don’t like ugly tall buildings, but “tower creep” advancing from our southern border makes my teeth grind in my sleep.

      Whatever happened to the movement for a moratorium on these as-of-right towers pending an update of as-of-right zoning laws, in order to suit zoning laws to the new architectural technology which permits small building footprints (perimeters) and sometimes unsuitably tall buildings in them).

      It’s up to us to work for change, in this very developer-friendly administration and in future.

    10. Che says:

      Apologies for the typo, it’s late. Sbove should read Above.

    11. Philip says:

      What BS!!
      The firm and management simply want a taller building and one that does not sensitively respond to the character of the surrounding neighborhood but just overwhelms it.

    12. Bill Dem Tall says:

      Re: Landmark West’s “…a building there ‘will not only steal light and air from neighbors but cast significant shadows across public assets.'”

      “Stealing light”??? In other words, the new building might, perhaps, maybe, for a few moments, cast a shadow, on sunny days only. But, BREAKING NEWS…the earth ROTATES, causing shadows to “MOVE” and never return till maybe/perhaps the next sunny day.

      And will those shadows be “significant” or insignificant? Only “The Shadow Knows!”

      Okay, so “stealing light” is possibly/maybe/perhaps a poetic way of describing a shadow. BUT “stealing AIR” !?!?!? 😱 😳

      Wouldn’t ya just love to hear all the NIMBY’s explain THAT one !

      • John says:

        The complaint about stealing “light and air” is common to basically every single new development. That’s followed by complaints about burdening schools or the subway system. It’s essentially a reductio ad absurdem of the NIMBY position; that we have the right to not be assaulted by insidious shadows cast by monstrous buildings and that the city should be free from the strains of too many people!

        The problem with these arguments is that they essentially demand that all development stop; that the mayor declare that New York has been maxed out that all development must be in someone else’s back yard.

        We need to build more. More buildings, more subways, more schools. Higher and faster and better. New York should grow and not be some sort of unchanging monument to what some inflexible shadow haters think New York should be.

        • Sean says:

          NIMBYS can always move to Rhinebeck NY for quaint. Quaint this area ain’t.

          • Bruce Bernstein says:

            we need an equally derogatory term to counter the “We need to build more… More buildings, more subways, more schools… Higher and faster and better” contingent, which likes to throw around “NIMBY” as an all-purpose epithet.

            how about… PIGGIES? or BONEHEADS?

        • Kate says:

          “We need to build more. More buildings, more subways, more schools.”

          …Why? Why all the unchecked growth? More more more! …To what end?

          This city is overcrowded as IS. Why the need for the aggressive expansion?

      • young_man! says:

        Yeah, I had to laugh out loud at the stealing air part.
        Just build it, it is the most crowded part of the neighborhood already with plenty of similar sized towers to compete with.
        Building even looks pretty good.

    13. Paul RL says:

      Generally not a fan of Extell’s aesthetics but I like this one! It will be very interesting to see what they come up with for the West 96th Street site.

      • js says:

        Paul RL
        Regarding the 96th Street parcel, are you not concerned about the impact on subway, buses and traffic?

        If nothing else, the subway platforms are already dangerously overcrowded.
        If you do not take the subway, I respectfully suggest you take a look at rush hour and after school and see the dangerously packed platforms

        • Paul RL says:

          JS, my family and I take the subway as our main mode of transportation, during peak and off-peak hours. The station is crowded at times but no more than any other in the city. And some city historians will tell you that the density of the neighborhood (and presumably the subway platform) was higher in the 1950s.

          The loss of Gristedes still hurts, but that parcel has been an eyesore for years and I’m happy it will finally get cleaned up. I don’t specifically wish for a looming tower (which incidentally will clip my view), but I’m a realist – something big will be built there. My hope is that it will be eye-pleasing, as it will serve as a visual landmark for the neighborhood.

        • Josh P. says:

          Can the people who pitch a fit over every new building in the neighborhood at least please settle on one coherent narrative? Either:
          1) These buildings will make our overcrowded subways and schools worse
          2) It’s going to be an empty safe deposit box in the sky owned by foreign investors who won’t add anything to the community (and the way some people complain about “foreigners” buying apartments here would not be out of place in the current administration in DC)

          It can’t be both! It’s almost like people will oppose anything and they will grasp at any justification to avoid change.

          • Jay says:

            “It’s almost like people will oppose anything and they will grasp at any justification to avoid change.”

            Ding, ding, ding… we have a winner!

    14. UpperWestSider says:

      I work on the opposite side on 65th, next to the former Lighthouse Guild and I walked thru the garage to 66th to see this site today out of curiosity. The site still shows the shorter rendering and gives the address as 36 West 66th…so are they building 2?? I’m sure there are tons of fees associated with filing building docs with the city, I can’t imagine they’d file all the permits & everything necessary just to have to go back & do it all over again with a new building.. idk lol

    15. JeffS says:

      The artist-critic-style statements of conception and execution are simply a fanciful cover for the incessant progression of competition for phallic supremacy over the NYC skyline. It’s a means for the wealthiest of the wealthy to make even more wealth for themselves.

    16. Diane says:

      I don’t understand. As a community, we DON’T WANT these buildings. Enough is a enough! Extell should start building affordable housing or get out of town. We don’t want these skyscrapers!!!! I was at the north side of the reservoir the other night and did you realize that the buildings along 57th Street are reflected in that water? That’s at 93rd Street! It’s pretty, but the shadows during the day are too much and we don’t want them. Enough! This is an electoral vote, this is something we should be able to stop!

      • Josh P. says:

        UWSers who don’t own already or live in a rent controlled apartment do want this. Every year we get squeezed by rent increases and what can you do? You can’t threaten to move because the vacancy rate is already essentially zero. Force landlords to compete by building more places for us to live on the UWS. More neighbors, more customers for local businesses, a more lively neighborhood.
        If you don’t like tall buildings, have you tried looking at Houston? It’s much more affordable and sprawls for miles. No shadows there!

        • Bruce Bernstein says:

          how many times do we have to go over this> these ultra-expensive ultra-tall towers are adding basically zero housing stock to the neighborhood, and certainly zero affordable housing stock.

          if you can afford to live in one of these places, you have enough money that you will have no problem finding a place, even on the UWS.

          • Josh P. says:

            You’re exactly right – people rich enough to buy one of these apartments will always find a place to live. If they don’t live here they’ll buy an existing apartment from someone poorer than they are. It’s called gentrification and it’s what happens when you block new housing.
            Unless you want to build a wall around the whole city, New York’s population is growing. The UWS uses its political clout to push new housing into poorer neighborhoods. It’s not fair to impose all new housing growth on poorer neighborhoods.
            As for the complaint that these apartments aren’t immediately affordable – you should read up on your history. ALL privately built housing on the UWS was originally built for rich people. Developers have always been greedy.

            • Bruce Bernstein says:

              your history is wrong and so is your economics.

              while some of the UWS housign was originally built for rich people (CPW, parts of Riverside), the housing boom on the UWS in the ’10s and ’20s included an awful lot of middle class and even working class housing. Simply look at the buildings and you will see that.

              in addition, large portions of the UWS were not “private” housing. they were funded through govt or nor for profits.

              second, the assertion that “gentrification” in Manhattan is because of “blocking new housing” is counter to fact, as large sections of new housing has come onto the market in the last 10 years, but “gentrification” precedes unabated.

              The main thing that “blocks new housing” in Manhattan is zoning laws. Now, maybe you want to rip down the existing housing stock on places like West End Avenue and put up row after row of 30 and 40 story skyscrapers, as in Shanghai. But i don’t think most people would find that an acceptable alternative.

              did you know that even during the height rent stabilization, new buildings could be built outside of the system? all the developer had to do was turn down tax abatements.

      • James says:

        who are you to say “we don’t want these buildings” I want any new development that increases the supply of buildings. I have lived on the UWS for 30 years and am raising my kids here. Anything that creates supply and gentrifies is a plus. Don’t presume to speak for everyone.

    17. Devra says:

      So they claim: “The striking geometry expands New York City’s rich legacy of tower design WHILE EMBODYING AN IDENTITY FORMED BY HUMAN SCALE AT THE STREET.” (My caps.)
      I ask: What kind of gobbledygook is that?

    18. William Raudenbush says:

      Let’s see, this story has been out for a few hours and already a packed comments section. I see Extell’s people are out in force with their “We wan’t the Upper West Side to be like Midtown!” Not a very convincing prevailing sentiment of the UWS.

      Well, I hope you boys at Extell bring your A game, because I can guarantee you that this neighborhood, myself, Landmark West! and a whole host of others willi bring ours to fight tooth and nail to make sure whatever is built is within the letter and the spirit of the zoning law which you and I both know is nowhere close to 775 feet.

      Hey, what happened to that other building you falsely filed the plans for on that site to deliberately deceive the neighborhood? Personally I thought it was quite attractive.

      Here’s the thing, if they weren’t trying to get away with something, they wouldn’t have filed a 25-Story 300,000sqft building when they intended all along to build another sky-blighting monstrosity.

      So, for all you aspiring urban planners out there, let’s get see how this benefits our ACTUAL neighbors:

      What is the ontribution to affordable housing? Any market rate rentals? Infrastructure contribution, just burden? Kinda expensive to build schools. (Really crazy expensive!) since the building is all ultra-luxury condos; doesn’t that mean it will create 0 marjwt pressure on prices for 99% of New Yorkers because of more supply?
      Pretty important things to consider when the trade off is a demonstrable decrease of the quality of life for many in the area.

      Oh, and if the sales of similar projects are any indication, we’ll barely see any income tax because so many of these units are bought by foreign investors as what one clever fellow at “Curbed” called “Safe deposit boxes in the sky.”

      We don’t fight these projects because we’re Nimbys, we do it because we understand that a city with so much density must carefully consider how it balances such buildings wil the surrounding neighborhoods, especially when they do absolutely nothing to help the ongoing challenge of affordable housing, and a lack of market rate rental options.

      Well, the fight for our quality of life continues, hope to see you all out there and involved.

      -William Raudenbush

      • Jay says:

        Please…. your ad hominem attacks say more about your credibility and the contents of your own comments than anything.

        • Jen says:

          Jay, it was a very thought through and nice comment. Yours from what I remember lack any logic and only throw around things like “it will be built!!l”. If anybody is attacking something it is you. Always.

      • robert says:

        Landmark West! and a whole host of others willi bring ours to fight tooth and nail to make sure whatever is built is within the letter and the spirit of the zoning law which you and I both know is nowhere close to 775 feet.

        This is the reason why we never get anything for the community. They can build to 775 feet and the some if you include the air rights from some of the surrounding building. Rights that your UWS neighbors sold to them for large amounts of $$4> if your neighbors in their coops and condos were not so greedy and didn’t sell out this building would be a lot different

      • Sherman says:

        You’ve used the term “market rate rentals” in previous posts before and you’ve failed to define what this term actually means.

        You repeatedly rant that new buildings don’t contain enough “market rate” apartments.

        The “market rate” is whatever the market is willing to pay. If the market is willing to pay $5,000 per month for a 400 square foot studio then that’s the market rate.

        I’m not sure what you’re trying to say in your repeated long winded and nonsensical posts about housing.

        That said, I think this building is pretty cool looking and I welcome new construction in the neighborhood.

        • Jen says:

          Have to agree regarding market rate definition. Which totally condradicts our friend Jay numerous comments about how the cost of the delay is going to be passed to the buyer.

          • dannyboy says:

            Jay, what is wrong with you? You continue to reply to comments made by others as if I posted them.

      • NotGaryBarnett says:

        A little early to be campaigning again, no?

        Funny how you fancy yourself as representing the “prevailing sentiment” of the neighborhood when you obviously don’t have the slightest clue as to who your neighbors are. If you did, you would understand that uws-ers could actually support this development without being “Extell’s people.” (And if Extell had to resort to shilling the WSR comments section for support, then their marketing department needs to be replaced. No offense, WSR.)

        In the future, maybe give your potential constituents a little more credit with regard to having diverse opinions about such matters. Might work out better for you 4 years from now!

        • William H Raudenbush says:

          Well, I know that most of my neighbors don’t have the CEO of the afore mentioned development company on the tip of their tongue when he is not mentioned in the article Mr. or Mrs. “NotGaryBarnett.”

          I don’t claim to be an authority on neighborhood sentiment, but I did just spend weeks of my life talking to countless UWSiders about their neighborhood, so I base my comments on those conversations. Being against out of scale, out of context projects like this is not what I’d call a controversial stance, more the broad and overwhelming consensus of the UWS.

          I would just like to point out that this building isn’t even considered a tower, it is zoned R8.

          Here’s what it is supposed to resemble:

          I have a problem with that discrepancy and manipulation, I most certainly do. If this city wants to throw common sense, logic, reason, and thoughtfulness when it comes to zoning, then change the laws, don’t pretend like this is just a normal building being built in a growing city, it’s simple factually false.

          I have yet to hear a logical argument about buildings like this that aren’t even considered as towers due to their manipulation of zoning meant to be much, much smaller. Should just be accept that our zoning is only really applicable when it cannot be manipulated? Change the laws or abide to the existing ones in a reasonable manner or go through the rezoning process, but this is a ridiculous way to conduct business and planning in the greatest city in the world.

          • Jay says:

            The zoning isn’t manipulated. Air rights are part of our legal zoning framework.

            I would expect some one who thought they could be a member of the city council would know that.

      • 92nd Street says:

        Well said William!

        A monstrous Sky Scrapper in Midtown?
        Sure, why not?

        Of course Developers want to build by the Park, so their views fetch higher prices. If the Towers do not match the style of the neighborhood, then do it the Trump way and sue anyone in your way. Get ready for a fight and to settle for a modest height.

      • Ground Control says:

        Thank You Bill Raudenbush! I could not agree more with all you’ve said. We are a city busting at the seams, in a transit crisis because of how utterly overburdened our streets, subways and buses are. But never mind, the REBNY’s commenting here either don’t live here (just sell real estate here), or go everywhere by chauffeur and private car hire. Apart from this mega tower being entirely out of scale and character for the surrounding neighborhood, and not at all what the area requires, why doesn’t Extell try and sell its condos sitting vacant in One 57? One which was foreclosed on sold for less than it was bought for. I would imagine some inventory is available there at good prices. Instead Extell will continue to invade our neighborhoods throwing them and the Central Park into shadow which is a fact kind of like climate change, diminishing light and air and creating dark caverns instead of vibrant streetscapes. I dare anyone to go speak with the doormen on 57th Street where these megatowers now pierce the sky and let them tell you how dark it is most of the day there. It may come as a shock to some but daylight is required for people’s health and well-being. I know. I know. Developers gotta develop. So be it. Far be it for them to consider the surrounding communities. Come what may we will not be collateral damage. This project and its sudden outsized growth spurt over original plan is the talk of the Upper West Side. We’ll be with you Bill and all those in every preservation and community group on the UWS.

      • Cassandra says:

        “I see Extell’s people are out in force with their “We wan’t the Upper West Side to be like Midtown!”

        Glad you said that because I was guessing those ridiculous pro-tall building comments were coming from Russian trolls. Makes sense that they are Extell trolls.

        That size building is totally out of scale for this neighborhood. Let’s fight it.

    19. Ira k says:

      I’m only happy if it has a mustard shop

    20. UWSSurfer says:

      It looks like an ionic air “purifier.”

    21. robert says:

      “appears to be a distinct change from the last drawings released for this site, which were considerably shorter”
      Shocker, our local elected and the regular group of self appointed community leaders ran around yelling about this project and they lost badly. The developer had every legal right to build from day one, rather than trying to work with them and get something for the community, the UWSnick’s tried to stop them. Now we get nothing from them and they are going to build the biggest building they can

    22. Courtney says:

      When will they stop pretending like we want that monstrosity in the UWS. Keep the skyscrapers out of our neighborhood!

    23. js says:

      Unless this building has some sort of driveway (and it does not seem to have), the traffic generated – service/ repair vehicles, delivery vehicles (Amazon, Fresh Direct and instant gratification services) and Uber for residents – will mean standstill traffic on 65th Street heading to the transverse.

      And a really bad impact on the M66 bus.

      But of course, luxury development has to be the priority no matter how inappropriate for the area infrastructure….

    24. Vainqueur says:

      More and more buildings are casting a long shadow over Central Park, especially in winter when sunlight is so precious.

    25. Jeff says:

      I’m not a fan of 200 Amsterdam (because of the impact on sunlight in/around Verdi Square), but this seems all right. It would block a similar amount of light, but the effect would be more modest, given that the surrounding density already blocks a lot of light.

      As for the design, I really like it, albeit with some reservations. It’s pretty cool right now, but I’m not sure how well the gilded look will age. It’s something that could be bold and timeless, or cringe-inducing and decadent, 20 years from now. Who knows?

    26. Jay says:

      It’s amazing how some people don’t observe their own neighborhood anymore. There have been skyscrapers on the UWS for decades. There are dozens of tall towers around this development. Anyone saying it’s out of context has lost their sense of context.

    27. Pumpkinpie says:

      You know you’re in deep, goopy, pretentious territory when they’re talking about “residences”. Lah-di-dah. They may need to ban the plebeian #66 bus from soiling their street.

    28. UWS_lifer says:

      First of all, enough with the phony outrage. Come on people…grow up.

      Secondly, This is not on the UPPER West Side. Maybe the west side but more accurately the Columbus Circle/Lincoln Square area. This is practically midtown!!

      Everyone take a pill and relax. And think about all those property taxes. How do you think all the city’s social programs, as well as others, are paid for??

      • Colleen says:

        I live on west 65th. When they first started C.K. strictuon I was up at 3am every night complaining to 311 for the noise that went on all night. That finally stopped (for now). I have to say that a building is that size feels odd if it is also taking over the light guild on 65th. This is a tiny street with low buildings, and churches on both ends. It just seems odd for a building that tall to belong.

    29. wombatNYC says:

      Nobody builds out of context better then Gary Barnett

    30. AndrewE says:

      How dare those greedy landlord builderss try to make as much profit as they can by constructing a building that people will live in and enjoy?! (Albeit not me bc I am not rich)

    31. West 65th Street says:

      Extell who is a board member to the Lincoln Center BID. The same BID that refuses to address all the empty storefronts in the neighborhood and chain stores. What exactly is the definition of business improvement when there is no businesses? Maybe long time hack Monica Blum can tell us. Maybe she also can tell us with all her realestate board members how she also outsources her public relations to Nicolas & Lenz. One would think the community board before approval and elected officals would view how awful the foot traffic and safety is in this area before approving such a monstrosity of a building

    32. 9d8b7988045e4953a882 says:

      I support this project. We need a lot more housing to be built to accommodate the increased population. Let’s face it, much of the housing supply is locked up in rent stabilization and will not be going to market any time soon. This prohibits tenants from bidding higher for existing housing covered by these laws. We need a lot more supply to counterbalance that.

      • Ground Control says:

        Really? Well, I hope that you can afford an apartment for about $30,000,000 for a 3 bedroom. Cause most wealthy people in New York, let alone middle class people can’t. Who are you kidding with these specious arguments about rent control? These megatowers are for LLC’d billionaires-hidden foreign investors often laundering money. They have absolutely no effect on housing shortages on the UWS or anyplace else in NYC. Except to cause less housing stock while predatory developers exploit the available land mass for non New Yorkers, who don’t really live here. Please, get real.

      • josh the hipster says:

        bring it on,the more expensive the better to get these people out of the hood…only the elite deserve to live here

    33. NYYgirl says:

      That “ionic air purifier” comment was the only thing here that had the ability to make me laugh…thank you!

    34. Smithe says:

      Frankly, I’m not too concerned about whether or not these buildings will come to fruition or not because they will. It’s the same handful of people on this blog and in the community who are activists and speak out against this type of development but they are clearly misguided in thinking they represent their neighbors. You don’t. You are a minuscule sliver of the hundreds of thousands who reside on the UWS and are likely indifferent (right or wrong) to the entire issue. Fight it all you want but you won’t win.

    35. Jake Black says:

      This building looks very nice and has an interesting design. I like the way the Tall Towers look in the neighborhood and on the skyline. Not sure why so many people hate tall buildings. The Upper West Side has so many ugly buildings that were constructed in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s that are such a blight on the streetscape that I welcome a nicely designed new tall building in the area.

      Landmarks West fights any building not matter what the height they want it lower and they seem to have little sense about what makes nice architecture. I remember them fighting the old Huntington Hartford renovation which is now a far nicer building while maintaining the integrity of the original design.

    36. Anon says:

      I hate these boring glass buildings without any character. They should try to match the New York aesthetic. These transplant architects and real estate developers are ruining our beautiful city.

    37. Saul Katz says:

      Some of the architects have done a nice job designing new buildings. Robert A M Stern is one. He’s a real mensch!

    38. Bill Bughers says:

      Another gaudy, ugly building cluttering up our once peaceful neighborhood. It will no doubt feature tons of bright, intrusive lighting at the top of the building to disturb anyone else within a mile.