Apartments in New Building on 80th and Broadway Start at $10,000; Big Units and a Bowling Alley

The “cheapest” apartment in a new building at 222 West 80th street on Broadway is $10,000 a month, an eye-opening price that does seem to outdo even the luxury buildings in that part of the neighborhood.

Buildings with five-figure rentals (as their lowest price) tend to have views of either Central Park or the Hudson River. And while some of the 72 apartments in the new building — including the ones at the top for $25,000 — may offer a peek at those landmarks, most of them likely won’t.

The Times notes that the apartments in the building are generally much larger than the average Upper West side abode — well over 1,000 square feet. It has all the luxury amenities that new buildings have these days, including a rooftop terrace with bar and kitchenette, and even its own bowling lanes. It’s already more than 30% leased even though it’s still in the preview stage, the Times notes. There’s also this line, which is kind of confusing: “The majority of renters so far are from the Upper West Side and other parts of the country.”

So they’re either from the neighborhood, or from some other part of the country, but not from other parts of the city?

We wrote about the history of this site, which was previously a Filene’s Basement and then a Fox’s, here.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 72 comments | permalink
    1. Spence says:

      This is not the Filene’s basement site.

      • West Sider says:

        Filenes had a section on 80th, right? The other part was on 79th.

        • Sue says:

          Filene’s was where DSW is now. This building is one block north

        • Mary Jones says:

          The shoe store is where Filene’s was. There were several stores that I remember over the years where the new building is, can’t remember the names except Foxes. At one time whatever store it was had huge TV sets on the ground floor … I remember standing there watching as the OJ Simpson verdict was being read so that’s when it was. Some years later whatever store it turned into had men’s shoes upstairs.

          • Bill says:

            @Mary Jones … You’re thinking of Circuit City on the 80th Street corner. And back in the stone age, the 79th Street corner was a Woolworth’s and later a toy store. At one point, Filenes was on both corners. An unusual 2nd-floor “bridge” connected the two sections, with the men’s section at 80th Street and other stores in-between at ground level.

          • B.B. says:

            2234 Broadway’s last retail tenant a combination Filene’s Basement and Syms store. Filene’s was a subsidiary of Syms so when it went bankrupt it took FB along.

            Going north from 79th that east side of Broadway to 80th was: DSW, Zales, Fox’s, then Filene’s/SYMS.

            The rest you can read here:

          • Terry says:

            I remember when Pricewise was on the ground floor of that corner (80th and Broadway). Also a rug/carpet store on the upper floor, back in the early ’80s.

    2. Rob G. says:

      Sort of blahhhh. Kinda wish developers would build something that will wow us awake in our sleepy neighborhood.

      Also wish someone would open a non-private bowling alley. I sure do miss Beacon Lanes!

      • KittyH says:

        “Wow us awake….” Be careful what you wish for. This wowing could take the form of some grossly out of scale, hideous blight on the landscape of the sort we see cropping up along the Hudson in midtown. Preserving scale and character seems most desireable now, and our “sleepy neighborhood” is something I can deal with, when considering some of the possible (likely) alternatives.

    3. David says:

      Yeah, a bowling alley def compensates the $10k to $25k a month rent. LOL

    4. Ridiculous even by UWS standards, I say as a real estate broker who works mostly on the UWS

      • Che says:

        Interesting, the $10k minimum seems out of bounds for a neighborhood just overcoming ( hopefully) the economic decline or exclusion of the middle class. But then, this is a developer’s market.

      • Kenneth says:

        Get a grip kids.
        The cost of ownership (mortgage/taxes/common charges)of a small UWS 3BR/2Bath condo – 1200ft2 – AFTER you put down $230K is STILL $13,000 per month. Why would you think anything comparable would rent for less that $10K per month?

        • Juan says:

          Your point is generally correct but your math is off. Your assumption of $230k down, based on the usual 20%, means a $1.15MM apartment. At $1.15MM, mortgage plus maintenance would be way below $13k a month – well under $10k a month. However, an apartment like this with good amenities would go for well over $1.15MM – at least double that. So at that price, you are correct that the cost to own would be over $10k.

          • Kenneth says:

            Juan,
            You are forgetting real estates taxes (at least $1000/month – probably more)and common charges (even though this is a rental – those costs must be included – heat, hot-water, building services and staffing) which will add another $1500 per month. My math is spot-on.

    5. Miranda Smith says:

      It looks to us like they don’t have the money to finish the building . The “lobby” area remains unfinished with no obvious work being done. The temporary walkway which is far too narrow is dangerous and we have witnessed one bad fall due to uneven ground. We never walk on that side of the street . This is in sharp contrast to the neatly done construction and wide walkway of 250 W. 81st on opposite wide .

      • Woody says:

        It makes sense to completely finish the lobby in all its splendor and then trash it while completing the rest of the building. If you’re going to run out of money, better to not finish a random revenue-producing floor or two.

      • Terry says:

        They’re still working (noisily) in the rear of the building, concentrating on the multi-level retail space. [I have an up-close-and-personal view of the site from my apt. on 79th St.– Used to see Zabar’s… Oh well.]

    6. Steve in Manhattan says:

      But possibly the best views of Zabar’s in the city!

      • Cassady says:

        Yes! That’s it! Absolutely worth $120,000/year to end up being near Zabar’s. Because how else could you get there? A cab or something? The subway? Hahaha!

        The rich are ridiculous.

      • Sue says:

        To paraphrase Jackie Mason:

        You can walk into Zabar’s for free. But if you can see it from your apartment? $10,000 a month. (and up. WAY up!)

    7. Juan says:

      How much did the developer pay the Times to run that article – it reads like a marketing piece.

      The prices are high but not out of line with comparable apartments in the neighborhood. Though I’m not sure I would want to pay all that money to be in the smallest apartment in the building on a low floor at that busy intersection.

    8. Gretchen says:

      Finally, the UWS gets some affordable apartments — $10G/mo., being the new affordable.

    9. Eln says:

      It’s an UGLY building, IMHO

    10. sam says:

      The stretch of Broadway between 79th – 86th is pretty bleak. Hopefully they will be shopping / eating out LOTS and we can get fill some of the empty storefronts.

    11. dannyboy says:

      Travel-phobic bowling addicts?

    12. Bruce E. Bernstein says:

      I would like to hear somebody argue that this alleviates the affordable housing crisis. Because, you know, people in $9,000 apartment will take these $10,000 apartments, and people in $8,000 apartments will take the $9,000 apartments.. and eventually a few people will move out of $2,000 apartments.

      Malarkey, of course.

      The city should build more public housing, and also should fund not-for-profit affordable housing developers. And how about a new NY State Mitchell-program?

      i don’t mind saying that, when so many are going homeless and so many are at risk of homeless, and so many are doubling and tripling up, i find this sort of ultra-rich ostentation to be a gross and repugnant misuse of resources. It’s not quite like India yet… but getting there.

      • Jimmy Chooses Shoes says:

        The devolopers of late’s favorite lie: this ultra-luxury building helps the housing crisis by adding inventory.

        Pied-à-terres for oligarchs, “let them eat cake!”

        “I just can’t wait for the trickle-down Vodoo Economics to rain crumbs upon us all!

        PS, great comment

        • Woody says:

          Wasn’t it Obama’s defense of his leadership that although the economic climate wasn’t that great, it would have been worse without his policies. That rationalization could be applied to the current real estate market since one can claim that rents/prices would be worse without any inventory additions. Same same but different?

      • Leon says:

        I tend to agree with you but, assuming they didn’t get lots of tax breaks to build (which is a big assumption), the more expensive the building that is built, the more taxes that can be assessed to it, which maximizes the amount of money available to build housing on less valuable land, provide social services, pay for schools, etc.

      • Josh P. says:

        This does help alleviate the housing crisis, because it does add to the inventory. It would alleviate the crisis a lot more and add a lot more to the inventory if it it was four times as large. Supply and demand is real, we should add more supply, saying “malarkey” does not refute the basis of all economics. Honestly, the same people who can’t understand why climate change deniers reject the consensus of 97% of climate scientists are the same people who reject the consensus of 100% of economists.

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          Josh P said:

          “Supply and demand is real, we should add more supply, saying “malarkey” does not refute the basis of all economics. Honestly, the same people who can’t understand why climate change deniers reject the consensus of 97% of climate scientists are the same people who reject the consensus of 100% of economists.”

          The interaction of supply and demand, in the abstract, is real. But what you said above, in reference to this particular project and the case of the housing crisis on the UWS, is indeed MALARKEY.

          You might be interested in how the great economist Kenneth Arrow described the key features of the “competitive model” (supply and demand), or what you call “the basis of all economics”:

          “[the competitive model is] the flows of services that would be offered and purchased and the prices that would be paid for them if each individual in the market offered or purchased services at the going prices as if his decisions had no influence over them, and the going prices were such that the amounts of services which were available equalled the total amounts which other individuals were willing to purchase, with no imposed restrictions on supply or demand.”

          I urge you to think about this a little more deeply before throwing around comparisons to climate change denialists.

          My reference to “malarkey” was the PARTICULAR claim that 72 units of ultra-high end rentals (starting at 10K a month) will somehow help alleviate the affordable housing shortage. My words were chosen very carefully. Yours were not… you made a broad sweeping claim to some sort of universal law, totally out of context and particulars.

          Looking at Ken Arrow’s carefully chosen definition, an honest analysis would show that the “competitive model” is not in play here, at least in the way you describe it. For example, the developer is hoping that his/her price point will influence the market (and it might); and there are severe restrictions on the supply of housing in Manhattan, the most basic being land. ZOning regulations are another.

          In addition, the ultra high end luxury housing market is a separate (bifurcated) market from the affordable housing market.

          Even if there were 4 times the number of units introduced at 10K per month, it would have basically no effect on the affordable housing market. And there would not be this many units introduced, because the ultra-high end market cannot support them.

          I will grant you that this increase in supply, at 72 units or 300, might have an impact in lowering prices in the stratospheric range. Another 10K apartment might now rent for 9.5K, or the landlord might offer a free month of rent, or introduce some new amenity (a bigger bowling alley).

          It will have no effect on the separate market for apts at $1K – $2,500 K… the affordable housing market.

      • Eric says:

        “The city should build more public housing, and also should fund not-for-profit affordable housing developers. And how about a new NY State Mitchell-program?”

        While I cannot speak to how many developers there might be who would be willing to operate as a non-profit entity I think there is an argument to be made that the City of New York should concentrate on getting its act together with respect to the housing it already runs before trying to take on more responsibilities in that sector.

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          Eric said:

          “While I cannot speak to how many developers there might be who would be willing to operate as a non-profit entity… ”

          then you have very little familiarity with how affordable housing has been historically developed in NYC… and is to this day. there are many dozens of not-for-profit housing development companies operating in the city, including on the Upper West Side.

          here are some links:

          http://furmancenter.org/about/links
          https://anhd.org/

          As for the City of New York getting its act together in doing better maintenance on NYCHA, i agree with you. But that is part and parcel of putting many billions into the agency, including investing in MORE public housing. Yes, we can afford it, and it will pay off in the long run.

    13. uwsider says:

      disgusting. more condo farms for billionaires. because uws needs more.

    14. Charles says:

      10k a month to live on a stretch of Broadway that is a complete and utter s**thole?

    15. AC says:

      Two points:
      (1) Developer dropped the ball by not helping out the community. They could have easily added an additional MTA Exit/Entrance, and with an Elevator to meet ADA requirments. While they were not required, it would have been a nice gesture, considering the major inconveniences we’ve faced.

      (2) Notice, NO windows facing South. Expect DSW to come down within the next 10 years, for a similar structure.

      • Eric says:

        I notice that many commenters write things such as “They could have easily added an additional MTA Exit/Entrance, and with an Elevator to meet ADA requirements” as if they were MTA structural engineers with certain knowledge of what infrastructure conditions exist below the sidewalk.

        Elevators and escalators have to land near the turnstiles, not just anywhere on the platform. This building is half a block away from that location and as we all know the turnstiles at 79th St. already tight for space and lead to a narrow hallway on the north side.

        • AC says:

          Eric, LOL – I am a PE registered in NYS. They could have added the Entrance/Exit within the footprint of the building. Similar to what was done back in 1987 when the Boulevard (2373 Broadway)was constructed (86/87 street). The current north-bound platform at 79 street ends at 80 st (below ground). An elevator down and a few new turnstiles, would have helped alleviate the current congestion. When you get a chance, check out 86/87 street, you’ll see what I mean.

        • Margaret says:

          The MTA can install new turnstiles wherever those need to be? Am I missing something to think that’s pretty trivial? At 40x income guidelines, this project brings housing for 72 families earning between $400,000 to $1,000,000 in annual income, minimum, to new units directly over a currently overcrowded subway station. Their foundation work certainly went below the track level for the subways. This was a missed opportunity that will end up being much more expensive for us to fix when the MTA does get to it.

        • Jose Habib says:

          They can add new turnstiles too. Really not that hard.

        • B.B. says:

          Sorry, but your comment is wrong.

          You obviously have not been to the Chambers Street 1,2,3 station. Elevator is located about half block up from turnstiles/token booth.

          Problem with putting an elevator at 80th and Broadway near this new building is that it only would work for those going uptown on a local train. Meaning quite a lot of money would be spent for very limited use.

          Elevators work best when the station in question is combined uptown/downtown service and also an express/local stop, and or where multiple lines converge.

          Note all the new SAS stops on UES are built in the “European” way where both uptown and downtown trains share same platform. Thus all those stations have elevators (as required by ADA laws).

    16. Sherman says:

      I keep reading that the high-end rental market throughout NYC is cooling off because of overbuilding in this range.

      I’m not sure where all the people who can afford $10K/month for rent is coming from.

      But if the landlord can charge these rents and people are willing to pay them then more power to the landlord.

      • dannyboy says:

        Still promoting that Developer Money Rules Philosophy.

        You might enjoy this from the Times article:

        “There are pantries in each kitchen, and safes in each walk-in master-bedroom closet.

        “’These are people who have a lot of things,’ Ms. Rose said, pointing out the storage built into the island in the open kitchen in the 10th-floor apartment”

    17. Scott says:

      I’m sure this will elicit the usual bemoaning of the good old days when the upper west side was littered with crack vials, but I have to agree that it is pretty darn ugly.

      • Josh P. says:

        People complain when a building is boring, and people complain when a building isn’t “in context.” And no matter what people originally thought of it, 50 years later they are clamoring for landmark protection.
        That said, this building is not attractive.

    18. B.B. says:

      Waiting at 79th and Broadway M79 bus stop often look at this building and think; could they have spent a little more money?

      The thing looks like so much of what is built today; badly designed and hastily built schlock.

      For my money 207 West 79th (around corner) is a much nicer building that blends in well with area.

      https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/broadway-corridor/207w79-207-west-79th-street/57031

    19. Toodamnhigh says:

      There will be another monstrosity of a building going up directly across the street from this eyesore.

    20. Steven says:

      All joking aside about the ridiculous prices here, this will be bad for the entire neighborhood as it will most likely cause other building owners to raise their rents, based on this. If you’re rich enough to afford 10k a month then why would you want it to be on a small 1 bedroom apartment? Oh yeah, for that bowling alley. It’s really sad that the UWS has come to BS like this.

    21. JeffS says:

      “The majority of renters so far are from the Upper West Side and other parts of the country.” That’s a very funny line. Way out in Queens, I saw a post office with two mail boxes on the grass outside ts doors. One said “For This Zip code” and the other one: “Out of Town.” Nice to see that the same kind of provincial thinking exists right here in our very own cosmopolitan borough.

    22. Cassandra says:

      $10k per month = $120k per year of after tax income. That’s approximately $200,000 of gross income. There are that many people who can spend that amount of their gross income in rent? How do I get those jobs?!

    23. Alex says:

      It’s time to move out of the city, folks. I was an UWS resident most of my adult life. I now live in upstate NY in a beautiful 153 year old home on an acre of land. Over 3,000 square feet, and gardens. My mortgage payment is less than 10% of the going rate of rental for these apartments. No roaches, rats, or noisy neighbors. Yes, it’s tough to say goodbye, but the quality of life ahead is so worth it. And Zabars will ship.

    24. eric says:

      not the most attractive looking building is it? (trying my hand at being diplomatic – it’s freaking ugly)…i always think this whenever i go to Zabars and see this across the street. oh well

    25. Jose Habib says:

      This building looks straight out of 1989.

    26. Wendy says:

      I guess the developers think people are really willing to pay a premium to live across the street from Zabar’s.

    27. E.B. says:

      I don’t understand the market for this. If you are wealthy enough to afford paying $10k/month for rent, don’t you have much better options than a 2BR on that block?

    28. Broker says:

      Can’t believe no one has mentioned the Trump children, who claimed one of their projects were almost sold out, when just a fraction of the units were sold. I believe they were sued by some purchasers for fraudulent statements.
      It is the oldest trick in the book, developers claim lots more rented than what is actually rented. I dought the Times requested to see signed leases. My money is on the fact that they may not have anything close to what they claim rented.
      PS: I have been a Broker on the Upper West Side for over thirty years.

    29. B.B. says:

      One main thing going for this location is the subway is right outside. Transferring at 72nd, and you are downtown (Chelsea, West Village, Tribeca, Soho, Financial District) in fifteen minutes or so (give or take).

      Since it does seem as if the entire world has or wants to live below 23rd and or 34th streets, this building may prove an option if they cannot find something.

    30. B.B. says:

      These are just asking rents, what tenants will actually pay remains to be seen.

      Already luxury apartment buildings both new construction and gut renovation are offering concessions to get tenants. That and or the buildings have a very transient population with people moving in and out every year or two as leases are up for renewal.

      The big thing for families of course is to move into a rental with a good zoned schools. Once their child or children are in they can pack up and move, but the kid or kids remain in said school.

    31. Brenda says:

      I’m guessing that the developers had this press piece done because there are too many vacancies. By this time in the development there should be a higher percentage of apartments rented (I’m guessing.) This is a very common tactic.

      I’ve no idea who these people are who can spend $10K a month on a non-investment, but I’m guessing they do exist. How else would the developers obtained backing?

      • dannyboy says:

        You insightfully pointed out that the developers have now lied to the press and renters.

        To answer you last question (“How else would the developers obtained backing?”) consider that they might lie to investors too.

    32. Honest Abe says:

      It is understandable that they want to charge $10K/month. It is unlikely that they will get $10k/month.

    33. economics says:

      If the market will bear $10,000/month then they will get it. Something tells me they won’t have a problem filling up this building. Developers don’t invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a whim and merely hope they will get the rent they underwrote the project with. Just because you find it ridiculous doesn’t mean it is. There are plenty of people who can and will pay! Don’t lose any sleep over it.

    34. B.B. says:

      Look at current UWS rents:
      http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report

      That being said just because a LL says a building is “X” percent leased, it does not tell the entire story. The other bit of information would be if these tenants are paying the full advertised rent without discounts or concessions.

      Saying a percentage of renters were already from the UWS tells me nothing either. How long did they live on UWS before moving into this building? Where did they live and so forth?

      Other thing is tenant turnover. Plenty of these so called “luxury” new or gut renovated rental buildings have a constant turnover every year or two as leases are up for renewal.

      • dannyboy says:

        Exaggerating a bit:

        Lots of haggling, ‘hoteling’ and ‘moteling’ going on here in Transactional City.