19-Story Building Replacing Squat Retail Sites on Broadway

The site of the new building.

Developer Adam America has filed plans to construct a 19-story building with 44 units on Broadway between 93rd and 94th Street, according to The Real Deal.

The site, at 2503-2509 Broadway, once housed a Europan and a Radio Shack. Both have since closed.

“Amenities will include a golf simulator room, a dog wash and a library lounge,” The Real Deal reports.

Images via Google Streetview.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 79 comments | permalink
    1. wombatNYC says:

      Unfortunate development for the Stanton residents next door. Solid location and nice commute for the residents of this new building as the front door will literally be at the 93rd street train stop stairs

    2. Lois says:

      A dog wash, now that’s an amenity!

    3. Rob G. says:

      Nice to see that even in a softening condo market there’s a decent buzz of activity in the northern part of the neighborhood.

    4. NYYgirl says:

      Dogwash hogwash can’t stop any of this- just please do NOT mess up this subway station! People for whom the idea of a library lounge is a total pipe dream (as well as those who do not have time to simulate golf) actually use this 1 train entrance/exit for work and school!!!

    5. Frank says:

      How long until the protestors/NIMBY’s come up to delay this construction as long as they can?

    6. EricaC says:

      It is not a bad place for a building, and 19 floors is not the worst size – but the twee amenities are getting ridiculous. A golf simulator room?

    7. Harriet F. says:

      New York history buffs will recognize that these 1-2 story buildings were never meant to stand beyond the end of the Great Depression. They were called “tax payers.” They were put up with less than ideal materials, intended to generate enough rent to pay the real estate taxes through the 30’s, or until loans become available to build again. The fact that we have a few of them still standing is amazing. Broadway was always a wide avenue intended for tall buildings to “grace” this thoroughfare. Nineteen stories is realistic. Let’s not go all NIMBY on this project. And no, I have no connection to the NY Real Estate Market. I’m just a 38 year resident of the Upper West Side, who recognizes that “The Best Thing about New York Is That They will Never Finish It.” Not sure where I first heard that quote, but I’ve always loved it.

    8. Ben David says:

      Good to see quality development in the West 90s!

      Is a dog wash like a car wash?

    9. Harold says:

      Only 19 stories high.
      Any complains?

      • Lord Of The Slice says:

        yes. I have a complaint that ‘complaints’ is spelled ‘complaints’, not ‘complains.’

    10. Kat says:

      Hopefully this doesn’t impact the subway,, even if that means going across the street to access the 93rd subway entrance/exit.

    11. Francesca says:

      A golf simulator? Really?

      • Scott says:

        Yes really. There are a lot of golfers on the UWS. We’ll pay for some simulator action during the winter. You snobs are amazing. You lament the retail closings on the UWS, then you turn your noses up at something creative like this. I suppose another nail salon would be more to your liking?

        • EricaC says:

          It’s funny – I thought the golf simulator was sort of annoying because golf is generally associated with snobs. You’ve reminded us that snobbery depends on one’s perspective.

          • Cato says:

            EricaC “thought the golf simulator was sort of annoying because golf is generally associated with snobs. You’ve reminded us that snobbery depends on one’s perspective.”

            Ouch! Two points! Nicely said, Erica.

          • David says:

            Will the golf simulator be open to the general public, or only the residents of the building?

            And why is there never a cat wash? This is discrimination of the worst kind.

      • Minx says:

        Francesca, gold simulators are great fun – I suggest you try one out before knock it.

    12. Wijmlet says:

      The library sounds good…

      • dannyboy says:

        Is this private library being developed as Public Libraries funding is starved?

        • Jen says:

          What does this private library lounge have to do with Public library funding?

          • dannyboy says:

            Like so many public spaces for the benefit of the social good, libraries that are phased out hurt the public. When only private libraries exist, the gap between the well-read, the unread, and the illiterate grows.

            But who needs no skinkin’ libraries for them anyways, huh?

            • Jen says:

              My question was – what this library has to do with the funding of public libraries? I also have quite a few books at home. Are they hurting public library funding too?

              And the “who needs them libraries” remark is twisting the previous post into something it is not.

            • EricaC says:

              The private library is almost certainly a nice room where people can go sit and read and maybe trade books. It isn’t an alternative to a library in the sense of a public library. It doesn’t pay to work too hard to find class conflict.

            • dannyboy says:

              Jen, with more buildings providing private libraries, the need for public libraries is decreased.

              It is especially those with some money and influence that are needed at this critical time to demand PUBLIC libraries.

            • dannyboy says:

              Erica, nice one with the “class conflict”. I guess now that you settled that there’s no need to try to help.

        • dannyboy says:

          Jen, I just realized something.

          You may not be familiar with the concept of “social good” or “common good”:

          A social good is something that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way, such as clean air, clean water, healthcare and literacy. Also known as “common good,” social good can trace its history to Ancient Greece philosophers and implies a positive impact on individuals or society in general.

          I guess that you can now answer your own question about why public libraries provide for the social good, and how private libraries, similar to building private parks, doesn’t.

          How about that healthcare huh! But you must have some of that if you raised your question.

          Care at all about Public Education?

          • EricaC says:

            That is a rather condescending comment – and neglects the fact that people may have different perspectives on how best to achieve social good. There are many – myself included – who think it is fine for there to be variations in income among people (with protections for those in the bottom end of the scale), and that the best way to fund those protections is to encourage people with money (ie the tax base) to stay in the city by giving them what they want (within reason) and taxing them (and others) at a level that funds the city’s needs but doesn’t drive the tax base away.

            You may disagree with the means, but don’t assume you are the only one who cares about the public good. From my perspective, the approach and attitude that you are evincing here led to the flight of the rich and the collapse in the city in the ‘60s, which is not something I want to repeat.

            And in any event, none of us has a monopoly on insight, so speaking down to people (one might even use the word mansplaining) is not helpful to the conversation.

            • Woody says:

              Rock on. I have no tolerance for condescending people who imbue all their comments with arrogance and jealousy. No one is fooled by feigned concern for the less fortunate when their real gripe is that they haven’t achieved the financial success they were hoping for.

            • dannyboy says:

              Erica, after your deflection by hurling “It doesn’t pay to work too hard to find class conflict.” I figured you found your level, but no. Now you got “mansplaining is not helpful to the conversation.”

              I guess you just do not want to deal with my Comment, which was: “Is this private library being developed as Public Libraries funding is starved?”

              Yea! Encourage the weaththy to trickle down. What a load!

            • dannyboy says:

              Woody, I hate to disappoint you, but I am financially comfortable.

              You, on the other hand are consistently wrong.

              It is sad that you cannot conceive that someone could support Public Libraries for the public good.

            • Juan says:

              EricaC – thank you for your incredible smart, rational comment. In most of America, I think you would be considered a moderate Democrat (which is also what I am). In the world of dannyboy and some of his buddies, you are considered a right wing Republican.

              It is these extreme views by people like him and some of our other neighbors that has helped increase the polarization in this country. One can still stay true to the core values of the Democratic Party without constantly being nasty to those who have money.

              A library in a residential building has absolutely no impact on the NYPL. A library in this case is a common place to sit and read. I frankly think that it will be an empty space that will be used for gatherings. The Stanton, next door to this site, has a small library that is mainly used as a meeting room.

              Some people are always looking for something to complain about. Waiting for dannyboy to incorrectly parse my words and make some ridiculous comments in five, four, three, two, one…

            • dannyboy says:


              Now that you got that Democrat/ Republican/Others paradigm worked out, I guess you have no need to discuss and address the neighborhood’s issues, problems, and opportunities.

              Good luck, I hope that does the trick.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:


              if you are really so concerned with condescension, perhaps you are as offended as I am by Woody’s remarks in this thread, which are among the most condescending i have ever read. Just to repeat them:

              “No one is fooled by feigned concern for the less fortunate when their real gripe is that they haven’t achieved the financial success they were hoping for.”

              this is a convenient argument that attempts to muzzle any progressive, without a fact in sight.

              Second, I want to respectfully dispute some of EricaC’s points.

              Erica said:

              “there are many – myself included – who think it is fine for there to be variations in income among people (with protections for those in the bottom end of the scale)”

              “variations in income” is a straw man. No one argues against “variations in income.”

              the point is the VAST inequality, in the country and the city, which has grown and grown, and left the majority struggling, or worse. wages and incomes for the bottom 80% or more have stagnated for decades, while income for the top 1% or even the top 0.1% has skyrocketed. an incredible share in income and wealth gains in the last few decades gave gone to the tiny sliver at the very top.

              I can’t imagine that you are “fine” with that.

              EricaC said:

              “From my perspective, the approach and attitude that you are evincing here led to the flight of the rich and the collapse in the city in the ‘60s, which is not something I want to repeat.”

              You are repeating a lot of popular myths about the history of NYC, either partially or totally false.

              First of all, the “collapse of the city” was in the mid 70s, not the 1960s.

              Second, it had nothing to do with “the flight of the rich.” It had to do with two things:

              1) the flight of industry to the non-union low wage South. NYC lost as many as 1 million industrial jobs in that period. this was not unique for northern cities, but it happened in NY earlier than in the midwest. it was not because of taxes but low wages and non-union labor.

              2) during the 50s and 60s, there was the “great migration” of Blacks from the South and Hispanics (at the time, mostly Puerto Ricans) to the north, NYC being one of the largest destinations. In response, “white flight” took place. this was a flight of the MIDDLE class, not the rich. And in many or most cases it was racially based.

        • Rob G. says:

          Dannyboy, when you open your doors for the general public to come sit in your living room and read your books, then you might be able to make a point. Until then, give your hypocrisy a rest already.

          • dannyboy says:


            Yet another reply that unless I solve all of the problems, I shouldn’t comment. Repetitive AND juvenile.

            Plus you got to use “hypocrisy” again. Conservative meme or limited vocabulary?

            • Rob G. says:

              Limited vocabulary. But one doesn’t have to be too verbose to describe what’s behind your comments, although the word “jealousy” comes to mind as well.

            • dannyboy says:


              You have now repeated this lie, after I corrected it just recently. I guess you think it will be more believable with repetition.

              Wait a second, you have Woody mimicking it, so that is something.

              Hey talking about Woody, how is it that between you, you can’t produce A SINGLE THOUGHT on the topic being discussed?

              At least you’re consistent, and with Woody.

    13. I Wonder As I Wander says:

      Re: “Amenities will include…a dog wash” 😳

      Will that be something like a car-wash, but with the workers (“dog-washero’s”) buffing and polishing your dog…or will it be more like the typical suburban DIY car-wash where you insert a few bucks to hose-down Rin-Tin-Tin??

    14. Vanya Krik says:

      Why isn’t the city getting these luxury condos to kick into subway improvements? That’s how we can fund the repairs needed.

      • Jen says:

        I have been wondering about same for a while. Developers can do whatever they want with no responsibility whatsoever. City fathers could have used all these developements to generate extra funding for public needs. And it wouldn’t make a dent in developers profit. And not via taxes that potiential residents may or may not pay.

        • B.B. says:

          *Sigh* Renters…..

          Buyers of property already pay either mortgage recording tax and or sales tax on each transaction to fund the MTA.


          New York has more surcharges, taxes, and fees levied for benefit of MTA than Carter’s has liver pills; and somehow, somehow it is never enough.

          If you own a business you pay a MTA tax. Get into a taxi, there is another MTA surcharge/tax. There is an MTA surcharge tax on energy bills (residential and otherwise), and so it goes.




          • David Morris says:

            Sigh. Renters pay property tax. Sigh. It’s part of their rent. Sigh. They just don’t get to deduct property taxes, the way their—sigh—landlords do. Sigh.

            • Jeff G says:

              I’ve heard this argument before and it drives me nuts. No, the tenant does not pay property taxes. He/she/they pay(s) rent and gets to live in their apartment. The landlord pays the underlying mortgage, interest, property taxes, building assessments, repairs, and improvements. All of those expenses exist whether there is a tenant in place or not or if the tenant is current with their rent or not.

              This is not like sales tax, where the consumer pays the tax and the vendor remits the tax to the gov’t. Property taxes are a fixed expense paid by the landlord. Period.

            • B.B. says:

              Nearly or more than 60% of rental housing in this city falls under some sort of government control(RS, RC, NYCHA, Section 8, etc…), thus tenants are insulated to some extent from the true nature of market forces. This includes various costs/expenses that landlords incur.

              The city sets rents for rent controlled and stabilized apartments. If a LL’s costs exceed that number they are out of luck for most part.

              Non-market rate tenants OTOH always seem to believe they are paying too much in rent usually totally ignorant of expenses/costs of running a building.

              Meanwhile as have often stated for tax and other purposes both state and city treat rental housing (other than single or two family properties) as commercial for tax and other purposes.

              As such both and (and often do) levy various fees, taxes and surcharges on rental properties, then turn around and attempt to prevent LL’s from passing those costs in whole or part onto non market rental housing.

            • dannyboy says:


              Another one of your lectures that conveys falsehoods.

              Here are a couple that you may want to correct, if you care to keep your reputation for lecturing:

              1. The city sets rents for rent controlled and stabilized apartments. If a LL’s costs exceed that number they are out of luck for most part.

              2. Non-market rate tenants OTOH always seem to believe they are paying too much in rent usually totally ignorant of expenses/costs of running a building.

              But if you are intentionally propagandizing, then you’re good to go.

      • robert says:

        They do everyday
        There has been for years a portion of the tax they pay that is earmarked for the MTA. Another example of this is the tax on wall street bonuses. The problem is not lax of money for the MTA its how they waste it. Labor unions should not be the ones to dictate staffing ratios on MTA work. Obviously they should have input to make sure work is done safely but they have gone way overboard I suggest you look at the NY Times exposé for earlier this year on how much it cost and the absolute control the unions have over the purse strings

        • B.B. says:

          Problem with all the various and sundry special taxes, surcharges and fees levied by Albany is they go into general revenue for most part. Thus few if anyone in government can tell exactly how much or if all funds collected went to their specified purpose.

          More often than not is it the same old usual for Albany; money is simply spent as the “Three Men In A Room” see fit.

      • Woody says:

        So your simple solution is just to fleece the people who buy expensive things? Where do you get the money from when people stop buying those things?

        This is how you reward people who invest in hard assets in NYC? Capital travels easily to locations outside NYC.

    15. Kenneth says:

      Real Deal states in part, (“…the site at the corner of West 93rd Street can accommodate a 75,000-square-foot structure…”. Is the building along W93, west of Broadway part of this redevelopment?
      There will also a new building going up on the corner of 91st and Broadway – just south of Equinox

    16. Carlos says:

      All of these development posts remind me of the Billy Joel song “The lights went out on Broadway.” It is going to be incredibly dark with wall-to-wall tall buildings.

    17. Che says:

      Really? The market’s not looking too good right now, per a 29 November Wall Street Journal article, “New York’s Wealthiest Cut Losses…”.

      What I really care about is the zoning law for this part of UWS; it disallows out-of-context building heights.

      Thanks, WSR for the ongoing reportage on local developer news.

      • EricaC says:

        I don’t think it will be out of context. The low buildings actually were out of context.

        • EricaC says:

          That reply is out of context – I intended to reply to a different comment (about the height being out of context).

    18. jimbo says:

      Is it an 80/20???????????

      • B.B. says:

        Everything so far says developers are building “as of right”, which means no affordable component. Such is the beauty of buying under developed property with a whole lot of unused FAR.

        Developers could seek the inclusionary bonus which would allow greater density in exchange for affordables (80/20), but don’t believe they will.

        • dannyboy says:

          “Such is the beauty of buying under developed property with a whole lot of unused FAR.”

          Ah, the Beauty of Excluding Affordable Housing”

          Let’s all admire the Beauty.

    19. Anne McIntosh says:

      Just what the world needs, a dog wash and golf simuulator room. I’m all for new buildings but who are these people moving into these glass towers? Do they need these amenities? This is certainly not the Upper West Side I know. It’s kind of awful in my opinion.

    20. Slappy McFinklestein says:

      Trusting a guy named Adam America is the real issue. If he doesn’t jump over buses on a motorcycle, he shouldn’t earn his entitlement.

    21. Sheila Rubin says:

      Will there be any affordable housing for seniors/

      • Cato says:

        Sheila Rubin asked “Will there be any affordable housing for seniors?”

        Of course! As long as the seniors retired as CEOs of Fortune 100 corporations.

    22. The affected neighborhood is going, going…. It is being converted to a high-rise labyrinth. Upper Westside should have a height limit of, say, 80 feet. The monstrosities being planned or allowed will destroy this now sunny, family-tolerant, middle-income neighborhood. We must fight for what is left of the livability of this dynamic multi-racial, multi-lingual, multi-income neighborhood-its why UWS has such a good rep. We need a low-to-middle income, low-to-middle- building-height (80′ he light limit) neighborhood. Wide streets like Broadway, and their counterparts in San Francisco, Paris, Rome, u-name-it do not have, or require monstrous, high buildings; most of the aforementioned boulevards actually are pedestrian oriented; that’s why they are internationally famous and admired. They are open and sunny, not building canyons! We are a residential -orientedneighborhood; lets keep it that. Let the high-rise, big-bucks developers stay downtown, not destroy this blessed, favored special neighborhood!

      • Jay says:

        So, you want to limit supply and you somehow believe that low to middle income apartments are just going to appear?

        • dannyboy says:


          Do you “somehow believe that low to middle income apartments” will be in this 19-story building?

          • Jay says:

            Alright, I’ll bite…. Provide the pricing available for the building, Dan.

            I know you and your alter egos have your own economic theory, so you’ll need to better explain how limiting supply will cause prices to fall.

            • dannyboy says:

              Answer #1 – A 19-story mixed-use building with 44 residential units will not be affordable housing. You also might have read that “Amenities will include a golf simulator room, a dog wash and a library lounge”. So I think we settled the affordable housing question. So on to

              Answer #2 – It is not economic theory, it is factual that developing luxury apartments has the effect of raising apartment prices. You must have noticed.

            • Jay says:

              Thoroughly predictable…

              Good luck trying to convince people with your ideas.

            • dannyboy says:


              If it economic theory that you require, here:

              1.It is Substitutability that leads increased supply to lower the price of commodities. Luxury apartments are not substitutable for more affordable apartments.

              2. It is the Halo Effect that causes an increased supply of luxury apartments to raise the price of surrounding apartments.

              However, even with these explanations (along with the score of other explanations that you have requested, I am afraid that you will dismiss real facts and real explanations with your usual “Thoroughly predictable…Good luck trying to convince people with your ideas.”

              You are clearly not used to facts or established experience.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              outstanding points, Dannyboy.

              Jay just likes to CITE the fact that “economic theory” is behind him without making any actual economic arguments.

      • Tom Paris says:

        Just before the depression of ‘29, buildings that today we label “pre war” sprouted like mushrooms. I grew up in them as did thousands of others in the city. They were great places to live in, raise a family on a middle class income. Those buildings were 17 to 19 floors not 80 – 90 feet high. What we do need today in this city is affordable quality housing stock, not just rentals that start at $10,000 per month or apartments that start at $6 Million.
        The fabric of the city is changing, as is the UWS. For sure change is inevitable but there has to be a middle ground and that seems to be missing. Not a simple solution but if we’re not careful we’re going to lose the essence that made this city and specifically the Upper West Side vibrant, diverse and a magnet for hard working people. It’s sad to say this but for the UWS it might be too late. The solution can’t just be Amazon, we need a bigger vision and leaders who can make it happen. and unfortunately I don’t see any around today or rising up on the horizon.

    23. Wendy says:

      Broadway is going to turn into the worst part of Columbus Avenue, i.e. all the high rises lining the avenue between 96th and 90th Street. and the only stores that will pay the rents to occupy the new retail will be Duane Reade and banks. Awful.

    24. Marcia Epstein says:

      How nice for rich people.

    25. Mark Moore says:

      That’s better than the empty buildings that are there now, but not necessarily better than the deli and shoe store that were there before.