New Condo Rises on 95th Street, Boasting an Elevated Outdoor Park and Pet Spa


Renderings via ARC Media.

A new condo development called ‘Dahlia’ at 212 West 95th Street is now selling apartments, with two, three and four bedroom homes for sale starting at $1.795 million.

The project replaces an SRO called the Camden that had also served as emergency housing for people with HIV. There was a homicide there in 2012.

The new 20-story building, located between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, has 38 residences ranging in size from 1,074 to 2,327 square feet. The penthouses are asking $6.5 million. It was developed by United Management in conjunction with Certes Partners.

Amenities include a fitness and game room, a pet spa, and an elevated outdoor park. Parking spaces and storage bins come with an extra charge. There will also be a community facility on the first floor with its own entrance, though it’s not clear what will go there.

The marketing tries to play off the appeal of the historic neighborhood, while emphasizing that the construction is fancy and new: “Dahlia is a new and modern statement for the Upper West Side, yet fits into the fabric of the area’s classic pre-war legacy.”

Or as the project’s broker said:

“After over a decade of stagnant new construction along the Broadway corridor north of West 86th Street, the neighborhood is now experiencing the long-awaited arrival of modern new development product with Dahlia at the helm,” said Shlomi Reuveni, President and CEO of Reuveni Real Estate in a statement.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 49 comments | permalink
    1. Marcia Epstein says:

      When I moved into this “historic neighborhood” over 40 years, it was considered almost a slum.

    2. Ellen Azorin says:

      Will the elevated outdoor park be a public park, accessible to all?

      • B.B. says:

        No, do not believe it will.

        Elevated park is over the garage entrance, and then wraps around to back of building.

        Access is from the ground floor of apartment building, and at least according to images shown above and on website do not see any means for public to gain entry. Highly doubt a condo selling units > $1 million USD is going to allow general public to come and go through their lobby in order to reach said “outdoor park”.

        In other words this is a private park, not a public plaza.

        Before anyone starts plenty of apartment buildings at all income levels have such arrangements.

        Apartment building on Columbus that runs from 59th to 60th has an interior courtyard park for residents only.

        Then of course all the grand old courtyard buildings such as Apthorp apartments have interior gardens/parks open to residents only.

        Since no one builds courtyard apartments any longer, this modern high-rise “Dahlia” is best people seeking such an amenity are going to get.

        • Larry K says:

          Many buildings, older and new, now have rooftop spaces that are also residents only. A nice amenity.

    3. dannyboy says:

      Amenities include a fitness and game room, a pet spa, and an elevated outdoor park. _____________________________________________

      I guess the new neighbors want to keep to themselves.

      Funny, I remember making my decision to live here exactly because of the access to public parks and outdoor fitness. Besides the pleasure of such “amenities”, I enjoyed our neighbors from the community.

      Probably quaint of me.

      • Rob G. says:

        Not just quaint of you, but quite transparent. Let me ask you something- since you have such blind disdain anyone that has the resources to afford their own apartment, regardless of how friendly they might be, why would you want to mingle with them anyway?

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          Rob G. said:

          “… since you have such blind disdain anyone that has the resources to afford their own apartment”

          DannyBoy said nothing of the sort. if you’re going to argue with him, please cite him accurately.

          He’s actually promoting a Jane Jacobs view of “neighborhood” and the importance of attractive public spaces where people of different cultures and walks of life, not to mention different levels of income, can mix.

          This retreat to “private parks” seems to be a turn by the upper classes towards isolation from the hoi polloi.

          • Rob G. says:

            Nice try, but you know full well that most of Dannyboy’s posts snarkily deride anyone with affluence.

            You don’t seem to understand that wealth contributes to the health of a neighborhood. It’s especially needed north of 86th Street, which has a such a high concentration of shuttered stores, homeless shelters, and rundown public housing.

            Invoking Jane Jacobs and throwing a hissy fit about private amenities masks a pretty transparent bias. But if you and Dannyboy are going to preach “diversity”, you must include all walks of life no matter how distasteful it is to you.

            • dannyboy says:

              Rob, this is the second time that you have assumed that I have something against people who are well-to-do (Rob says: #1 “since you have such blind disdain anyone that has the resources to afford their own apartment” and #2 “most of Dannyboy’s posts snarkily deride anyone with affluence.”).

              This is the second time that I explain how that is patently untrue. The first was in response to your #1 comment, when I wrote: “You sure read a lot of false notions into my comment. Yes, I do wish to mingle. I enjoy the company of the monied and the not so well off.”

              You continue to create this strawman to enable you to argue.

              If you would read my comments, you would see that I clearly pointed out that the listed amenities attracting apartment buyers, led me to guess that the new neighbors want to keep to themselves.

              You can argue all you want about whether I suggest a class struggle, Les Miserables, or whatever strawman you create, but my point that shopping for an amenity like a Private Park when there is a lovely Public Park a couple of blocks away, along with other listed amenities that are nearby and public, do indicate a desire for more private, than public life.

        • dannyboy says:

          You sure read a lot of false notions into my comment.

          Yes, I do wish to mingle. I enjoy the company of the monied and the not so well off.

          • Jay says:

            Neither one of you get to decide how other people live and how they spend their money.

            It’s funny how you two share a brain.

            • dannyboy says:

              Jay, I guess rather than participate in the discussion of the new condo rising on 95th Street, boasting an elevated outdoor park and pet spa, you chose instead to hurl insults.

              Knowing that, do you have ANY comment on the WSR article to share?

            • Woody says:

              Dannyboy – you’re like a broken record lecturing others about how they don’t participate in the discussion. What part of Jay’s comment:”Neither one of you get to decide how other people live and how they spend their money.” isn’t participating? Your pedantic rants against people are really annoying and make your ‘neighborhood’ arguments into a sham when you can’t tolerate what others say. Stop acting like such a child.

            • Jay says:

              Seems like you/Bruce are the only ones that are “hurling insults”.

              Tell us why you want to control how people live their lives?

            • dannyboy says:

              Woody,

              OK I will respond to your question: “What part of Jay’s comment:”Neither one of you get to decide how other people live and how they spend their money.” isn’t participating?”

              Jay’s comment had nothing to do with anything under discussion in this thread. That is why it is not participating.

              The thread was discussing the Headline of the WSR article entitled: “New Condo Rises on 95th Street, Boasting an Elevated Outdoor Park and Pet Spa”. I commented with my opinion of those amenities. Jay ran off with an accusation that I was deciding how people live and how they spend their money. I did no such thing. That is not participating.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              wow, Jay, you’re a sensitive one. I think the word the right wingers like to use is “snowflake.”

              No one “told” anyone else “how to live their lives” nor “how to spend their money.” Are you trying to limit are right to comment on what private parks in fancy buildings represent?

              We should be alluding to the Jane Jacobs view of neighborhood, every time this sort of elitism is raised. The new model seems to be high rise gated communities. that is the diametric opposite of the vibrant street life Jane Jacobs advocated.

            • Jay says:

              You two(?) are funny. As always, can’t answer the simple questions to back up your viewpoint. Instead you reply (predictably) with ad hominem attacks.

              Says a lot more about you than me. I can back up my opinions with facts. I also am happy to let people live how they want to live and am welcome to new people and ideas. You on the other hand…

            • dannyboy says:

              Jay, when you wrote: “I can back up my opinions with facts” did you mean these facts?:

              “It’s funny how you two share a brain.” – Jay

              You conflate fact with insult.

              But, in an effort to provide researched facts for your benefit:

              Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.

              Jerimiah Moss, Vanishing New York How a Great City Lost Its Soul.

              I would welcome a reasoned discussion with you of our neighborhood, as this is a neighborhood blog.

      • Woody says:

        Spare us your preachy condescension of others’ preferences. Not everyone wants to interact with others as much as you do. That doesn’t make them people deserving of your derision. If people can find a way to incorporate some aspects of private-home ownership in large urban dwellings, more power to them for not leaving the city to attain those features. The more people fund and enjoy their private parks, the more I can enjoy the less-crowded public parks that their taxes are paying for but they’re not using. More for the rest of us.

        • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

          Woody:

          these are all steps toward gated communities. I think Jane Jacobs would agree with DannyBoy about what makes a healthy and vibrant urban environment.

          it’s also true that if the upper classes are not using public amenities, if they have successfully privatized all public amenities, that they will rebel at the taxes that pay for such. We’re seeing this already.

          And i didn’t find what DannyBoy said to be “preachy” or “condescending” at all. I wonder why you reacted that way to his simply expressing an opinion?

        • dannyboy says:

          I displayed no derision, but I see you just like to read that in to have a strawman to respond to.

          Reread my comment to see for yourself.

      • the West side says:

        What is wrong with you people? It’s an apartment complex. If you don’t live there: obviously you aren’t going to be welcome to use the amenities. Does days inn let non customers come and use the pool? Do restaurants want folks coming in just to use the bathroom?
        It doesn’t mean they don’t want to mingle with neighbors either.
        Geez.You’d think these people to trying to create a separate borough or some nonsense.

    4. Sherman says:

      This building will improve the neighborhood. It looks much nicer than an SRO.

    5. chrigid says:

      Murders take place in all kinds of buildings.

    6. Judith Norell says:

      I thought all new buildings had to have 10% limited income-based apartments.

      • B.B. says:

        Affordable, low income or whatever apartments only come into play under certain circumstances.

        Most notably when a developer has either received tax benefits from state/city (421-a). This or either has agreed to participate in NYC’s “inclusionary bonus” scheme, or the area in question was rezoned by city which includes a mandate requiring a certain percentage of units in any new development are “affordable”.

        When a developer OTOH builds *as of right*, then no affordable/low income or whatever housing is required. Nor can they be compelled to provide.

        As have stated numerous times in these sort of threads vast swaths of Manhattan (especially along the avenues, in mid-town, and some other areas) were rezoned once, twice or more since whatever is currently standing was built. As such often there is a good amount of FAR (floor to area ratio) left on the table. That translates into a larger building than what currently stands.

        OTOH you also have buildings that are taller than current zoning/FAR allow. In such instances if a property were to be developed whatever goes up would have to be smaller than building being replaced.

        That old SRO on corner of 9th Avenue and 57th street is a prime example. Current building is taller than FAR allows, so tearing it down wasn’t high on anyone’s priority list.

        It is possible to get around FAR limits. First major way is to ask the city (DOB) for a zoning variance. But that would surely trigger a demand for affordable/low income housing as a percentage of whatever was being developed.

        OTOH a developer can appeal to the department of Standards and Appeals skirting around DOB and city council.

        • Paul says:

          Some good points about the way this works. Worth noting however, that when a condo is built “as of right” under current rules there’s no tax abatement and the owners pay full taxes from day one.

          In time that will generate more that can be used for affordable housing than the breaks given under prior versions of the property tax laws.

        • AC57 says:

          So affordable housing comes, more often, with taller buildings. And to those of you who ask why this neighborhood is no longer affordable, there’s your answer right there. Waterline Square shouldn’t be the only new source of affordable housing.

          • B.B. says:

            New York City long has had a shortage of “affordable” rental housing, and much of that can be laid at the feet of rent control laws.

            To build anything in New York City; hospital, hotel, residential housing, subway/train tunnels, infrastructure, or whatever costs tens of times more than any place else in USA. Start with high land costs then add in a bizarre and complicated zoning/approval process for a start. Then comes high labor and other costs.

            All housing has two set numbers; cost per square foot, and sales/rental price per square foot. The latter must be higher than former otherwise nothing makes sense.

            Rent control laws limit any landlord’s profit to whatever the city/state deem will be provided. Worst it lands any landlord with a host of regulations for compliance and tenants (and their heirs) who cannot be removed.

            When all is said and done the only housing anyone will build (who isn’t a nonprofit) is for upper income to very well off because that is where they can make money. Much as this displeases many on this board that is what things come down to in the long run. No one (again outside of a nonprofit) builds residential housing NOT to make money.

            First came 421-a and other tax breaks. Now you’ve got “inclusionary zoning” and or mandates. Either way it is an acknowledgment by city and state that without financial incentives no one is going to build affordable much less low income housing.

            Suppose in a perfect world local and or federal government would provide such housing on their own. This isn’t possible for a host of reasons ranging from financials to fact neither owns enough land.

            To get land local government or whoever would have to go to the same private market as anyone else. While there is always eminent domain that got a nasty name during the whole urban renewal era of 1950’s through 1970’s or so.

            Besides contrary to what many believe eminent domain doesn’t always mean government obtaining land cheaply. By law and USC owner of land must be compensated a fair price.

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              “BB” misses or doesn’t understand basic points about NYC rent stabilization laws.

              most importantly, NEW rental construction or a total rehab only go under rent stabilization laws when the landlord applies for and receives property tax exemptions (J-51 or 421-A). thus, rent stabilization laws have NO EFFECT on new buildings. landlords can build new buildings with entirely market rate rentals: it happens all the time.

              https://www1.nyc.gov/site/rentguidelinesboard/resources/tax-abatement-exemption-programs.page

              i assume from BB’s many posting, almost always pro-landlord, that he/she is in the real estate industry in some form. the real estate industry has long been pushing for the end to rent stabilization, as there is loads of money in this for the landlords. As i noted in another posting, the real estate lobby was able to drastically weaken the rent stabilization laws in NYC in the 1990s, and prices went way up in many neighborhoods, including the UWS.

              I would be interested in knowing in what cities that got rid of rent stabilization / rent control prices went DOWN. There aren’t any. prices have always skyrocketed. If you understand the economics of limited supply, you would understand why.

              Strengthening rent stabilization is key to preserving existing affordable housing in NYC.

              the private sector has failed miserably at building affordable housing in NYC at least since the 60s, and mostly since WW II. this is not because of rent stabilization. it is because they can make more money in other way. it’s also worth noting that the Rent Guidelines Board tracks how much landlords make on rent stabilized units (per room), and the amount is quite substantial and has been going UP almost every year.

              BB admits that the way to construct affordable housing is through federal and city public housing initiatives. there are loads of successful examples of this, including NYCHA (a huge success until Republican defunding) and Mitchell-Lama, as well as many large NFP developments. We CAN build affordable housing, we just have to go around the for profit real estate industry to do it.

          • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

            a prime reason this neighborhood is no longer affordable is the vast weakening of the rent stabilization laws that took place in the 1990s.

            As i’ve said many times: the UWS is actually an experiment in the conservative / libertarian theory that rent stabilization is what stands in the way of affordable housing. In the last 20 years, something north of 50% of all rental units in the neighborhood have been moved from stabilized to market rate. According to the landlord lobby and the libertarians, this should have resulted in increased affordability. Instead, rents have skyrocketed. QED…

            • Sherman says:

              Hi Bruce

              “The prime reason this neighborhood is no longer affordable”

              That’s funny! This comment reminds me of the Yogi Berra saying “nobody goes there anymore. It’s too crowded”.

              The last time I checked the UWS was bustling and full of people. If it was “no longer affordable” it would be empty.

              And no, the alleged weakening of rent stabilization in the neighborhood (which incidentally is wildly exaggerated) is not what led to the UWS becoming expensive.

              It was those evil gentrifiers who improved the neighborhood that caused the UWS to become expensive.

              These terrible people improved the schools, lowered crime, attracted big box retailers and nice restaurants. Furthermore, this influx of people led to upscale construction which brought in more people who might otherewise have moved to the suburbs.

              This is simple economic theory.

              If anything, the abundance of people still living in rent stabilized apartments and people purchasing apartments at rock bottom prices due to crooked inside deals are what is truly making the neighborhood difficult for middle class people to live in.

              (And you can reference Paul Krugman on that one).

              Sherm

            • B.B. says:

              Obviously you have not heard of BdeB’s inclusionary zoning scheme. Please keep up!

              https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/zoning/districts-tools/inclusionary-housing.page

              Basically as one previously stated, any new housing built in an area rezoned by the city and or otherwise designated must include some sort of “affordable” housing.

              Why do you think this administration and city council have been rezoning vast areas of the city? East Harlem, Central Harlem, LIC, Williamsburg, etc….

            • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

              “BB”, you’re just trying to slither out of the fact that you completely mis-stated the role of rent stabilization in new housing construction. if you had any intellectual integrity, you would admit the error instead of misleadingly trying to change the subject.

              yes, zoning plays a role in limiting affordable housing. But i also think most NYC residents are grateful for zoning restrictions, which admittedly are not perfect.

    7. David S says:

      This one took a thorough beating from the ugly stick.

    8. Wijmlet says:

      Where are those people with HIV?

    9. Rob G. says:

      A welcome addition to the neighborhood, and a fitting replacement for a nightmare SRO!

    10. Lrahip says:

      Did I miss the part about affordable housing?

      • Sean says:

        This is affordable housing on the UWS of Manhattan.

      • Sherman says:

        If there are people buying these aprtments then they’re affordable.

        If the building stands empty then they’re not affordable.

    11. AC57 says:

      The design looks cool, the blend of new and old. Doesn’t make it look like a curtain wall, but it also doesn’t make it look dated upon completion (see 207 West 79th Street.)

      There’s is one thing that I would like to address: the price. It really does say something about the neighborhood when $1.8M is the lowest starting price. There hasn’t been a single shred of affordable housing, and people ask why, and quickly point to greed. That’s not it. It’s the restrictiveness of the neighborhood. The reason there’s no affordable housing is the same reason that Extell, Snøhetta, Rafael Vinoly and other builders feel inclined to include voids instead of actual housing. A nearby project is supposed to bring 45 new units in a 19 story skeleton and again, no affordable housing.

      My point being that we look so much at height while failing to consider what goes in, or what could go in with allowed modifications. 200 Amsterdam and 50 West 66th Street could’ve both resulted in something very beneficial if we actually tried to talk to SJP and Extell, but instead we see a tower and we shoot it down. We do this across the city, not just here. I always say change what goes in, not what goes up. Because if our attitude, all that gets built is a bunch of multimillion-dollar apartments that remain empty, where affordable housing could go.

      And yes, I would take any of these projects next to where I live

    12. Sandy says:

      I have lived on 95th for over 10 years. This is a vast improvement over the homeless shelter and the Hertz car rental and garage that preceded it. There wasn’t a day that went by without multiple police activity at this location in addition to the noisy ambulances that were also there daily.

      Why would anyone think that their outdoor “park” should be accessible to everyone. That is absurd! We have plenty of park in our neighborhood, we don’t need that one too!

    13. Scott says:

      West 95h Street can be downright scary

      • Bruce E. Bernstein says:

        Scott says:

        “West 95th Street can be downright scary”

        this is total, complete malarkey.

        a resident of W. 95th Street.

        • jojo says:

          West 95th has been sketchy for at least the past 20 years that I have lived nearby. This will hopefully improve the block.

    14. Glitter says:

      Can’t wait for all the complaints about a nice new building in the UWS. Curmudgeons unite!!!! Maybe start another lawsuit? Cuz who wants nice new clean buildings?? No one on the UWS that’s who!!

    15. Susan Gutterman says:

      I remember 30 years ago when W. 95th St was very scary. Pigeons flew in & out of abandoned brownstones on that very block. But it has not been at all scary for the last 15 years.
      W. 95th St. Resident

      • B.B. says:

        If we all knew then what we know now we’d have bought all those abandoned brownstones and sat tight.

        Same with East Village and Lower East Side. You could have bought an entire block of burned out/vacant or whatever property down there well into the 1990’s for very little money. Now just one property sells for tens of millions.

        When the Hell’s Angels sell up, then you know “there goes the neighborhood”.

    16. Sabina says:

      Not sure how the 96th street subway will handle the morning rush with this and the other high rise under construction at 93rd…