Renderings Show Condos That Are Replacing Century-Old Synagogue

Artist’s rendering. Architecture by ODA New York.

Architectural renderings show what a 14-story condo building will look like when it’s completed at 212 West 93rd Street, the former home of Shaare Zedek Synagogue.

The development includes 20 condos, with 1-4 bedrooms starting at $1.875 million.

Shaare Zedek is expected to get a three-story synagogue at the bottom of the building. Some neighbors had opposed the demolition of the former synagogue, which was built in the early 1920s and dedicated in 1923, and had hoped it could be landmarked.

Before demolition.

Seventy percent of the new residences will have private outdoor space, according to 6sqft.

“Residents can enjoy shared amenities like a lovely rooftop terrace, 24-hour attended lobby, fitness studio, children’s playroom, a pet spa, bike storage, and additional storage for purchase,” according to 6sqft.

The marketing site is here.

NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 57 comments | permalink
    1. Marti Cassidy says:


      • Quan Lee says:

        Horrid beyond belief. Ugly. Ugly, ugly.
        The synagogue should not be demolished. A grand piece of West 93rd.

        • Paul says:

          That happened a couple of years ago.

          More than one person said this, perhaps the article should have been more clearly written?

    2. Darwin says:

      Wow – that’s a whole lot of ugly. And a whole lot of money for outdoor space overlooking a NYCHA building in grave disrepair.

      • Paul says:

        It’s a sad reminder of how well we were doing pre-Covid.

        That a developer would pay millions to build 20 luxury condos and a new synagogue across the street from a housing project, and that banks would finance that, shows how strong we actually were.

    3. wombatNYC says:

      Nice renderings but that’s what you call some bad timing. $1.875 for a 1 bedroom on West 93rd street with a shul on the ground floor. Pass!

    4. Bob says:


    5. lizzie says:

      The upper part is okay, but at street level it looks really uninspired and dreary. Overall, it looks like the second coming of the worst of brutalist architecture. This is the best New York can do?

      • PM says:

        Yeap, all of New York gathered at the site, discussed, assessed, surveyed, planned, prototyped, designed – and this is the best we could do.

    6. Joan says:

      And another lovely old building hits the dust.

      • Otis says:

        It was a lovely old building that was literally falling apart and was unsafe and the congregation did not have the money to properly maintain it.

    7. Henny Youngman Fan says:

      Some thoughts:
      1. the lower floors sort-of suggest a Rubik’s Cube…gone bonkers!;
      2. this is NOT what was meant by “Cubism”; and
      3. with a one-bedroom starting at $1.8M, it’s doubtful that they’ll market the apartments as “cubicles”
      Bah-da-Bing, Bah-da-Boom !!!

    8. James Brummel says:


      • Carlos says:

        LOL. Or a poorly played game of tetris. Regardless, not somewhere I would want to live or live near. Some of the other new buildings in the neighborhood have made an effort to fit in architecturally. This seems to fail miserably.

        There seems to be an emphasis on outdoor space, but it all faces NYCHA housing. The web site shows a picture of Central Park. Not exactly…

    9. Jean Luke says:

      Shame to lose the synagogue but I like the design of the building a lot. Definitely some interesting design elements and something different and innovative looking than a flat curtain wall on the street. This building is a huge improvement over almost anything built in the 1960’s and 1970’s.

    10. Chuck says:

      How will this impact the rehab of Bayside Cemetary in Queens? I had read where some of the money from the deal was supposed to support the restoration of Bayside which had been linked to the Shaare Zedek.

    11. Jane Sokol says:

      Really, who needs a deco old building where people come to pray and reflect when you can have a pet spa. “Progress” indeed.

    12. Pedestrian says:

      In Europe they know how to preserve their built heritage and provide new housing. Unfortunately our developers and building just aren’t smart enough to do that or is it greed.

      This thing is awful, just awful.

    13. robert says:

      I’m not sure why you are running this
      The building is 99% done and selling very well.

      Go take a look at it, it looks a lot better in person rather than in computer generated sketch’s

      The congregation worked out a deal to survive, the building they have was in bad shape and just could not be supported anymore.

    14. David Kleinberg-Levin says:

      What a shame!
      New building: Aesthetically ugly facade!

    15. Besuretovote says:

      “Residents can enjoy shared amenities like a lovely rooftop terrace, 24-hour attended lobby, fitness studio, children’s playroom, a pet spa, bike storage, and additional storage for purchase,” with breathtaking views of Central Park because it appears there is no east-facing wall

    16. James Brummel says:

      “Shaare Zedek is expected to get a three-story synagogue at the bottom of the building”

      What does this mean? Did the temple sell air rights but still owns the 1st 3 floors? Or is the temple owner/sponsor of the entire structure?

      • Paul says:

        It means that the deal between the congregation and the developer requires the developer to build with a synagogue occupying the first three floors of the new building.

      • Local minds want to know says:

        They sold the land. In return, along with money, substantial amount earmarked for Bayside Cemetery,they got 3 floors worth of space. They still have to pay to build out the interior.
        Before the deal there was little money left to maintain the building and care for the cemetery. The alternative was to disband and just sell the building. This way,there’s a chance to grow the congregation.Sometimes a building is not the most important thing

    17. Yimby says:

      I guess houses of worship are now just “place holders” for new development, like parking garages and abandoned buildings. Rapidly dwindling congregations can no longer sustain the cost of necessary repairs and maintenance. But at least new developments serve a real purpose and pay taxes.

    18. Rob G. says:

      I mourn the loss of the beautiful synagogue, but applaud the new condos. Although the ground floor is “meh” at best.

    19. Kathleen says:

      That new building is awful! What a shame that such a beautiful old building is being replaced with ugliness.

    20. watto says:

      Just disgusting!!!

    21. Jean Siegel says:


    22. MARCI says:

      it is becoming more and more important for new construction to be made to have garages a rule that went by the wayside and had been in effect. we need to reduce the congestion on the UWS

    23. Grossed Out says:

      Woof. New York has no penchant for preservation like many other great historic cities do. Sterilized condos in place of a religious and cultural place of worship? I’ll pass. There needs to be some community opposition against this. I’m sure there’s a dilapidated eyesore of a building somewhere they could have bulldozed in place of the synagogue.

      • Uws knows says:

        The synagogue will be returning with more space than it had before and in better financial shape. I don’t love the building but it can be a gain for the area not a loss.

      • Josh P. says:

        “In Manhattan, 27 percent of lots were either include in a historic district or designated as an individual or interior landmark. Those lots comprise 19.9 percent of lot area in Manhattan.”

        New York grants historic preservation to a huge number of sites, many with questionable historic value. Real estate interests lobby for preservation because it prevents people from building new homes with modern conveniences that would make their old investments look unattractive by comparison. They don’t want to compete so they make it illegal to build anything new.

    24. filatura says:

      If the top six stories and the tower-like enclosure on top are actually a giant two-dimensional billboard, as they appear in the rendering, the buyers of those apartments are in deep (or shall I say shallow) trouble. This adds new meaning to that suspect architectural gimcrack, the “void.”

    25. Susan Green says:

      We have enough condos in New York, and with the virus still with us, people are moving out of the city – not in. And the old building is beautiful and should not be destroyed.

    26. judy says:

      what about some affordable housing !!

    27. Upperwest says:

      The leadership had a solid offer from Romemu to buy the building but they hid that from their congregation. Now they get a very ugly building and a congregation that will probably not survive anyway because of they insist on being stuck in the past. I hope they survive but given all of the things they have tried, I doubt it will happen.

    28. Colleen Meehan says:

      Are you kidding me? It’s one thing to tear down confederate monuments. But tear down houses of worship??

      • MelissaD says:

        Tearing down is when something is done without permission. The synagogue made a decision. Who are we to decide? Churches, synagogues mosques and temple buildings are replaced all the time.

    29. David S says:

      I’m glad they worked so hard to ensure that the new building harmonizes with the existing architecture of the block.

    30. rj says:

      The is a shame . The begining of the end of NYC . Hey millionaires of the UWS pony up and buy the temple and don’t let this happen. First the homeless invade the UWS and now a Yuppie Condominium not a hiistoric site Where is Helen Rosenthal now? Useless political figure . Save this historic site . O Mr Mayor where are you now another useless politician. Justvtrying to stop the sale of the Mets. Hey Bill do us all a favor and move far away . maybe Cuba , Russia or Venezuela.

      • Reality check says:

        The building was sold and demolished a year ago. Done deal. Nothing to “save”
        I hate the design and won’t be spending that kind of money, but it will probably sell quickly. You may be in denial, but those prices are not really high (for other people) compared with other new buildings in the area.

    31. Nj says:

      Ridiculous that more buildings going up when the new ones can’t be filled! A shame and ugly too.

    32. ST says:

      Rich folks don’t want to live here anymore. There’s tons of crime at 94th and Amsterdam. Good luck selling those condos.

    33. Barbara Litt says:

      UGLY building! Lots of ugly Westside building going on! i don’t know if people have or want to pay that much for apartments now. Time will tell…
      It should, however, be noted that without selling the air rights, the synagogue would have financially gone under; that’s why the congregation entered the deal.

    34. charles hoffman says:

      a welcome addition to the neighborhood

      it’s replacing an under-utilized crumbling structure with no hope for revival

    35. Josh P. says:

      “New buildings are ugly. Also, music today isn’t as good as it was when I was younger!” People complain that everything new is bad, but everything we love now was new once. No piece of architecture has ever been immediately beloved. People hated, hated the Eiffel Tower when it was built.
      New buildings are objectively greener and more accessible though, so for that alone I find them more beautiful than any of the 100 year old Brownstones that pollute our neighborhood.

    36. Maxine DeSeta says:

      More luxury housing that we do not need! This is my first time commenting, please do not autoatically delete.

    37. Sam Katz says:

      I find it hard to believe that competent architects could not figure out how to build atop that beautiful centuries old structure and incorporate it into any new design. What a disgrace how quick we are to abandon our history.

    38. Barbara B says:

      We of the building behind this monstrosity tried to stop the demolition of the beautiful synagogue 2 years ago.
      Not only is it ugly it has disturbed the peace and light of many buildings around it.
      And there were in the plans presented only supposed to be 3 terraces.
      Now they say 70 % of residents will have private outdoor space. What mendacity! I am sickened by this horrible building.