UPDATE: Wednesday, July 24, 10 p.m.: Landmark West!, a community-based advocacy organization that aims to preserve architecture on the Upper West Side, reached out to West Side Rag to say that their records show that the 2560 Broadway building was actually constructed in 1899, not in 1925, as shown in the commercial real estate database CoStar, and on StreetEasy. The 1899 construction date would mean that the building is 125 years old.
By Gus Saltonstall
Owners of a 99-year-old residential building on the Upper West Side filed permits with the city this week to demolish the property, according to the Department of Buildings and as first reported by Crain’s New York.
The seven-story building at 2560 Broadway, on the northeast corner of West 96th Street, currently has 27 residential units.
The owner of the building, ABS Partners Real Estate, filed a permit Monday for the “full demolition of seven story structure using hand held and mechanical means,” according to the DOB’s portal for permits.
Permits show that the 74-foot tall building still has two units occupied by residents. Additionally, the building has had multiple rent-regulated apartments over the years, but a collection of them have become market-rate in recent years.
The 53,000 square-foot building was constructed in 1925, according to multiple sources. The building has two addresses, as there is also an entrance at 231 West 96th Street.
The 96th Street and Broadway area is not unfamiliar with large-scale projects in recent years, as the construction of 250 West 96th Street at the southwest corner of the intersection began in 2020, before wrapping up this year.
As of the time of Monday’s demolition filing, it is unclear what the future plan for 2560 Broadway is, and when construction will begin.
ABS Partners Real Estate has 102 properties in its portfolio, the majority of which are in New York City, but 2560 Broadway appears to be the developer’s only building on the Upper West Side.
The developer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here.
Another ugly glass building is in our future.
Mo’ building = mo’ future.
Nothing is uglier than a neighborhood that won’t build housing! I hope it’s a big building with a good % of affordable units and some small businesses on the ground floor.
Most likely another totally out of reach for most of us luxury thing
New buildings are generally built to a higher standard than buildings that are ~100 years old. Hopefully we will get more than 27 new units out of whatever is built there.
Wherever did you get THAT idea? Pre-WW2 buildings were built of masonry instead of steel girders and glass , with lath-and-plaster walls instead of sheetrock, with hardwood floors instead of laminates, etc. In other words, they were built to LAST.
Are you kidding? Drywall can’t begin to compare to plaster on lath or brick construction!
Not in my future. I’ll pass it occasionally and laugh at anyone bothered so much by a brand new building full of rich families.
Cue the Nimbys.
Cue the real estate sharks.
That building they tore down was likely rent stabilized.
The building they’re putting up will be overwhelmingly market rate.
You all wonder why rents keep soaring?
It’s not a mystery – rents are soaring because we’ve spent the last 40 years not building enough housing.
Since 94, AT LEAST 147K thousand rent stabilized units have been taken out of regulation.
That’s an undercount.
https://rentguidelinesboard.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-Changes.pdf
True but that’s regulated rents. Market rate rents which is what most people are paying have soared because we don’t build any new housing & in fact have lost housing units as apartments and townhouses have been combined. There never seems to be any community board input or NIMBY protests when we lose housing…
Just stop! Luxury housing is destructive to the community and the neighborhood. People will be losing their homes. What is wrong with you?
Isn’t the answer to a housing shortage building more housing? NYC’s housing market is constrained by all kinds of artificial restrictions on supply. Make it easier to build more and more will be built.
There are only two remaining occupied apartments and a blighted corner; instead we can have a building (luxury or otherwise) with many more apartments, full of customers for our local businesses and people invested in the community.
Nothing blighted about that corner — at least until the owners stopped filling vacated apartments. Assuming they will build luxury high-rise housing on the site (which I assume, even if there are a few “affordable” units), it’s safe to assume that luxury tenants do not spend much of their money at the local hardware store or pizza parlor. They do add, however, to general crowding of an already densely-populated neighborhood, block out more sunlight and air, add to air pollution, and, especially, add to HEAT pollution (all those additional air conditioners going 24-7).
I don’t understand the mindset of people who see no value in what’s existing, in continuity, in the generous spacing and elegant style of older buildings, who only want new, new, new, which benefits no one except the owner and perhaps investors. Meanwhile, everyone else suffers.
So far in the 4 corners of 96-Broadway I see many empty stores and buildings we can’t afford. Where are the “customers”? They live in lots of places and don’t bother with the local anythings. At best, perhaps they order in from fa away places. Do anyone see luxury restaurants?
On the contrary. Most of these luxury, multi-million dollar apartments are being bought by foreign interests and corporations, including shell corporations. They do not house real people or people who are in the community. The NY Times did a huge expose on this years ago.
:Most of these … apartments are being bought by foreign interests and corporations” Citation required.
that was true a few years ago but isn’t true any longer. The Corporate Transparency Act and the New York State equivalent require that corporations (and similar entities) disclose the identity of their beneficial owners. The end result is that you can no longer set up shell companies to buy real estate without revealing the ultimate owner. So, you can’t hide your identity if you are a foreign interest.
Haven’t noticed many of the businesses surrounding the 5 new luxury buildings in the area benefitting from anyone–more empty storefronts and vanishing small businesses
Not true, I can state that as A FACT.
Blighted is another ambiguous and subjective term.
Nowhere to go but up on this one. I used that Citibank for decades and what started as a dreary place became downright creepy. I hope the scaffolding will be well-lit!
i hope they offer good first floor space.
Maybe they’ll makes some retail space on the 1st floor. You know, for Duanne Reade or CVS or a bank, or a pop up bagel shop for $74 per 3 bagels (but you get a 1/4 oz of cream cheese for free). Things we desperately need.
I expect we will get some new housing which we desperately need instead of a rundown old building which we certainly don’t need.
Then what about getting rid of historic districts? Want that?
I’d love it if we have a Landmarks process that was more guided by common sense and less by whatever weird ideology it is they follow. Landmarks forbid our building from upgrading our front door from single pane glass to glass that is energy-efficient because that wouldn’t be consistent with how it looked a hundred years ago. (No other change in appearance. Just better glass.)Seriously. Landmarks is great example of a good idea run amok.
yes we need more 5000 a month for a 600 sf one bedroom
And so what? In Kansas, they need a lot less $ for 600 sq.ft.
we ‘desperately need’ market rate housing????
Yes we absolutely do! It must be nice for those who have a rent controlled apartment but most people live in market rate apartments.
I think the city desperately needs housing of all kinds – market, affordable, stabilized, etc. In 2023, the vacancy rate for stabilized apartments was 0.98% and the overall vacancy rate was 1.4%.
We need to implement means testing and reward certain low income occupations as a requirement for rent stabilized leases. We have to take luck or incumbency out of the equation to get the result we want.
The demand for the UWS is such that you cannot satisfy demand for housing on the UWS for everyone and maintain historic district landmarking. You would have to knock down blocks of brownstones and prewar buildings and build new housing in its place.
Then it would be the UWS in name only. It’s like turning Greenwich Village into strips of high rises and continuing to call it “Greenwich Village” as though the name would designate the neighborhood that people love for its present and historic qualities.
But yes, we need some taller apartment buildings. And then, to the extent that mass transit can be improved, the outer boroughs and nearby burbs become more attractive.
The 4 buildings at 87-88 st & Amst Ave. where Mermaid Inn used to be filed for demo in Dec. I think there is 1 tenant left.
Warehoused
That’s one creepy corner. Zombieland
Good Luck living on such a busy corner – Buses and vagrants everywhere
That is why we need new luxury buildings there. There are a bunch opening in the 90’s.
How will a glass and concrete towner fix the Zombieland nature you speak of?
For one thing, the doormen there will chase off the vagrants.
Mostly no, they won’t.
What makes me think affordable housing won’t be going there?🤔
96th St. is a major intersection and traffic hub, so I hope the new build is not yet another ugly, glass super-tall monstrosity and respects the neighborhood character. I wonder if the developer bought air rights of neighboring properties and what the zoning laws will permit in height, setback, F.A.R. , affordable unit inclusion and other issues that will affect the neighborhood.
Living on higher floors is more noisy, why would someone pay through the nose to live on such an intersection, hearing sirens all the time?
“Respects the neighborhood’s character” = “don’t build anything that looks new”. I, for one, don’t want to live in a city that is frozen in amber, captive to the tastes of the real estate industry of 100 years ago. Who made those guys kings? Tastes change. Building technologies change. We don’t dress like we did 100 years ago, why should our buildings look like obsolete construction?
The great, solid architecture of all the prewar buildings is exactly what made the UWS desirable in the first place. People who wanted new high rise apartments with no character or charm or design could find plenty in Midtown, UES or MidES.
Good. That intersection desperately needs revitalizing. I welcome any new neighbors who will be invested in the quality of the neighborhood.
That doesn’t happen.
Revitalization is code for giant billboards, doubling rents and 4 years of noise/traffic.
Tearing down everything that gives our city its character. It sux.
Good progress. Hopefully the area around the subway station can be cleaned up and cleared out somehow.
Thank you for this information.
West Side Rag does a great job with local reporting.
Classic buildings are far more eloquent and elegant than new constructs. It would be splendid if this company tries to emulate the original style. Hey, stranger things have happened. If they go with strictly modern design we can all hope, notwithstanding another blow to a bygone era, that it will add nicely to the quality of life for people moving into our neighborhood.
Hoping that Borough President Mark Levine will be contacted for comment.
He has been messaging about housing need, supporting development and City of Yes.
But what about saving existing housing?
Will be sad to lose another old facade but thrilled to further upgrade the neighborhood. Been waiting years to for development to pick up steam in this area and it’s finally happening!
A strange idea of an upgrade. Surely it will be another bland tower of luxury housing with a large retail storefront only suitable for a bank or chain business, but will most likely sit empty for years.
Net increase in housing next to public transit. No landmarking or massive displacement. Seems like a win.
This corner is next to an express subway stop that, until a few years ago, had relative low rises on three of the four corners. It’s a prime candidate for more dense housing.
Bring back Fowad!
Absolutely! And we need Thom McAn back, as well. And Arista Barbershop. Tony was the anchor of 96th and Broadway in 1975. And how is it possible we have no good places to buy nylons and wigs? Those stores closed and everything went downhill! Any good neighborhood needs places to buy nylons and wigs. And a Nedicks! You re-open Nedicks people will come flooding back in droves! And Fayva! Put those Fayva Olympian sneakers on kids’ feet today and they’ll forget all about Nike and Adidas.
It’s possible I may be over-romanticizing our childhood neighborhood in my memory. As far as I recall it was paradise. The hookers sang us kids enchanting lullabies from the street corners at night and the heroin addicts put on wonderful dance productions. That’s what it was like in the 1970s, right?
haha yes. That was on the other corner, but fair enough.
I surmise the air rights from the church/school on Amsterdam have been purchased so the new building can soar higher than would otherwise be permitted.
Huh…how would air rights be transferred from that location to the corner of 96th and Broadway? Even if they could, that would prevent any additional height on the site from where they were transferred. The net long-term effect is zero.
Surprised commenters mostly not concerned about the warehousing here and that apartments kept off market for a while…..
Also reminder that a high-rise inevitably generates vehicles (service, delivery etc) and so will impact an already busy and complicated intersection.
the article strangely enough doesn’t say what caused all the vacancies. you’re correct – probably warehousing. where are the 2 tenants going to go?
Pushed out-that’s what happened to them. Some may have died. The biggest joke in NY are the 2 words called “affordable housing”. The city is knowingly and gleefully demolishing affordable housing in every borough of NY to build luxury housing that most New Yorkers can’t afford-even wealthy ones. Developers are replacing large numbers of affordable apartments with bigger buildings with fewer apartments than they demolished-none of them affordable! And now the Mayor says we need affordable housing so let’s deregulate the zoning laws in what is called “City of Yes” and build even more luxury housing in areas zoned for one family homes! What’s an out of scale, out of context tower here and there amongst residential and historic areas! And then once big real estate has all the keys to the kingdom-the city will lament there is an affordable housing crisis. Smoke and mirrors. A city increasingly on a bender that won’t end til it’s filled with nothing but empty luxury apartments.
One family homes are out of scale with NYC. City of Yes is not perfect but probably the best thing the Adams administration has pursued. Many areas in Queens / Brooklyn or Long Island especially near transit options are woefully underdeveloped & the zoning code is well out of date.
I’m beginning to feel that any big project (as this probably will be) should come with some kind of firm commitment to improve the quality of life of the neighborhood. Perhaps paying for perpetual cleaning of the subway station or something similar.
Isn’t that what the property taxes are for?
Oftentimes new buildings do pay for new public amenities nearby, however would note that any additional cost the building has to pay just get passed along as higher rents and then everyone will complain the building isn’t affordable enough…
People generate vehicle trips, no matter where they live. If more people live here, a significant chunk of those trips can be taken by public transit instead of private vehicle. This location is one subway stop from Times Square, our representatives should be pushing to change the zoning to make the replacement building as tall and as dense as possible. If you care about the environment and want to think global and act local, the biggest impact you can have isn’t voting in November, its calling up your local reps and demanding more low carbon housing near mass transit in locations like this.
96th is two stops from Times Sq on the 2/3. Also, those trains, plus the 1, and the platforms are crowded as is. But probably people who can afford to live in a fancy new high rise have jobs where they can work remotely, or Uber/cab/drive to work on the few days they’re required in the office.
I agree with you. Everyone seems to be talking about lack of affordable housing and building but this is a classic example of existing units that are being left empty to rot while market rate housing is souring. Also no one ever really classifies what “affordable housing” means.
“Affordable housing” means somebody else (taxpayers and newcomers) is responsible for paying most of your rent.
Hopefully a new tall residential tower.
What will happen to the tenants? Will they be relocated? I suspect they couldn’t afford other accommodations.
We are losing the upper west side. No new building will ever have the detail or artistry that these prewar building have. A little cleaning up and these buildings can be brought back to its former glory, but no.
WSR, Google shows 2560 Broadway as being between 97th and 98th. Is this the correct address?
Hi Leigh, thanks for reading! Yes, for some reason the address confuses Google Maps, but 2560 Broadway is correct.
Hopefully, not another shelter!
For years NY 1 News has shown that corner when they do the weather. I wonder if that building has an elevator. It would be quite a trudge to the top floor.
Where will the buildings cockroaches and mice go?
The race is on for the tallest building in the UWS no Upper Westsider could afford to live
I think it unlikely that the owners of the building “filed permits this week” to demolish the property, as you’ve reported. Permits are issued, not “filed”, and they are issued by government authorities, not by building owners.
You probably meant to report that the owners “filed APPLICATIONS FOR permits” to demolish the building. Whether the permits will actually be issued (by the government authorities) remains to be seen.
But the owners cannot give themselves permission to demolish the building, as your reporting suggests.
I knew when the Plant Shed closed they’d want to build to the corner.
If my memory serves me, when the two excel towers at 2628 Broadway and 2629 broadway went up several years ago, the neighborhood mobilized to put pressure on the City to change the zoning for the area from 96 St north to 110th. New buildings are limited as to how high they can be (I believe it was 14 stories on the avenues and 8 stories on the side streets, but I’m not exactly sure). ABS may try to do an end-run around the zoning regulations by breaking ground before the neighbors wake up and protest. It may be time for more of us to attend Community Board meetings and keep pressure on our elected officials to honor that re-zoning agreement. There are no Board meetings in July and August, but they resume in September. In the meantime, if you want information on whatever it is that ABS has planned for this site, contact Community Board 7 via e-mail at MN07@cb.nyc.gov or by phone at (212) 362-4008. You snooze, you lose. When we woke up to the excel developments, it was too late to stop them and we lost some beautiful row houses on W 99th and W 100th Streets.
And to those who will protest that taller buildings mean more housing; not necessarily, since most of what’s going up lately is luxury housing. In addition to that, I would point out that the charm of the UWS is the lower-scale development, which makes it more livable. Anyone who wanted to live in a high-rise corridor like 2nd Avenue would be living on the Upper East Side.
The UWS as we have known it is quickly
disappearing The hi rise bldgs planned
for the ABC campus will be dramatic
1 or 2 already up on W66
Your small local businesses need many more people walking the sidewalks than what 5 floored buildings can provide, especially with Amazon destroying local businesses. The more people who walk by, the more we have a chance to survive. So if one or 2 tall buildings go in per year, it is a Godsend to us.
Hi Josh P,
I can’t reply to your comment so new post….
In my original comment I mentioned that buildings generate vehicles, for examples service and delivery .
Additional development at this key intersection will definitely impact the intersection overall, the crosstown bus, the West Side Highway etc.
I did not mention private vehicles – but you did.
I doubt residents will be driving to Times Square.
But the subway platform is already packed.
If you are bicycling you’d not realize the actual subway situation ….
Are people buying all these multi million apartments that have been built around here?
Nope. Check streeteasy.
Tons of apartments on offer in the new builds
Concerned Business Owner,
I share your concern about local stores etc.
Sadly new luxury buildings tend to attract residents who are Amazon users – not interested in neighborhood retail….
Thank you for sharing your concern, it means a lot. I think it depends on the type of business but I know we have seen some new customers from the new taller buildings that have gone up. I know they have children, walk around and are part of our community. That’s all we can ask for and it is a blessing.
What is affordable housing? To me it’s where people earning $35,000 a year can live, and live decently, work, pay rent, pay the medical bills, pay for decent food without fear of losing your place of residence…..and survive! Ergo, contributing to society, community, and not struggling and grasping and taking whatever they can. It’s like living like a human being.
NYC charges $20,000 per year in property taxes for a 2 bedroom rental on the UWS. Eats up a lot of that affordability standard.
These multi-million dollarapts will be bought by foreign icorporations and shell corporations We must educate ourselves on the TRUTH. They might put ‘ some’ affordable housing in to cover their ass. This is big real estate- they win!
It would be a blight on the historicity of the UWS if the building werewrongfully condemned.
Bruce Greenfield
Housing shortage? Have you seen the massive building ongoing in the Bronx and in Brooklyn? There are thousands of units going up and thousands recently built. There are lots of apartments that are unaffordable to the majority sitting empty throughout the city. There is not a housing shortage, there is an affordable housing shortage because thousands of low income, rent controlled and rent stabilized apartments are ware housed. The old buildings are made with good materials that last. We don’t need more ugly glass and steel buildings going up that block the sun and make residents more isolated from each other than they already are.