By Gus Saltonstall
Since 2022, less than 10 percent of the total new housing built within Council District 6 on the Upper West Side has been affordable, according to a new study from Councilmember Gale Brewer’s office.
In the district, which stretches from around West 51st to 94th streets on the west side of Manhattan, there have been 630 new residential units constructed during the last two years. Of that total, just 68 of the units were deemed affordable, while the rest of the 562 units were market rate or luxury units, according to Brewer’s office.
“New York City needs as many new units of housing as possible, but we will never get out of the housing crisis if 90 percent are market rate and luxury,” Brewer said during a press conference on Wednesday outside of an incoming luxury residence near the corner of West 84th Street and Broadway.
During the past two years, there were seven new residential developments constructed within District 6. One of those developments, 266 West 96th Street, between Broadway and West End, accounted for 67 of the 68 affordable units built throughout the entire district since 2022.
There was also one affordable unit constructed at 250 West 96th Street.
Brewer’s office used the city’s definition of affordable housing, when a household spends no more than one third of its income on rent and utilities.
Here are the other five developments that were built within the Upper West Side’s District 6 during the time frame.
- 2505 Broadway (between West 93rd and 94th streets): 44 market rate units
378 West End Avenue (near West 78th Street and West End: 58 market rate units
468 Columbus Avenue (between West 82nd and 83rd streets): 7 market rate units
2461 Broadway (near West 91st Street): 57 market rate units
2330 Broadway (near West 85th Street): 162 market rate units
The analysis for these numbers was conducted from October 24, 2024 to December 3, 2024 by using information from public real estate listings, calls to property managers, real estate developers, architects, and data from city agencies.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
“New York City needs as many new units of housing as possible, but we will never get out of the housing crisis if 90 percent are market rate and luxury,”
Can we please get a politician who understands basic economics?
Outside of veterans, teachers, firefighters, sanitation workers and police, who should get affordable apartments to live in; if you can’t afford it, move somewhere else – this country is affordable in many other places.
But if we refuse to build affordable apartments, how are our “veterans, teachers, firefighters, sanitation workers and police” ever going to live on the UWS?
Thank you! It is expensive to build new housing so it is generally not the most affordable and that’s ok. Every apartment I’ve lived in NYC was built almost a 100 years ago. Build more supply all over NYC and then market rents will come down.
City too crowded as is and the MTA will never improve as to much corruption. Build new housing in upstate!
Wondering if these are permanently affordable?
When it comes to NYC rental real estate the word “affordable” is an Orwellian term.
These so called newly constructed affordable apartments are the result of massive 421-A tax breaks doled out to wealthy NYC developers. It likely cost the city tens of millions of dollars of lost tax revenue for these 68 below market rate apartments.
In other words, these apartments are not affordable but rather subsidized as the rest of us are paying for these apartments. The city would be much better off if it would collect this lost tax revenue.
All these ridiculous schemes are wasteful and inefficient and cause far more harm than good.
I don’t mind paying higher rates if I can afford if it means others can have a stable home in a region of the country with social resources. But I believe those with the most to spare should contribute the highest. A person with a billion dollars in wealth shouldn’t be possible while people in this country are still unable to choose between rent, groceries, prescription medications, and the regular cost of ADL’s.
Actually 68 out of 630 is 11% affordable. There has not been much new construction on the UWS the last few years.
A Large part of the UWS was landmarked many years ago making development impossible. There are so many ugly old buildings that are off limits for redevelopment because of the landmark laws. I am all for preserving great architecture but not every old building just because they are old.
That’s the issue. The developers take stabilized units out of circulation, warehouse whole buildings (88th and amsterdam) then wait for approval to build market rate.
BUILD BUILD BUILD with no commensurate regulation and mandate for affordability is a giveaway to Related, Vornado, Tishman Speyer etc.
Landlords only take apartments off the market when they are rent regulated and in disrepair. In other words, it will likely cost the landlord more to upgrade the apartments up to standard than they will be able to collect in rent.
I bet there is not a single market rate apartment in the city that is being warehoused.
Whatever the reason rent regulation asks a disincentive to providing more apartments.
And big developers like Related, Vornado etc do not have old decrepit buildings with rundown rent regulated apartments.
Why would they enter into a business without knowing all of the information beforehand? They knew there were rent regulated units in the buildings they bought, it’s their responsibility to maintain the units and rent them out at the price the law dictates. Nobody forces a landlord to become one.
If we build enough, the affordable vs not distinction disappears… you still need explicit affordable housing but it is more about increasing supply than regulating it. Just BUILD! Austin and Minneapolis, both with decreasing rents, are great examples of it.
One issue is how do you define affordable? For most UWS residents, there is plenty of affordable housing in Queens or in New Jersey but they do not want it. Eventually the UWS historic district landmarking discussion is going to have to be had, especially if you want places outside Manhattan to bear much of the burden of building housing.
This is a red herring. The UWS has far greater share of shelters and similar “free” housing — I’ve never understood why the city allows for those tax breaks given the RE value rather than focus on affordable housing. So, while there may be a lag in the new developments (heaven knows we don’t need more high-rises), there is significant housing made available on the UWS.
Agreed. It’s always been interesting to me how we don’t hear of similar analysis or pushback from the same groups when it comes to developments and accommodation on the UES.
I fully support Gale Brewer’s call for more affordable housing. And buildings that are easily suitable for this instead are being turned into shelters, such as the old Calhoun School at 160 West 74th Street. Aside from the suspicious financing that soaks the taxpayers and puts huge risk free profits in the hands of the developer, this shelter was approved without any community input and leaves the UWS with one less very suitable building for either affordable housing or much needed classroom space. Bayrock profits, taxpayers lose. And women are stuffed like sardines into a building on a street with no resources to support them. The UWS needs affordable housing and classroom space.
The former Salvation Army residence at W.95th St & WEA is undergoing a gut rehab to turn it into condos & other high-end luxury units. The area around W.96th St will soon be uninhabitable by those seeking “affordable” housing.
I live in one of the few rent-stabilized units left here, 2 blocks north of the former SA residence. The COL here literally demands condo owners with lots of ready cash. For renters & retirees, it’s impossible to remain yet we need protection of every kind.
I’ve lived here for 46 years. We are among the long-time tenants that made the UWS so attractive. We are being booted out by dollar-hungry building owners and uncaring condo owners,
The W.96th St exit/entrance to the Henry Hudson Pkwy (mislabeled as the West Side Hwy) a the WEA raceway have become pedestrian nightmares. God help you if you walk WITH the green light; drivers don’t care because there ‘s no traffic law enforcement worth the name. The condo owners will be run down with regularity. Only then will the local pols do something.
Feels like the bigger part of the story should be that only 600 units were built in this very large neighborhood?
The number of demolished affordable apartments is the number that never gets mentioned. Over and over I see older buildings with affordable apartments being demolished for luxury buildings. We need the number of apartments lost to truly understand how new developments push people out of their homes.
How many units in those time were removed by people converting townhouses into one family homes or when old high density buildings were torn down for luxury ones?
Shocker!!! But this has given the Mayor and the real estate industry an excuse to allow luxury housing into every neighborhood in NY under the guise and it is a guise of building affordable housing. There is no affordable housing because developers will only build luxury housing. And now City of Yes brings it to every inch of NY!! Congratulations REBNY and the Council members who vote for this.
Correct – City of Yes is a giveaway for market rate development.
BTW, for those who want to understand the current rental market, look at the vacancy rate for units priced at $2500+. It’s 14%
This seems like a good news story. 630 new homes built in our neighborhood in the past 2 years! Imagine if every neighborhood in NY was as open to new housing as the Upper West Side..the huge supply of new housing would put downward pressure on pricing.
It sounds like a big number but as a percentage of population (which is the relevant metric) its not nearly enough. As someone else pointed out, that metric does not count the housing the UWS has lost through townhome conversions and combining apartments. And yes we need other neighborhoods esp in Brooklyn and Queens to be building way more housing as well.
How many UWS residents or residents who insist on living in Manhattan actually want to live in Whitestone or Canarsie? There is plenty of housing in Brooklyn and Queens outside trendy areas but no one wants it.
Can we PLEASE stop using the phrase “affordable housing” when it is anything but?!
When a family earning $100,000 can qualify for “affordable housing” (and in some instances they can), then the phrase becomes meaningless – even mean-spirited.
What we NEED is HOUSING for the impoverished, unhoused and homeless (particularly including vets). However, given the costs of construction, and the comparative lack of ROI (in the absence of significant subsidies), no land owner or real estate developer is EVER going to build something for those who TRULY need it.
So let’s stop this useless, circular debate and figure out how to build housing for those who need it, even if it requires massive tax abatements and huge subsidies (city, State and federal) to land owners and developers. Otherwise, NOTHING is EVER going to change, and mayor after mayor, council person after council person, etc. is going to make promises they simply cannot keep in the current real estate economy.
actually – we need it for both! There isn’t enough available housing for the impoverished/homeless and for the middle class. blue collar workers. New York has a lack of “affordable housing” for many across the economic spectrum.
Ian,
It seems to me there is also a significant need for “affordable” for teachers, EMS, service workers etc.
Let’s say a family of 4 – two teachers and their two kids. The family income would likely exceed $100,000, but they could not afford to live on the Upper West Side now.
BTW some of my kids teachers have had 2-3 hours (1-1.5 each way) commutes!
Housing in NYC will always be a zero sum game, especially in desirable neighborhoods. I agree with subway parent. Let’s give the working poor priority in desirable neighborhoods. Addicts and mentally ill can be treated somewhere cheaper, than the UWS.
Agree
Tax’s on a one bedroom in Lincoln Center area are 1200 a month and common charges 800 (on my unit), mortgage 3200 so a one bedroom would have to rent for 5200 to break even in my building but they are only getting 4500.
Property tax’s are part of the problem.
How do you think we pay for schools/roads/subways/water mains/cops/firefighters?
How about affordable property tax?
What about long time owners priced out of the neighborhood
I wish my salary increased as much as the property taxes each year. It’s killing the middle class
How is a minimum income of 118,000 affordable housing? It’s designed to keep the poor people above 110th or in the Burroughs. https://housingconnect.nyc.gov/PublicWeb/details/5402
Manhattan is the most crowded place in the US. The answer is to build housing in less crowded states and cities and stop cramming more people into NYC.
Is anyone considering services to support these increases, because we aren’t seeing them
Mark Moore wrote:
“How many units in those time were removed by people converting townhouses into one family homes”
You do realized all such row houses/town homes and even mansions were originally built as single family homes…
It was only changing fortunes of families, economy and NYC in general that prompted many rowhomes of all types all over NYC to be carved up into boarding houses, rooms for rent or apartments.
UWS of 1960’s or 1970’s was nothing like that of 1860’s or 1870’s.
Adam; u took the words right out of my mouth. As many as possible? You don’t have
to be a rocket scientist to understand brick
and mortar is NOT possible.
What IS possible snd quickly possible is the
development of a Tiny House Village!
Built quickly and cheaply perhaps not in
the UWS but somewhere close to Manhattan. It’s SO possible yet not one
of our elected officials have picked up
this idea. It’s being done successfully in other
cities.
Get with it Mayor !!!’