By Scott Etkin
More than 100,000 square feet of affordable housing — approximately 100 units — could be coming to part of the site of ABC’s former campus on West 66th and 67th streets, between Columbus Avenue and Central Park West.
Gary Barnett, the founder and chairman of Extell Development, who owns the vacated property, spoke at a Community Board 7 Land Use Committee meeting Wednesday night to express his openness to include in his site plans two buildings dedicated to affordable housing.
Under the current zoning regulations that cover the former ABC site, Extell is not required to build affordable housing. A potential text amendment to the zoning law that a representative of the NYC Department of City Planning shared earlier in the meeting would also not mandate affordable units.
But, Barnett expressed his willingness to negotiate with local representatives and the Community Board about allocating some of the site to two below-market-rate buildings. These buildings would be separate from the luxury, residential high-rises that will be built on the rest of the site.
It remains uncertain exactly how many buildings will be erected at the site as they’re still in the design phase.
“The site is big enough, even for us,” said Barnett.
As part of the ongoing conversations about the development, Barnett said he wants to hear about the type of affordable housing that would be best for the neighborhood – such as units designed for seniors or families. The affordable buildings would be operated by a nonprofit, yet to be named.
“I think there’s enough on the table, voluntarily, to get a lot of good done here,” said Barnett.
Until last night, progress in the negotiations about the site had been limited. Beverly Donohue, CB7’s chair, said that part of the challenge of conversations to date has been bringing together the four parties – Extell, the Department of City Planning, Councilmember Gale Brewer, and CB7 – all of whom were in attendance. The tone of the meeting became increasingly collegial and enthusiastic as it became clear that affordable housing had a real chance of being built on the site.
The CB7 committee helped to spur the conversation by passing a resolution last month calling for a change in zoning that would allow for larger buildings and require affordable housing.
Barnett’s preference to negotiate an agreement about affordable housing appears to be partly driven by his experience with 50 West 66th Street, the 775-foot-tall luxury residential skyscraper across the street from the ABC site. In his remarks, he mentioned the lawsuit brought by Landmark West!, the historic preservation group, against the tower. Extell eventually won the right to continue with the building, but it “cost us tens of millions of dollars that could have been better spent on something else,” he said.
The negotiation about the type of affordable housing and how much of it is built on the site will be led by Brewer, who has a longstanding relationship with Barnett regarding past developments. Brewer said that affordable units for seniors and families are needed, particularly to support schools in the area.
While the commitment to affordable housing is not a done deal, it appears to be a likely outcome. “What am I getting out of it, really? It’s just peace. I’m not interested in a fight,” said Barnett. He added that he would pursue subsidies available for the affordable buildings.
Barnett, who grew up on the Lower East Side, pushed back against the idea that he was against affordable housing. “We were poor. My father was a teacher. My mother was a teacher,” he said. “They struggled to put food on the table for many years, and I haven’t forgotten my roots.”
A video recording of the full meeting can be found – HERE.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
He’s happy to for a variance to build another supertall and/or tax breaks.
Just let the guy build and stop this “affordable housing” game.
So what is your idea if affordable. Like if a
nurse teacher etc make 65K snd your
affordable is 2000. per month that not
exactly makes it. And by the way since ur
gonna cram as many people as possible in
those bldg you should widen the sidewalks
in our neighborhood as well while you are
destroying our community with too many
people. there ought to be a law!!!!!
Where in the world do you come off thinking affordable housing is a game??? Why don’t you go back to the suburbs! Geez! Affordable Housing is Very Much Needed. Now and for decades past. But Especially Now!
It’s not a game. We have a glut of luxury housing and no place for working folk to live. Check the real estate prices.
This is known as the free market.
Yikes
Winner winner chicken dinner.
Sounds like they want to build several super talls on that sight. Was thinking 2 now I think 4.
Any housing is better than no housing and no housing is usually what this whole “we demand affordable housing” nonsense leads to. But if he’s willing to go along with it, good for him.
Can someone define exactly what “affordable housing” means on the Upper West Side in 2025?
It means that YOU are paying for it. As always.
Read the story: 100 apartments in 100,000 sq.ft. That’s an average of 1,000 sq ft. per. That’s pretty small.
Not for NYC apts it isn’t small!
Not small by Manhattan standards.
Probably slightly larger than the average apartment but not at all a mansion for the billionaire class. Real NYC residents will live here.
Not really.
Affordable housing on the UWS, from what I have seen normally, means the apartments are open for families making at least $100,00, which could mean two people earning 50K.
But it means that it is housing for people who could afford Inwood at market rate.
It is not for people who are poor, which is what affordable would indicate.
Still,this is better thannothng
Not
Maybe the term “affordable housing” is the problem and why we run in circles? It used to be called “low income housing” but this was changed to a phrase that felt more positive. Maybe not every neighborhood will be “affordable” to everyone based on their economic situation and how they prioritize spending money? Maybe if we were just honest about what problem we are trying to address, which I believe is local housing for people who make xx, and called it the appropriate name, we could solve this chronic issue? I do believe that neighborhood should be mixed especially as it relates to housing for local workers, but your definition of affordable and my definition of affordable may be very different. The way it is now, nobody is ever happy or satisfied. So let’s define what the goal is and work towards achieving that!
That’s not correct. Affordable housing is housing for working and middle class people in jobs ranging from cab driver though nurse and teacher. The people necessary for the city to run.
Low income is not a good description when six figures isn’t enough to afford the city without housing that can’t be built without assistance.
It means higher rents for everyone else. ‘Nothing’ would be better. If they can afford Inwood, that’s where they should live.
It’s paid for through tax breaks, mortgage subsidies, zoning variances allowing for additional units on a given plot of land.
It’s not subsidized by the market rate units.
Ok Mr Rockefeller…🤡
“He added that he would pursue subsidies available for the affordable buildings”.
Barnett is not proposing these “affordable” units out of altruism, nor is he proposing these units because he’s “not interested in a fight”.
Barnett will likely receive massive 421-A tax breaks for these so-called affordable units. This is tax revenue the city desperately needs.
Giving billionaire developers huge tax breaks to build a tiny handful of “affordable” housing is not going to solve our housing problems. This is a wasteful and inefficient policy which actually exacerbates the problem.
Another brilliant policy move by Gale Brewer.
Why should a private developer build lower cost units out of altruism? If this is the responsibility of govt then the govt should provide it. Should private restaurants provide Lower cost food to patrons who can’t pay market rates? Should Bergdorf sell items at a loss? Of course the developer should get some sort of financial incentive. Blame the elected who signs off on it. Do they really “want” to solve the low income housing shortage? Plenty of market rates units are being built in all neighborhoods. Imagine if electeds couldn’t campaign on “affordable housing?”
Oh, yes: by all means remove altruism. The Bottom Line should rule everything! That’s why we are walking over bodies in the streets, the parks, the trains, tunnels . . .
Need I go on?
This species is doomed with this thinking.
You’re very charitable….. with other peoples’ money.
Im not sure its the private developers job to be altruistic. We elect govt officials and provide them with budget to plan our cities for the benefit of all. They choose to outsource construction to the private sector. Great. Then they are not the victims for what gets built. Put your anger towards the right place. The private sector developer builds what he gets paid to build. Shame on the electeds. They sign off on the plans and give the approval to move forward. They control the purse strings. We are dooned because they keep getting reelected. Maybe why we are doomed?
And based on past experience with Extell, the units he builds for the “affordable housing” section are low-quality and quite separate from the regular apartments. I’m all for affordable housing. But he needs to build more than 100 units. And they need to be very similar to the market rate housing he’s building. He should not be building units that remind people, every day, that they’re poorer than the other residents. He should also be required to allow the affordable housing residents to use the amenities in the building.
I can’t believe all this whining in the comments. Who are these people?
Real Estate in NYC, especially, Manhattan has been expensive for years and years and years.
People are not reminded that they are poorer than other residents. If they can’t handle that, they shouldn’t be looking at housing in NYC especially Manhattan.
Extell specializes in luxury developments. Why should someone be provided with a dirt cheap apartment in a luxury building with all the upscale amenities?
How will this solve our housing problems?
People who have more money, can pay for nicer things. I worked my butt off and I have nice stuff, to see lazy inefficient people get the same rewards as someone who earns them demotivates people, this is why Communism doesn’t work.
Ditto.
Why? Why would a cheaper unit remind one that they’re poorer than other people anymore than the amount they pay would?
I have friends infinitely more affluent than me. It does not bother me one bit when I go to their house. They did something smarter than me, worked that much harder, or had the right amount of luck at the right time.
Not only would these residents be living in a place they can’t otherwise afford – but you have “demands” now? “Quite separate”? How’s Kansas for separate, otherwise?
Enough with the silly virtue signaling. This is a policy approach to housing, one that we pay for quite heavily with the tax abatements this costs the City, not some schtick to make insecure people feel better about themselves.
What you say means that people can’t claim
victim status. Our progressive party thrives on reinforcing victimhood. That the economy is inherently unjust and discriminatory. Making a person responsible for what they have, how they choose to spend their money, where, how, and if they work, as well as a desire to improve, is called self reliance. Large govt hates self reliance because f its electorate.
That is how I feel every day.
“They did something smarter than me, worked that much harder, or had the right amount of luck at the right time.”
Agree with your sentiment.
Think some of these buildings will include a “poor door” entrance?
If the affordable units are in the same building as luxury units they’d likely have to. Once an affordable unit has a service it cannot be taken away. So if the luxury units have doormen and a concierge and at some point in the future that is too expensive and they want to replace them with robots they won’t be able to. The affordable units would say “no, we had humans and we want to continue to have humans” and that would be that. The way to avoid this is to not give the affordable units a doorman.
These buildings would be separated from his other buildings. Can’t have the “common folk” mingling with the big shots. Every door would be a “poor door.”
EGG-ZACT-LEE my expectation/fear…as well.
Don’t believe him. His company has a history of buying rent controlled/rent stabilized apartment buildings in the area and immediately attempting to evict those “affordable” tenants. He’s not going to be doing anything charitable for anyone but himself. Their new tower across the street from ABC is a monstrosity that he used legal loopholes- that were now supposed to be plugged – to reach record-setting heights. This is now his attempt to appease and hoodwink those deal makers and a small faction of potential tenants in order to raise the size limit on many more buildings at the site.
He’s willing! Oh, isn’t that nice. Developers who plunge our neighborhoods in darkness are so kind aren’t they!
Hmnn.. Grew up a couple of blocks away and have strong feelings involved, both about the Upper West Side, and what’s become of the city in general, particularly in Manhattan. I don’t trust anyone named in this piece. There is an extremely unholy alliance between both the for profit, the supposedly not for profit “affordable” housing movement, campaign and other less publicized contributions made to Democratic elected officials. It’s way ugly and corrupt. FYI, I am a staunch Democrat. Don’t trust any of it.
These mega-builders have destroyed the diversity of our city; their cheaply constructed megaliths block our air and sun; they overburden our sanitation, energy grid, and other public services. Many serve as tax dodges for the rich.
We need to go after our elected officials who profit from uncontrollable Real Estate development, starting with our mayor and right down to our Council Members.
No one buys a Manhattan apartment to “dodge taxes”!
You strike me as a glass is half empty type.
Affordable housing for household income of $153,000 😉
I trust Gary Barnett abut as much as I trust a rabbit with a piece of lettuce. Don’t believe a word he says unless it is in very detailed writing. And don’t believe him when he says he “doesn’t want a fight”; Barnett LOVES a good fight.
I’m glad to hear that he and Extell MAY be willing create as any as 100 affordable housing units. (And what, exactly, does “affordable” mean here? Affordable only to those earning $100,000 or more, or people of lower means who truly NEED housing?
We need to hear A LOT more from Barnett and Extell – including things in writing – before we once again simply hand him the keys to the kingdom. We’ve been screwed at LEAST twice by them (at 99th/Broadway, and at 66th/CPW), so don’t think for a moment they won’t screw us again.
Extell continues to go into nice neighborhoods and put up their glass dildo looking buildings that are only investment vehicles for the super wealthy. Nobody lives in these buildings and therefor they do not contribute to the small business that make the area great. They only increase the $/sqft averages in the neighborhood, pricing regular people out.