By Scott Etkin
With New York City desperate for more housing, plans are in the works to bring as many as 850 apartments, including affordable units, to the Upper West Side in an unlikely place: the site of an existing branch of the New York Public Library (NYPL).
The redevelopment project would begin with demolishing the current Bloomingdale Library building at 150 West 100th Street. The building has served as a branch of the NYPL since 1960. In its place, the city is proposing to build a new library and health services facility, with housing, including affordable units, stacked on top.
The project is in its early phases, meaning that it’s too early to tell exactly how big the building would be, how many affordable units it would have, and how much its units would cost.
“The City is aiming for the project to deliver approximately 850 residential units, including permanently affordable homes,” a representative from the New York City Economic Development Corporation (EDC), the organization leading the redevelopment, wrote in response to questions from the Rag. A press release from Mayor Eric Adams’s State of the City address referred to the project as “the largest co-located library project in New York City history, bringing over 800 units of mixed-income housing.”
The project stems from the mayor’s executive order for all NYC government agencies to identify potential opportunities to build housing on their sites. The site of the Bloomingdale Library “was identified as having high potential,” the EDC spokesperson wrote.
So far, two other redevelopments that combine libraries and affordable housing have been completed in other parts of the city. Last year, a mixed-use library, school, and affordable housing building opened in Inwood with 174 affordable units. In 2022, a building housing a library with 50 affordable units opened in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.
The Bloomingdale project is years away from becoming a reality; the EDC’s timeline estimates that construction won’t start until 2028 and finish in 2031.
And before then, the project will be subject to a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) review, the city’s public process for evaluating major land use changes. The city expects to begin that process, along with an environmental review, after selecting a developer, a decision currently projected for 2027. A typical ULURP process takes seven months to a year, depending on the project.
For now, a survey to gather the community’s feedback about what they would like to see in the project is available at the following links in English and Spanish.
“This is exactly the kind of project that the city has a history of executing well, and if we do this right, we’ll end up with a beautiful new library, a healthcare facility, and truly affordable housing,” said Shaun Abreu, District 7’s city councilmember. “Getting input from the community early will be key to making this project a success.”
The new building would house “a new state-of-the-art library,” according to the EDC, which is partnering with the NYPL on the project.
The current library is expected to remain open until construction begins, at which point the branch will shift to a temporary site (the site hasn’t been determined yet), and remain there throughout the duration of the construction.
“The Library, in partnership with the city and the developer, will work to find an appropriate site in the neighborhood where we can offer key services,” a NYPL spokesperson wrote to the Rag. “Services will be supplemented by neighborhood bookmobile stops and partnerships with local community organizations.”
The EDC is also working on the project with the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which currently uses 160 West 100th Street, located on the same site, for a food safety protection training course to certify food service employees. The facility also houses administrative space for the department’s Family and Child Health programs, according to the EDC’s website.
Bloomingdale Library has a long history on the Upper West Side. The original Bloomingdale branch opened in 1896 at 206 West 100th Street as part of the New York Free Circulating Library system. Five years later, it became part of the NYPL system. That building still stands and is landmarked, but the library moved to its current facility in 1960. The building was renovated in 2021 to improve its infrastructure and accessibility, as well as add other amenities.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
wait, this library was renovated three years ago for several million dollars – and THAT’s the one they want to tear down? Why not take over the extremely unused parking lot to its west and build there?
sigh, this block has had construction forever. also, how tall a building are they talking, for 800 units?
Lipstick on a pig. Very expensive lipstick.
I thought so…thanks for reminding me
They should renovate the police and fire station across the street and put housing on top of those.
Yup – amazing. Just spent a lot to renovate it and then tear it down. Should have planned ahead a bit better. But what’s a few million between friends!
That’s private property they’d have to pay millions for, if the owner was willing to sell. The library is already owned by the city.
Sounds like a great plan, a real obvious place to add more much needed housing. What’s crazy is that it will take 3 years (?!?) to even start construction.
You have to design it first.
The Inwood library is an attractive design that provided a lot of affordable housing (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/21/arts/design/inwood-library-affordable-housing.html). While the devil is in the details, this seems like it could be a good idea and a more effective use for the space than the current lowrise setup. (I assume they will be keeping the public health facilities there, though–I got COVID tests in that building back in the day when you needed them for international travel.)
And once again, the question must be asked: what is being considered :”affordable?” Because the phrase “affordable housing” has become at best a misnomer, and at worst utterly useless .
“Affordable for the uber-rich!! ” This isn’t my New York any longer. So many scams that only benefit the few crooks who are already in place and hooked up. SAD.
OUTRAGEOUS.
There are often market rate apartments included to make affordable housing units possible. There are newer buildings on the west side and elsewhere that work that way.
“Affordable” means “subsidized”. The housing may not be “affordable” to the lowest-income people, because new things usually cost more than old things. Still, adding more housing is shown to increase area affordability regardless of the cost of the new housing by decreasing the power of landlords over a scarce resource.
Agreed. We need to tie truly affordable housing with specific essential low paid professions, such as health care aides and caregivers. Let’s reward those low-income folks who are working jobs we must have close by.
Add librarians to those low-paid professions.
Every profession is essential when there’s a child waiting to be fed by it. What services you must have at hand is your own problem, which doesn’t rise above those of others.
The government is a horrible allocator of capital. They just spent millions to renovate that very site.
So replace a library with a housing project. Great idea. Let’s do that all over the five boroughs. That’ll show those out-of-touch intellectual elites whose city this really is.
The article clearly stated a new library will be housed inside the complex, but low buildings that have no historic value in this apartment-strapped town do waste valuable air space. And it’s not like there aren’t plenty of libraries in New York. And with plunking down more people also comes the need for more commercial space for food and other products and services that the building complex might include as well.
I believe in each case the library remains as part of the complex. This appears to be a very good idea which worked out well in the two other similar projects the city undertook, which are mentioned in the article.
Please see https://www.westsiderag.com/2025/07/30/city-proposal-would-replace-an-uws-library-building-and-add-housing-with-affordable-units .
It’s not being replaced. The new building will house the library and housing.
This has been done successfully elsewhere in the city.
Why not just make it a NYCHA housing project and be done with it?
Why? Are you aware of the fact that NYCHA hasn’t built new housing in about 60 years?
Good point.
The community feedback form is a joke.
It presumes that tearing down our beloved library is a given.
As usual, the city presumes that ‘everybody’ wants something that few want, and goes ahead and railroads it into existence at the expense of the community.
You think “few people” want affordable housing? If you believe that, you are out of touch.
What I read is that this library was just renovated. Hmmm.
The new development would include a library.
Hold up, we already have projects to the west, east, and north of this location. This is too much.
Bloomingdale was just renovated at a cost of $3 million so it makes total sense to tear it down now. It only reopened in July 2022. What a waste.
That’s how the city operates. No surprise here. No planning a few steps/ years ahead. The local taxes will be never high enough to cover mismanagement. Until someone with business expertise runs it, NYC will never have enough funds for housing, for clean and safe streets and transportation.
We all know how this will end up! As Susan Powter used to say, “Stop the Insanity!”
Great idea for the spot! It’ll take too long to build it as always, but I love being near a library and can’t wait to apply for one of the affordable units. Having a world of books in my literal building is a dream.
Should have been done a long time ago. It makes so much sense for people to be able to take an elevator into a library or health Center.
You can have a literal world of books on your literal iPad.
A proposed cash grab by developers always looking for the next plot to make them richer. This wouldn’t do anything for the community. The building would be an eyesore, and the affordable units would be the most abysmal apartments that would require the most tedious applications imaginable. The library was just renovated a few years back! Why not focus on developing along the rail lines in New Jersey and Long Island instead! There’s plenty of vacant parking lots out that way.
How could you possibly know the “building would be an eyesore?” Are you having visions? Can you tell me the winning Powerball numbers. If you can, I promise to look for a plot of land in New Jersey.
The NYC government doesn’t own land in NJ or LI so they cannot do that
This a great idea to replace these shorter library buildings with new libraries and housing on top. They did this in Inwood and it looks great.
Better Idea: Place “affordable housing” for “low-income applicants” atop police stations, health clinics, schools, churches, and city-run grocery stores.
Annoying that they didn’t think of this before spending money to renovate, but seems like an excellent plan to add more housing. I hope they expand the size of the library—maybe they can include space for a new childcare 3k/4k program as well.
Affordable for whom? Local teachers, firefighters or whomever just doesn’t make enough money to live in the city? If the latter, why? For the latter we already have NYCHA. For the former we have nothing, they never qualify for anything.
WSR, please clarify where affordable means when you publish an article. It is very ambiguous and completely lacks transparency.
“Affordable” means someone else is paying for it. Taxpayers. You.
These projects generally include at least some percentage set aside for city employees, and have for years. This information is publicly available.
For the rest, the income ranges for these projects generally go well beyond NYCHA limits.
It’s one thing to ask a question, it’s another thing to start complaining about something you assume is true without bothering to find out.
Juust tear down the Metro Theater.
What an eyesore.
Problem solved.
Everything is an eyesore if you don’t have any vision.
Low-rise libraries, parks, playgrounds, police stations, firehouses, schools, churches, and vacant lots, are not merely obstacles for developers and politicians to overcome, like some nuisance of terrain. They provide a reprieve from the blight of overdevelopment and density that does violence to the quiet, taxing the mind, sidewalks, subways, and glimpses of sky.
These, too, have currency, which is always lost on politicians, developers, and the monolithic-minded.
What happened to the idea of building on the parking lots in NYCHA developments? It’s ridiculous that NYCHA buildings have resident parking: a lot of the cars look like they are never even moved.
Correct. And many of them look very expensive for people in heavily subsidized housing. If you can afford a Lexus, you should be paying full rent elsewhere and free up the space for someone who truly needs it.
That being said, I’m not sure why someone who can afford a Lexus would voluntarily live in NYCHA. But still, they should do a much better job policing that. As well as relocating people who are underutilizing large apartments. I’m glad it is where you raised your kids. But your kids are out of the house so time to move on. Rich people do the same thing.
Employees and NyCha contractors and others also use the parking lots. You have no idea who owns this Lexus that has you so troubled. If it ever existed.
So with this there would be no library access from 82nd to 112th for an estimated five years?! That’s insane! It would be so hard for people with disabilities and people with little kids to get to a library, then. And as others mentioned, this library was just renovated. I’m SO disappointed to hear this news and hope there’s a way to stop it.
Also, it’s “mixed-income” housing, so how much would actually be “affordable” and how long would it stay affordable? I feel like this label is always very misleading. Sounds nice on the surface, but often doesn’t benefit the community in the way it seems.
The children for whom this library was renovated, many of whom live in NYCHA housing, will be grown by the time the proposed project is completed. There was no “temporary library” the last two times the Bloomingdale branch was closed. So wonderful now that it has been been reopened. As I librarian, I have to laugh at the notion of a temporary library. This would be a place to order and return items, not a place for caregivers to bring toddlers, seniors to read newspapers, residents to do research or see films, and teenagers to have their own space in which to do their library thing. I am not a NIMBY: there are three new supportive housing projects in my two-block Manhattan Valley neighborhood, and I applaud them. But 100th Street east of Broadway is not a wealthy neighborhood and the residents deserve better.
“The current library is expected to remain open until construction begins, at which point the branch will shift to a temporary site (the site hasn’t been determined yet), and remain there throughout the duration of the construction.”
Whew, from these comments it’s clear we need a few MORE libraries on the UWS! So many adults who can’t even read a simple blog post with comprehension!
You always seem to be 100% in agreement with what the State wants.
Sarah is not stating an opinion, merely pointing out the original commenter did not read carefully before posting. Many such cases…
The article states: “The current library is expected to remain open until construction begins, at which point the branch will shift to a temporary site (the site hasn’t been determined yet), and remain there throughout the duration of the construction.”
Instead of demolish the library, address the issue why tens of thousands of rent stabilized apartments are vacant. Landlords claim that it is uneconomical to renovate them under current laws. Surely it is cheaper to renovate these apartments, rather than build new ones and demolish a library?
This constant obsession with “Affordable Housing” is killing the middle class. Subsidizing rents distorts the market, and does not solve for the expensive COL – groceries, transportation, utilities and other needs. No one is entitled to live in a place they evidently can’t afford.
Lose a newly renovated library, but keep the parking lot. And how tall would the proposed building be? Another one to block out the sky for everyone?
Right? And won’t this new super-tall affordable housing luxury building cast shadows onto Central Park?
We need to stop using the “permanently affordable” moniker in place of “permanently subsidized”. The cost isn’t just the $3M just spent renovating this library or the cost of construction, but the ongoing city budget expenditures required to operate this housing.
How about using the police dept. property across the street? I’m sure they are due for a renovation, unlike the library, which was just nicely redone.
You got that right!! The 1960s stationhouses are the pits. The 24th and the 20th Precincts could really stand a facelift.
What a joke, how many of the 800 will be affordable? Don’t be fooled by the current administration causing for havoc here and in Brooklyn….
850 units is crazy. One problem with NYCHA is that each project is too big! Strain on infrastructure. and IF there. is any social disruption, a huge structure will only feed into it. Who is ultimately profiting from this and what campaign contributions have they made? As for a new library there, just look at the newish Donnell Library, which is a joke.
Be prepared for propaganda from EDC. When the Inwood project was first announced, it was originally thought to be much smaller since a white paper had identified that about 80 units of housing could be built on top of the new branch under existing zoning. But that was never offered to the neighborhood as an option and was hidden from all EDC presentations. A rezoning for a building twice as large, and much taller than anything in the area, was in the cards from the start. And because spot zonings are illegal, it had to be wrapped into a larger rezoning that upzoned the whole block. There was never any honest discussion about trade-offs, it was a joke of public engagement. Have fun, UWS!
After the years of recent renovation, they’re going to tear down the library and redo it? After all that work to just renovate? They did a nice job and it’s a shame that they spent all that money only to tear it down right after renovating it. This is why our city is out of money. It seems we’re not only a city that never sleeps but it’s a city that never thinks.
“…We’re not only a city that never sleeps but it’s a city that never thinks.” That is extremely well-said!
Here’s an idea. Replace the NYPL and DOH buildings and the NYPD and NYFD buildings across the street with two large mixed-use buildings to house all of the city services above. Add plenty of parking for all of those double and triple parked vehicles on 100th St and Amsterdam Ave. (including the wrecks).
The boomer-ish, out of date comments here about “housing projects” are own-goals of legendary proportions.
You’re saying the Amsterdam Houses and Frederick Douglass Houses are not housing projects??
Huh? Never said that, as you know. I’m criticizing the rabid speculation by some here that in 2025 and later, a “housing project” will go up on the site. Just showcasing their own ignorance.
Oh no! I am 53 years old and this was my childhood library. I looked forward to taking books out there as a child, and then when I had my own children, I brought them there. In fact, my oldest daughter met a childhood best friend while picking books in the children’s section. My younger daughter attended the book reading group as did so many neighborhood children. “This is exactly the kind of project that the city has a history of executing well, and if we do this right, we’ll end up with a beautiful new library, a healthcare facility, and truly affordable housing”—considering what the city has done to our city, I am very sad.
That’s where I got my first library card. Nostalgia.
Here’s a novel idea: Let’s have a discussion about using a building (not necessarily this one) for housing some of the UWS homeless who actually want some place to live other than an existing shelter. Please don’t pile on. I’m just flummoxed when it comes to housing versus libraries. We could use more of both.
How about NOT housing the homeless in one of the most expensive areas of the country? For the price of creating one unit for the homeless on UWS you can create 5 in the Bronx/Staten Island or 10 in upstate NY. If you want to help the homeless, you build more units in cheap areas rather than few in a very expensive area.
I smell a money grab by Extell.
Follow the money and you will have the truth!
This city and country are corrupt to the core.
Wake up my friends.
to whom in city government, one wonders, has extell contributed?
In each case the library remains as part of the community building. Wonderful planning and a great idea! Both housing and libraries are essential community elements!
This UWS area is already heavily densely populated. The Library should remain at a visual, human level with sunlight and easy access. The Bloomingdale library has been renovated in recent years and should remain as is. Support for the N Y Public Library and the Bloomingdale branch has been an active donor contribution but I will rethink support if a demolished-temporary Bloomingdale high-rise attempt succeeds.
I wonder where the alternative site for the Bloomingdale Library would be while the construction is going on if the project goes through.
Idiotic, greed-fueled proposal. NO, NO, NO.
I see that someone has appropriated my account. I will delete it & start over — you bastard.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs including the Public Housing, Section 8 project-based, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 202 housing for the elderly, and Section 811 housing for persons with disabilities programs. HUD develops income limits based on Median Family Income estimates and Fair Market Rent area definitions for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county.
Using adjusted mean income, or AMI, for example, an “affordable” unit in a privately developed multifamily project would be considered 80% or lower than median area income. Developers receive low income housing tax credits, or LIHTC, funding as part of their capital stack to develop projects that either contain 100% affordable or a mix of market rate and affordable housing. LIHTC funding is federal funding appropriated by HUD and distributed to states, which have Qualified Action Plans or QAP that spell out the requirements for developers in state to obtain the LIHTC funding.
Since the library is city property, it may be financed in part by the Office of Housing, Preservation and Development, or HPD. In that event, it will be required to certify to Enterprise Green Communities, a green building certification program required by NYC for this type of project, which will result in a healthy, energy efficient building. An additional requirement is that the certification will entail a climate risk analysis for heat, precipitation. and sea level rise and the design will accommodate for any level of risk in these 3 areas for the useful life of the project. If the project is new construction, it will be state of the art; all electric, solar PV, and high performance heat pumps. It will come out of the gate meeting LL97.
EGC defines “affordable” as projects serving residents at or below 60 % AMI for rental buildings and at or below 80% AMI for for-sale buildings. HPD defines 60% AMI as a range of $68,000 – $128,340 for families of 1 up to 8 members.
While they’re at it the EDC should redo the police station and the fire department because those buildings are as out of context as the library and health Center.
Additionally the police station and fire department need under ground parking for vehicles owned by police officers and fire department staff and vehicles involved in collisions. The street then could be narrowed to two lanes rather than three or four or five it is now.
The northern sidewalk would be usable and the southern sidewalk would be reachable without having to wade through two rows of headin parked vehicles. And there would be less trash.
There might even be space to build a new Jewish Home as had originally been planned because the street is so wide and really good at handling ambulances.