By Gus Saltonstall
In August, West Side Rag reported that a Brooklyn-based real estate firm bought the building housing Gristedes at 500-504 Columbus Avenue, between West 84th and 85th streets. At the time, it was unclear what the developer planned to do with the property.
We got an answer last week at an Upper West Side Community Board 7 Preservation Committee meeting.
A new residential building.
Terra Developers is proposing a 13-story building with 19-family-sized units that would range from three to five bedrooms at 500 Columbus Avenue. The developer would also restore the two 130-year-old buildings that are currently at the address.
Here is what the two buildings look like now.
While Gristedes takes up the entire ground-floor commercial space at the two addresses, there are actually two separate residential buildings above the grocer at 500-504 Columbus Avenue. The building closer to the West 84th Street corner is five stories, while the building to its north is three stories after being cut down and converted to a movie theater in the 1930s.
Importantly, all of the residential units at both of these buildings have been empty since at least the 1990s, according to the developer.
The full scope of the proposed work would be to add a floor to the building closer to 84th Street, add two floors to the three-story building to its north, and then erect the new building on top of the more northern building at the 500-504 Columbus Avenue site that would be set back from the avenue as it went up.
The final product of the new proposed building would be one property with the two original buildings forming the base of the address.
On the topic of Gristedes, what would happen to the popular grocery store if the construction project was approved?
A representative from the project’s architecture firm told the Preservation Committee that negotiations are ongoing to have the supermarket temporarily relocate during the construction period, and then return when the work is done. However, the negotiations are still in the early stages, and the timeline of the entire project remains unclear as approvals for the work remain pending.
Terra Developers had to present its plans for the new building to Manhattan Community Board 7 because 500-504 Columbus Avenue is part of the Upper West Side Historic District, which means the developer will have to get approval from the New York City Landmarks and Preservation Commission.
A group of Upper West Side community members, many of whom live in 102 West 85th Street, which is a 12-story building that sits directly behind the proposed building, spoke in opposition to the project during the public testimony period at the CB7 Preservation Committee meeting on October 8.
“We’re all in a state of shock. The developer went at length to make it very sound and beautiful from the street, nobody is against the facades getting renovated,” one Upper West Sider said, who also mentioned their lines of sight would be blocked, during the meeting. “It was a building falling apart. The problem is that this is all at the expense of 102 West 85th Street.”
Multiple residents of 102 West 85th Street, along with other nearby residents to where the new building would go, articulated their worry about the different type of precedents this project might set.
“This is going to start a very dangerous precedent for the Upper West Side Historic District,” a local said. “If we allow this sort of creep to happen on the avenues that are established. This may open some floodgates. The entire neighborhood is at risk because people want to build higher and make a lot of money selling very expensive units that most New Yorkers cannot afford.”
Another member of the public said, “It’s a bad precedent if developers are allowed to tack onto historic buildings.”
In the end, the Community Board 7 Preservation Committee voted in support of the project, which will now go to a vote at the full board meeting on November 4. That vote will then be sent to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to advise its decision.
“We are only here to consider the appropriateness of the design of the project and how it relates to the Historic District,” one committee member said while explaining his decision to vote yes on the project. “All of your legitimate and unfortunate concerns, I’m sure we all sympathize with, but we can’t even opine on those concerns in our role as advisors to the Landmarks Commission.”
“As far as the design and appropriateness of this building, I will vote to approve it. I think it is appropriate within the district,” the committee member added.
You can watch the full presentation for yourself below. It begins around the 1-hour, 18-minute mark.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Love this! Nice to see more family sized units being built. I hope that the Gristedes is replaced with a proper grocery store.
How exactly is this project at the expense of the neighbors at 102 West 85th Street? Construction noise? Sorry we all have to deal with occasional construction noise, otherwise nothing in NYC would ever be fixed or improved
It is not simply construction noise. The building as it is now planned will block the entire southern façade of 102 West 85th Street, making all of our apartments much darker than they are now and most likely diminishing their property values.
Welcome to New York! Nothing stays the same. You should’ve known that unless you’re buying with a view of the park, your view is going to change.
Family-sized doesn’t necessarily mean affordable. They may be family-sized for millionaires, but they are almost certainly NOT family-sized for the working or middle classes.
True, I never said these would be “affordable” (new buildings seldom are) but more supply is good especially more 3+ bedroom apartments that are great for families
You are not getting families in large numbers. A real solution is legislation banning people using guarantors or cosigners to rent apartments out in the most in demand and “hottest” neighborhoods. Another is taking a page from Long Beach in Nassau County and enacting a “groupie law” which prohibits landlords from renting to more than two unrelated occupants. In fact, Long Beach is the one place on Long Island that has the highest concentration of higher earning young professionals and the most dense housing stock in Nassau County and it may put a curb on the worst excesses of housing issues here. This does not have to be citywide, but can be something that applies to Manhattan specifically. This would also structurally force people who want to move here to move to different parts of our region and not insist on a curated version of NYC and be willing to pay top dollar for it. As it stands now we are in a rat race.
“The Gristedes is replaced with a proper grocery store”. So you don’t want businesses on the UWS where the business owner disagrees with you politically?
Eugene, I know you don’t live here but those of us that do are aware that Gristedes prices are outrageous, it is one of the worst grocery stores in the city.
What makes you assume I have never stepped foot inside a Gristedes? The biggest problem with urbanists is they want everyone to belong in a box. You urbanists also don’t mind paying outrageous prices or forcing others to when it benefits you politically or something that aligns with your political or cultural values. Just like urbanists boycott businesses that disagree with them politically elsewhere, I think you have a dislike of John Catsimatidis that really driving your dislike here!
Maybe you enjoy paying triple for household staples, but its not for me.
Long before I had even heard of Catsimatidis, I was wondering how Gristedes managed to be so poorly run and expensive and still remain in business.
When you mock people over where they live and impliedly see those who don’t see the world the way you do or share the same culture as you as beneath you, this is what you get. You reap what you sow,
UWS Dad,
Looks like the new building won’t be affordable?
New housing is very expensive to build (land, materials, construction, financing etc) so unfortunately I doubt I will be able to afford one of these new units, but the developer is betting there are 19 families who can! That’s 19 families who aren’t out there trying to rent/buy existing units.
Agree 100%!
I agree. I assume the people at 102 W85 are upset about their views changing. Now they will look straight at the new building instead of a mostly open south view. [This is just a guess though!]
A view is a nice thing to have. But this building doesn’t only block a view, it cuts out all the light from our south-facing windows. As it stands, I will no longer be able to see the sky, clouds or sun–just the back wall of the building.
Won’t someone please think about this lady and her view? Yes, we have a huge housing crisis in this city, especially for families–but this lady needs a view! It was deeded to her when her great-grandfather rented the apartment for $15 a month in 1907
Sadly, “light and air” (which includes views) are NOT guaranteed when one rents or buys an apartment. The city landscape is ever-changing, and development can occur on any available lot. So anyone who rents or buys an apartment based on a view is always taking a chance that that view will disappear at some point.
The desire for natural light is huge among Upper West Siders, the urbanists don’t get it.
This Upper West Side “Uurbanist” GETS it….And E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E…desires natural light.
It’s great to have a view of the sky above the buildings surrounding you/ the light! the blue sky .. Brilliant !
Seems reasonable. No surprise someone on the UWS is opposed though.
If it really fair to call Gristedes popular? It’s more like you shop there because you have no choice.
There’s Fairway, there’s Pioneer and there are the farmers markets too.
All close by and easily assessable!! Love live the Upper West Side!
Yes, “popular” is the absolutely wrong word to describe this overpriced monstrosity. It’s laughable what they charge for regular items that can be had for dollars – not pennies – less at Key Food, a few minutes away. I have to be desperate beyond measure to go into Gristede’s, aside from the fact that the owner is a big time Trumpian.
“Familiar” would be a better term for Gristedes.
Good catch! Editor, this must be a typo, I think the ‘un’ was mistakenly left off
Gristedes’s slogan: “Say, where’d you get that wet sandwich?”
Gristedes is old school market with mostly packaged processed food – these were popular before Trader Joes, Morton W, Whole Foods changed the Supermarket game for the bettter and Gristedes barely made any effort to improve. Would be nice if they got a nicer market to match the new building.
The pro gentrification types want a curated experience to match the kind of cultural fit they want on the UWS and can’t stand John Catsimatidis because of his politics.
Would you shop there just because you love Catsimatidis? That’s weird.
This is where the landlord held apartments vacant for years?
And the new building will be “luxury” – not affordable?
it’s totally fine to have new units come in at the high end of the market. do you not understand how that’s much, much better than the derelict wrecks there now?
That is a sad fact of real estate these days. There are ~60,000 apartments (mostly rent-stabilized) sitting vacant because landlords refuse to put them back on the market unless they can charge “free market” rates.
Not true.
Most are off the market because the landlord is looking to vacate the building for sale to a deep pocketed developer who can build luxury.
Which is exactly what happened here, and in the several buildings that were taken down to build The Henry on 84 & Broadway, and the luxury building going up on Amsterdam at 88th.
The test is how many were off the market before the 2019 law killed deregulation and large “major capital improvement” rent hikes.
That number was already over 40,000.
The incremental increase on account of the new law is 15,000. Use of the higher number is industry propaganda.
I think some of it is also that it is incredibly expensive to renovate the apartments, and the amount you can increase the rent is not enough to offset the cost.
That’s not true most of the time. The rent laws prevent them from charging enough rent to cover required repairs and renovations, so instead of losing money they just keep them vacant.
Have you thought why nobody is trying to buy them and rent them out? It is just not economic to renovate them (which you are required by law) and then rent them out at a “rent-stabilized/control” price. You are welcome though to use your savings to buy those apartments and rent them out at a “fair” price. Why don’t you do that rather than complain?
Hmmm, considering rent regulation has been around since the 40s, I wonder why the existing landlords bought them. Hmmmmm……!
You are correct that the rent control/stabilization laws have been around since the 40’s but it is the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 that impacted how much (and over what period of time) a landlord can pass on renovation costs.
I suspect that in the 40s it was a very different market. Over time, laws governing stabilized units have not kept up with market changes, and the whole thing is warped and out of whack. At one point, a lot of landlords offer “preferential rates,” meaning that they charged less than what stabilization laws said they had to charge because with a lot of turnover, a unit’s legal rate could exceed the market rate, meaning it would be near impossible to find someone who would pay above market rate for an apartment. Just one example (that may no longer be valid/true), but trying to stabilize rents and doing so poorly really leads to a mess. Theoretically, stabilization actually leads to higher rates for everyone except those in stabilized units. I would love it if there were a lot more housing available and if developers could provide it without fearing building something and fearing they’ll never get their investment back. The whole thing is a very complex problem and it will take a lot of thought and effort from all parties (government, developers, citizens) to improve things.
How do you know they were all bought within the last 40 years and not before the regulations were passed or inherited?
As investments? To do with exactly what they are currently doing?
Demolish and develop.
These apartments are not “mostly” rent stabilized. They are 100% rent stabilized. Rent stabilization acts as an incentive to keep these apartments empty.
Landlords are not running philanthropies. They have to do what’s in their best interest. Ultimately their actions are motivated by simple economics.
As for the building above the Gristede’s I see a run down, grimy and empty building that should have been torn down years ago. Let’s please stop this nonsense about how “historic” and “beautiful” it is.
I welcome a new building in the neighborhood.
“The entire neighborhood is at risk because people want to build higher and make a lot of money selling very expensive units that most New Yorkers cannot afford.”
What an opportunity for the local opposition to buy other buildings, build lower, and make less money selling cheap apartments that every New Yorker can afford. Please execute! Save the neighborhood from this risk!
It’s great to see someone making use of the space which was vacant for a long time. The comments from the neighbors are the typical NIMBY nonsense that adds to the difficulty of renovation or construction of units in Manhattan. People will resort to any argument to block development, including the all too prevalent appeals to the most NIMBY group of all, the “preservation commission”.
Sounds like another developer shill. That’s all YIMBY has been from its genesis in SF. Market Rate astroturf.
100% affordable or bust.
It is unfortunate residents of 102 W85th Street will lose their views, but it has been long established that no one in this town is guaranteed a view.
True. When I moved into my apartment many years ago I had an unimpeded view to the west, with glorious sunsets, Manhattanhenge, and the excitement of watching storm clouds rolling in from New Jersey. That view has been nibbled away at over the years, first by the red brick highrise at 79th and Columbus, most recently by the ugly blank back wall of the Apsley. That’s life in the city. I rationalize by thinking of my view as changed, not destroyed.
I’m sorry for the people at 102 West 85 who will face the planned topper above Gristede’s, but it seems like a good solution for an under-utilized and currently unattractive space.
No one is guaranteed a view but only god knows why UpperWesitsiders are guaranteed to being able to expressed their view point. That is even when they have no stake in the outcome. Of course they will try to convince you otherwise.
Some pros and cons:
The building has been empty for years. So good that they are doing something with it.
There will be a setback so it doesn’t block as much light.
People are constantly complaining about the need for new housing. This will create a lot of housing. I don’t care how expensive it is – housing is housing. If people are moving “up” to more expensive housing, there is a trickle down effect freeing up other housing.
The people in the adjacent building should have considered this when moving in – any smart New Yorker does their homework on whether a building can be constructed next to them, even if it doesn’t exist.
The increasing number of tall buildings, even those with set backs, will make the neighborhood darker.
Hopefully having a giant construction site across the street from the entrance to an elementary school will be managed well.
It is amazing that those apartments were empty for so long – it is very sad that this can happen.
Warehousing should be illegal and the ability of landlords to hold housing off market instead of comply with rent controls and rehab the unit is wild. The developer/owner here is a billionaire IDK how many times over
I’d like to see some of the units set aside as affordable housing for the underserved trans-community.
I’d like them to be set aside for our teachers and firefighters regardless of their trans status.
I would like to add to my post that including the quote “We’re all in a state of shock” in the title to this article is hyperbole. For a few people who are somewhat directly impacted this is kind of a big deal, but compared to a lot of the great reporting you do on much more important stories, this is fairly trivial. If this was the biggest problem Upper West-siders were facing, the world would be a pretty wonderful place.
The trickle-down effect is very funny! Some Presidents have claimed the same for many years & how has that been working out? Very funny.
I rarely notice the neighborhood getting darker by the few tall buildings going up. That’s always such a hoot hearing that arguement. Walk another half block and plenty of light will emerge.
I struggle to see how this building will improve affordability in the neighborhood. A better use of the space would be a 1,000 bed safe house for new residents facing the twin crises of lack of adequate shelter and fear of arrest by the renegade Trump ICE.
Mamdani cult talk.
I struggle to see why we should be investing tax dollars in building a “safe house” in one of the most expensive neighborhoods when there are far less expensive places within the city and just outside it to do so!
Here’s how it works: (1) Building renovates and sells expensive high end condo units (2) People move into those units from somewhere else, presumably less expensive/less desirable places (3) This frees up the real estate where they used to live (4) That real estate goes on the market. Add enough inventory to the market at any price point, and eventually that pushes prices down for everyone. (* as long as the new inventory isn’t sold exclusively to absentee owners.)
Trickle down housing is not really happening and not really working in NYC.
Absentee owners who push prices higher are good for the economy. Higher prices are an incentive for builders to build.. and to increase apt. availability.
Reaganomics doesn’t work, and it sure as hell doesn’t work for affordable housing
Your “presumably” is being crushed by the workload it is forced to do in that supposition.
Your model doesn’t seem to account for 30 years fallow.
I don’t know how it would work? Free housing while you await yoir asylum hearing, help finding new housing once the asylum is approved, a new lawyer or take them to the airport if their asylum case is denied?
A “safe house” across the street from an elementary school? Brilliant!
I hate ICE as much as the next guy but this is an awful idea. Rather than complaining how about making sure the Dems win big in the upcoming election.
How about : If you have a very limited income/ fergedabout having a large family!! or in fact, any family at all! This is New York for F.’s sake .. go out and have some fun!
Residential units in 10024 empty for 30 years.
I guess this isn’t going to be FAST TRACK AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
How about a decent grocery store that wouldn’t charge more than anyone else in the city
‘Trader Joes’!! Best prices/ great quality!!!
The headline – “above a grocer” misses the point entirely.
I have friends who live in a 2nd floor unit on West 85th Street. Their lot backs up against the huge, ridiculously expensive Naftali building on the NE corner of B’way and 84th Street. They were very fearful of the negative impact on their unit predicted by the construction of their new neighbor. However, they have discovered that since the Naftali building rose, and it was farther from the lot line than the old buildings which occupied the site, their apartment now gets much more light than previously, making it much sunnier. The verdict is still out on feared noise which might be generated by the pickleball court.
Is pickleball still a thing?
The people who need help with housing are working in private industry. They cannot compete with gov’t workers whose benefits dwarf what they are receiving These benefits are not i included when determining who is eligible for affordable housing.
As to the Gristedes deal it is just a start of negotiation. With higher interest rates and a left wing government the project may be abandoned.
This is terrific news. They may not include affordable housing but more supply in this tight market is great.
Yes, people will be inconvenienced. But we desperately need more housing. Every neighborhood, every block needs to do its share.
And it will also create a number of good construction jobs. And people to shop at stores in the neighborhood – everyone whines that there rare lots of empty stores – more people to shop will help stores to stay open.
We need all the housing we can get, of all kinds. I’m excited to see this being built!
Just what the UWS needs, more apartments for the super rich!!!
The super rich need somewhere to live, too.
No shortage of overpriced tall ugly condo towers on the UWS.
SO true!!
Yup! Hot diggity DOG/s! Be happy — we’ll have more dogs in the neighborhood — can never get enough of them.
Sad but true!! As a long time UWS’er .. What the hell happened to the UWS with all these massively urinating /and on LONG leaches .. animals FLODDING the neighborhood!!
And more children and more parents and more cats and more goldfish. How awful.
It seems odd that landmarking a district imposes huge limits on existing buildings to make even minor changes, but allow someone to slap a glass building on top of another.
Pretty sure landmarking generally only protects the facade, which is where the strict limits are imposed. Beyond that, developers buy air rights from surrounding buildings so they can add multiple stories above.
WOW .. And so many of these new apartments never get filled! If you live on the FAR West Side of New York in the 60’s the area is almost empty!! especially so during the winter months!!
Looks like a big improvement.
Just what we don’t need.
Do these new buildings have to be so tall? Blocking out sun and air? What about 10 stories max?
Ridiculous, this is New York City!!!! Go live in rural Nebraska if you can’t handle tall buildings.
And where are you from exactly? So funny – moved to UWS recently and telling other to move out.
UWS Dad,
Can’t speak for commenter “Caroll” , but IMO as a third generation Manhattanite – no, not ok to have super talls in residential neighborhoods .
Especially like new and in queue 60-70th Street.
Also do not understand all the transplants advising others to “move out”?
…and why can’t the same “preserve some, build some” be applied to the church on 86th and Amsterdam? Preserve the facade for its character and build above to accommodate the developers.
I think that may indeed destroy the appearance of this gorgeous building!! However.. do a lot of people go to ‘church’ any longer these days!?? I’d attended one of their Sunday ‘Christian’ services’ once and it was charming and ‘enlightening’ if you happed to believe in ‘The AFTER life’ . .. ?? Life has changed dramatically now!
Mr. Catsamitedis is already licking his chops over how much higher he can jack up the prices on his mediocre stock that nobody wants.
Garbage. Catsimatides warehoused that entire building for years, emptying out the apartments above the grocery for precisely this purpose. Demand 50% permanent affordable units or don’t approve.
WRONG, Catsimatides does not own the building! Only rents the supermarket from the owners of the building!
Cue the Leftists who will litigate and protest and keep dangerous sidewalk sheds erected and construction mess going for years until the building is built just as it was originally planned—but w/several years delay and untold neighborhood disruption.
Fraud and waste!?
My only opposition is that a 13 floor with only 19 units is absolutely crazy. My 6 floor building has 24 units.
More and more on the UWS we see developers buying up big lots and halving the housing stock and the wealthy buying up multifamily homes to convert to single family homes. It isn’t helpful to the rest of us if building new housing effectively cuts housing stock.
if i was in search of a nyc coop or condo and the broker found a place with a view in a landmark historic area of the upper west side and i was told that no one could build towers in front of my view … yes i would lose my sht !!!