By Gus Saltonstall
A new housing development for formerly homeless adults and low-income individuals is in the works at an Upper West Side address.
The Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation is beginning the process to transform the Saint Agnes Residence building at 237 West 74th Street, between West End Avenue and Broadway, into 50 new affordable and supportive homes, according to its presentation on February 18 to Community Board 7’s Housing and Preservation Committee.
A total of 60 percent of the units at the Upper West Side building will go to formerly homeless adults, and 40 percent of the units will go to low-income individuals.
The Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation, which already owns the property, will serve as both the owner and social service provider at the address. The organization’s mission is to create “affordable, permanent housing for older adults, homeless individuals, those with disabilities, and people facing housing insecurity,” and it owns and manages more than 1,200 homes in New York City and Rockland County.
The set-up of the new building will have 50 studio apartments that are around 350 square feet each for residents, a one-bedroom unit for a live-in super, shared bathrooms and kitchen space, and 1,300 square feet of common space on the ground floor and basement levels.
On-site supportive services will include case management officers, behavioral healthcare, life skills training, and benefits advocacy. There will also be 24-hour security at the building.
A representative from the Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation gave the Upper West Side committee members this timeline:
- Finalize agreement, design, permitting and apply for funding: October 2025-September 2026
- Secure financing and begin construction: October 2026-January 2027
- Continue construction: January 2027-April 2029
- Complete the project and fill the units: April 2029-January 2030
The 237 West 74th Street address is currently a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) and short-term rental building for working women. There are around 90 apartments in the property, but all of the leases are expected to be up in the coming months.
Multiple members of the CB7 committee brought up concerns about the current residents and whether every tenant would leave at the end of their lease.
“It sounds to me like you’re going to make people homeless, before you then provide housing for formerly homeless people,” one committee member said.
The representative from Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation responded, “Our intention is not to displace anyone. These are not rent stabilized buildings. The idea is to make them affordable housing, where they would then be rent stabilized. We’re not attempting to evict people or push them out, and if there are folks intending on staying longer than their lease, we would absolutely work with them to try to find an accommodation.”
In terms of how residents will be selected for the Upper West Side building, low-income units would be through the Housing Preservation Department’s housing lottery system, and the supportive units for formerly homeless individuals will be done through referrals by the city’s Human Resources Administration Department of Homeless Services.
Rent will be around $1,800 for the low-income units, but many of the tenants will have housing vouchers that allow them instead to pay 30 percent of their monthly income.
You can watch the full presentation to the CB7 committee below.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
What is “behavioral healthcare?”
guess?
Anxiety mitigation and stress management, for example. You know, the kind of thing we can cure with a hot shower and cup of coffee. Or, alternatively, with a horse-dose of ketamine and a $250,000/yr taxpayer-funded “therapist”. The latter are best done at 74th St and Broadway in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the world.
Surprised no comments here.when was article published?
This is being sold as “affordable housing” . The majority of the units are tiny studios with shared bathrooms. There are services for previously homeless and mentally challenged individuals.
The community should call the success or failure of the facility on West 74th between Columbus and Amsterdam. Many complaints from people living on block. The proposal is for supportive housing not affordable housing per se.
The current residents who are mostly older will be left without housing and, in fact, be without homes.
SROs were outlawed for a good reason. Anyone who has been long term resident of the UWS remembers why.
Let’s not bring back SROs.
Since when are SRO’s outlawed? I live in the west 90’s and there are at least b2 SROs on each block!!
I support special purpose housing to help our neediest. We also need more market rate housing so that rents don’t skyrocket to the moon and/or there is a tax base to support these valuable programs. It seems like the powers that be are a lot more excited by the former than the latter.
Agree building more market rate housing is critical. Our new mayor is talking a good game about more market rate housing development, but lets see what he does.
I’m also a little confused with the unit counts here… it’s currently around 90 SRO apartments and going to 50 supportive units (that are presumably larger), not clear to me that losing those 40 units is a win
You can steal a lot more money, a lot more easily, in the former, vs. surviving politically if you raise taxes.
Interesting, the Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation are stealing public funds? Big if true, can’t help but wonder if you have evidence for this?
We wouldn’t know about them specifically, would we? You want to know why?
Ever seen a “Financial Statements” webpage that features ONLY cute home pictures and platitudes about “sustainable development” and “community empowerment”?
Or maybe it’s in their Annual Report? Nope, not a single financial statement there either. Let alone management compensation. But it does feature 20 pages of words like “reenergizing communities” “renewable energy” and “service programs for diverse needs.”
Based on the phrases used, these nuns are apparently all Democrats!
You mean people who spend their lives providing housing to the poor are Democrats? I’m shocked to hear this.
Having shared bathrooms is not a dignified way to get people on the path to self sufficiency. And some private cooking facilities would also be helpful though even kitchenettes don’t seem possible at this point.
Is a private bathroom a human right or a privilege? Is a private apartment a human right or a privilege? Is living in a tax payer paid subsidized apartment a human right or a privilege? And all in Manhattan? I see the folks who secure these units as pretty lucky and privileged. Many people are forced to have roommates where they share facilities because they don’t qualify for this privilege. And they survive.
If your grandparents, great grandparents (or earlier ancestors) lived in NYC, there’s a pretty good chance that they lived with a shared bathroom. And you turned out OK, didn’t you?
In the 1990s I knew somebody who lived in a Lower East Side studio with a toilet in the hallway and a tub in the kitchen.
It’s 2026.
Millions of college students live that way just fine. Even in 2026.
You’re taking a lot on faith.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. Did you live in a dorm in college? I assume you shared a bathroom? The horror!
The UWS is the nitpicking capital of the world.
If we want more housing we need to rethink the rent regulation laws that incentivize landlords not to renovate and rent apartments. The spirit of the laws is good but the implementation is awful. But it is a sacred cow.
You have no idea how disgusting people are now. Not a bunch of middle-class college students.
We are talking about adults not college students.
I also recognize that this type of housing is certainly better than homelessness and shelter living. But if there is an effort to really put people on a better path, this makes it a little harder and less dignified (yes, I’m using that word again.)
It should be harder and it should be a bit uncomfortable or they’ll see it as the destination and not a path to self improvement. If they want a comfortable spot, get a job. Enough already.
Ever hear of disabilities? There are many kinds. Easy for you to say. A job? With rents sky high. Several jobs and even then…. they would not measure up to your standards. Enough already.
1800 a month to live with folks that have behavioral issue is a stretch.
No one is paying $1800. They are paying 30 percent of their income. Their income is money they get from the government. Probably social security disability.
That Fairway corner is going to get a lot more unpleasant.
And that’s partly the fault of Fairway/Wakefern.
I live in this neighborhood and am already cringing.
The description of the new units is somewhat confused regarding bathrooms and kitchens. I listened to the presentation video, and they stated that each unit would have a bathroom and kitchen area. There will be an additional kitchen in the basement for group gatherings.
The new arrangement with the included kitchens and bathrooms is talked about at 11:50 in the video
Each unit does not have it’s own bathroom and kitchenette. Shared.
Only 2 one bedroom apartments. The rest are studios.
That is the arrangement in the current use of the building, not he new 50 studios. Listen to the video and the questions after the initial presentation to understand the new arrangements
‘Sisters of Charity Housing Development Corporation’. Sounds like a sham.
We need much more market rate apartments on the UWS to lower rents.
We are about to get plenty of it where first stables and then ABC used to rule in the West mid-60s. The streets will b/e overwhelmed with the two crosstown buses, yet more supermarkets and a packed local subway stop (# 1 train at
Broadway). But the kitchens and bathrooms will surely be state-of-the-art appliances. Oh, and think eternal darkness from the shadows that the enormous market-rate towers
will cast. What fun!
So a nonprofit owns the space with no rent-stabilized apartments, but they rent it out as a low-cost SRO to needy people. They pay zero property taxes (look it up, Block 1166, Lot 11).
They voluntarily enter rent stabilization and swap-in a *different* set of also-needy people, all in exchange for government funding for “supportive housing”.
So low-cost privately-owned nonprofit local housing is being replaced by government-subsidized housing, because it generates more revenue for the nonprofit at taxpayer expense while not increasing the net number of affordable units in the neighborhood.
I think this might be one definition of a misaligned set of government incentives.
Yeah sounds like a grift
just another shelter cloaked in buzz words
74th St. JUST had another shelter open. And now this. Why is the UWS such a magnet for these types of establishments? Is there really no other, more affordable, place in this city? Or state? Or country?
Read the bios of the people who get appointed and reappointed to the community board. And their connections to these providers. It becomes very clear. This is their mission, this and bike lanes.
Because our community board is useless.
Two words: Gale Brewer.
I do not live near here so I’m not being NIMBY. But this is prime UWS real estate. Sell the property for a lot of money and build market rate apartments. Then for the same amount of money you can build several times as many apartments in a less expensive location. That way you are getting more bang for the buck. I don’t think those living in this residence care about being near Fairway, the Beacon and a short stroll to AMNH. This is basic economics.
Why wouldn’t they care about being near Fairway and AMNH? I would deeply care about, and appreciate, things like easy access to a good grocery store and good culture if I were a person with lower income struggling to enjoy my life. I’m sure you have good intentions, but your comment comes off a bit insulting — as if poorer people don’t have the right to enjoy the same neighborhood amenities.
I understand the concern. There is this type of housing a block away from me. None of the people are a problem at all. In fact, they even give you a smile.
Because it’s unaffordable to shop there. That’s why.
West Side Rag,
Would you consider publishing a verified count of Department of Homeless Services and supportive housing placements between 66th and 110th Streets?
Many residents and small business owners believe the Upper West Side is carrying a disproportionate share of shelter and supportive housing facilities. On just a few blocks around Broadway and 95th Street, there are multiple sites within steps of one another. On West 74th Street, another supportive facility is now planned — on a block that already added a women’s shelter last year.
This is not an argument against supportive housing. Many residents in these facilities are struggling with serious mental health challenges, substance use disorders, or reentry after incarceration. They deserve stable housing and structured services.
The question is one of concentration and accountability. When multiple facilities are clustered within the same few blocks, and when quality-of-life concerns increase for residents and small businesses, it is reasonable to ask whether the city’s “Fair Share” principle is being applied equitably.
Are our elected officials actively evaluating distribution across neighborhoods? How does this concentration compare to the East Side or other Manhattan districts?
Publishing the numbers would move this conversation from anecdote to fact.
Transparency would benefit everyone.
This is an excellent idea for an article. It seems like the past 10 years we’ve had an absolute glut of shelters open on the UWS. Right now that’s just anecdata, so it would be really, really helpful to have hard numbers. Especially compared to other Manhattan neighborhoods.
Yes, WSR, this would be very interesting to know. I support helping people find housing, but there are certain areas of the city that are doing a lot more than others. It will never be completely even from one neighborhood to the next, but I think an attempt should be made.
As usual, supportive housing is in the Upper West Side not the Upper East or other neighborhoods. The UWS is supportive housing central.
I’ve worked on the UES for 30 years and there has always been supportive housing, uptown and in the 60’s, with the ‘newest’ controversial spot which will be opening on 61st and 1st. I walked by the shelter on 86th ST for years and didn’t know it was there. No visible signs of loitering or drugs/alcohol. Maybe the UWS needs to take a closer look at their business model.
You should see what they r doing in the nicest towns in NJ….
I think it’s a good idea. Not all homeless people are rotten apples! However, I think the best idea for affordable housing is creating more Rent Stabilized apartments.
I thought it couldn’t be called “homeless”. Isn’t the current phrase “unhoused”?
😵💫
Today I saw the phrasing, “people who live outdoors”.
The most convoluted phrasing I’ve seen is “person temporarily experiencing homelessness”. I think the more words you use to describe something the more enlightened you are, or something.
What is being done to provide low cost housing for people who are starting their adult lives and need a helping hand? People who can and want to work so that they can be self sufficient in their older years and not homeless or in need of section 8 housing with wrap around services? I often wonder if the goal here is really to fund the services vs help people in need? What about young adults on the spectrum? Vision or hearing problems? It just seems like at least in this neighborhood you need to be homeless (or formerly —- whatever that means), have addiction issues, been released from prison, behavioral problems, and over the age of 55 to qualify for this kind of housing. How about we prevent people from even getting to this point?
The Sisters for Charity Development has built supportive housing for the elderly in the past. This is greatly needed in our neighborhood with our aging population. I wonder who will be homeless as a result of this. This is their financials as listed in Candid:
Total revenue:
$3,778,920
Total giving:
$42,140
Total assets
$19,434,201
The housing proposed is not affordable housing but supportive housing. Other housing for homeless and mentally challenged individuals was set up like this in the 1970s, 90s, 2010. Sorry I no longer remember the names of the projects but eventually they failed. As someone ho has worked in this kind of setting I have many concerns.
SROs are usually Class B dwellings with shared kitchens and bathrooms and are legal if existed before 1969. New SROs need new permits. Creating new SROs has been illegal since the 1950s.
I would like to know what it means that these units become rent stabilized. how can shared baths and kitchen become rest stabilized apartments?
i would prefer this become a residence for Seniors especially knowing the history of the proposed model in the past the the expertise of this Development Corporation that is proposing it.
i wish our community knew more about this beforehand. Seems like a fait accompli without really having research into the needs of the community including how many other supportive housing like this exist in the area, etc.
FOUR YEARS to get this done?!?!?! That is outrageous! I don’t meant to be morbid, but if this housing is largely for seniors (homeless or otherwise), some of are likely to be dead in four years. What kind of stupidity is this?!
Having said that, it is nice to see ACTALLU “affordable” housing (with social services) being provided.
I do hope that not only counseling and social services are provided but full time medical support as well. Full time psychiatric nurses and/or psychiatrists to monitor psychiatric drugs. Counseling plus drugs properly prescribed offers the best treatment for many of the tenant population you are describing .
You are suggesting a much better world.
As they say, there goes the neighborhood. Again. Beautiful period building and right across from the Ansonia. How much can our neighborhoods take of Yiyby plutocrat leftists bankrolling NYC politicians to diversify local culture out of existence.
I just checked there and there are 600 sq ft in Manhattan yet somehow it seems to befall UWS to house impaired economics and further destructive de-gentrifying low echelon demographics SROs, disproportionately. Local pols are yes men/women to rich donors’ DSA and cultural marxist activism who have the mullah in Gracie Mansions’ back. How long ago was it, city hall & NYCC agitated to haul Teddy’s statue from the Musem in a rabid secular desecration. Spring may be the only thing the radicals in nyc.org cannot touch. And it’s almost spring. Gd bless us all.
This is a complete abuse of the system. How does it help the homeless to make 90 people homeless to give their homes to someone else.
Is there a difference here as compared to other situations where current residents are getting displaced so that a new and improved building can be developed that houses a different class residents? There are financial benefits for the people in charge to make this decision? Fewer people will be housed in the end but those privileged to secure this housing should have improved facilities? At others expense? Is it different because the group benefiting is a non profit and the city govt vs a private person? What reparations are being offered to the people being displaced who have considered this neighborhood their home and community? Is this considered gentrification?
BRAVO! The city needs to make it extremely easy to get permits, hire workers, and proceed. CUT THE RED TAPE!!
WHY HERE? ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. A ONCE
SAFE LIVABLE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BECOME MISERABLE AND DEVOID OF STORES BLOCK AFTER BLOCK. TAKE YOUR SO-CALLED CHARITY AND RUIN ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD.
What about accessibility and ADA compliance?
Because all low-income people want to be shoved in together like a ghetto, and to live with crazed people, not among regular people…not.
This happened in the 90s a decade or so ago. It ruined the quality of life of the neighborhood. My condolences.