By Gus Saltonstall
Edgar’s Cafe, a popular, longtime Upper West Side establishment, will close at the end of the month after nearly four decades in the community.
The neighborhood staple at 650 Amsterdam Avenue, between West 91st and 92nd streets, will permanently shutter on April 30.
“To our beloved customers and neighbors,” reads a sign posted on the door. “With great sadness, we announce that we will be closing on April 30.”
“For nearly four decades, Edgar’s Cafe has been a home for stories, laughter, friendships, and love,” the message continues. “It breaks our hearts to say goodbye after 38+ years of pouring coffee, serving meals, and sharing countless memories with this incredible community.”
Edgar Cafe’s owner told ILovetheUpperWestSide that the closure was taking place because they could no longer afford the rent.
Along with coffee and tea, Edgar’s Cafe serves up omelettes, avocado toast, french toast, egg sandwiches, soups, quiches, desserts, and more.
The cafe’s original location was at 255 West 84th Street, but it relocated to its current home in 2011, also due to a change in the lease price.
“Until then, let’s make every moment count,” Edgar’s Cafe wrote on its closing announcement sign.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Who do the landlords think are going to rent these spaces if popular, established businesses that have been around for decades can’t afford the rent? Judging from all the long- empty storefronts that used to be banks and chain stores, even they can’t afford the rent. Do the landlords just enjoy having empty spots for years and years?
Anyway, thank you, Edgar’s Cafe. You will be missed.
The property taxes in this building have increased nearly $20k since 2020. There are at least 5 rent stabilized units in the bldg. Commercial rents make up for the operational shortfall. NYC has to control property taxes. commercial tenants and free market tenants can’t keep propping up the broken rent stabilization scheme,
NYC is in or entering downward spiral. I can’t afford to stay. Was a nice chapter in my life. Good memories.
PS places do not become better when financial imbalance progresses.
Free childcare ain’t free. Free bus rides ain’t free.
How do politicians think that landlords and business owners are going to be able to afford to stay in business together with ever-increasing property taxes and income taxes?
Put the responsibility where it belongs.
“Free” is just another word for “vacant”.
Most of the vacant buildings are managed by agents with huge portfolios. For them, it’s better to let a building sit vacant than to lower rents with potential ripple effects on rental averages across their holdings. The buildings on the corner of 86th and Broadway have been empty for, what?, 15 years? We need a vacancy tax bill.
Last thing we need is more government regulation. Would this vacancy tax apply to mom and pop landlords or private equity landlords? How long does a property need to be vacant before it kicks in? Wouldn’t this potentially force a landlord to accept a subpar tenant (i.e. one that may not have the necessary credit)?
There already is a “vacancy tax bill”.
Landlords have to pay property taxes on their spaces whether they are occupied or not.
So landlords are paying taxes without the cash flow to cover these taxes.
This has been going on for long before Mamdani and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with free bus rides.
The answer is that they don’t live in the neighborhood and they don’t care who takes them over or if they are taken over at all.
More luxury clothing stores. Another dumb stretch lab or whatever those are. Not a decades old, family run business, that’s for sure
nail salons. coffee places. vaping etc stores. doggy day care. cupcake places. more of the same. if we really want these old businesses to stay alive, it might be a good idea to put our money where our mouths probably shouldn’t be!
The luxury clothing stores have left the UWS. I can only guess that the equity funds that own the empty store fronts make more money writing off the lost rent.
The vacancy crisis is awful and needs to be addressed, but those writeoffs you’re talking about don’t exist.
Nobody makes any money “writing off the lost rent”. Stop posting nonsense you clearly don’t understand.
the kiddies don’t understand that writing off losses can only be taken against profits. sheesh
Not in NYC real estate. “Sheesh, kiddie!” Otherwise, why kick out a film society and then let the movie theatre sit empty for a decade?
There are well capitalized potential tenants that they are after. Unlike with housing, landlords can discriminate when it comes to retail.
Landlords can absolutely discriminate against potential residential tenants based on financial stability. You’ve never heard of a landlord doing a credit check or employment/income verification? What they can’t do is discriminate against someone based on their membership in a protected class.
https://www.hud.gov/helping-americans/fair-housing-act-overview
The ex-pharmacy next to Edgar’s has been empty for 10 years I believe. Who does the landlord think will rent these spaces?
Possibly the building needs a lot of work and without higher rents it doesn’t pay off for the landlord to put the money in? But they can let it sit empty.
So sad. The Upper UWS has so many vacancies. This places remain vacant for years. How does this help the landlord
What a shame! Edgars is/was a well-loved place to gather and enjoy company and good food. it’s more than a shame. It’s a tragic loss to the neighborhood.
It is sad to see an old standby go out of business, but it is certainly not a “tragic
loss to the neighborhood.” My first and only time at Edgar’s this past January the service was friendly but extremely slow and the food mediocre at best. Pleasant atmosphere to meet my friend at least.
It was just reported that residential landlords spent less on maintenance and other costs last year – and thus derived greater profits – than they have in some time. Which is why the RGB is now much more seriously considering Mamdani’s call for a rent freeze.
And according to similar studies, commercial landlords have had even lower maintenance and other costs, and derived an even higher profit, than in past years. So there is something going on here beyond simple profit motive (though that may still be a factor).
Sadly, the space will likely become another nail salon or artisan coffee place. And since those are the two things that are growing like kudzu on the UWS, one wonders: how are THEY able to afford the increased rents?
NOI is not profit. It’s the cash left after paying operating expenses. That cash is used to pay capital expenses, mortgage debt and income taxes!
Landlords of rent regulated residential buildings are spending less on maintenance because their profit margins (if they are even profitable) are razor thin and no matter what they spend on maintenance can’t be passed onto their rent stabilized tenants via higher rents. In short, they have no economic incentive to spend a lot on maintenance.
Landlords of market rate residential buildings continue to spend significant amounts on maintenance because they can always raise rents and they have an incentive to keep their buildings in top shape to attract and maintain tenants.
Commercial space often stays empty because there is already a glut of commercial space and few businesses want this space. No landlord is going to lock in a tenant at any price simply to fill the space, especially if the tenant might not be a viable business. It’s not unusual for businesses to move into a space and not pay rent for several months. The laws in NYS are heavily tilted towards tenants. It is often very difficult and expensive to remove these tenants who are essentially squatters.
This is why landlords prefer businesses with deep pockets who will likely not default on their rent obligations, ie banks and chain stores.
And Mamdani’s rent freeze, if enacted, would be a disaster for NYC’s housing market.
Mamdani himself comes from a very wealthy family yet spent years living in a rent stabilized apartment while many New Yorkers without this entitlement struggled. How is this fair?
Much commercial space remains empty because of a combination of factors. And while the primary factor USED to be landlord greed, it is not anymore. The main factor is the Internet., which has made a huge percentage of “bricks and mortar” businesses obsolete. If you can buy something online for the same or lower price, and have it delivered within 48 hours – all with the click of a few “buttons” on a computer, then you are not going to waste time walking over to stores and browsing through them (unless you truly WANT to).
That is why 90% of the new businesses that have opened in empty storefronts have been service-oriented businesses that one cannot get online: nail salons and spas, artisan coffee shops, exercise and wellness places, etc. And, sadly, this is unlikely to change. After all, megastores like Bed Bath & Beyond and others have given up their bricks and mortar presences because they online business is cheaper, and more than making up for the loss of sales at the bricks and mortar stores.
So setting aside my comment about commercial space owners making higher profits (which does happen to be true), they main reason they are unable to rent all those empty storefronts is that “bricks and mortar” are out and the Internet is in.
True on retail, but not true on food, film, hair and nail salons, doctors’ offices, and other things. Restaurants are forced out and that has nothing to do with retail.
Mamdani’s family is upper middle class. I don’t know of a world where a prof and a filmmaker would be considered very wealthy unless they inherited it or also have other sources of income. The estimates I’ve seen on line of his parents’ net worth are totally normal for professional people who saved and invested sensibly with no inheritance. Financially secure, yes. Very wealthy, definitely not. Zohran Mamdani’s net worth is very modest, according to what I saw on the internet.
That being said, IMHO all rent stabilized apartments should be means tested. Upper middle class people should not be getting subsidies. I’d say the same on free pre-K. Subsidies are needed to keep our city diverse, but they should always be means tested. Much as I enjoy my senior half-fair subway card, I’d say the same about that, too.
“…a filmmaker would be considered very wealthy unless they inherited it ”
There are one or two filmmakers who’ve done pretty well for themselves. Google “Steven Spielberg”.
More than half-fair that half-fare card is!
“no matter what they spend on maintenance can’t be passed onto their rent stabilized tenants via higher rents”
This isn’t accurate. Landlords can pass on costs for both overall improvements (MCIs) and individual apartment renovations (IAIs). There are caps and restrictions, of course, but no need to make things up. (And many of the caps and restrictions came in after years of ridiculous abuses by landlords, fully demonstrating that they couldn’t be trusted to be reasonable.) See:
https://hcr.ny.gov/apartment-iai-and-building-mci-improvements
The allowed increases for MCIs and IAIs is laughably low. Effectively $15-30,000 can be charged back over 30 years which doesn’t cover anything with construction costs being what they are in NYC.
As I acknowledged, there are caps and restrictions. But what Otis said wasn’t true, and the regulations are actually more generous than you describe (e.g., the first tier cap is now $30K, there’s a new vacancy tier of $50K, and the three-IAI limit is gone):
https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet-26-07-2025.pdf
One can disagree about policy, but I simply don’t understand why presumably educated people will make public claims that are just objectively and demonstrably untrue. Couldn’t be me, I’d be too embarrassed! What is the motive here, I wonder?
For the umteenth time – that’s no such thing as: “landlords of rent regulated residential buildings” and “landords of market rate residential buildings.” Apartment units are or are not regulated, not building, and the vast majority of landlords (and certainly on the UWS) have plentiful numbers of each. Stop with the disinformation.
All newer buildings (built after 1974) are exempt from rent stabilization unless they’re receiving specific tax benefits. So there are “market rate residential buildings” if you take that to mean “a building that is not subject to rent stabilization laws”. I have a hunch that’s what the poster you criticized meant.
If a building is overwhelmingly or entirely rent regulated, and needs renovation, it would cost the landlord a lot to renovate the entire thing. If they renovate piecemeal they can raise the rent on individual apartments, but renters won’t pay for a decent apartment in a building that’s a mess what they would pay for the same apartment in a fully good, clean, well-maintained building.
On MCIs, the amount that they landlord can charge (max 2% rent increase per month) does not cover the interest (or foregone earnings) that the landlord will lose during the12-to30-year payback period while rents are increased. The landlord can pass on a disproportionate share of the costs to commercial tenants, to make up what is not covered by residential tenants. Since the landlord cannot permanently increase rents to cover things like new more efficient HVAC systems, they will never get any return on actual improvements to the building, they will only, over 12 to 30 years, be able to recoup the initial investment without interest. So why would they do it?
Owners of apartment buildings that have never been rent-regulated are owning market-rate residential buildings. Individual apartments will not become rent regulated in their buildings. So there are certainly “owners of market-rate residential buildings.”
“On MCIs, the amount that they landlord can charge (max 2% rent increase per month)… ”
It’s not just that. The landlord is limited to a 2% increase, but they can apply that increase every year until the cost of the MCI is covered. So if your rent is $1000 and your share of the cost of the MCI is $100/month, you get a $20 increase in year 1, a $20.40 increase in year 2, a $20.80 increase in year 3, etc. until the total increase is $100.
Buildings are NOT rent regulated, apartments are.
There are many buildings on the UWS where more than half of the apartments are NOT Rent Stabilized.
The laws in NY are NOT tilted toward commercial tenants, not conflate commercial with residential.
Mamdani’s family is hard very wealthy, and he was paying his rent on the LIC apartment; they weren’t.
Pro market drivel that completely ignores the very public data about commercial real estate firms and their profits.
Commercial rent stabilization now
How are THEY able to afford the increased rents? Two words: Private Equity
They’ve been open for 40 years. They’ve demonstrated they can move locations for new leases multiple times.
It sounds like they are retiring — deservedly after 40 years in retail!
But every business that closes blames “the rent” and everyone believes it blindly.
They are retiring after a long career, and we should be honest that businesses and people have a lifecycle — and salute their decades of hard work. Not relentlessly bashing based on heresay.
They expressly said that they are closing because the rent went up.
I am expressly saying I don’t give that explanation much credit. Too many places publicly said this to WSR, only to be contradicted by the owner-occupied buildings that housed the businesses (Pier 72, Andy’s Deli, Silver Moon).
There’s a multitude of reasons, and maybe a standard tax-driven rent increase was one of them. Or maybe they just weren’t ready to sign a long-term lease after 40 years. Or maybe they truly were being gouged, in which case the landlord may regret this.
But the choice to shut down a business after 40 years is probably complex, and I think it’s not fair for the owners of Edgar’s to basically scapegoat their long-term landlords on the way out.
There’s a difference between retiring because you want to and being forced out. Maybe the rent increase was a convenient excuse, but maybe it was also the final straw. But hey, let’s keep carrying water for investment firms. Those dividends don’t pay themselves!
Can they no longer afford the rent because it went up or because business is down or because of other expenses? I’ve never been there but I like their no laptops policy.
They expressly said it’s because the rent went up, although I’m sure other expenses went up as well because food and fuel have skyrocketed in yhe last months. Business-wise they seem to be doing fine.
Residents near the original 84th Street location still talk about how they miss Edgar’s, 15 or so years after it moved away. I have out-of-town relatives who visit once in a blue moon but they remember Edgar’s.
Of course that location became yet another nail parlor, and the nail parlor recently closed to be replaced by a hair-coloring parlor (or something like that).
I see all the bickering in the Comments about high rents and commercial rent regulation and such. But why can’t we keep nice things? Are there really more people who want their nails done, or their hair colored, than want to sit for an espresso and a pastry (without being connected to their laptops)?
Yes
An apartment rent freeze will only make commercial rents go even higher to make up for the difference.
Wait until your city council pushes through the $30/hr minimum wage.
Do you know how many small local businesses will close? They will have to pay people that have been working for years $40+/hr and no small business will sustain that. Your city council is saying – “No small businesses needed here. Only big corporations and chains.”
And Gale Brewer is a SPONSOR of this bill so when more businesses leave, you can thank her and the rest of the city council.
A CEO of a major food and beverage company that has multiple locations in NYC brought up the $30/hr minimum wage. He welcomed it. Just presenting without comment.
Yes it means he has less competition from smaller companies that can’t pay premium minimum wages or hire teens for summer jobs stocking items.
I went on my first date with my now husband on March 24, 1999. I brought my children there on our 20th wedding anniversary. That place has so much character. It will be missed.
My wife and I also went on our first date there (the 84th St location)! It’s a favorite spot for our kids now too and we will miss it very much 🙁
Ironic that we’re talking about Edgar’s rent being too high, and yet the Mayor lives rent-free in several commenters’ minds.
My very first NYC boyfriend, after I had just arrived from KC, took me to the original location on our first date in 1995. 🥲
The most uncomfortable chairs on the UWS. I went once, and never again. They clearly didn’t want customers to linger.
And yet, so oddly, their entire business for the last 38 years, has been built largely on lingering customers…
Jill, respectfully (but really unrespectfully), no one wants someone like you to linger. You wouldn’t have the capacity to understand what Edgar’s means to the people. We’ll miss you so much Edgar’s.
0.00000% chance Jill has tested every chair on the upper west side.
Maybe it can be a new feature alongside Here’s the UWS Dish.
I’m pleased they’re closing. I never liked the owner. When they first opened I went there w/my daughter. I’d picked her up after school from ps 333- just down the block- ordered a croissant and beverage for her and was told I had to order something as well. Never went back there.
Imagine being “pleased” that a long time neighborhood business is closing, as if it gives you pleasure.
Yours is one of the few comments that mentions that all was not well at this café. In my experience, the hostility of the owner and the unpleasant environment he created made it an awful place to be. For anyone who doubts this, go read the Google and Yelp reviews and you will see a lot of comments about his nasty behavior. This man would berate customers loudly and humiliate them and tell them never to come back for such infractions as reading an iPad or not ordering enough or just because he felt like it, like one longtime customer who had purchased something from another cafe. After being a loyal customer there for many years, this happened to me. One day, I ordered a cappuccino, which cleared the minimum order requirement, and yet the owner came over to me and yelled at me and told me to never return, even though the place was empty at that moment. I’m sure he lost some customers this way. And while I sympathize with all of the comments here about how sad it is that so many longtime businesses close, and typically I’m rooting for an independently owned business that offered something to the community, but in this case I feel differently because I don’t believe that an owner should yell at and humiliate his customers just because he feels like it. For those of you who had only positive experiences there and were not aware of how the owner treated some people, then I understand how disappointing it is to lose such a nice place. And it was a really nice place, but for some it was ruined by the hostility of the owner.
I’m glad someone finally mentioned this. I went there a few times and enjoyed the food. The servers were very kind. And then, one night, I went there with my daughter. We both ordered full meals, complete with appetizers and entrees. While waiting for our food to be delivered, I took out my phone to check a text I received. The owner descended on me, berating us both and telling us this was his store and throwing us out. Since then, I’ve heard of similar behavior to other customers, including one person who, several years ago, was thrown out for the crime of handing someone a diskette, and another who was berated when he saw her go into the Italian restaurant next door. While I’m sure the rent had something to do with it, and I’m sorry for those who will miss this spot, you simply can’t treat people this way and expect to prosper. Eventually, enough people, like me, decide not to return and your business will close. I’m not even complaining about the “no phones” policy, though it’s kind of silly to enforce it if you’ve ordered a full meal. It’s the way he enforced it. A polite, “I’m sorry, but we have a strict no devices policy here,” would have annoyed me but I would have complied and knew better for the next time. I definitely would have returned. Being yelled at in front of a full restaurant and being tossed out before my food arrived made me swear never to return. I’m sure I’m not the only one, I still feel shame when I walk by and recall the embarrassment I suffered that evening, if you treat people like that regularly, which by all accounts he did, eventually enough people decide to stay away that you no longer have a business. I’m sorry for the people who liked the place and never experienced the owner’s cruelty. As far as the owner goes, he got what he deserved.
Horrible! I am sorry that happened to you.
I didn’t have such a bad experience, but I did stop going because it was soooo slow. An hour and a half for a sandwich and a coffee was part of the experience… but it felt like it got slower and slower. then I took a friend for lunch and it took two and a half hours. Just too much. I stopped going.
God forbid a café have some standards and a bit of personality. Absurd boycotts like this are why our neighborhood is infested with cookie-cutter chain coffee shops. Look inward, Gina. There is a massive Edgar-shaped hole in my heart today.
Loved Edgar’s and the owner, Ben, was always a friendly face in the neighborhood. Will be missed. Insanely, this was one of the non-diner places that was open reasonably late in that area and was great for dessert at night.
My husband and I will really miss Edgar’s–as much for the welcoming atmosphere as for the three-berry pie.
We met pop artist Peter Max there about 25 years ago as he was a longtime “regular,” and after bumping into him several times, he invited us for a tour of his studio! As iconic gossip columnist Cindy Adams would say, Only in New York, kids, only in New York.
GREAT story!
If you have never been to Edgar’s, what are you waiting for? The interior decor is terrific. It is a neighborhood dream. Another victim to rent increases on the upper west side. What a sham.
Very sorry to see this.
So few local places left – especially sad about the closure of West Side Kids.
BTW similar things happening in many parts of NYC.
For example, in Riverdale, though there are already multiple empty storefronts/commercial space, landlords keep raising rents and forcing out more shops and businesses.
A lovely local retail shop that carried Irish sweaters and gift items, Mary Anne’s, was just forced out after 35 years due to massive rent increase.
Such a pity. I have been going to Edgar’s Cafe for 30 yrs. First for coffee and an hour of alone time 1x/week when my children were little. Then, when they were old enough, I took them there for a special treat after school. And of course, I enjoyed countless unches and coffees with friends from the city and with visiting friends and family. When the kids were in college, Benny always asked after them. This and Murray’s make me feel like I live in the kind of neighborhood I always wanted to live in. What a pity. Best wishes to Benny and his lovely staff.
They will be missed by many of us. My question is to the landlords. When they ask these extraordinary numbers for monthly rent do they even take under consideration the amount of dollars per square foot a retail establishment will have to generate in order to have a successful business in a given location. It bogles the mind.
An abusive owner who sent “security” out to the sidewalk to tell me to move on and stop reading the menu!
Lest we forget: Edgar’s on West 84th Street was named in honor of
Edgar Allan Poe, who lived on the block at one point.
Edgar’s has unique atmosphere. I love it so much and have so many wonderful memories there with my kids, from when they were babies to teens now, and with my parents when they visited from out of town. My parents don’t speak English, but the people at Edgar’s were so welcoming and kind that they somehow found a way to communicate and they would go there everyday during their visit. They still reminisce about their time there.
After Covid, I was elated that Edgar’s managed to stay open and when I went back the servers and the bartender immediately asked about my parents. My kids and I will visit again before closing, it’s so sad, for some reason I thought Edgar’s will always be there. It has the feel of a european café, a community, a lovely place in the neighborhood that we will miss very much.
Thank you, Edgar’s café, for the memories!
the place will be missed, but this is NYC and places do shut down and new and sometimes better places come in. I can’t waste my emotions mourning like so many here do.
The landlord would need to spend a substantial $500,000 to find a new tenant, which is financially illogical given the potential return. Securing an additional $75,000 in annual rent would not justify the significant upfront investment, especially considering the retail space’s current vacancy and the potential year-long leasing process. Furthermore, the annual real estate taxes of nearly $100,000 would only exacerbate the financial strain.
Looks like space adjacent is still for lease all these years by the same landlord a now he has a new broker. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/julgsfek/production-v2/a47da1dd4a29a03289e7c50a89e9afe9a97ba45f.pdf
How do landlords afford the property taxes on long vacant commercial space? No income coming in; no ability to pay. Why doesn’t city foreclose on tax liens, then auction/sell the space at below-market value to new owners who don’t need to charge as much rent as previous landlords to earn a reasonable ROI?
For all the people here claiming this has to do with real estate taxes, it does not. I was told by Duane Reade/Walgreens that the reason they left West 63rd and Broadway was high rents and a flooding, faulty, bad elevator building. They had another store on Columbus Circle, so they left after years in a building that kept raising rents, but not getting fixed. That was before Mamdani, so let’s get real here. It has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with GREED.
You called Walgreens HQ, a national retailer that has been shrinking its retail footprint for years, and they told you accurate and detailed information about their rent negotiations?