By Gus Saltonstall
Tensions are rising as an Upper West Side nonprofit has “condemned” local City Councilmember Gale Brewer’s opposition to a women’s homeless shelter being built in the neighborhood.
The strong messaging from the Open Hearts Initiative, founded on the Upper West Side in 2020 to support people experiencing homelessness, came shortly after Brewer participated in a rally on Tuesday with other community members against the incoming shelter at 537 West 59th Street, between Amsterdam and West End Avenues.
Brewer’s position of no support on the 59th Street shelter is not a new one, and she told West Side Rag that the comments from the Open Hearts Initiative won’t change her stance on the matter. Brewer contends that because the facility will be new construction — not a conversion of an existing building — the site should be used for permanent housing, as opposed to a transitional homeless shelter.
“If you want permanent housing, and you’ve got a brand-new building, it makes sense to me that you should be building exactly that,” Brewer said. “I’ve tried everything — I haven’t left anything on the table — to make that happen at this site.”
Brewer said she had “about 20 meetings” with city officials in hopes of persuading them to create 60 permanent apartments at the address for the formerly homeless, instead of a shelter. She was also quick to point out, during a phone call with the Rag, that she has supported many other homeless shelters on the Upper West Side throughout the years, including facilities on West 70th, 83rd, 88th, 94th, and 95th streets.
“I spoke to them [Open Hearts Initiative] and I said very clearly that I have supported shelters in the neighborhood, but when there is a brand-new building and anything can happen there — it does seem to me that it should be permanent housing,” she said.
“They appreciated my call,” Brewer added. “I haven’t changed my position since August 2021.”
The Open Hearts Initiative arose during the pandemic when single homeless men were moved into The Lucerne hotel on West 79th Street to avert the spread of COVID-19 in congregate homeless shelters. The group provided a counterbalance to some UWS residents who adamantly wanted the men moved. Open Hearts did not point to anything specific Brewer said, just her appearance at Tuesday’s rally.
“Council Member Brewer’s decision to join these dehumanizing calls is deeply disappointing,” Bennett Reinhardt, an Open Hearts employee, said in a news release. “The fact remains that the Upper West Side is a great place to welcome homeless residents of this shelter, where they can receive on-site services.”
When asked to specify the “dehumanizing rhetoric” used at the rally, a spokesperson from the nonprofit directed the West Side Rag to signs at the event that read “Keep Our Kids Safe” or “No Shelters Near Playgrounds,” which the group says wrongly “implies that people living in shelters are dangerous to children, simply because they’re experiencing homelessness.”
Brewer penned a letter in July 2023 to the Department of Social Services reiterating her argument that the new development at 537 West 59th Street should be used for permanent housing.
“I have supported shelters in other parts of Manhattan and my district, often when there is criticism from the neighborhood,” she wrote. “In this case, the people of the city of New York are paying for a NEW shelter when there is an appeal all over the five boroughs for permanently affordable units; why is this site not constructing what every New Yorker is asking for?”
More information on the incoming 59th Street shelter
While there is plenty of present-day conversation surrounding the shelter, the facility isn’t actually slated to open until 2025.
It will contain 200 beds for single women in dorm-style rooms, a medical clinic, social services and recreation space, an outdoor terrace, and a large dedicated staff.
The provider for the facility will be the nonprofit Project Renewal, which also ran The Lucerne.
“We’re working with Hudson Companies to construct this modern, purpose-built women’s shelter, with robust social services, health care, and security to help our clients on their paths to permanent housing,” a spokesperson from Project Renewal said when asked about the differing stances on the incoming shelter. “Project Renewal greatly values relationships with our neighbors and community members at all sites we operate, and we have reached out to and met with many local stakeholders about the shelter.”
A demolition permit was filed in August 2022 to remove the two-story former home of Manhattan Neighborhood Network.
The new shelter will be exclusively for single adult women. “This first-of-its-kind shelter will be built as a high-quality site offering women experiencing homelessness the critical opportunity to receive the quality care they need and deserve as they get back on their feet,” a spokesperson from the Department of Homeless Services told the West Side Rag.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
200 beds is too many. They’re going to need lots of security. Project renewal has a facility downtown by the Bowery. That facility is the reason restaurants can’t stay on business. Too many problems. There are too many of these facilities in the neighborhood. Put this is the neighborhoods these people are from.
WSR has actually done great work reporting on this and our neighborhood is about average for the number of these facilities per capita https://www.westsiderag.com/2023/03/31/is-the-uws-overburdened-underburdened-or-just-doing-its-fair-share-in-helping-the-homeless
Why are we building these facilities in Manhattan, the most expensive real estate in the world? You could build three times as many in Staten Island (where my in-laws live) for the same amount of money?
Humorous. You have found a unique solution to get back at the in-laws you dislike.
It’s a move to dilute the the privileged population of Manhattan. Driving down property values and reducing the net worth of those who work hard to live here. They are playing the “long game” here. Bit by bit. Piece by piece.
People in Staten Island will fight back. They are one of the few who have given push back to the migrant situation. It is the same reason the UES tends to not be affected. The UWS is home to many bleeding heart liberals who feel it is their responsibility to go above a beyond to help others, often at the expense of their own neighborhood. GB is a complete pushover in city politics (and Helen Rosenthal was a progressive) and is likely seen as someone who will just go along with higher ups in government more often than not. The combination is why we have such a concentration of shelters and why we will continue to get city problems dumped on our doorstep, while our friends across the park eat cake.
Gale is up for re-election this November. Let’s make our feelings known then.
everyone wants to banish their problems to where their inlaws live
Votes.
Staten Island was also the only borough that isn’t supposed to get a borough based jail. There are personal relationships between Staten Island Republicans and the rest of city elected officials. I mean former SI Borough President and Councilman James Oddo is good friends with Gale Brewer, Bill DeBlasio, Christine Quinn and Eric Adams made him the NYC Department of Buildings commissioner. Joe Borelli also has a lot of more politically progressive friends.
So Gale Brewer despite is now calling for new housing despite having publicly opposed the East Harlem and Soho upzonings, the NY Blood Center ULURP application, and the West Park church demolition (the latter after 20 years of handwaving and inaction)?
A general rule on land use is that you are very likely to be correct if you support the opposite of Gale Brewer’s stated positions.
There seems to be very little, if any, learning going on among City “leaders.” Anytime you put hundreds of troubled people under one roof, troubles multiply. I was told by a leader in the homelessness industry that 75 was the max number under one roof to provide services and maintain relative order.
These shelters are destroying our community. I no longer feel safe here. There are way too many in our neighborhood. Between the homeless and the migrants and the criminals and the drug smoking addicts…….. the hard working, law abiding, considerate citizens are quickly becoming the minority. We are witnessing the self deterioration of a once beautiful, lovely, clean and happy neighborhood. All is not lost yet though. We can still save our community if we want to. Vote for better representatives. Our recent choices have been terrible.
So as I write this, dry wall going into 316 W. 95th , site of a notorious shelter, about to be reopened? Probably so, do not be surprised when it happens. Ms Brewer, please take notice.
Understanding that Open Hearts wanted a shelter, it is disturbing that OH would actually insult GB for pursuing another similar need: permanent housing for low-income?
I’d appreciate hearing from OH why anyone not in 100% agreement with OH priorities is condemned and criticized?
Is there now no nuance or ability to respectfully discuss?
The Open Hearts Initiative gave the public a perfect example of the NGO treatment that makes it harder for dozens of thousands escape homelessness: judgmental, controlling, unreasonable and just toxic.
If you treat any person or group with such toxicity, you have no businesses being anywhere near individuals who need care and warmth: children, elderly, and specially those experiencing homelessness.
Writing warm and welcoming chalk messages on the sidewalk is not enough to camouflage their true nature.
I don’t understand this “response” as it did not actually answer the question, nor did it give cites to support the statements of toxic and judgemental treatment. Examples please. Be specific. Advocates need to speak with their heads too, not just their hearts. Signed, former advocate
I feel like this is a very tolerant progressive community here on the UWS. But because of that, we are becoming the neighborhood du jour for any and all needs. And it is disruptive. I also feel quite unsafe in moments for the first time ever. How about a shelter on the UES? Any reason why we keep being picked again and again for this honor?
Our elected officials keep raising their hands to make their career. They don’t care about us.
I totally agree with Gale Brewer/. The city should not be investing new buildings for transients; they should be investing in new b uilfngs o provide housing for families which, in case you forgot, are usually headed by women.. Yes, provide shelters for homeless women, but not at the expense of families. When has Ms Brewer misled you?
Many many people agree with Gale Brewer. We have a housing crisis and New Yorkers deserve a place to live. I feel for migrants, but this country has to deal intelligently with the migrant influx and either settle people throughout the country, or put a stop to the busing from republican states to democratic states.
Why do they have to live in the ‘best’ neighborhoods in Manhattan when there’s plenty of developable space throughout the rest of the City?
Brewer has traditionally supported shelters, including the new Safe Haven on 83rd Street, and others, going way back, But her logic is incontrovertible here: if this is NEW construction as opposed to reuse of a formerly existing structure, then building actual housing makes far more sense. The question, of course, will be just how “affordable” will it actually be, if built?
GB is right. Give these women permanent housing with support. Everyone needs a home and community. People who are secure will treat their neighborhood with pride. Another shelter is not a good idea.
Agreed. It says how out of touch that the Open Hearts group is that they are far to the extreme of Brewer on this, and she usually tends to be pretty extreme.
These people are just insufferable. They are constantly tripping over themselves to virtue signal and “help others.” They do not live in the real world. I prefer their version of extremism to Trumpism, but they are going overboard.
I wish they would channel their energies in a more productive way.
I wouldn’t be overly harsh. OHI has done a lot of good, in raising awareness of the homeless situation, supporting unhoused people and migrants, and generally remaining loving, compassionate and dedicated. Sadly, they do seem to lack nuance, and to be out of touch in this instance.
Disturbing to see Open Hearts bully approach with respect to different opinion.
We have too many shelters on the UWS. It’s pointless for everyone.
I think it would be quite helpful for the people who will get to stay in the shelter.
And for how long are they going to stay there? Do you think they’re going to put down roots in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city? Are we just supposed to support them indefinitely?
It’s a shelter, not permanent housing (that’s why these people say they are protesting). So no, this is not supposed to support people indefinitely. The average length of stay for a family in a shelter is 11 months according to the city. https://www.nyc.gov/html/endinghomelessness/downloads/pdf/ch6_minimize_duration.pdf
This shelter isn’t for families, though. What’s the stat for single people with mental health and addiction issues?
These shelters add nothing to the neighborhood. Nothing.
The shelters get homeless people off our streets. That’s a significant benefit for the neighborhood!
How are they off the streets? Are they chained to their beds? No , they are still on the streets same as
They’ll have a roof over their heads and place to sleep at night, I’m not sure what else you want?
Comments like these are why I’m skeptical of Brewer’s opposition. Does she have genuine objections to this specific plan, or is she siding with the commenters who just want the homeless gone and won’t be happy with any kind of facility in our neighborhood?
I want them to get the mental health help they badly need and not just wonder aimlessly and sometimes aggressively.
Thankfully Gale Brewer has finally figured out that the Open Hearts people do not represent the UWS.
I’m not discussing the protest or that location below. This is a general question about homeless shelters on the UWS.
Why aren’t people who are homeless and have a drug issue or mental illness put in a closed hospital to be treated properly?
How does putting a mentally ill person who then uses or needs drugs or a drug addict in a neighborhood with the elderly… help the elderly who are constantly harassed for $ by aggressive panhandling?
How does putting a sex offender in a neighborhood with children … well I don’t even have to finish that question.
Check out the sex offender registry ( I get a daily report of movement in the 5 boroughs) about a dozen emails a day. Many sex offenders leave their housing and become no location.
These feel good shelters with no transparency are not helpful to our community.
We are over saturated with homeless shelters on the UWS.
OH’s comments are on-brand for them.
Gale is right here – we’ve opened MANY shelters in the UWS this past year. Time for a little balance. Time for permanent housing. Who are we supposed to contact to appeal this decision?
What is actually “dehumanizing” is treating people experiencing homelessness as pawns and numbers, rather than actual humans.
And recent evidence shows that large scale shelters simply don’t help with homelessness: they perpetuate homelessness and make them worse over time.
The “Open Hearts” NGO is now spewing vitriol, ignoring evidence and revealing their agenda truly.
They don’t seem to have the intelectual honesty to into account the numerous shelters that are already being added to the UWS.
Is that surprising given that there’s a half billion dollar contract at stake in this specific project?