By Gus Saltonstall
Community Board 7 gave a preliminary endorsement this week related to the city’s plans to open a 146-bed women’s shelter in the former Calhoun School at 160 West 74th Street.
By a vote of 28-4, with two abstentions, the board supported a series of design changes such as adding a platform chairlift to the front of the building and installing new lights on the building’s rear facade that are proposed for the shelter conversion.
The board vote is only advisory, though, a 49-page report outlining all of the proposed changes will be considered by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission at a meeting next Tuesday, January 9. You can see the report with all of the design proposals for yourself — HERE.
You can both sign up to speak at the meeting on the LPC’s website and also submit written testimony on the issue to testimony@lpc.nyc.gov
Tuesday’s lopsided vote on design changes to the building came despite objections voiced at the board meeting by several local residents, including some who live on the Historic District block.
“One thing that does seem clear is that the people involved are not focused on the history or the aesthetics of the building, and we’d ask the community board to really consider if the people behind the plan are the type that will focus on the aesthetics and important history of the building,” one resident said.
Others objected to the women’s shelter entirely, with or without design changes.
“We’ve been very concerned on many levels about this, having 146 women coming in, plus staff, in a building that is only seven-floors high is going to destroy the street and the residential feeling of the neighborhood with food delivery, trucks, medical care, all kinds of things,” said a man who lives on the same block. “We also think it will change the preservation look of the neighborhood in a way that is profound and not really reflected in the drawing,” he added.
As members of the community board reiterated repeatedly, the Tuesday night vote was strictly related to the proposed design changes of the building, not on the overall shelter plan as a whole. Likewise, the Landmarks Preservation Commission vote on January 9 will also only have to do with the design changes to the building, not the larger conversation of the shelter.
There will be another CB7 meeting slated for February that will center around the programatic side of what the shelter will look like.
During that meeting, the community board will hold another vote or publish a resolution that will relate to whether it supports the shelter on the specific Upper West Side block as a whole. With that being said, the shelter plan itself does not have to clear any more hurdles with the city in order to open, and only has to go in front of the LPC because it is in an historic district.
The LPC can deny certain design changes, but it can not weigh in on the building being used as a homeless shelter.
CB7’s vote or resolution in February will also be a strictly advisory one.
Bayrock Capital, an investment firm, is the owner of the building, while Gate 211 Architecture is the hired firm. At the time of sale in the summer of 2023 between Bayrock Capital and the Calhoun School, which merged with a different local school, the investment firm said it would be turning the building into luxury housing.
At some point in the months after, the firm pivoted to the homeless shelter.
Multiple members of the community also lamented the lack of notice about the incoming shelter.
“I read about it in the West Side Rag, and others did too,” one woman said.
Board members responded that news of the incoming shelter was sent out in their newsletter, posted on their website, and also included on posters stuck around the immediate blocks near West 74th Street.
“I think you’re taking too lightly the changes both in the front, and in the back,” a different community member said.
A local attending the meeting asked if the Landmark Preservation Commission listened to the Community Board’s advisory votes.
“Sometimes they listen and sometimes not,” a board member responded.
You can watch the full CB7 conversation below. The 160 West 74th Street conversation begins around the 27:46 minute mark.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
On the general topic of lights…
In recent years there seem to more and more blinding lights on buildings – and which significantly impact any apartment facing those lights.
What’s up?
Some businesses, like the ABC studios, have automated blinds that lower automatically a certain times, thereby sparing their neighbors from having bright lights glaring into their windows at all hours. Why don’t more businesses do this and why isn’t it a requirement for commercial buildings in residential areas?
Those bright LED lights are all over city.
Besides providing lighting the brightness (in theory) deters crime and or make it easier to capture images on video cameras.
Many of these lights are truly blinding.
Not good IMO
That’s why window shades, blinds and drapes were invented.
BB,
Of course apartment residents typically do need to have shades or curtains – but blinding light is another situation.
It is blinding to pedestrians walking by too.
There is a brownstone row that faces the back of 160. They will be affected by the bright lighting that seems to be proposed for the top floor of the shelter. Wonder how that will work out?
I have had issue with store lights being on all night across from my apartment. I have contacted 311 and our local govt officials always to be told there are noise ordinances, but no light ordinances.
The board is really just rubber-stamping any corporate write-off driven project without a care to local residents. UWS For Sale.
I find it very unethical that bayrock capital misrepresented their intention to the Calhoun school. The investment firm said they would be turning the building into Luxury housing in order to finalize the sale of the property. In the months following, the firm announced they no longer were building luxury housing and instead decided to build a homeless shelter at this historic location. Apparently they already had the green light by the city for the homeless shelter in place prior to purchasing the property. I also see that they very recently purchased a holiday inn hotel in Long Island city along with a wyndham garden hotel and numerous other properties. Are they receiving govt approval for homeless shelters for all their locations? . I do feel like the UWS residents and the Calhoun school were grossly duped by Bayrock capital in order to secure a lucrative contract with the city vs the alternative option of building luxury condos or apartments that would have only benefited and ameliorated the entire neighborhood.
Would love to hear their response to this. WSR? You on this?
Calhoun school received $14 million from Bayrock for that property. Do you truly believe they have or had any qualms about what would become of place post sale?
https://nypost.com/2023/07/21/nycs-calhoun-school-to-become-apartments-after-14m-sale/
Absent valid deed restrictions or few other means sellers of properties have zero control over what happens once they relinquish ownership.
The Homeless Industrial Complex is very real. Think about the money that WE pay as a result of the NYC politicians and bureaucrats’ poorly negotiated contracts with businesses that now find it more lucrative to be in the shelter business. Hotels? Luxury housing? Hell NO! They make more money feeding at the trough of the government’s homeless and shelter system. In turn, the politicians gladly snap up their donations. There is absolutely no incentive to solve the problem of homelessness and certainly no desire or need for these politicians to represent the needs of the communities they supposedly represent becasue they know that the UWS can be counted on to vote for the same people over and over and do nothing that will result in a change.
Maybe they took seriously all the complaints about developers building only luxury housing for the 1%’ers who don’t occupy those apartments. So they decided to build for another market segment in a neighborhood that is full of bleeding-heart liberals who care so deeply for those who experience homelessness.
The migrant situation is truly an impossibly difficult human situation to deal with. That said, I can’t help wondering why the city chooses such expensive real estate to house the homeless in an already saturated neighborhood. To name a few we already have Basics Housing, Euclid Hall, Valley Lodge, Capitol Hall- just in the 80s and several others in the area. Added this year-Hotel Belnord and Stratford Arms (west 70th) . Soon to be open is the shelter on West 59th and the new one replacing Calhoun school. I truly don’t understand this from a financial or humane perspective.
I also feel that it is atrocious that the community has no say in the matter-it is our taxpayer dollars and we also may have some better suggestions as to how to deal with this.
No wonder so many families are choosing to move out of the city. The schools are becoming overwhelmed and between the bikes and fearing crime the elderly are fearful if leaving their apartments.
I so totally agree. Where is transparency. Where is the ability to have something to say for or against.
Your ability to say something is at the ballot box. The UWS keeps voting in the same politicians, and those politicians support these programs. They win by a mile, so there is no need for them to take any complaints seriously. The UWS would not vote for a Republican even if the Democrat was a serial killer (yes, some hyperbole), but a moderate Democrat would be competitive if people voted with purpose. I expect the current Democratic machine would do whatever they could to keep such a person of the ballot.
Very good post.
Check out this Fox News TV coverage:
https://news.yahoo.com/upper-west-side-residents-shocked-233136338.html
Funny- Bayrock is described on their website as known for their “transparency “. This deal was anything but.
They have no obligation to be transparent when they buy private property. Why do you think you’re entitled to know their plans?
There’s no way they can fit that many people in this building. I’ve been in there as my nephew went to school there and it’s literally impossible to jam that many people into it. Also why is there no input from the neighborhood?
That would be abt 35-40 women per floor after other space utilized for offices and common areas. Being that cramped the street will be loaded with these women when weather cooperates.
At the last CB 7 meeting, on January 2, we were told that the decision to turn 162/4 West 74th Street into a shelter was announced months ago and that there were flyers posted everywhere in the neighborhood. We, the residents never saw anything. 20 of us were present at the meeting and we all concurred. Originally this building was to be turned into residential condos like what was the Phoenix House.
We really feel let down almost lied to by CB7 and LTC and DHS. The lack of communication is unacceptable considering the scope of the change and the impact of the neighborhood.
Agree and how could Bay Capital secure all permits and approvals all within a few months of the purchase and have full approval to move forward so quickly. Not possible. . There is no transparency as to if the city is leasing the building , the amount being paid etc., length of the agreement looks like these investment groups are buying up every building or hotel that they can find and turning around and flipping and leasing to the city. You don’t spend $14M on a property unless you have a plan in place. Which clearly they did. How can you building a shelter and be more Lucrative than new luxury condos on the UWS two blocks from the park ? The city must be paying a massive premium. Who is responsible for signing off and negotiating and putting the stamp of approval and what’s extremely upsetting is that our councilwomen and UWS elected officials were not transparent.
So now the UWS needs more new luxury condos? I thought everyone was against that.
A overdue chronology is in order here:
A resident across the street at 153 luckily caught a “single” flyer re: the 11/9 Community Board meeting.
There is always lot of communication here on this block but we never heard anything about the meeting(s) or the proposed shelter.
As such she was the only one attended as resident and felt something was not right when nothing re: usage was revealed when questioning “a female spokesperson”.
12/14 Community Board meeting notice was also “stealthy” – I found out about it through the same resident who was told about it during the 11/9 meeting.
After the 12/14 meeting when shelter conversion was finally revealed, the press was contacted.
Flyer for this 12/14 meeting then appears at the entrance of building 160 w after that meeting , with 11/9 flyer underneath.
Then a “hand delivered “(?!) flyer re: 1/9/24 meeting was brought to my attention – prompting additional follow-up contacts to the press.
Thank you.
Still confused about the ownership etc?
Bayrock purchased the building and at some point decided to develop as a shelter.
Does that mean the City will be purchasing the building from Bayrock once the renovation is completed?
Or will Bayrock lease to the City for use as a shelter?
In any event, Calhoun like other educational and non-profits has tax-free status – but able to benefit greatly from massive real estate deals.
What appears to have happened is same as usual for city when it comes to homeless shelters.
Space is apparently being leased by city (remember Gail Brewer basically ordering Bayrock Capital to send her office a copy of lease?).
Department of Social Services has tapped Volunteers of America to run this “temporary shelter”.
https://ilovetheupperwestside.com/former-calhoun-school-building-to-become-womens-shelter/
As of 7 July 2023 owner of 160 West 74th street is “UWS Partners LLC, who paid the Calhoun School $14 million USD. No further sales or transfers of property have occurred since that date.
https://opencorpdata.com/us-ny/6761048
Indeed “UWS Partners LLC” are the ones petitioning LPC to make changes to building. Thus Bayrock Capital via another corporate entity is making alterations to building and will act as LL to this homeless shelter that Volunteers of America is running on behalf of city.
When lease period ends either things will be renewed or shelter will close. Bayrock can then choose what’s next for this property.
Thank you for doing some research. The question is what is the city paying for this lease? The taxpayers are paying this. Does anyone know? Developing luxury condos at this particular location is not
Risky. It’s a fantastic location less than two blocks from the park in an amazing area. Why would Bay Capital say it was for luxury condos if that wasn’t the case? There must be other available properties in the state of New York that would cost the tax payers and city a l of less that this particular location. . I cannot
Imagine the city is stealing this property as a deal that they couldn’t pass
Up. A few months after purchase they announced the agreement with the city. No Realestate investment group would purchase a property without lining up
Their financing and plan to move
Forward. Is it possible they had a plan in place for a homeless shelter prior to closing the deal? Construction and Interest rates are on a downward trajectory and the fed has alluded to lower rates in 2024. Also there is a shortage of new construction
Condos on the west side in the 70s. With that said it must be a very lucrative contract with the city.
Sooner or later DSS with either have to publicly disclose lease and other costs for 160 West 74th. This and or someone will file a FOIA request, or some member of government (such as city council member) will get the details.
Gail Brewer already requested (or demanded) to obtain copy of lease and other details.
There has been a ton of new luxury condos and rentals going up all over city. Downtown Brooklyn, and Far West Side are beginning to look like Hong Kong.
Downtown (Chelsea, Tribeca, SoHo, Gramercy Park, FiDi, etc…) are where much of the money is going nowadays. Across Central Park from Madison to Second avenues tons of new luxury housing has gone up and more is coming.
These are all new purpose built luxury housing full of amenities. A small boutique property like 160 West 74th cannot compete on that level.
If you believe Gale does not have this information then you are fooling yourself. Gale knew about the 83rd street project at least a full month before it was even announced on CB flyer as did Beverly Donohue. This is all backed up in Foil requests. This is just formal notifications. Odds are they knew many many months before. The politicians and community board- who are in the business to deceive the residents should be super troubling to all involved
I lived a few doors down from there for 30 years, and while I am no longer on the block, I welcome this women’s shelter. It’s a far better use of this gorgeous historic building than luxury apartments, which the upper West side already has too many of.
Some years ago, Phoenix house, a drug rehabilitation organization, had their headquarters just next-door. There were frequently clients of theirs standing out front having cigarettes, and never in all of the years I lived there did I have a problem. (That bldg is now super luxury condo apts.)
I suspect just a few short years from now a Majority of neighbors will say that the shelter has either had no impact, or has been a positive addition to the neighborhood.
Great, yet another homeless shelter on the UWS. When will it end? When will the East side or other boroughs get some of these?
An overdue chronology of events is in order:
A resident across the street at 153 w 74 luckily caught a “single” flyer re: the 11/9 Community Board meeting.
There is always lot of communication here on this block – but we never heard anything about the meeting(s) or the proposed shelter.
As such she was the only one attended as resident and felt something was not right when nothing re: usage was revealed when questioning “a female spokesperson” present.
12/14 Community Board meeting notice was equally “stealthy” – I found out about it through the same resident who was told about it during the 11/9 meeting.
After the 12/14 meeting when shelter conversion was finally revealed, the press was contacted.
Flyer for this 12/14 meeting then appears at the entrance of building 160 w after that meeting , with the 11/9 flyer underneath.
Then a “hand delivered “(?!) flyer re: 1/9/24 meeting was brought to my attention – prompting additional follow-up contacts to the press.
Google 160 w 74 shelter update to view press coverage generated including statement from Ms. Gale Brewer and Fox news.
Thank-you
How can they remove an external fire escape? The wall around the a/c should be higher to minimize noise, and the lighting installed on the rear must be angled and shaded so it doesn’t shine into people’s windows, that’s very important.
External fire escapes are only required by code if building lacks interior enclosed staircases.
If as part or renovation work 160 West 74th plans to enclose interior staircases then need for fire escapes is removed.
You don’t see fire escapes on newer say five to six story (or more) multi-family because they all have interior closed staircases .
Good luck with blocking that a/c noise! I lived next door to the Phoenix House for years and every summer the A/C noise was unbearable. Now the residents of the Marbury at 164 will need to deal with the same thing. Be prepared!
ANOTHER SHELTER? Is this some kind of joke?
Nosing around various city websites can see how this deal makes sense for Bayrock.
UWS Partners, LLC (Bayrock entity that owns 160 West 74th) paid $14 million for property. $9.600.000.00 of that money is debt (a mortgage held by M&T bank). So while they only put up about $4.4 million Bayrock has a mortgage payments to make each month. Given today’s interest rates this debt wouldn’t have been inexpensive.
Converting 160 West 74th (a landmarked building) into luxury apartments in current market would have been risky. This either as condos or rentals.
While we don’t know what city is paying in terms of rent and other costs it’s highly likely Bayrock is getting at least enough to service debt each month, probably more.
Thus instead of luxury housing that may or may not make enough money to pay off costs, Bayrock is getting a building full of “resident’s” and city is paying all costs.
When initial term of lease ends Volunteers of America/NYC DSS will either renew or residents will be moved out and shelter closed.
While not exactly money for nothing; it’s a pretty good deal for Bayrock Capital.
How did the UWS become one of the main centers for shelters and supportive housing in the five boroughs? A community board that pursues its own agenda and totally disregards what the community wants. Time to dismantle the community board system.
We’ve done that question, and response is simple. West side of Manhattan from about Chelsea through mid-town onto UWS and continuing north into Morningside Heights and Harlem is rich with old tourist hotels that became SROs or other budget accommodations.
UWS and other areas mentioned also were rich in old mansions and row houses that became boarding houses. This began by 1920’s or so and continued into 1940’s and beyond.
The “Dakota Cousins” half block of townhouses behind the Dakota apartments on West 73rd were full of “lodgers” by 1940’s as was nearly every house on that block.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/realestate/the-dakotas-cousins-and-how-they-grew.html
Other reasons include there are far more property owners on West Side willing to do deals with city vis-a-vis homeless shelters or supportive housing.
The shelter provides interim income and gains PR points while the owners wait for the right time to develop the property into luxury units. It’s very easy to close up a shelter once the lease expires. If they wanted to make it affordable housing, they would need to develop the property with all the ADA rules and regs and they could never move the people. I’m starting to see the pattern here. More luxury rentals, when so many appear empty, is risky. But in a few years, once those get filled, we will suddenly hear that the lease is up and the shelter is moving. Then, this building will get developed. Another older building will take it’s place. One of the joys and drawbacks of living in a historic district is we have lots of these smaller buildings that while charming, require expensive upgrades before they can become permanent housing. As residents upsize, downsize, die or relocate, owners will need to assess the market and keep in mind many of these smaller buildings are owned by individuals vs. corporations. Things happen within families where they may no longer wish or can afford to be a landlord. Think about all these housing laws that keep getting signed that require costly upgrades. I say, expect more of this. Look at the buildings on your block and the likelihood of what it could be if the building changes hands. Anything that is a business or a rental is probably fair game.
There was never any danger of 160 West 74th becoming “affordable” housing. Not when owners paid $14 million alone just to buy the property. Even with tax breaks or other subsidies the thing would never pencil out.
OTOH a homeless shelter is close to free money or steady revenue stream a NYC property owner can get.
City will never solve it’s homeless problems, and long as “right to shelter” exists NYC is on the hook to provide housing.
It’s always luxury condos or shelter… what about “affordable” housing?
No money in it. You need to get massive city subsidies or high rents to be able to afford to build in the city.
The soon to be upscale new restaurant in the nearby former Cesca space most likely will not be thrilled at this development