By Scott Etkin
On the agenda at a Community Board 7 committee meeting last week was the topic of ABC’s former broadcasting buildings and offices at West 66th and 67th streets. While CB7 meetings are normally a forum for public discussion, this time was different.
Due to the ongoing negotiations about the site, the board decided to take the meeting private.
The sensitivity of this topic reflects its high stakes: The former ABC buildings on West 66th and 67th streets are now owned by real estate developer Extell, which is known for building luxury super-tall apartment buildings; its plans for the former ABC properties are not certain, but whatever it is allowed to do might come down to the NYC Department of City Planning’s decision about a proposed zoning change.
During the portion of the Community Board meeting that was still open to the public, committee member Seema Reddy gave a brief overview of the situation with ABC’s former campus (after nearly five decades on the UWS, the broadcaster is moving downtown to Hudson Square, a neighborhood of Soho).
“[Extell] want[s] to build a very large building on Columbus Avenue and maybe another building midblock,” Reddy said. CB7’s “official stance,” said Reddy, “is that we object to a super-tall building and believe that this large parcel on the Upper West Side should contribute to solving a portion of the affordable housing crisis that we face.”
The rest of the session, which took place in private, was scheduled to hear presentations from Sean Khorsandi, executive director of Landmark West!, a local preservation group; City Councilmember Gale Brewer; and George Janes, a zoning and development expert.
Initially, there was some debate among the Community Board members about whether the session should be held without the public. But they ultimately voted to take it private, on the grounds that it was the only way the board could learn about the latest negotiations and have a candid discussion.
Richard Asche, CB7’s parliamentarian, said that the stakeholders involved would not share information with the board in a public setting. “We can’t get the information that we need because [of] the reluctance to share it among the people who know it,” Asche said.
Beverly Donohue, chair of CB7, also supported closing the meeting in order to allow a freer discussion about ongoing negotiations concerning the site, which she said could affect the value of the property and eventually involve litigation.
“There are negotiations that are sensitive and that we would not wish to, at this point, reveal necessarily to the owner of the site,” Donohue said. “And those cannot be discussed in [a public] session without real damage to the ability of the board to have a position and to support it.”
The details of the private discussion are expected to be shared in the future, though the timing is uncertain. Asche noted that “At some point there would be a Community Board 7 resolution that would be debated publicly.”
The board has no authority to make final zoning decisions, but its resolutions can offer opinions or recommendations to city zoning authorities.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Next time they go into private session, they should at least include someone who believe that solving the housing crisis will involve building more housing instead of just NIMBYs like Janes and LMW.
Building more luxury condominiums will NOT solve the affordable housing crisis. Trickle down doesn’t work!
You got that right!
Every expert disagrees with you on this. New housing puts pressure on existing landlords with older buildings to lower their prices in order to compete with new buildings with newer amenities. Studies, experts, common sense all line up here.
That has been debunked time and time again in cities where it was actually done. In EVERY case, average rents went UP, not down. This occurred in SF, Boston, and several other big cities in which it has been tried.
The cities with the most restrictive housing laws have the highest prices. Cities that build large amounts of market rate housing have kept housing prices much lower than NYC, SF or Boston while absorbing far more residents. SF and Boston build very little housing. SF builds essentially none.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/austin-rents-tumble-22-peak-130017855.html
Which cities have made themselves more affordable by freezing new building?
(Also, SF has notoriously anti-growth policies?)
The following is Chatgpt’s response to your statement:
The statement is misleading and not entirely true. Let’s break it down:
1. Correlation vs. Causation
Cities like San Francisco and Boston did build more housing, but they also experienced strong job growth and demand, which far outpaced the housing supply increases.
Rents went up because supply didn’t keep up with demand, not because adding housing made rents rise.
2. Local vs. Regional Effects
Studies show that building more market-rate housing in a neighborhood can stabilize or slightly reduce rents nearby, especially over the medium to long term.
A 2021 meta-study from UC Berkeley and UCLA reviewing dozens of papers found that new construction generally reduces rents in the surrounding area and does not cause displacement.
3. Filtering Effect
New housing (even luxury) eventually “filters down” over time as it ages, becoming more affordable unless it’s removed from the rental market (e.g., converted to condos or short-term rentals).
4. Supply Constraints
In the cities mentioned (SF, Boston), zoning, permitting delays, and political resistance have made it incredibly hard to build enough housing. So while some housing is added, it’s nowhere near enough to bend the curve on rents.
TL;DR:
Just because rents rose in SF or Boston doesn’t mean new housing caused it. The real problem is not building enough. The best evidence we have shows that increasing supply helps affordability, especially when paired with tenant protections and affordable housing mandates.
Huh!? SF and Boston are also notorious for not building enough housing, Look what happened to rents in Austin when they built lots of new housing in the last few years. Supply and demand, its not complicated.
Look at the super tall they are building just across the street on 66th . Most of it is empty space. Why not use that space, that won’t have park views, for more affordable units? The billionaires could still buy the apartments on the high floors.
Remember the poor door in building down near the river. Rich people don’t want to live in same building with. Working class
Because the existing FAR zoning doesn’t allow it and incentivizes developers to build these mechanical voids instead! Fix the FAR to allow taller buildings and you don’t get this issue.
Scott, was the closed portion of the meeting off-limits to news organizations like WSR as well as the general public? Not always the same thing.
Yes, the Executive Session was closed to press.
Like it or not Extell legally purchased this land and is free to develop it as they wish (as long as they are not in violation of any zoning laws). As far as I know Extell did not agree to provide any “affordable housing” in the buildings they plan on constructing in return for the right to buy this land, nor did Extell agree to limit the height of these buildings.
I don’t recall voting for anyone in CB7 or Landmark West. I don’t see where these self-appointed community leaders have the right to dictate how Extell should develop this space.
Extell could ignore the zoning laws, and then get a pass. Been done before.
It’s called “community.” As long as people live in a community, and pay State, federal, and property taxes, they have rights. Also, they are not “self-appointed.” They are voted in and/or appointed. Seriously — your real estate affiliation is showing, as is your civics deprivation. Also, research the words “First Amendment.”
Based on their own bylaws, what aspect of this negotiation/discussion falls under the following allowable reasons to close the meeting to the public? “Sensitive” negotiations or “ability to have a position” (?!) is not among the below.
III. E. Open Meetings Law
1. Board and Committee meetings are subject to the New York State Open Meetings Law codified in the Public Officers Law, Article 7 and as such:
A. All meetings shall be open to the public, except for an Executive Session in accordance with section III.F.
Executive Session
1. Upon a majority vote of those present, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, the Full Board may conduct an Executive Session for these purposes only:
a. Matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed; or
b. Any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer; or
c. Information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed; or
d. Discussions regarding proposed, pending, or current litigation; or
e. The medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation; or
f. Matters regarding the staff or staffing decisions
When these buildings are fully occupied, I worry about traffic in 66th St. It is always going to be heavily used because it is the transverse through the park. With the super tall on the south side and whatever goes in on the north fully occupied that means more Uber’s and Amazon and UPS. There is a bus stop at both the Eat and West ends of the block. There is only one lane for through traffic as is but of the Uber’s are stopping to pick up passengers or UPS.double parks the result will be awful.
Wow…Community Board 7:doesn’t want the Public to know what is doing in negotiations with developers. Isn’t that nice.
Why can’t these buildings just be landmarked? Problem Solved!
What is so remarkable about these buildings that they should be frozen in time?
Landmarking should be used sparingly for truly important buildings, it’s overdone on the UWS and as you are implying just serves to freeze building of new homes
Let them build what they want on their land. All these people shouldn’t be telling them what to build.
Is Extell going to build parking onto these buildings? This should be mandatory for any new buildings!!
Bet they end up with 3 super tall s and they will put affordable housing in low rise buildings to meet the city’s affordable housing and no height restrictions
Has Extell disclosed to the Board that last year it quietly purchased options from nearby residential buildings to buy their airspace, to add to the airspace that they already own? The height of any super tall towers could be substantially greater then the current estimates, if they do not include these options.
I want to remind the CB about the presentation Extell made to the public prior to building the two buildings on Broadway and 99th Street – and the utter shock and gasping that occurred – from members of the Board and the public alike.
Extell is not to be trusted. By closing this meeting, the Board is abrogating its responsibility to the community and public it serves.
I smell a rat. A big, nasty one.
As someone else pointed out, I find it hard to believe that the buildings in question are not landmarked. But I do think they are within a Historic District, so there ARE some limits on what can be done with them and the land.
Extell has already gotten around a New York Historical designated building; The Art Students League on West 57th St. Extell built that insanely tall thing cantilevered over the Art Students League which is a beautiful Beaux Arts building from the late 1800s. It now blocks the sun from the skylights of the 5th Floor art studios. I don’t know how they did it — but evidently the New York Historical society isn’t all that powerful. Either that or they were bought
Not a secret they have already filed plans for two residential buildings
All you have to do is walk around that area on a lovely warm day to see the giant amount
of people who already live here. Building a
super tall would bring an intolerable amount
of pedestrian traffic. If these apts will sell in the millions I don’t think a millionaire and his children would find the quality of life acceptable. You would have to expand the sidewalks onto an already crowded street
This is a really tough one. Basically this is
residential area. this super tall cannot be
built. Too much overbuilding not enough
space. How about a park?
The purchase price was $931m.
The key is the air rights so if the community would like to have a park they probably would need to spend $2b to $3b to secure something that would not be eventually over-shadowed by buying the lot and air-rights.
Look at their filings, if you want affordable housing for example you need to give up something (ie height)
There is a triple filing on Riverside that depending on how much affordable housing. they do the building varies from something like 10 stories to 30 stories. This without air-rights.