155th & St. Nicholas Ave

It's on the edge of Hamilton Heights (and more specifically the microneighborhood of Sugar Hill) and Washington Heights. I live in the upper 140's closer to Broadway. Sugar Hill has some amazing architecture. The upper 150's are a lot nicer the further west you go. A friend looked at a few apartments at 930 St. Nicholas- but they were too small for her preference. The Pizza place over there is one of the better one's in the area.

This is very helpful. I was also thinking 930 St. Nicholas. Was it just apartment size or does she have other concerns? Apartments in the area seem to take a long time to sell, so just wondering.

If memory serves, there were other issues- though they may have been short term. I seem to recall that they had a lot of reported problems with Bedbugs- that alone was a deal killer- though possibly a shorter term issue. We both also felt that Hamilton Heights had much greater potential than lower Washington Heights (East of Broadway).

"We both also felt that Hamilton Heights had much greater potential than lower Washington Heights (East of Broadway)."

I agree - It's worth spending a couple more bucks to be in a better micro neighborhood - if you're going to move north of 155th then stay west of broadway for now. If it were me, I'd focus south of 150th and west of Convent.

Why only west of Broadway? Is that area gentrifying faster?

If you're north of 155th; west of Broadway you will find neighbors who are more like minded - I wouldn't say that it's gentrifying because I don't see a lot of that going on up there - but I would say that the people who live there now are working class, reasonable people. I don't think there is a lot of gentrification because the people who live there now like it there and they are stable and can afford to live there - so there isn't a lot of turnover. You need vacant apartments or vacant land for gentrification to happen - west of Broadway I don't see a lot of either.

South of 150th I don't think you need to be west of Broadway and often the hill there makes it annoying to be west of Broadway.

Unless you're not only familiar with the neighborhood and really WANT to live there, do not purchase there.

Not familiar with the area, so I will move on given all the advice here, thanks!!

msky -why not get to know the neighbor then? Why is your next move out? Isn't the more prudent thing to do to investigate the neighborhood? No one here said don't live there, we all said you might consider looking two blocks over. Perhaps you like the neighborhood more than others???

Is there a new condo building going up on 155th Street? Does anyone happen to know?

If you only consider the construction/architecture for a moment- the properties built West of Broadway tended to be luxury buildings vs. many tenament style apartments East of Broadway. They are also part of the Audobon Historic District- overall much more interesting to my eye.

Scarednycgal, no, it's not a new condo on 155th street. http://www.broadwayhousing.org/housing/sugarhill/

While it is an affordable housing project- I have to say I am really impressed with what this organization did at Riverside Dr and 135th. I went there for a community meeting to discuss Columbia's project at Broadway and 148th st that was held at one of their sites and I was really blown away by the art gallery/roof top garden they had- I would have never known this was an affordable housing building.

Any idea what the income limits will be for this building, http://www.broadwayhousing.org/housing/sugarhill/ ?

Thanks Semerun,
Does that mean it is public housing, i.e. "projects" for non-working people? Or is it income restricted for working people? Same question about the Columbia project on Broadway and 148th Street.

Thanks!

Good question, scarednycgal.

Sugar Hill "Project" is aimed squarely at the "homeless"-shelter population. That group is so problematic that NYCHA public housing project residents have done everything they can to stop (or severely slow down) their placement in the real "projects".

And with very good cause ... their homelessness is not a root cause, but merely one symptom of the deeply-entrenched behavioral problems that have them where they are in life.

Now let's see the extent to which this misguided 1950s-thinking do-goody organization is willing to draw the line on issues like drug dealing, violence, threats, noise, etc. within their own building, and at a reasonable point toss families back onto the streets.

Not to mention all those same behaviors in the surrounding neighborhood.

A huge step backwards.

semerun, thanks for alerting us.

I like that the building's exterior is the same abysmal bleakness that was used for Family Court in New York. Appropriate.

Columbia owns the entire block on Broadway between 147th and 148th (western side of Broadway). They currently moved a church on the 147th st end of this block that was displaced from Manhattanville. The Columbia Project on Broadway at 148th street will be an income restricted co-op for those displaced from the campus expansion zone in Manhattanville. Once this 12 story building is completed- the displaced church next door will move to it's final home on the ground floor of this building. Columbia has not yet announced what will be done with the property on the 147th street end of this block once the Church moves. I am speculating that this could be housing for Med. School students as it will be between the Hospital and the campus. My building has had a couple of Medical School students that loved our location because they had to travel between the two locations and Hamilton Heights was in-between the school and the hospital. My speculation aside, the 12 story building is expected to be completed in 2015.

So great to have all this solid info, Semerun! (Have you heard any more about what's happening with the late, lamented Hamilton Palace building?)

I understand that people come to these boards for varying purposes and that lots of people area adamant in seeing real estate as being more about investment than home. That's their prerogative, as it's mine to think the opposite. But I think the bias that crops up quite often against low income neighbors is seriously distasteful. Cities are exciting and lively because of all kinds of diversity. Someone who can't bear to share a zip code with anyone less affluent than him or herself should maybe live in one of those suburban gated communities.

NYC is for everyone. I specifically enjoy living in Harlem because it is a very diverse community in terms of race, income, age, and many other factors. I live a few blocks from the 155th St. affordable housing project and I think it's great. There's nothing I would be happier to have on that plot of land than what they are building.

Talking about gentrification is another problematic thing. I think it's easier to be clear when we just talk about change in neighborhoods--any city that's alive is changing constantly, and NYC has as part of its style that changes more dynamically than most. When we say "gentrification", different people mean different things. For some, it means a neighborhood is getting nicer, more prosperous, recovering from woes and losses, gaining amenities. For others--let's be blunt--it mostly means the neighborhood is getting whiter, and (secondarily) more middle class. To some people, it means desirable progress, to others it means shameful misappropriation of space.

155th St is many different things, from block to block. Over here by St Nicholas, it will soon have a large new building fulfilling a vital community role. Several long blocks to the west, it will continue to be a place of handsome, grand Edwardian co-op palazzos, inhabited by prosperous families and individuals who have lovingly returned them to their original style and status. Scattered around the surrounding area, we have small new condos, whose owners probably were attracted in part to those properties by a desire for brand new housing at lower prices than available in other parts of town. We've got modest working class rental apartment buildings and those now filling up with young student and recent-grad type tenants. We have HDFC coops which vary a lot more than one might think, but most of which seem to be doing quite well and playing their part in helping to keep the fabric of the neighborhood varied but whole.

Hamilton Heights is so nice--so interesting--so varied. It contains several different micro-neighborhoods within it, and they all are diverse as to their housing stock. Our geography is diverse as well--the river, the hill, Riverbank State Park City College and Trinity Cemetery! I wish more people would come up here and take a walk. Maybe some nice Saturday afternoon the Harlem pundits of Streeteasy should sponsor a Hamilton Heights walking tour ... with special invitations to scarednycgal and msky to come have a look ...

Don't kid yourself -- when you ghettoize very poor, highly dysfunctional people into a project, their behavior sinks to the lowest possible level and has a major negative impact on the surrounding area

NYCHA has stabilized many of their projects by clamping down, heavily policing within the buildings and grounds, and aggressively weeding out troublemakers. That will not happen in a building owned by a non-profit like this ... there will be a "two billion strikes and you're out" policy, at best.

And don't think this bleak building will harbor the colorful characters who you enjoy patronizingly tolerating so you can pat yourself on the back for being a modern kinda person. It will be separate from the community, not a part of it.

It's really a shame that Harlem will remain an unlivable area.

"But I think the bias that crops up quite often against low income neighbors is seriously distasteful. Cities are exciting and lively because of all kinds of diversity."

Why?

Why is the bias so distasteful?

What exactly do these "low income" neighbors contribute to the community?

I wanted to seperate my comments between the Columbia project and the Broadway Housing Community project because they are very different. That said- the Broadway Housing Community project is very different than the NYCHA "Projects"(which I detest). NYCHA is plagued with problems- whether it is the agency itself or residents it represents I don't know- let others argue that. The 155th Street project is not an NYCHA project- but rather a development by a community based organization that has had a great deal of success with people that society has otherwise ignored or rejected. Generally speaking I feel that Hamilton Heights needs far more market rate housing- but that seems to be coming to fruition since there was so many under utilized properties in the area anyway. While I am not thrilled about more low income housing- at least this organization has had success in doing things right. As I mentioned in a prior post- I had the opportunity to visit one of their other buildings for a community meeting, and I only learned that this was a building for low income people long after my visit. Based on the rooftop community room/garden/ art gallery...I would have thought this was a market rate condo or co-op rather than a building for NY's poorest (or formerly poorest). The residents really took pride in this building. The development on 155th street will also be adding a Children's Museum to add to the community.

Uptown 2012, I haven't heard any real updates about the Hamilton Theater since the Ashkenazy bought the 3 lots a few months ago. The Lobby and Theater building are landmarked- though the 3rd plot is vacant. When I read over the offical landmarking documents it explained that the vacant lot on 147th street was intentional- part of a now outdated fire safety code as part of their emergency evacuation space. I would love to see this vacant lot with market rate condo's (which is part of the rumors I have heard). As to the theater...it would be amazing if the space was restored- and it actually has some vocal support from John Catsimatidis...though I doubt it would happen.

As to your comments on HDFC's, I agree. While I do understand and even agree with some of Alanhart's comments on corrupt/broken/problematic HDFC's- it's certainly not the case with many others. I am still helping my friend locate her dream apartment within an HDFC. We found the right building for her, but now we are waiting for the right unit to come to market.

Uptown2012, I agree with you. Income level is not what makes people good neighbors.

Strong fences

Mea culpa, you're right ... GOOD fences

Matt--

Why is diversity exciting? Um, that's a good one. I take this so much for granted I'm not even sure where to begin explaining. I guess some people believe that as an article of faith, and some do not.

I have lived, among other places, in the genteel middle class suburbs of Buffalo, an idyllic small town in the Berkshires, and in Princeton NJ, all of which spectacularly lacked in diversity. I fled them all for NYC in the late 1970s, a time when we can probably all agree the city was at a very low ebb in its fortunes. And I didn't look back, even at the most surreally third world-ish moments when the city seemed to be in apocalyptic free-fall. NYC has always been more interesting, more surprising, more inspirational, more rewarding, more magical, more educational, more engaging than other places I've known. It is where the human experience is most fully to be found, I think--where society can operate best to let people exchange views, generate new ideas, negotiate differences, share resources, and generate adventures. Something like that--off the top of my head, that's what I can come up with right now.

Why is a bias against people who aren't millionaire-ish distasteful to me? I dunno--I guess because I don't like people expressing biases against me without a lot of clear justification. And quite apart from that, I can think of a heck of a lot of ways I'd prefer to rate and rank preferences of people than by income. I am way less a fan of rich folk than I am of some other demographic bands (now there's my bias showing, but couldn't you tell already?), but my real issue is that I think it flattens out the richness of the city if everyone stays in some tiny little enclave of similarity. I live where I do and work where I do in large part because I find it interesting and satisfying to participate in a world expanded beyond the limits of my own personal biography and economic niche. If my little corner of Sugar Hill turns into Morningside Heights or Carnegie Hill (!), I am not going to be a happy camper.

Anyway, I guess I'd ask you in return what high-income people contribute to the community? Sounds strange like that, right? But the way you framed your questions seems to me to suggest that only people of a certain income are part of the community. I'm just trying to say that how I see it is that we are ALL the community. Mayor Dinkins called it a "gorgeous mosaic" in his inauguration speech--do you remember that? A good phrase, I think.

Semerun--

BIG thanks for excellent info on Palacio Hamilton site. Very exciting possibilities!

Uptown, I'm sorry, but I don't find anything "exciting" about people who by and large are noisy, disrespectful of property, and litterbugs.

And this has nothing to do with wanting to be around only millionaires. This has everything to do with wanting to be around by one's socioeconomic peers. You can argue "diversity is great" all you want, but at the end of the day it's not all that great when the "diversity" takes a ding out of the investment you've made in your home and your community.

And by the way, I would hardly hold Mayor Dinkins up as an example of good community building. During his administration, while he was building his "gorgeous mosaic", the city turned into an absolute shithole. Love him or hate him, if it weren't for Giuliani New York would have slipped into terminal decay.

The last thing Hamilton Heights needs is more "affordable housing." The public schools here are AWFUL!!! It is a shame how we are ruining the lives of these kids. We must have more market rate tenants - market rate tenants are the only hope for our schools (and our kids).

The current residents of HH have proven year after year to be unable to create any change. I haven't seen the stat recently but assume it's still true - more kids from HH go to jail than graduate from college.

How dare anyone say that we don't need change here. How dare anyone support the status quo. These are kids, kids. It's our fault they aren't graduating from high school. Concentrations of poor, uneducated people have proven time and time again to fail. We must build more market rate housing. Must. And then these market rate parents will demand and get the needed change in the schools. It's the only hope our kids have.

>It's our fault they aren't graduating from high school.

It is not my fault.

Very, very helpful.

SE why?

>Very, very helpful.

You are big into blame, aren't you?

SE why?

Jazzman-Up to and around 125th street has a lot of market rate apartments. In fact, this area has very expensive apartments and houses. Have the schools in that part of Harlem improved?

Friends--

We obviously are not of one mind as regards the politics of our city, or as to how best to resolve the existing problems about which we can agree. This, in fact, is an example of what I meant when I said cities are vibrant because diverse--so too are real estate discussion boards. There wouldn't be a discussion if everyone agreed, and different opinions here are just one manifestation of the beauty and multifariousness of the city.

Matt, I'd never try to convince you of my views, and obviously I wouldn't succeed if I tried. But I am telling you that I think you have no reason to assume that income level determines whether or not people litter or are respectful. I find 10031 to be outstanding as regards neighbors respecting neighbors, and there's no litter on my block. I think you often make good points on these boards, but I don't appreciate your assumption now that I and my neighbors throw our trash on the sidewalk. Why would you think that?

Jazzman, I also have appreciated a lot of things you've posted. And I'm in the education biz myself, so I understand how vital education is to the health of a community. I am not convinced that building more market rate housing will mean that more kids from this zip code will walk into my classroom at CCNY, however. I'd love it if you're right though, since we are going this way for sure. But as regards that new building on 155th--it seems to me the kids who will live there have a better shot at attending college than they would if they remained homeless.

With all due respect, I do live on the ground floor street facing unit- and I see and hear things that virtually no one else in my building does and in many cases aren't even remotely aware of. I see many people throw their trash on the sidewalk as they stroll down the block or when they hang out on the stoop. Most are long time residents that live in Rent Stablized and Rent Controlled apartments on the block. These are the same residents that are generally disrespectful of noise (car stereo's) late at night- and a few that own dogs don't clean up after them. It's easy to see why others have come to conclusions about these people (likely low income). These are the same people that lived here when I first went into contract here 8 years ago- when the avg household income was about 18k/year- which is why I believe they are likely low income. The parents don't pay any attention to their young children (5 and 6 year olds wandering the streets at 1 am during the summers)- it's been a complete miracle the children were not hit by a car. Now this is just a small subset of people, but it's easy to see how people can draw conclusions based on simple observations.

"Up to and around 125th street has a lot of market rate apartments. In fact, this area has very expensive apartments and houses. Have the schools in that part of Harlem improved?"

They certainly are improving - the school there is PS 180 Hugo Newman - greatschools gives it a 5. Reviews are mixed still, but the trend is very encouraging. The school was really bad for a long time, it will take some time to turn the ship around but you can see it improving. Year after year as more parents who are new to the neighborhood see the changes they are willing to send their kids there. In 10 years it will be rated an 8 or better.
http://www.greatschools.org/new-york/new-york-city/7687-P.S.-180-Hugo-Newman/?tab=reviews

Uptown - and I appreciate your insights you bring to the board here too. But Thurgood Marshall elementary on 147th is 95% black. How does that provide the diversity you think is so important? What's diverse about a school that is 95% black? What's worth fighting for the status quo about that? And considering our neighborhood is nowhere near 95% black isn't is shocking/appalling/noteworthy/unacceptable that the school is so homogenous?

I would hope you would accept that market rate housing has a much better chance of adding diversity in our neighborhood.

Let me add - long time residents of HH are not, I repeat, are not getting priced out. It's a nonsensical red herring used by greedy politicians who are power whores. Long time HH residents have rent stabilized apartments or they own. The only people I see being priced out are those who have moved into market rate apartments over the last 5 years.

So, the kids of the families who have been here for a long time will greatly benefit from new, motivate, capable parents. And they will benefit from having new classmates from more stable homes.

Wouldn't the kids of Thurgood Marshall benefit if half of their classmates had college educated parents? If so, the only way to do that is to increase the number of market rate apartments (or bus kids in - which doesn't work)

Thanks Jazzman. I hope what is happening for PS180 will happen in HH as well.

I was relieved to read Uptown post some things s/he has said here. No one would argue that littering and loud car stereos and young children roaming streets without parents are good things, but her point is that one can't generalize about huge swaths of humanity. I could make generalizations about recent college grads out on the town Thursday nights in Manhattan (urinating on the sides of luxury buildings, littering, being loud sloppy drunks in pizza and burrito joints). I could also make generalizations about overly aggressive, arrogant @#$^ who fight you for cabs on the Upper East. I think what Uptown is saying is something more akin to what my grandmother used to say, and my mother then repeated to me: "Just think what a boring world it would be if everyone were exactly alike." No, that is not to say that it's nice to have people who litter. But when you form opinions about people without knowing them you are just cutting yourself off from possible interactions you will never allow yourself to know.

About education, the recent statistic that 80% or so of public high school grads are not ready for CC -- doesn't that mean that there are NO good public high schools? And sorry to say, but I'm not at all impressed with the intellect of recent college grads, no matter what income level their parents are. And just to round out my rant, whose fault is it that anyone drops out of school, or slouches their way through school without opening a book? Does anyone hold a gun to a student's head and order them to skip class, stay up late at night hanging out, never do their homework or pay attention? When I hear about public schools being shut down for underperformance I think of the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic.

Someone I know did Principal for a Day at Huey Newton Elementary in 2003 or so, and was greatly impressed by the school. Demo was something like 101% black, 99.99.99% no-income. It had been turned around by a disciplinarian principal, with no parental involvement and no non-profit contributions (to my knowledge).

The only complaint I ever heard about the school and the principal was from a dear co-worker of mine, who had been called in when her son got into one or more fights. But I have no doubt that he started the fight(s).

lowery,
a. All community colleges should be shut down
b. We should stop trying to get high school students to "Stay In School". That's about the funding formula, and nothing more. Someone who's not cut out for extending schooling can do better off on his own. My Tolstoy-reading grandfather, for example, made it only to the 8th grade. My philosophy-reading grandmother finished high school, then started and finished college after retirement at 65 years of age.
c. Fast forward to the end of The Wizard of Oz to learn the true value of a diploma/degree. Promoters of college degrees have a thing or two to learn about correlation/causation.
d. School is dumb
e. Everyone will never be alike. If you live in a small town with an Episcopal church and a Presbyterian church, you have diversity. If there's only an Episcopal church, you still have diversity, because people are all contemptible in their own separate ways, and moreover all people hate all other people individually (as well, of course, as all groups hating all other groups)
f. Patronizing thoughts are the most hateful form of hatred, even if one earns another elbow patch for voicing those thoughts. (Not you, ...)

Oh, and don't you love race-themed CUNY community colleges, like Hostos and Medgar Evers?

Diversity indeed!

Alan, strongly worded, yes, but I do agree with much of what you say. My own feelings about formal education are more complex. The sheepskin means nothing, but it is absolutely essential. So if it's all a formalistic game, what's so hard about playing it? That's what all of life is about, like getting a job, being paid, etc. I guess what I'm questioning is people's notions of what a good school is. Take a school being closed for bad performance. Is that really all the fault of the faculty members and administration? If so, nothing is accomplished by closing it, because either those very same people or people exactly like them will be in the replacement institution, since they are all spokes in the same wheel. Shutter a building and move the students to a new building? That insinuates that it is the building which actually constitutes a good school, not the people within it. About contempt, I do hear what you're saying, but I'd also point out that people can love each other just as easily, if they'd just allow themselves to, but it's true that instead there is an awful lot of looking for reasons to hold each other in contempt.

Wow, this is heating up! Lots to talk about here.

Semerun, I hear you and I have seen it, too. I hate it when anyone trashes their own, or someone else's neighborhood. And your street-level-eye-view must give you a good vantage point for seeing some pretty bad stuff.

But I have also seen people throw trash out the windows of their BMWs while pulling into their parking garages on the upper east side. and I am not assuming that I know what anyone's income or level of education is from watching them on the street. The rich are also notorious for employing others to care for their children--with varying success rates, I can assure you. I am not saying it's the same or all equal or we can't judge anyone. I am saying that these things are very complex and it's easy to get ti wrong by making too many assumptions. I am saying we all have biases, and it's healthy and decent to examine these from time to time, and honorable to respect other people's very different presumptions and biases when we meet them here ... even as we challenge them, if we feel the need. I think this is pretty reasonable, and something most of us could probably agree to, more or less, most of the time.

Jazzman, I could not agree with you more about it being criminal that our city schools are so bad, and that they are so lacking in diversity. This is evil and sad. I am just not sure that the housing stock being built here is the way to fix that. It's obviously hugely difficult to change, since people have been trying for 50 years or so at this point without noticeable success overall. I am no expert, but my idea for how to fix the schools doesn't involve real estate, it involves providing equal resources to all schools in ample supply, and mandating reasonable standards and practices that are uniform for everyone. If that happens, an awful lot more people will send their kids to public school, and once more of the population does that, there will be more voices to hold the schools accountable for their success.

For the schools actually to succeed, however, we need to be educating kids not to become parents too soon, educating parents and caretakers of children to give them stable homes, good nutrition, medical checkups, regular bedtimes, and to read to them every day. Once that utopian dream is achieved, I want to see huge emphasis on actually teaching kids to read and write ASAP--most of the rest of what goes on in primary school is beside the point. Someone who can read and write well can handle most of what life offers, and the math necessary for real life can be picked up fast on the side. If we can get all this done, I think everything will work out pretty well overall. And none of that, as far as I can tell, would depend on pricey condo building uptown.

I'm not opposed to market rate housing in our neighborhood, mind you. Bring it on. But--let's have that big building over on 155th also, and more HDFCs and more modest priced older rental buildings full of well, whomever wishes to live in modest priced rentals. Let's hope to see the continuance of a nice mix of townhouses lavishly reno'd by zillionaires as well as those cherished since forever by less affluent house-proud pillars of our community. Etc etc etc.

Lowery, I am SO in agreement with your grandmother. Yes! And with you about contempt. I have made my cheerleading speech too often already about how cities thrive through diversity, so enough of that--but a corollary would probably be that cities wither and crumble from within when there is contempt. We can't afford contempt, even though it can provide a cheap, quick hit of self righteous energy when we're anxious or discouraged about the state of things. Having contempt means turning off observation, open-mindedness, and the possibility of sympathy. Loving each other would really be something, but I'll settle for a city where we all meet each other with respect.

As for the what's-the-good-of-college argument, I notice that it's often made by people who have college degrees and who didn't sacrifice too much to get them. As for the down-with-community-colleges argument, that one is usually made by people who have never visited a community college. I think they're extremely beautiful things--offering a huge range of people (all ages, prior income levels, nationalities, races, career ambitions, etc etc etc) new possibilities. Some people get degrees and transfer on, some get non-degree professional certifications, some attend for pleasure, some do it for a while and realize that they'd rather pursue their educations at some other life stage later on. Community colleges educate vast numbers of people on shoestring budgets, and they do so very effectively. This is why they are bursting at the seams with students, all across the country. Beautiful education can and does take place outside of classrooms, as well, of course, but that is no reason why those who value community colleges shouldn't be allowed to have them.

I could add lots of things here, but I MUST share this anecdote. Years ago, before Time Warner Center existed, I was horrified to see a youngish man walking a baby stroller who was in a hurry to cross the street at Columbus Circle, across Eighth Avenue. Mamma was not with him, but a friend was with him. The dad with the baby not only ran out into the middle of the street pushing the baby stroller to get across the street against the light, but there WERE cars driving up Eighth Avenue, cars who had the green light. Yes, there was a baby in that stroller. So let's generalize about child-rearing, right? I did in fact generalize. I thought, you dumb, arrogant Manhattan yuppie wannabe, you shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

About community colleges, they serve lots of purposes, but like public high schools and elementary schools they will serve no purpose so long as the standards get lowered to meet the achievements of the students. I'm trying to understand how a quick immersion course can get a NYC high school grad up to speed upon entry into a community college. Then there's the GED. Okay, you dropped out of school. Well, take this test and it's the same as if you had finished school, right? Well, isn't it the same?

Uptown - I appreciate that you think/worry about these issues - although we may disagree on method we both desire an improved neighborhood (and we're getting it).
I'll just ask you to continue thinking on this -market rate housing adds more diversity to our neighborhood. There aren't many vacant lots left. 155th could have been market rate condos - these condos would have done much more to add to the diversity of our neighborhood. I see the current building being built there as a missed opportunity.

Right. We DON'T need ANY more subsidized housing in Upper Manhattan. If your goal is economic diversity, then the whole 80-20 thing for Manhattan below 110th west of the park and below 96th east of it is fine. Many of those areas have not enough diversity. But upper Manhattan needs more upper-middle or even just middle income people, not more low income ones. If your goal is, in fact, economic diversity.

Why is Obama limiting the Morning After Pill to women 15 and older? http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/May/03/plan-b-developments.aspx
Is it to be able to feed more business to Dr. Kermit Gosnell? http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/lower-9th-ward-conservative/2013/may/5/irony-contrast-michael-vick-and-dr-kermit-gosnell/

It's not easy being green, greenberg.

I'll add that no "luxury" housing will be built in HH for many years to come. The market rate stuff that has been built over the last couple of years it middle of the road housing - it's just new - it's not luxury. We need more of this new, market rate product.

Of note is that there are no doorman buildings being built for market rate buyers (however, there are taxpayer subsidized doorman buildings being built)

So basically, Jazzman, you bought buildings and the switched to the GOP, to pump your property values? You're not the first to do so.

>you bought buildings and the switched to the GOP, to pump your property values?

Why wouldn't you think he was a GOPer beforehand?

... all his elbow patches.

Getting a little silly now. Shall we all post our party affiliations here?

Jazzman and Jason--I hear you, and can't disagree with the argument for these forms of economic diversity. So let me now adjust my position re: the 155th St building: I'd be even happier if they'd relocate it to 10021 or 10013. Those vicinities need this diversity more than 10031 does, sure. But mostly I'm just glad that some people who don't have homes will get them. Anybody getting a good place to live--anybody getting an education, those are things that make my heart beat a little faster.

Anyway, let's all try to remember to check back in when that building actually opens, and we'll see how it all shakes out. I'll be looking for signs of more trash on the street and feeling pleased if, as I think, I don't find it. And maybe some of you will be open to looking for signs that our new neighbors are stable and happy once they move in .... And definitely, Jazzman was right, our neighborhood gets better and better.