Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Luxury Towers Open On Broadway

As residents begin to move into two new luxury towers on 99th Street and Broadway, the buildings continue to stir tensions in the community.
The Ariel East and West Towers belong to the Extell Development Company, and stand at looming heights of 37 and 31 stories, respectively. Controversy over the height of the towers, which began construction in 2005, led to a drive to limit building heights in the neighborhood through new zoning regulations which were approved by the City Council in late November.
The glass towers contain a total of 137 condominiums-—64 in Ariel East and 73 in Ariel West.
In addition to these 2-5 bedroom units, the luxury towers feature a range of amenities, including a swimming pool, private theater, fitness center, billiard’s lounge, children’s playroom, pet spa, and garden. Prices for the condos start at $1.6 million, according to Extell.
Despite such steep prices, the Ariel Towers have attracted a good number of buyers. According to Ann Young, the senior managing director at the Corcoran Sunshine Marketing Group, Ariel East is 63 percent sold, while 72 percent of the units in Ariel West have already been purchased. As of two weeks ago, Ariel East is open for residents to move in.
“We’re very proud of our product—it’s a beautiful product,” said Young. “It’s also integrating nicely in the neighborhood.”
But many neighborhood residents remain anxious about the opening of the Extell buildings. Cynthia Doty, a member of the Steering Committee of the Westsiders for Responsible Development, voiced concerns regarding the effect that the high-priced condos would have on local residential properties and businesses.
“We’re very disappointed that the towers are virtually finished,” Doty said. “The apartments are so expensive, up to $5 million, and these dramatic prices have collateral impacts. Base rent and property values are going up so high that there is a squeeze on the middle and low-income people of the neighborhood that have been the back burner of the community.”
Tom DeMott, the leader of the Coalition to Preserve Community, vocalized similar fears about the effects of Extell’s new development.
“There is a basic formula which luxury housing brings with it: high towers equals displacement, displacement of both businesses and residents,” DeMott said. “Luxury housing means disruption of a community.”
Critics of the Ariel Towers have not limited themselves to criticizing the towers’ impact on real estate and commerce, but have also pointed out the physical disturbance these new buildings have created.
“The new towers are monstrous and out of scale, and quite frankly an eye sore,” Doty said. “You can see them even from New Jersey and the East Side and architecturally they’re so different—they don’t even belong in our neighborhood.”
Yet anxiety about the project did lead to group efforts and “actually mobilized the community,” according to Doty.
“The outrage was very great two and a half years ago when we first saw the pictures. We were so horrified,” she said. “First we tried to stop it, but they could build them out of right, so there was nothing we could do legally. So we turned to rezoning the area to protect the community as much as we could.”
The recently passed zoning laws reflect these efforts, restricting development from 97th and 110th Streets, between Riverside Drive and Central Park West. Now, the side streets in the area are allotted a height of 75 feet, or seven to eight stories, while the respective avenues are allowed development up to 14 stories high.
Critics of the Ariel Towers seem optimistic about preserving their neighborhood in the future with this rezoning.
“These new laws have downzoned the area, made it difficult to sell air rights and, as a result, allow for development that is much more contextual,” Doty said.
The reporters of this article can be reached at news@columbiaspectator.com.

















"The people who are complaining about these towers are the people whose lives are going to be affected in a very real and horrible way by them. This is what's going on all over the city, but how would you like it if you woke up one day and were suddenly priced out of the neighborhood you'd lived in all your life? I've lived in the Columbia neighborhood all my life (my parents bought their apartment for next-to-nothing in 1972, but even I know I won't have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to buy an apartment where I grew up after college)."
That's not true, actually. A tower next door to your apartment doesn't drive up your rent. It drives DOWN your rent. What drives UP your rent is demand to live in your neighborhood. This is fairly basic stuff. You really think you'll be able to afford an apartment if you prevent them from building any?
"A tower next door to your apartment doesn't drive up your rent. It drives DOWN your rent. What drives UP your rent is demand to live in your neighborhood. This is fairly basic stuff."
Oh really? Well what you're missing is the two or three steps in between that connect these two things.
1) A tower is built next door to your apartment with apartments priced at $1.6 million at the lowest.
2) The only people who can afford to buy these apartments is rich (predominantly) white bankers, lawyers, and trust-funders.
3) The greater numbers of rich people in the neighborhood leads to a demand for more businesses (shops, restaurants, gyms, etc.) that cater to them, not to mention landlors in the area being able to charge a great deal more in commercial rent, which means:
4) Smaller, long-established businesses get pushed out in favor of more glitzy, luxury, expensive businesses. (All you have to do to see this happening is to look at every other store-front in the neighborhood, which is now a bank.)
5) The reputation of the neighborhood is now more luxury and upscale, thereby driving up the demand to live in it by those seeking that kind of lifestyle, who would have never lived there when it was a more diverse, laid-back, CHEAP Manhattan neighborhood.
5) This demand leads to higher rents.
Wow! Look at that! I just explained what two other people on this board claimed to be baffled by! So don't insult my intelligence by claiming that I can't get a handle on this "pretty basic stuff."
#2 on your list says it all. The main reason everyone is in an uproar is because 'whitey' is moving in. Everything else is secondary.
I'll concede you half a point. However, the bottom line remains that the more housing that gets built, the lower the average cost per unit of comparable space in the city. UWS, and most of Manhattan below Columbia, has not been affordable in years. A "rich" person moving into the apartments mentioned moves from somewhere. That space is then opened up for someone else. On a macro scale, it means lower prices all around.
Beyond that however, unless you buy something, you do not have a moral right to keep it in perpetuity, which is the argument of those who rent and are afraid that "their" neighborhood is changing and may affect "their" apartment. It's not their neighborhood and its not their apartments. They just rent them, and most of them are renting with the help of a government gun put up against the head of the owner - in the form of rent control - which makes it so that the only people who can live in these neighborhoods are those who have lots of money, or those who are lucky to have rent control - either by knowing someone or by having been there for decades. At least the rich people live in their apartments honestly. The rest of us - including me - have to make real estate economic decisions, and either overpay for a tiny space in expensive areas of NY or move away.
Maybe if the complainers ever saved some money to buy something - anything - they would internalize how annoying it is to have someone constantly tell them what they can and can't do with their property.
Mark G.
Maybe one of these days, someone can explain in one of these woe is development articles how adding housing to an area (i.e. increase in supply) drives prices up for remaining housing. It defies common sense – or at least the laws of economics. I just visited (from Philadelphia) a friend on W76. His tiny, 2 room apt costs $1,800 a month. It's in an old building. Why would it be harmful to tear that building down, and build higher, to fit more apartments?
Maybe the people complaining are the free loaders paying $300 a month for an apartment that a newcomer to NY would have to pay $2,500 for. They think they own it just because they've lived there for 40 years. F those people. If they can only afford a $300 apartment, they should move across the river (either one) to a place where the market says the apartment should actually cost $300. Or move into a smaller apartment. It seems like NY is filled with people who think they have a god given right to keep using something just because they’ve used it in the past, yet never bothered to buy it.
PS: before someone slams me for being rich and snotty for suggesting people move to where they can afford to live, I actually did move across the river to a place whose size-to-price ratio made sense for me. It bugs me that there are people whom the government allows to freeload off of others and not be forced to make real-estate based economic decisions like the rest of us have to make in terms of price/size/location. And to top it all off, these people then have plenty of spare time saying what others should or should not be able to do with their money.
Mark G.
BS '94 MBA'00
The main argument against the 'anti development' crowd is not the affordability or size of the buildings in questions. No, the argument is that WHITE people are moving in and 'gentrifying' the area. They don't want whites moving in...especially not wealthy whites whom they despise the most. It's a race issue more than an economics issue.
There are two separate issues: the cost of the new development and the height of the buildings. It's entirely reasonable to complain about oversized buildings that are out of context with the scale of the neighborhood. So I think it's great that new zoning laws were passed. Regarding the cost, it's best to let the market conditions determine that.
In response to the jerk who wrote the second comment: do you live in that area? or do you "live in that area" is in you "just bought one of those condos"? The area has been quite a nice little niche of New York for years without these disgusting star-wars robots of glass and steel. It is diverse, it addresses the needs of the people who live there, and yet it has somehow managed to remain "cheap" (at least compared to other Manhattan neighborhoods directly North and South of it).
The people who are complaining about these towers are the people whose lives are going to be affected in a very real and horrible way by them. This is what's going on all over the city, but how would you like it if you woke up one day and were suddenly priced out of the neighborhood you'd lived in all your life? I've lived in the Columbia neighborhood all my life (my parents bought their apartment for next-to-nothing in 1972, but even I know I won't have a snowball's chance in hell of being able to buy an apartment where I grew up after college).
On a side note, I find it just hysterical that, when asked about the new condos, Ann Young had the nerve to say “It’s integrating nicely in the neighborhood." Obviously she had to point that out specifically to address the several thousand people living at the base of those glass monstrosities who would just love to throw rocks at it as they pass by. Yeah sure, they're "integrating nicely into the neighborhood," as much as buildings three times the size of anything around them with prices only open to bankers, lawyers, and trust-fund babies can.
See you all in hell (or what will remain of the Upper Upper West Side by the time I graduate).
Welcome to the free market. Areas change. If people cannot afford to live there, they can seek out affordable areas to live in then. They still exist. The attack on these condos is nothing more than the typical class envy of the psuedo communists that institutions like Columbia shit out every year. Get a job and a life.
I can't stand these anti-development people. OMG, luxury condos bring wealthier people into the neighborhood and eventually make it a nicer place to live - how bloody horrible.
"vocalized." you mean "said,' right?
Post new comment