The New York City Council held a zoning amendment hearing about Harlem’s One45 development project last week, overseen by Councilmembers Kevin Riley and Yusef Salaam. Public reception of the project is still a bit of a mixed bag.
“My community has, for too often, for too long, been ignored or worse, been vilified. And because of the vilification, they’ve in fact been denied,” said Salaam at the hearing on May 20. “This proposal comes to us at a very pivotal moment. It provides an opportunity to uplift the community by creating quality housing options, local retail, and a much-needed community space and more. But it also brings into question [something] we Harlemites know all too well. The question is, for whom?”
The site is at Lenox Avenue and West 145th Street in Harlem’s Community Board (CB) 10 area. The block currently consists of commercial space; gas stations; empty storefronts; and the headquarters of the National Action Network (NAN) House of Justice, Afrikana, and the Timbuktu Islamic Center.
The proposed certified zoning map amendment, presented at the hearing, differs from plans shown to the community board in the past. It comprises three buildings, creating roughly 968 units with 291 units of permanently income-restricted housing, in accordance with Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) Option 2 under City of Yes zoning rules. It also emphasizes “family-sized units,” a state-of the-art community center, gathering space, fresh grocer space, and parking.
Previous project versions were fewer units altogether, and included a museum and office space for NAN.
This would be Salaam’s first time dealing with the years-long saga of the One45 project and its developer, Bruce Teitelbaum. Salaam mentioned in the hearing that he’s met with Teitelbaum in private to discuss the project before, and said that in sessions with the CB, an “enhanced affordability proposal” with 591 affordable units was presented to the public. He questioned why the certified plan in the hearing was so different. In addition, the MIH targets used for about 97 of the 291 “affordable” units is far out of range for the average salaried person in the district, said Salaam.
“I want to strongly reiterate my position that 291 affordable units is definitely too low,” said Salaam.
The objective is affordability, but without a “significant government subsidy,” another plan wouldn’t be viable, said Teitelbaum. At the moment, the project is all “at-risk dollars” and private investment, he added.
Salaam also questioned how Teitelbaum could rebuild trust with the community after a contentious history with CB 10 and Salaam’s predecessor, former Councilmember Kristin Richardson Jordan. She and the community board voted against the original building plans in 2022, demanding more affordable housing be included for Harlem residents. Teitelbaum, in response, placed a potentially environmentally harmful truck depot in the open lot in 2023, which Richardson Jordan and residents vehemently protested against. It closed in early 2025.
“In retrospect, it was a mistake,” said Teitelbaum at the hearing. “I would not do it again, and I apologize for it.”
In a sort of penance, Teitelbaum has cleaned up the site and allowed a handful of community nonprofits, like Afrikana, to use it for free over the past three years, he said. Adama Bah, Afrikana’s chief executive director and founder, testified to this in the public comment portion of the hearing.
“I worked from that space and provided invaluable services to thousands of local residents and newly arrived immigrants, and continue to do so today. This would not be possible without the accommodation Bruce gave us,” said Bah. “I have no written deal with him now nor any legal agreement about what happens when One45 gets built, only his word that there will be space for groups like Africana that serve the community, and he has always kept his word.”
Other residents and advocates publicly voiced concerns about the height of the proposed buildings in the community and further gentrifying the neighborhood.
“Let me say it plainly that this is not a development; this is displacement, respectfully,” said Sheena Benjamin, a Harlem native and mother. “I’m here on behalf of my church. I am more than willing to work with you in any way, shape, form, or fashion to help this go forward — if it even advances. At this moment, where it stands now, this does not benefit Harlem.”
Tanesha Grant, executive director of Parents Supporting Parents New York, said that her group refuses to sign off on a housing plan that doesn’t include more affordability. “I wanna say that the community supports development that addresses the need for affordable housing. The enhanced affordable plan that was presented does this,” testified Grant. “This is about making sure that there is a significant amount of deeply affordable and supportive housing built on this One45 project, and we are deeply committed to that goal.”
This is a sorry article. First of all, none of the affordable income bands are affordable for most Harlemites. When the term AMI is used – not that we even have to use it in this instance – we’re talking about the AMI in the future. The time when these units go to market.
So I ask, is 325K, 200K, and 100K (the required incomes to get in these buildings if you don’t have Jeff Besos money) affordable for most Harlemites, when 60% of Central Harlem households (mostly Black) earn 30K or less, and 33% (mostly Black) earn at or below the federal poverty level? So we see right there this is largely not for Black folks.
And why wouldn’t I be quoted, when I’m probably the one with the most technical knowledge? The main environmental concern was brought up by me with power point, reports, all kinds of proof. And this is totally omitted? That’s why people don’t buy the paper now.
Look up liquefaction. And where this project lies is in an area with highest risk.
So that’s the homework for this writer, unless she reads all of my submissions, which are public record.
Another weak article from the Amsterdan News. instead of advancing the hoary thesis that uses underdevelopment as a barrier to neccessary change, the organization should focus on improving its own eyesore in the Harlem landscape.
The ONE45 Development: Rethinking Housing Policy for Harlem’s Future
The recent community board vote against the ONE45 development in Harlem reveals a deeper story than simple neighborhood opposition. Behind the procedural debates and institutional tensions lies a critical question: How can Harlem create housing that serves both its longtime residents and its emerging middle class?
Beyond the Communith Board Folly: What the Vote Really Means
The community board’s unfavorable vote on ONE45 reflects institutional dysfunction more than genuine community opposition. The decision emerged from a web of interpersonal conflicts—strained relationships with the developer and former City Councilwoman KJR, perceived racial tensions following the project’s withdrawal, and resistance to community leadership that valued lived experience over academic credentials.
This misses a fundamental point about governance. Community boards aren’t mini-legislatures implementing neighborhood desires; they’re appointed advisory bodies meant to organize community input and provide informed counsel. The real question isn’t what the board thinks—it’s what the people most affected by this development actually want.
The residents of Fred Samuel Houses, who would live with the construction dust and noise, support the project. Their voices should carry special weight in these discussions, yet they’ve been largely overlooked in favor of procedural politics.
The Missing Middle: Harlem’s Hidden Housing Crisis
Conventional affordability frameworks like ELLA (Extremely Low and Low-Income Affordability) miss Harlem’s most pressing housing challenge. The neighborhood doesn’t just need more low-income units—it desperately needs middle-income housing for residents earning between 130-165% of Area Median Income.
These are Harlem’s success stories: young professionals with deep community roots, college and graduate school graduates who want to reinvest in their neighborhood. They earn too much for traditional affordable housing but too little to afford market-rate apartments without crushing rent burdens. Without housing options, they’re forced to leave—creating a slow-motion displacement that hollows out the community’s economic and social fabric.
This demographic flight represents an insidious form of gentrification in reverse. Instead of wealthy newcomers pushing out longtime residents, economic barriers are forcing out the very people who could anchor the neighborhood’s future.
A Balanced Proposal: 50/50 and Beyond
Community advocates have proposed a concrete alternative to the current ONE45 plan. Instead of 70-75% market-rate units, they suggest a 50/50 split: half market-rate, half affordable, with affordable units spanning 50-165% AMI.
This approach makes a strategic trade-off. By accepting fewer deeply subsidized units (at 30% AMI), it creates space for middle-income housing that’s currently nowhere to be found. The expanded AMI range acknowledges economic reality—market-rate housing in Harlem already serves middle-income residents, not luxury buyers.
The math works because it addresses developer incentives while meeting community needs. A 50/50 split with broader AMI eligibility creates financial viability without abandoning affordability goals.
Funding Innovation: Beyond Traditional Subsidies
The Speaker’s $5 billion housing commitment provides a foundation, but structural change requires innovative financing. Community advocates are exploring how the “City for All” proposal could function as an incubator for new subsidy models, working directly with the Speaker’s land use office to develop approaches that weren’t part of original program designs.
The goal is creating financing mechanisms that support true mixed-income development—housing that works for developers while honoring community priorities.
Design Standards in a Growing City
ONE45 also raises questions about urban design principles dating to the 1916 Zoning Resolution. The project’s relationship to sky exposure plane regulations—rules ensuring adequate light and air through building setbacks—deserves scrutiny not from reflexive opposition to density, but from concerns about regulatory consistency.
Community members want clarity: Has the city’s position on these regulations evolved? What precedents exist for similar exemptions? How do upcoming initiatives like City of Yes alter this landscape?
The question isn’t whether to build, but how to balance density needs against quality-of-life considerations that have shaped New York for over a century.
Dispelling the Luxury Myth
A persistent misconception colors Harlem development discussions: the myth that new multifamily housing equals “luxury” housing. Current market conditions don’t support truly high-end development in Harlem. Market-rate units effectively serve middle-income residents—exactly the population that needs housing options.
This reality reinforces the case for expanding eligibility at the 130-165% AMI range rather than focusing exclusively on deeper subsidies at 30-40% AMI. Policy should reflect market realities, not ideological preferences.
A Vision for Inclusive Growth
ONE45 represents more than another development project—it’s a test case for whether Harlem can accommodate both its existing residents and its aspirational future. The challenge is creating housing policy that serves people who need deep subsidies alongside those who represent the community’s success stories.
Success means today’s residents can see themselves and their children in Harlem’s future. That requires moving beyond rigid policy frameworks toward creative approaches that recognize the neighborhood’s complex socioeconomic reality.
The path forward demands centering the voices of those most directly impacted—the residents themselves—while developing financing and design solutions that enable truly mixed-income communities.
By reimagining housing policy through this more nuanced lens, ONE45 could become a model for inclusive growth rather than a source of division. The true measure of success isn’t just units built, but whether housing policy enables stability and opportunity across generations and income levels.
Harlem’s future depends on getting this balance right.