New York
An Extremely Detailed Guide to an Extremely Detailed Map of New York City Neighborhoods
How is a neighborhood born?
In a small pocket of the Bronx, the answer involves rising rents, a civil war and an air traffic controller at Kennedy Airport.
To see for yourself, zoom in with Google Maps near the Bronx Zoo, past Van Nest, Bronxdale and Morris Park. Get closer, and another label appears:
L I T T L E Y E M E N
This neighborhood exists on the map partly because a Yemeni air traffic controller, Yahay Obeid, named it, by reporting that a place was “missing” from Google Maps, and submitting a suggestion for what it should be called. The name made sense, he thought, as more and more Yemenis were moving there — like those priced out of other neighborhoods or immigrants who had fled Yemen’s civil war.
After submitting the name a few times, and working with a reporter on an article about the area, Mr. Obeid checked again.
“Boom, within a couple of weeks, it was on the map,” he said.
It’s a New York pastime to gripe that neighborhoods are invented and defined by real estate brokers, developers and other city gatekeepers. But the more interesting truth may be that they are also reinvented and reinforced, refracted through race and class, by us: by the air traffic controller who lives in Little Yemen, by the Manhattan community manager who’s sure his constituents live in East Harlem — and not “Upper Carnegie Hill” — and by the Brooklyn residents who decided to name a relatively flat piece of land Boerum Hill.
A name has power. It can foreshadow who will be moving in. By itself, it can conjure so much: gentrification, displacement, inequality, status. When we argue over names, or even invent new ones, we may be trying to exert some of that power — or lamenting that others have more power than we do.
We asked New Yorkers themselves to map their neighborhoods and to tell us what they call them. The result, while imperfect, is probably the most detailed map of the city’s neighborhoods ever compiled:
As of publication, it includes more than 350 distinct neighborhoods, based on more than 37,000 responses. (The New York Times also contacted all 59 community boards and all 51 city council members to elicit responses from every corner of the city, and also incorporated some responses from a 2015 survey by DNAinfo.)
On the maps in this article, brighter solid colors signal agreement on what the area is called. Blurrier areas signal disagreement or uncertainty. Many blocks are called by three or four or even five different names. But when we stack all the drawings on top of one another, the picture that emerges is remarkably coherent.
It shows a city with a Hunts Point and a Hunters Point; with a Times Square and a Dimes Square. It has an Ocean Hill, a Sugar Hill, a Clinton Hill, a Cobble Hill, a Carnegie Hill, a Boerum Hill, a Rose Hill, a Richmond Hill, a South Richmond Hill, a Todt Hill, a Vinegar Hill, a Lenox Hill, a Forest Hills, a Cypress Hills and two Murray Hills. It has at least three Chinatowns.
Neighborhoods are not forever. Some stay, some change and some disappear. The borders you see on Google are not “official,” and neither are the ones used by real estate companies like StreetEasy. Even the city itself purposefully does not have an official city map of neighborhood borders.
“It’s not our place to define them,” said Casey Berkovitz, a spokesman for the city’s Planning Department. “We leave that up to New Yorkers themselves.”
Mr. Obeid is one of those New Yorkers who did just that.
“When you Google ‘Yemen,’ you’re going to see what goes on in Yemen, and the war — nothing really nice,” he said. “And then when ‘Little Yemen’ pops up — it’s nice.”
The Bronx Muslim Center is there. Halal meat markets, grocery stores and signs in Arabic dot the streets. Yemeni restaurants serve rashoosh, a puffy flatbread that’s bigger than their biggest plate. There are hookah shops — one is actually called Little Yemen. The local fried chicken place also serves kebab.
If you look closely, you can see a neighborhood in transition, the old and the new alongside each other: Morris Park, Van Nest, and now, Little Yemen.
“Little Yemen gives hope to big Yemen,” Mr. Obeid said.
Sharp borders or the swamp and the expressway
Our map reveals two main kinds of divisions: sharp ones and fuzzy ones.
The fuzzy ones often reflect areas in transition or dispute, where there’s no consensus or where gentrification is rewriting boundaries in real time.
The sharp ones often reflect features of the landscape itself: wide avenues, highways, remnants of canals. When you cross the street, you know you’re in another neighborhood.
Like in Brooklyn, between Bed-Stuy and Bushwick:
Or farther south, around Windsor Terrace, a neighborhood wedged between a park and a cemetery:
Or in Queens, between College Point and Flushing:
Or in Lower Manhattan, between TriBeCa and SoHo. Every sharp border has a story, and the tale behind this one involves much more than the simple fact that the neighborhoods refer to street names (“Triangle Below Canal” and “South of Houston”).
Long before there was a chic neighborhood named SoHo, and before SoHo was called Hell’s Hundred Acres or the Cast Iron District or Lispenard Meadows, much of this part of Manhattan was a swamp.
To traverse nearly 300 years in one sentence: That swamp was drained by a ditch that cut across it; the ditch became a canal; a street was built on top; they called it Canal Street; that street is now a mega-avenue, six lanes in some parts, and one of the starkest neighborhood borders anywhere in our data.
Those physical features — canals and parks and highways and the remnants of glaciers — still shape much of the city and its neighborhoods as we know them today. So too do the structures we’ve created to tame and traverse these geographies, which, in turn, birth some neighborhoods and obliterate others.
For example, when Robert Moses’ Brooklyn-Queens Expressway and its snaky offshoots were completed in the 1960s, they sheared off parts of land like the crusts off a kid’s sandwich (and displaced thousands of New Yorkers in the process).
In Queens, that highway creates border confusion in Astoria, and defines the edges of Woodside and Jackson Heights:
In Brooklyn, the leftover crusts shape Greenpoint, the Navy Yard, Vinegar Hill, Dumbo, Columbia Street Waterfront District, Red Hook and Bay Ridge:
But notice Williamsburg. The expressway slices it in two.
A map showing the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway cutting through Williamsburg.
A map showing the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway cutting through Williamsburg.
The drawings behind the map show that many New Yorkers think Williamsburg takes up the whole space.
A map showing hundreds of readers’ drawings of the borders of Williamsburg.
A map showing hundreds of readers’ drawings of the borders of Williamsburg.
But more than 200 readers thought the expressway represented the border of another neighborhood altogether: “East Williamsburg.”
A map showing hundreds of readers’ drawings of the borders of East Williamsburg.
A map showing hundreds of readers’ drawings of the borders of East Williamsburg.
Other readers told us something else: They said, very forcefully, that East Williamsburg doesn’t exist. (To many New Yorkers, new neighborhoods are to be met with skepticism and, at times, contempt.)
Here’s a partial list of other neighborhoods that readers said were “made up” or “don’t exist”: NoMad, NoLIta, NoHo, BoCoCa, Hamilton Heights, Greenwood Heights, Hudson Heights, Hudson Square, Lincoln Square, Two Bridges, Carnegie Hill, Manhattan Valley, SpaHa.
In “The Colossus of New York,” Colson Whitehead wrote, “You are a New Yorker when what was there before is more real and solid than what is here now.” That is, if the new sushi restaurant in your neighborhood will forever exist in your mind as the laundromat that preceded it, you are a New Yorker.
Readers told us Alphabet City used to be part of the East Village; Bedford Park used to be part of Kingsbridge; Kingsbridge used to be part of Riverdale; Clinton Hill and Fort Greene used to be Bed-Stuy; and the “Bed” and the “Stuy” used to be separate. Bay Ridge used to be called Yellow Hook, and Inwood used to be Tubby Hook. In Brooklyn, Red Hook stayed Red Hook, and Bushwick has been Bushwick (or at least “Boswijck,” in Dutch) since 1638. Before that, it belonged to the Lenape.
If all of us live in our own version of New York, disagreement should be the rule, not the exception. “There are eight million naked cities in this naked city,” Mr. Whitehead wrote. “They dispute and disagree.”
This disagreement is perhaps best seen by looking at the map from the other perspective — the places where everyone, more or less, agrees on what to call a place. Here, we’ll slowly remove the parts of the map with the most disagreement:
As we remove uncertainty,
vast swaths of the city fade away … … and neighborhoods disappear altogether, or retreat toward their geographic cores.
If we look only at places where 90 percent or more New Yorkers agree, our map is quite spare.
We might think of the places that remain as some of New York’s most established neighborhoods.
Then again, just because everyone else agrees on what to call a place, that doesn’t mean you have to. Your personal borders will never be wrong. Remember: There is no official “right.”
Blurry borders or why 33rd and 5th has five names
The fuzzier places — gentle gradients where, block by block, it’s hard to say definitively what is what — are everywhere.
Like in central Manhattan:
Or in this part of Brooklyn, which people called Sheepshead Bay, Midwood or Homecrest:
Or on the North Shore of Staten Island, where one reader said, “No one knows what to call this neighborhood.”
You can see the extent of these fuzzy neighborhoods by isolating them — just search for one neighborhood on the map.
For example, here’s Flatbush, Brooklyn. See this sprawl in blue? That’s very different than how Google defines Flatbush:
Let’s look closely at Brooklyn’s Prospect Heights, which has mostly sharp edges and one very blurry one:
A map of Prospect Heights, Brooklyn.
And Crown Heights, here, the adjacent neighborhood to the east.
A map of Crown Heights, Brooklyn.
A map of Crown Heights, Brooklyn.
These two neighborhoods describe different places, but they clearly share some space.
A map highlighting the shared space between Prospect Heights and Crown Heights.
A map highlighting the shared space between Prospect Heights and Crown Heights.
Seeing them together, you may notice that people who say they live in Prospect Heights increasingly draw their neighborhood’s borders eastward, beyond Washington Avenue. But people who say they live in Crown Heights almost never push west.
You can almost see the border itself moving, which is reflected in readers’ comments about Prospect Heights:
In the last 20 years, this whole area has become whiter and more affluent, with Prospect Heights being the whiter and more affluent of the two. In 2000, nearly 80 percent of the area’s population was Black. Now, just over 40 percent is.
As the border shifts, more blocks are called Prospect Heights and fewer are called Crown Heights. The area becomes more expensive. Here and elsewhere, the maps reveal gentrification in slow motion, block by block.
Consider a three-bedroom, nearly $1.8 million condo for sale on Sterling Street, in the middle of our border area between Washington and Classon Avenues.
StreetEasy lists the unit as being in Crown Heights. Another company, Douglas Elliman, lists it in Prospect Heights. If the apartment is in Crown Heights, it becomes one of the most expensive three-bedroom units in the neighborhood. If the apartment is in Prospect Heights, it becomes a relative bargain for the area.
The moving borders trickle down to street level, too. A local grocery store on Classon Avenue — two blocks east of Washington,
used to be called Gala Fresh Farms.
Now it’s called Key Food: Prospect Heights.
One neighborhood grows while another shrinks.
Carving out or how high does the Upper East Side extend?
City blocks can be pawns in a kind of geographical warfare, unwittingly on offense or defense amid the churn of migration, demographic change and real estate salesmanship.
Readers told us their neighborhood boundaries were “blurred,” “rebranded,” “encroached upon,” “stretched,” “chipped away at,” “muddled,” both “semi-amorphous” and “amorphous”; that they were “mushy,” “fuzzy” and “lumped in with” bigger neighborhoods; or that their neighborhoods’ names were merely a “real estate moniker,” “invented by” agents, a “scam” or a “ploy.” Some said their neighborhoods had been “renamed,” “erased,” others “carved up.”
What does that carving look like? Consider a pair of large and established adjoining neighborhoods in Manhattan: the Upper East Side and East Harlem:
In this view, what’s happening looks very similar to what we saw in Prospect Heights and Crown Heights in Brooklyn, with one neighborhood on offense (the Upper East Side) and another on defense (East Harlem).
But there’s something else going on, barely noticeable in our map but much realer to real estate companies. To StreetEasy, the Upper East Side includes a narrow section of Fifth Avenue along Central Park’s East Side, like a gerrymandered congressional district, stretching up, up, up to 110th Street.
StreetEasy calls this area “Upper Carnegie Hill.”
Few readers identified it as a neighborhood. Those who did could not decide where it was, what to call it or how seriously one should take people who say they live there.
Xavier Santiago, the chair of Manhattan’s Community Board 11, which includes the East Side of Manhattan north of East 96th Street, was quite sure what to call it.
“That is East Harlem,” he said.
Upper Carnegie Hill exists on StreetEasy and in real estate-speak, but it doesn’t appear to have caught on with residents.
Yet sometimes the new names do take, and it’s not always real estate agents who are trying to define them.
This map of Brooklyn from 1919 is not comprehensive, but it does show some neighborhood names from that time:
A 1919 map of Brooklyn’s neighborhoods from the Liberty Loan Committee.
Take particular note of the size of “South Brooklyn.”
The neighborhood “South Brooklyn” is highlighted on the map.
The neighborhood “South Brooklyn” is highlighted on the map.
Here it is with today’s neighborhoods superimposed. Things have changed.
Today’s neighborhoods are superimposed on the map.
Today’s neighborhoods are superimposed on the map.
That large mass of South Brooklyn is now a handful of discrete, well-established neighborhoods — Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill — that were born, one by one, starting in the late 1950s.
A very short version of what happened here, culled from “The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn” by the author and professor Suleiman Osman, is that residents and newcomers formed neighborhood associations, picked historical-sounding names plucked from old maps (Cobble Hill was named after a fort from Revolutionary times, for example), claimed blocks south of Atlantic Avenue that had brownstones, and rehabbed those brownstones. And the names, as they say, stuck.
These and other parts of Brooklyn went from being a place immigrant and minority families started from, to a place where white-collar professionals went to as they felt they were priced out of parts of Manhattan. And as the area got richer, these smaller, more exclusive-sounding neighborhoods replaced the once less-defined mass.
Ironically, decades later, real estate agents tried to mush them all back together into BoCoCa (Boerum Hill-Cobble Hill-Carroll Gardens), but it didn’t really take, adding it to a list of failed smushed names that includes SoBro (South Bronx), SpaHa (Spanish Harlem), SoHa (South Harlem) and Rambo (Right Around the Manhattan Bridge Overpass).
Taking this lesson, think about New Yorkers in the year 2080 looking at our map. What might they notice? What history has told us so far is that in the long run richer neighborhoods get bigger, and bigger and relatively poorer neighborhoods tend to get carved into smaller ones. Some of those then get richer, and then get bigger.
And some just disappear.
The end or accepting impermanence
When Boerum Hill was known as “North Gowanus,” a community of several hundred Mohawks found jobs building skyscrapers and bridges. Starting in the late 1920s, they settled on either side of Atlantic Avenue. Some of them called it “Downtown Caughnawaga,” an English spelling of their reservation’s name.
This tradition continues today — though little of it is visible on our map — through the millions of New Yorkers who speak one of the city’s other languages and dialects (over 700 at last count, according to Ross Perlin, co-director of the Endangered Language Alliance).
“Loisaida, an ingenious Nuyorican play on both the Lower East Side and the city of Loíza Aldea in Puerto Rico, is the rare non-English name that is breaking through,” Mr. Perlin writes in “Language City,” a forthcoming book.
There are many more secondary names, of course. El Barrio for East Harlem. Los Sures for the once-predominantly Puerto Rican south side of Williamsburg. And Quisqueya (an Indigenous Taíno name for the whole island of Hispaniola) is a Dominican nickname for Washington Heights.
These names help communities try to preserve space in a city where space is at a premium. Some names will stick — and some won’t. Mr. Obeid, the air traffic controller, knows this too.
“Another generation is going to come through,” he said. “It’s a different, diverse community.”
Little Yemen hasn’t made it onto our map yet, but it does seem to be coming into focus for those who live there.
“With the growth of the Yemeni population, I’d consider Little Yemen to be its own neighborhood at this point,” one reader wrote.
Toward the end of a discussion about Little Yemen, Mr. Obeid told a story about its reach. Two pilots were on a layover in New York, and they asked him about his neighborhood by name.
“I thought, Little Yemen has really become international,” he said. “This is amazing.”
They were curious, and wanted to visit.
So he took them to lunch in his neighborhood.
To add your neighborhood and tell us more about where you live, go here. We’ll incorporate additional responses in our map as they come in.
New York
Map: 2.3-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes Connecticut
A minor, 2.3-magnitude earthquake struck in Connecticut on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:33 p.m. Eastern about 1 mile northwest of Moodus, Conn., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Aftershocks in the region
An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
New York
Two Affordable Housing Buildings Were Planned. Only One Went Up. What Happened?
It is an idea that many point to as a solution for New York City’s worst housing shortage in over 50 years: Build more homes.
More people keep deciding they want to live in the city — and the number of new homes hasn’t kept pace. Residents compete over the limited number of apartments, which pushes rents up to stratospheric levels. Many people then choose to leave instead of pay those prices.
So why is it so hard to build more housing?
The answer involves a tangled set of financial challenges and bitter political fights.
We looked at two developments that provided a unique window into the crisis across the city, and the United States, where there aren’t enough homes people can actually afford.
Both developments — 962 Pacific Street in Crown Heights in Brooklyn, and 145 West 108th Street on the Upper West Side in Manhattan — might have appeared similar. Both were more than eight stories, with plans for dozens of units of affordable housing. And each had a viable chance of being built.
But only one was.
Here’s how their fates diverged, from the zoning to the money and the politics.
The Neighborhood
The lack of housing options across the region makes high-demand areas particularly expensive.
Homes are built in Westchester County and the Long Island suburbs, for example, at some of the slowest rates in the country. In New York City, only 1.4 percent of apartments were available to rent in 2023, according to a key city survey.
And median rent in the city has risen significantly over the past few decades.
That leaves neighborhoods like the Upper West Side and Crown Heights sought after by people of all income levels. Both neighborhoods have good access to parks, subways and job centers in Brooklyn and Manhattan.
The pressures are immense, even as each neighborhood has added some new housing to try to match the demand, though at different rates.
Crown Heights has become one of the most striking emblems of gentrification in the city, with new residents, who tend to be white and wealthy, pushing out people who can no longer afford to live there. Low-rise rowhouses line many streets, just blocks from Prospect Park. But there are also shiny new high-rises.
There were more than 50,000 housing units in the Crown Heights area, according to a 2022 U.S. Census Bureau estimate, a roughly 13 percent jump over the past decade.
The Upper West Side has long been one of the city’s more exclusive enclaves with many brownstone homes. Next to Central Park and Riverside Park, with easy access to downtown, the neighborhood is home to many of the city’s affluent residents.
There were 129,000 housing units on the Upper West Side according to the 2022 Census Bureau data, an increase of roughly 5 percent over the same time period.
The Lot
There isn’t as much empty land left in New York City compared with places like Phoenix or Atlanta, which can expand outward. City developers have to look hard to find properties with potential, and then they have to acquire the money to buy them.
Between the two proposals, the Crown Heights site seemed to be more promising at first glance. Until 2018, it was just vacant land that local businesses sometimes used as a parking lot. The developer, Nadine Oelsner, already owned it, removing a potential roadblock that can often tie up projects or make them financially unworkable.
On the Upper West Side, though, the site was already occupied by three aging parking garages with a shelter and a playground in between. The garages would need to be demolished if the developer, a nonprofit known as the West Side Federation for Senior and Supportive Housing that operated the shelter, succeeded in its plan to build apartments on either side of the playground.
The new development, which was floated to the community in 2015, would also include a renovated and expanded shelter. And the nonprofit did not own the garages or the land — the city did.
One thing working in the group’s favor, though, was that the city had wanted to build housing on the site since at least the mid-2000s, according to planning documents.
The Zoning
But something invisible can matter more than a plot’s physical characteristics: zoning.
That governs how every piece of land in New York City can be used. Zoning determines, for example, whether homes or warehouses are allowed in a particular area, how much parking is needed and how tall a building can be.
It also aims to prevent growth in haphazard ways, with schools next to factories next to office buildings.
The city’s modern zoning code does not leave much room for growth, which means that a bigger building often requires a zoning change. One 2020 study by the nonprofit Citizens Budget Commission found that only about one residentially zoned plot in five would allow for that kind of additional housing. A zoning change triggers a lengthy, unpredictable bureaucratic process.
The site Ms. Oelsner owned was zoned for industrial, not residential use, a throwback to a time when that part of Brooklyn was dominated by businesses supported by the nearby railroad line.
Community leaders were frustrated by one-off changes to individual lots — there had been at least five zoning changes within a two-block radius of Ms. Oelsner’s site in recent years. To counter the trend, the community decided to come up with a bigger rezoning plan for the area. Ms. Oelsner saw an opportunity for her lot in that idea.
But she would need a zoning change, too.
The site on the Upper West Side had a slight edge: It was zoned for residential use.
As the project began to move forward, the city also sought a slight zoning change to allow for a bigger structure with more homes.
The Proposal
U.S. housing is mostly built and run by the private sector. If developers and owners can’t cover their costs with income from rents and sales — and make a profit — they most likely won’t build.
This can make it hard to keep rents affordable to potential tenants without big subsidies from the government, such as money a developer receives directly or tax breaks in exchange for making some units affordable for people at specified income levels.
Here are more details of what the two developers planned.
The proposal for the Crown Heights lot was by Ms. Oelsner and her company, HSN Realty, who were private developers working without city support.
Ms. Oelsner also made the case that her family had been part of the community for years, operating a Pontiac dealership.
Most of the apartments she proposed would rent at market rates, meaning the rents could be set as high as the landlord thought tenants could pay. This was similar to other new buildings in the area.
In Ms. Oelsner’s case, a government subsidy would likely come in the form of a decades-long property tax exemption.
In exchange, several apartments would be made “affordable” — in this case, rents would be capped at a certain percentage of gross household income for particular groups.
Under one plan, for example, 38 units would be restricted in this way. Of those, 15 might rent for around $1,165 for a one-bedroom apartment, or $1,398 for a two-bedroom.
The proposal from the West Side Federation had a much stronger case because of the city’s support. The group wanted to construct a building where all the apartments would rent below market rates and be targeted to some of the city’s poorest residents.
Most units would rent to people who were formerly homeless, often referred from shelters and typically relying on government-funded voucher programs to pay almost all of their rent. The remaining apartments would rent for between $865 and $1,321.
The West Side Federation said it had slowly built trust in the community over decades, in part because of the shelter it already operated on the street and was now expanding, as well as two dozen other area buildings it ran.
Because of that track record, and the need for affordable housing, the city decided to do several things. It essentially gave the developer the land — appraised at about $55 million — for free, a typical government practice in such a scenario.
It also chipped in $9 million to help pay for construction and another $33 million through a federal tax credit program. The West Side Federation would not have to pay property taxes on the development.
The Politics
Both projects met immediate opposition as they began to wade through a bureaucratic city process in which housing proposals often run into challenges from community members and politicians. It’s not unusual for this process to be costly and time-consuming, often taking more than two years.
In fact, this is where Ms. Oelsner’s project in Crown Heights met its end.
In Crown Heights, neighbors wanted more apartments to be available at lower rents and were concerned about parking. Ms. Oelsner worried the bigger rezoning plan of the area would take too long and, if she waited, would run up the costs of her project, which she said she had designed to be consistent with the broader efforts.
In the end, Crystal Hudson, who held the power to approve or reject the development as the local council member, voted against Ms. Oelsner’s proposal last year, effectively killing the project. Ms. Hudson said she would not back individual developments until the bigger neighborhood rezoning was finished.
On the Upper West Side, a vocal resident group had several complaints: that the loss of the parking garages could lead to an uptick in traffic, greenhouse gas emissions and accidents; that the development could disturb students at a nearby middle school; and that it could reduce the amount of sunlight in nearby parks.
The councilman who represented the neighborhood at the time, Mark Levine, initially said he would hold off on supporting the plan until he better understood the effects of more cars on the street.
Eventually, though, the project gave the community enough of what it wanted, the group behind the project said, and government officials came around. The project was split into two phases, keeping one garage running for a few years after the first two were demolished.
The Results
One key to successful development is buy-in from the government and local politicians. The Upper West Side plan had that, despite the opposition it faced, while the Crown Heights project did not.
That’s in part because the Upper West Side lots were owned by the city, which was ready and willing to chip in lots of money to create a deeply needed housing project in the area that would most likely not have been built otherwise. The Crown Heights lot, on the other hand, is privately owned and mostly out of the city’s control — which made the project potentially very lucrative for the owners, even if it added some benefit to the community.
The dirt lot in Crown Heights remains a dirt lot. The broader plan Ms. Hudson pushed is underway, set to be completed next year.
Ms. Oelsner, however, has said that she’s not sure whether it still makes financial sense to build her project, so its fate remains uncertain.
The Upper West Side building has been open for about two years. It is full and has a long waiting list.
And the amount tenants pay in rent remains low. That’s because the government sends the West Side Federation about $1 million annually to help cover the rent.
New York
Read the Trump Assassination Plot Criminal Complaint
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit murder-for-hire, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1958.
6. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD SHAKERI,
CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, and others known and
unknown, would and did knowingly travel in and cause others to travel in interstate and foreign
commerce, and would and did use and cause another to use a facility of interstate and foreign
commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of the State of New
York or the United States as consideration for the receipt of and as consideration for a promise or
agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, to wit, SHAKERI, RIVERA, and LOADHOLT
participated in an agreement whereby RIVERA and LOADHOLT would kill Victim-1 in exchange
for payment, and used cellphones and electronic messaging applications to communicate in
furtherance of the scheme.
(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1958 and 3238.)
COUNT FIVE
(MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY)
7. From at least in or about December 2023, up to and including the date of
this Complaint, in Iran, the Southern District of New York, and elsewhere, and in an offense begun
and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States,
FARHAD SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the
defendants, and others known and unknown, at least one of whom is expected to be first brought
to and arrested in the Southern District of New York, knowingly and willfully did combine,
conspire, confederate, and agree together and with each other to commit money laundering, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956.
8. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, in an offense involving and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce, knowing that the property involved in certain financial transactions represented the
proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, would and did conduct and attempt to conduct such
financial transactions which in fact involved the proceeds of specified unlawful activity, to wit,
the proceeds of the murder-for-hire offenses charged in Counts Three and Four of this Complaint,
knowing that the transactions were designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
9. It was further a part and an object of the conspiracy that FARHAD
SHAKERI, CARLISLE RIVERA, a/k/a “Pop,” and JONATHAN LOADHOLT, the defendants,
and others known and unknown, would and did transport, transmit, and transfer, and attempt to
transport, transmit, and transfer, monetary instruments and funds to a place in the United States
3
-
News1 week ago
Herbert Smith Freehills to merge with US-based law firm Kramer Levin
-
Business1 week ago
Column: OpenAI just scored a huge victory in a copyright case … or did it?
-
Health1 week ago
Bird flu leaves teen in critical condition after country's first reported case
-
Business5 days ago
Column: Molly White's message for journalists going freelance — be ready for the pitfalls
-
World1 week ago
Sarah Palin, NY Times Have Explored Settlement, as Judge Sets Defamation Retrial
-
Politics4 days ago
Trump taps FCC member Brendan Carr to lead agency: 'Warrior for Free Speech'
-
Science2 days ago
Trump nominates Dr. Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid and help take on 'illness industrial complex'
-
Technology3 days ago
Inside Elon Musk’s messy breakup with OpenAI