This week, news of a planned women’s shelter on the Upper East Side had residents up in arms.
As you would imagine, the headlines framed it as selfish wealthy neighbors shunning vulnerable women in need. Good vs. evil. Rich vs poor. And we have seen this played out a million times before, but in this instance, the story is far from complete. What is really happening is more complicated.
No serious person believes homelessness should be ignored. No serious neighborhood in New York City believes it is immune from contributing to the solution. And what people generally react to is not the existence of a shelter. They react to the process. The size of the project, the transparency of its creation, and whether the contribution feels evenly distributed across all neighborhoods.
Cities are ecosystems. They are delicate arrangements of schools, retail, transit, public safety, foot traffic, and housing. When something new is inserted into that ecosystem without community buy-in, the resistance is rarely just about the building itself. It is about trust.
The Upper East Side is not resisting the housing. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the country. What it is reacting to is the feeling that decisions are made top-down, without clear communication about impact, management, and accountability.
That matters. Because if cities want neighborhoods to accept necessary infrastructure that supports ALL New Yorkers, they cannot treat local residents as obstacles. They have to treat them as stakeholders.
So what is the solution?
First, transparency. Detailed operational plans, clear security measures, and defined success. And most importantly, communication. Homeless or transition shelters are not pop-up stores. They have real effects on the surrounding area.
Second, distribution. If shelters are necessary, they must be fairly distributed across the entire city. No neighborhood should be exempt, and no neighborhood should be disproportionately burdened.
Third, scale. Smaller facilities integrated into communities are often more effective than large, concentrated ones that feel overwhelming from day one. I realize this is often more costly up front, but it can be done. And in the long run, it will maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, driving up value rather than diminishing it.
Fourth, investment in prevention. Transitional shelters are the back end of a system. The front end is mental health services, addiction treatment, affordable housing production, and job pathways. Without those, shelters become permanent holding patterns. We all know this, and I 100% percent realize that this is easier said than done. But I would love to hear a cost analysis of upfront prevention vs. incarceration or sheltering.
And finally, tone. Leaders who frame neighborhood residents as the bad guys only fan the flames. A leader who treats the community as a partner in the process will find much greater success in the long run.
The tension we are seeing on the Upper East Side is not really about compassion versus privilege.
It is about how cities govern when things get tough.
If we want our city to remain vibrant, humane, and livable, we have to stop thinking in black and white terms. Growth versus preservation. Compassion versus safety. Rich versus poor.
Urban life is messier than that.
The real question is not whether a shelter belongs on the Upper East Side.
The real question is whether we can build systems that feel fair enough for everyone to participate in the solution.
Let’s do this!
Shaun