Local Law 97 exposure at 260 Riverside Drive.
Reported emissions, current and 2030 caps, estimated annual penalty exposure, and per-unit monthly impact for 260 Riverside Drive — built on NYC’s public LL84 benchmarking dataset and PLUTO tax-lot records. Latest available reporting year: 2024.
- Address
- 260 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10025
- NYC reporting record
- 260 Riverside Drive
- Year built
- 1910
- Total square feet
- 87,941
- Residential units
- 66
- Primary use
- Multifamily Housing
- Reporting year
- 2024
- BIN / BBL
- 1057080 / 1018880001
- Reported emissions
- 500 mtCO₂e/yr
Source: NYC LL84 benchmarking & PLUTO (NYC Open Data) · Reporting year 2024 · Data refreshed July 2026
Data provenance & what this does not establish
Sources. NYC’s Local Law 84 energy and emissions benchmarking disclosures (NYC Open Data dataset 5zyy-y8am) and the Department of City Planning’s PLUTO tax-lot records. The latest available benchmarking reporting year is 2024; buildings disclose annually, one year in arrears. Our snapshot of both datasets was last refreshed July 2026.
Identity. Marketed address: 260 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10025. Government record: 260 Riverside Drive (BIN 1057080, BBL 1018880001). Building identity passed an automated BIN and tax-block cross-check against current city records on the last refresh; records that fail the identity gate are withheld from publication.
What this analysis does not establish. It does not establish the penalty the building will actually pay — offsets, renewable-energy credits, rule adjustments, and exemptions can reduce or eliminate exposure. It does not establish current retrofit work or board plans, which filings lag. It does not establish how any cost would be allocated to an individual apartment — that depends on the board. Read it as one input to diligence, and verify current plans with the managing agent, board minutes, and counsel.
Moderate — under today's cap; material modeled 2030 exposure
Current emissions are within the 2024–2029 cap but materially exceed the 2030 cap. At the currently reported emissions level, modeled gross exposure would begin in 2030. Compliance costs, where boards incur them, can manifest as maintenance increases or assessments to fund retrofits — how a building funds compliance is a board decision this analysis does not predict.
- Excess over cap
- 0 mtCO₂e
- Annual penalty exposure
- $0 (under cap)
- Per unit / month impact
- —
- Excess over cap
- 142 mtCO₂e
- Annual penalty exposure
- $38,048/yr
- Per unit / month impact
- $48/unit/mo
- Under the 2024–2029 capReported emissions of 500 mtCO2e/year are below the building's first-period cap (594 mtCO2e/year). No near-term penalty exposure under current rules.
- The 2030 step-down in capsCurrently under the 2024–2029 cap, but the 2030 cap is materially stricter. At the currently reported emissions level, modeled gross exposure under the 2030 cap would be ~$38,048/year (~$48/unit/month) — before offsets, credits, or emissions reductions.
- Older construction may require more extensive compliance workBuilt 1910. Buildings of this vintage often carry older heating systems (steam, frequently oil or gas) and weaker envelopes; compliance pathways may require deeper capital intervention than in newer buildings. Whether that applies here depends on this building's actual systems and any work already done.
How a board could plausibly respond to LL97 over the next decade. Each scenario translates the regulatory exposure into the per-unit financial impact a shareholder might actually feel — through maintenance increases, assessments, or a combination. The dollar ranges are illustrative — not building-specific estimates. Actual retrofit scope and cost require engineering analysis and a review of the building’s capital plan.
The board makes no major capital investment. Penalties are paid out of operating budget or via maintenance increases. No upgrade-driven assessment in this scenario; pure pay-the-fine path.
- 10-yr per-unit total
- $2,306 – $2,998
- Monthly per-unit
- $19 – $25
Often the wrong path long-term — penalties compound and the 2035+ caps are stricter again. But it's how many boards default in year one.
The board funds a meaningful retrofit (heat-pump conversion, envelope work, controls modernization, electrification) via assessment, financing, or reserve drawdown. Penalties eliminated or substantially reduced; long-term operating costs typically lower.
- 10-yr per-unit total
- $75,000 – $200,000
- Monthly per-unit
- $625 – $1,667
Higher upfront, lower long-term. The right path for boards with strong reserves and a long-view shareholder base. Many trophy-tier buildings on Park / Fifth / CPW are evaluating this now.
The board pays penalties for several years, then funds a retrofit anyway as the 2030 step-down or 2035 cap arrives. Combines the recurring penalty burden with the eventual capital event.
- 10-yr per-unit total
- $96,056 – $252,998
- Monthly per-unit
- $800 – $2,108
The most expensive of the three paths. A common trajectory when a board defers the capital decision without a plan — and worth asking directly which of the three paths this building is actually on.
Multi-year reported emissions from NYC’s LL84 benchmarking. A downward trend signals the building is already executing an operational or capital response; flat or upward suggests the board hasn’t yet acted.
| Year | Total emissions (mtCO₂e) | Intensity (kgCO₂e/sf) |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 500 | 5.68 |
| 2023 | 523 | 5.90 |
| 2022 | 529 | 6.00 |
Underwriting a purchase at 260 Riverside Drive?
LL97 exposure is one layer of building diligence. Reserves, assessment history, board posture, sponsor sales dynamics, and how the building’s capital plan interacts with the 2030 step-down all matter. The Roebling Team does this layer of work on every client transaction.
For the full building read on 260 Riverside Drive, see the editorial profile — architect, history, board character, recent sales context.
Schedule a 30-minute consultation →