BoweryBoogie attended last night's CB3 subcommittee meeting to hear more about the future of lower Second Avenue at First Street. He took that photo of the proposed 12-story building coming to where the Mars Bar is... and may return in two years.
The Local East Village, who first broke the story, was also at the meeting. Read that report here.
UPDATE:
Curbed has coverage too, with the bone-chilling headline: Mars Bar Faces Wrecking Ball as New Tower Gets Unveiled
14 comments:
"The next step is a Dec. 21 meeting, where the full Community Board will vote on the project."
I thought the world was supposed to end on December 21, 2012? Or is that when the Mars Bar reopens in a luxury building? (Theoretically)
So...what does this mean? Obviously, it's going to happen, but what is the vote going to determine at the 12/21 meeting?
i assume the vote is the start (or the end?) of what is called the ULURP process wherein folks get a chance to comment on a proposed new use of land.
(uniform land use review procedure).
there is a time-table that i forgot on this process.
the ulurp is prior to the city approving a change.
And what a gorgeous new addition to our skyline!
Did I read right that current tenants get to buy their new apt for $1 and it can't be resold at market rate?
This construction project would also displace the Wu Tang Physical Culture Association and their instructors, who have been teaching at 9 Second Avenue since 1980.
At least one of these buildings has been homesteaded... e.g. it was previously squatted, then more recently put under the auspice of UHAB as part of the city's plan to "legitimize" the squats. Thus, there are current "owners" of apartments.
Presumably, the "sold for $1" plan was designed so that the former squatters can in essence keep their apartments through the process.
I'm actually a little confused by the supposed resale restrictions and continued mention of low-income residents. My understanding is that squatters come to own their apartments due to their occupancy, sweat equity, and the abandonment and default of prior owners. I thought the squatters, as owners, *did* have full resale rights on their apartments (per vague griping in the hood about former squatters "cashing in" once property values went up)
On the other hand, if the developer is allowed to build extra high because of the low-income housing, then that housing should stay low-income and not be flipped to market rate.
So there are issues here around how much benefit the developer is really providing the community vs. the rights of the squatters/owners.
I think the discussion of this plan has been confusing because the former-squat status of the building and (some?) tenants has not been directly addressed.
finding out you are about to lose your job via a blog is pretty shittastic. can anyone offer me another bartending job where i'll make enough money to pay my bills and become friends with lost of my customers? ugh. totally ballz.
Shades of gray. That picture is utterly appalling.
*i can't recall whether the above 'lost of my customers' is supposed to be "lots of..." or "most of..." - either way, it's not supposed to read "lost of..."
You see how much cares about his bartenders for one to find out through this blog and from the horses mouth. He doesn't care about anything but the almighty dollar. This why his prices are so high and even if the bar comes back none of you will be able to afford to go there it won't be the same place. It will be another place for tourists to go. Fuck Hank Fuck Mars.
re: 10:57am.
oh, hush up. hank's been a fine boss. the deal had [has?] not been finalized so why would he tell anyone? the internet has a preemptive jump on most things.
Hank doesn't own the building, so he probably has no control of this situation.
I think this will be a great addition to the EV. This project will create more jobs and opportunities than the space currently does. I hope more things like this happen in the EV.
Your EV neighbor
Post a Comment