Friday, February 6, 2015

The future of East Houston and Orchard will look like this



There it is — the rendering for Ben Shaoul's new retail-residential complex coming to the one-level strip on East Houston between Orchard and Ludlow ... a 10-floor building with 83 residential units spread out over 95,000-square feet.

New York Yimby had the first look at the new-look 196 Orchard St. this morning.

In addition, the new building will feature 13,500 square feet of ground-floor retail and nearly 5,000 square feet of community facility space.

And how about the retail? Per Yimby: "In the rendering, it appears as though the store space may be targeted towards an Apple-like tenant, though none have publicly committed yet."

As BoweryBoogie (who first learned that Shaoul was behind this project) has been reporting, the businesses along here (Bereket among them) have closed or moved to make way for the development.



Pretty much everything you see will be gone — except for Katz's, whose owner sold their air rights to Shaoul to help make all this possible.

Permits were filed earlier this week to demolish the Bereket space, per Bedford + Bowery.

Ismael Leyva is the architect of record.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did Katz' have to sell to this particular guy? And couldn't they have sold to someone who would have had some affordable housing in the plan?

Anonymous said...

Over 60 percent of NYC rental housing is either rent stabilized, rent controlled, public housing or Section 8. We do not need any more housing designated as affordable housing. We need a real housing market in NYC. Right now we are living in Soviet Russia.

Anonymous said...

So so pretty. I'm just a fool for anything Shaoul.

Gojira said...

Shame on Katz's, those greedy bastards. And how did the snarky real estate troll with questionable statistics (90% of all red-tailed hawks in NYC are anti-Semites! 76% of fro-yo shops give money to fake police fraternal organizations! See, I can make up numbers and statistics without offering facts to back 'em up, too) posing as Anon. 12:36 stumble onto this blog? And finally, what will make him go away?

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

If you feel like you are living in Soviet Russia, then move away.

What is affordable housing??? Is it $1,500. for a tiny studio, which is a room. Is that affordable? For who??

I grew up in this community. When my sister was born my family had an opportunity to move into a larger apartment. My mother and I walked around and checked out available apartments. When families expand now they can't move. Where do they go?

If you live in a tenement then you are afraid that the building will be sold to a slum lord, and you will harassed and/ or evicted. If you live in Mitchell Lama it can be privatized. If you are a 20 in an 80/20 then you have about 20 years before you have to move.

Nothing is in perpetuity. We all live AFRAID of losing our homes. This is no way for anyone to live.

Anonymous said...

It's a nice building. Whatever else you say about Shaoul, the architecture of his buildings is nice.

Anonymous said...

Ring to the NYU Furman Center, there are a total of 2,172,634 rental units in NYC. 986840 are rent stabilized, 38374 are rent controlled and 297620 are Public Housing and Mitchell Lama. That is 60.9percent of the rental units in the city. FACT!

Anonymous said...

"5,000 square feet of community facility space" What does that mean, and is it in the sub basement?

Realestate troll, spoken like someone that got a low entry job for a carpet bagging landlord or real estate office with big America dreams to someday be just like Shaoul. This will never be Russia but it will soon be a gated community.

Anonymous said...

Shaoul is not just a bad developer his property management company - Magnum was responsible for clearing out long-time residents from over 15 buildings for Westbrook, who then sold them at a nice profit to Kushner. Lest we forget how large his horns really are.

Katz and all the other businesses in the hood that have done or do business with Shaoul should be ashamed of themselves. Trust me there are many.

Anonymous said...

According to the NYU...

Anonymous said...

Katzs should be ashamed? Who the are you to say that? They secured their future and probably made a bundle. Good for them. I didn't realize rental housing was supposed to last forever. You are a RENTER yet you act as if you own the building. You don't. Sorry. Where did this sense of entitlement come from? When families expand - GASP- sometimes they actually move to more appropriate housing. My family moved and bought an apt 40 years ago. Then after working and pooling our money we bought a house in Queens. Are you entitled to stay in a neighborhood because you are born there? My family moved from Ireland and then moved from Manhattan to Queens. It wasn't the end of the world. The majority of housing in NYC is rent stabilized, affordable, public housing, section 8 etc. Maybe 40% is market rate. When the 60% never move and the apartments never turn over you get the housing market we have. Its that simple. The gall of the RS crowd who got over and have the audacity to complain about it mind boggling. You got a great deal on an apt and now want that extended forever because you are special. Ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

NYU is responsible for changing the fabric of this community forever. We had a community and a neighborhood now we are a campus. The Shaoul buildings are all dorms. Rich parents are happy to pay for their kids to leave home and live here in our community. That is what is happening.
We are the playground for the "children of the rich".

Who else can afford to go to NYU and live here.

Anonymous said...

Is like old Soviet Russia saying: In Soviet Russia, only oiligarchs can afford to live. Not even Yuppies can live anymore.

Anonymous said...

We are entitled to live in our homes without being AFRAID that some slum lord will evict us. We are supposed to move out of our homes to allow others to move in. Where else can anyone make such an absurd statement. Are you planning to move out of Queens to allow someone else to live in your home.

As long as we are paying our rent we should be able to live in our homes stress free. These apartments we live in are our HOMES. Our neighbors are our friends. The shop owners are our community. Why should we be forced out of our homes.

Anonymous said...

I see the REBNY troll is out in force on this tread. What he conveniently forgets to tell you is that before vacancy decontrol, 1997, NYS RS apartments did turnover (it was not at light speed but they did move) as people moved up (or down) the social food chain (getting married, having children, empty nesters, becoming old, etc.) And again, for the 1000th time, not having any commercial rent regulation, that's really working to lower commercial rents and for community value (CHAINS!) as well. Except if you are a REBNTY member, and then it’s lovely. Dubia on the Hudson! The REBNY/Bloomberg/Cuomo vision for NYC. Bring on those NYS luxury housing tax abatements for the Russian mob. There is NO free market here for NYC residential housing.Period. And any defense of Ben "The Hammer" Shaoul and John Sexton is defending the indefensible.

Anonymous said...

I am happy for the posters who can afford to stay here and the people who came here way back when and could buy a place but the real estate market in NYC has skyrocketed in the last few years and if you have been to cities like London and Paris you have an idea of what's going to happen: soon enough there won't be middle class people in the city. The only people profiting from this are a handful of real estate developers and a few small property owners who are cashing in. Good for them. Bad for the rest of us.

Jared said...

At least Katz' lives. They could have sold the whole place and lived off the million$. I hope they can expand there. They are packed.

FigKitty said...

Anon 2:34
::slow claps::

Anon 3:00
Your sense of entitlement is overwhelming. Sure, if you are paying your rent, you should be allowed to stay in your apartment. But your rent should be allowed to change with the times, and you should expect to pay more if your neighborhood is in higher demand, and less if it becomes less so. You pay, you stay, you can't you go - just like everyone else. You are not entitled to your apartment at any cost. If you want a guaranteed place to live for life, buy something. It's that simple. In the EV, Queens, Minnesota, wherever you can afford.

Anonymous said...

Wow... I saw this and thought... Only Ben Shaoul could lay such a monstrous turd!

Anonymous said...

Rents change with the times but imagine if the cost of food, clothing and everything else skyrocketed the way NYC rents have in just the last 5-10 years? It is out of balance when the few who control one sector of a city's economy are allowed to take advantage.

Anonymous said...

You dont get it. They want someone else to buy it. I bought a dump on the UES 15 years ago. I grew to like the area. I dont worry about housing. Somehow NYC has to provide permanent lifelong cheap housing for you. Why? I dont get it. Live where you can afford it. There are plenty of cheap cities and states. People move all the time for family or work reasons.

Ken from Ken's Kitchen said...

February 6, 2015 at 1:55 PM

That's not an accurate picture.

The phase-out of rent regulation began with the passage of vacancy decontrol in 1997. Tenants still living in RS units rented before 1997 are pretty much the only people who are covered by rent regulation now. Once one of those tenants moves out or dies move, the landlord gets a 20% vacancy increase on the previous rent and then only has to do enough capital "improvements" to get the rent to market rate ($2500/month) to deregulate the unit. 300,000 RS units have already been lost that way. That's why these days only a very very lucky few people looking to rent an apt can find one that's rent regulated.

Ken from Ken's Kitchen said...

February 6, 2015 at 3:28 PM

Hey Eddie, if that's you. I don't think the anonymous guy's REBNY. I think he's a certain libertarian who got his ass handed to him here the other day and is now afraid to sign in using his handle.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 541

You say people move for family and jobs. We want to stay here for FAMILY, FRIENDS, JOBS.

Many of us are not here because this is New York. We are here because this is HOME.

As for Shaoul, he took over the nursing home/ rehab on Avenue B & 5. That facility was needed by the community. Now there is a pseudo dorm, with loud roof parties. Try having dinner or lunch at the restaurants across the street when the music is on.

Shaoul does not care about the local people or businesses.

Now there will be a new dorm on Houston.

Anonymous said...

A city does not do well when it becomes a mono-culture meaning, one ethnicity, one level of income either low, medium or high. NYC is what it is today because of the variety of its people including their income which until recently could accommodate a wide spectrum. Ask yourself what do we lose as a city when the middle and the poor are pushed out. Would the world have Punk music, Jazz, the abstract expressionist and pop artists, great works from beat generation writers, films from Scorsese, etc... if these people could not afford to live in low rent neighborhoods and create artistic communities which have given our culture so much the last 100 years. For the first time in the history of this city NY is losing its creative edge and cannot be considered a culture capital. Smart business people and those in political power have always understood the importance of support artists until recently when real estate is more important than anything else. Art and culture is made by the under class, the outsiders then purchased by the rich and spread to the masses. This chain is broken in NY as it becomes on giant upper class suburban style gated community.

Ken from Ken's Kitchen said...

Fig Kitty

Rent regulation is not an entitlement. It used to be an attempt by the city and state to preserve a middle class presence in NYC.

NYC was and still is a mostly rental city, so rent regulations were a way for the city to give renters the rights necessary to remain in their homes without the threat of unpredictable rent increases or arbitrary eviction.

As a result, renters in regulated apts got stability and the ability to stay long-term. Without that, average people seeking long term housing would have been forced to buy a house with a fixed mortgage in NJ or CT. Nowadays new tenants are ALWAYs transients in our building: students and kids with no credit rating.

The only reason for the sorry state of rent regulation in NYC is that home rule was taken away from us by Nelson Rockefeller and his GOP legislature back in the 1970s. Now Albany writes our rent regs so we can't vote out the upstate pricks who screw us downstate renters. BTW. Rockefeller also took away NYC's rent regs at the same time. But Rockefeller and the GOP actually reinstated them after NYC landlords started pulling the same shit they're pulling today. The difference is that nowadays the RE industry is second only to Wall Street in money and power and they own the entire State Senate GOP, a few Democrats, and appears to have a choke hold on our governor.

Anonymous said...

Ahhhh Katz's, soon to be the home of the $40 Corned Beef Sandwich... I can't fucking wait.

Anonymous said...

My two cents on the rental market in lower manhattan:

There is a lot of subsidized publicly housing and outrageous market rate rentals. Problem is people in subsidized housing rarely move and frankly have too much of a sweetheart deal. Market rate rentals are so high because there is not enough. More market rate housing will bring rates down so the "middle class" can afford it. Middle class do not qualify for public housing and by middle class, I mean those up to $150K and for families $300K. Those who make less than $50K should move to a more affordable neighborhood just like it works all over the country and not act like they are entitled to affordable housing wherever they want to live.

matt said...

Anon at 6:57

I live in a small rent controlled/stableized apartment, and my rent is 2K a month, (It's increased by $1000/mo since I moved in 17 years ago). So you think if I'm pushed out with all the other "freeloaders", my apartment at market value will rent for less? I'll have what you're smoking.

And if someone offered you a "fair market rent" for a subsidized housing unit, which are about one step above looking like a 60's hospital, you're going to rush to move in and pay "fair market value" for that? Yeah, okay.

Matthew has 2 T's, dumbass said...

Oh My Gross
so glad I've lived in the EV for 23 years and never been to Katz. Never will go

Anonymous said...

Go f**k yourselves!
-The working poor NYer

Anonymous said...

The problem for this city on many levels not just housing is the lack of home rule too many 'local' policies and decisions are made in Albany...upstate NY has little to do with the five boroughs accept being a drain on our tax dollars. In 1969 the Mayoral candidate floated the idea of NYC seceding from NY and becoming a city-state in the union why not we are big enough in population and economy..after all nobody complains about Rhode Island Delaware and Hawaii think about it the city state of New Amsterdam makes sense we need a vote..

Ken from Ken's Kitchen said...

Market rate rentals are so high because there is not enough.

Not true. This has nothing to do with supply/demand. What’s driving everything is land values.

Anonymous said...

Fucktards all.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea Ben Shaoul read and posted on EV greive, who else would praise this hideous monstrosity. Ben if your reading this, being boiled in oil would be too good a fate for you, it really would, If nothing massively tragic and painful happens to you we have settled the question of whether or not Karma exists.

Anonymous said...

"Not true. This has nothing to do with supply/demand. What’s driving everything is land values."

Those might be the dumbest three sentences ever strung together.

Jared said...

At least Katz' lives. I hope they get to expand their space.

Ken from Ken's Kitchen said...

February 7, 2015 at 4:17 PM

I put it in-elegently, but the fact is, increasing supply isn't gonna increase numbers of the "middle class" housing February 6, 2015 at 6:57 PM envisions. Demand for luxury condos is high in NYC so land prices are insanely high so what developer's gonna build that "middle class" housing, and why? If and when they overbuild lux condos, the high end market will correct, pushing down luxury apt rents while rents on middle income units will continue to rise. Got me?

Anonymous said...

Hey everyone, the asshole at 2:34pm is blaming people not wanting to leave their rent controlled/stabilized apartments for the high rents on ones that are not.

No one should HAVE to move out of where they live and since when should people have x amount of time to move.

Btw 2:34, the less rent people pay the more money they can not only save but spend.

Anonymous said...

I will never understand how and why some people blame rent control for tying up the housing market when it's corrupt oligarchs from other countries who are buying uber-luxury apartments by the truckload for insane amounts of money as relatively safe tax-free places to park their ill-gotten millions. Do they live in these panoramic-viewed, marble-toileted, sidewalk-heated, gilded penthouses? No. Do they spend any money in the city on books, clothes, food to support city businesses? No. Do they pay taxes or send their children to NYC schools? No. But, hey, it's the artists, musicians, writers who scrape by in rent-controlled apartments who are to blame! I know the poor are easy targets, but come on!