The lottery is now open for 30 mixed-income units at 433 E. 13th St. — aka EVE — between Avenue A and First Avenue. (H/T 6sqft!)
Details!
Qualifying New Yorkers earning 40, 60, and 130 percent of the area median income can apply for the units, which range from $674/month studios to $2,991/month two-bedrooms.
You have until Jan. 27 to apply. Find the info at this link (PDF!).
Leasing at the luxury building — market-rate units begin at $3,250 per month for studios and up to $7,000 for two-bedroomers — started this past January.
The building is on the site of the onetime Peter Stuyvesant Post Office (1951-2014). Residential amenities include a courtyard, rooftop barbecue area, and an outdoor TV and sound system "which will change movie night forever," per leasing materials.
The Trader Joe's is expected to open on the 14th Street side retail space in early January.
Previously on EV Grieve:
• Former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office slated to be demolished
• The former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office will yield to an 8-story residential building
• New residential building at former 14th Street PO will feature a quiet lounge, private dining room
• Developer withdraws zoning variance request for former 14th Street post office site
• The Peter Stuyvesant-PO-replacing residential building tops out on 14th Street
• All about EVE, the Peter Stuyvesant Post Office-replacing rentals on 14th Street
• EVErything about the new luxury rentals at the former Peter Stuyvesant Post Office
16 comments:
It really is regrettable the variance didn't go through. More people could have lived here.
They complain not enough housing especially affordable but refuse to create the zoning variance that would have made it possible 12 stories on 14St would not have been out of scale.
Odd that the only comments here are from people upset about the variance! Weird. Who are these variance-heads who love 12 story buildings? I doubt there would have been that many more low income housing units made avail. More likely just more units for bros, further overcrowding of the EV, and less sky for all of us.
What James and Will do not realize a zoning variance for this building would have opened the doors to developers building luxury housing throughout the neighborhood significantly taller than our what exist here. If you want to live in the upper east side that's fine but most of us enjoy seeing the sky and sunlight.
No. The way to get more affordable housing is NOT to shoehorn it into luxury development, it's for the city to spend some of the money they are giving away in tax breaks to upscale developers to buy land and build 100% affordable projects. 12 stories at this end of 14th Street would indeed have been out of scale, and would only. have encouraged more and larger developments. As it is, that group of three small, dilapidated, emptied-out blue tenements abutting 433 will be the next to go, and if 433 had gotten 12 stories, this new building would have wanted to go as high, or possibly even higher. If I wanted to live in midtown I would, but I want sun and light and air, thank you very much, not featureless walls of glass and steel towering over me.
Oh I forgot to ask Will and James which developer they work for?
12 stories is too high. There's a reason we have zoning, and it's to keep this area as low-rise as possible for the most part. I like seeing the SKY and having sunlight in my apartment, thanks! If we get 12 story buildings, light-wise I'd be living at the bottom of a canyon.
Meanwhile, if NYC were REALLY serious about creating affordable housing, it could do so - and we should have buildings that are entirely affordable housing. (Even there, though, I'm not in favor of 12 story buildings.) But given de Blasio and his crew, we can pretty much guarantee that affordable anything is at the bottom of the list.
If I earned $97,110 a year I would certainly move from the rent stabilized apt where I am trapped with quality of life issues affecting my health. Yes I think I would have the ability to move with or without the subsided housing. If you earn less than half this, then maybe not so much opportunities to move without winning the housing lottery. So, people earning $97,110 per year, are getting subsidies to move, and I remain trapped in my apt, unable to move. maybe, affordable housing opportunities should be created for people who otherwise would not be able to move in a city that has turned into a luxury housing mall.thanks nyc.
I was completely with both sides of the story here as everyone is entitled to an opinion, until of course those with the unpopular opinion were eventually castigated and labelled as employees of the developers. Perhaps on giving Tuesday we give the typical rhetoric a break maybe?
I work in marketing, Noble, but thanks for the accusation.
While you may prefer low-rise buildings, some of us might prefer low rents, however tall buildings are. The Upper East Side is nowhere near a lightless hellscape, despite being one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Manhattan. I'd prefer we follow their path than that of Greenwich Village, where "neighborhood character" is sacrosanct and every building is luxury.
I'll especially never understand the lengths that people will go to kill extra stories in buildings when they expressly would help subsidize affordable housing. God forbid a building be as tall as Stuy Town, 8 families might get a home below market rate!
Once a 12 story building is there, it's probably not coming down until the apocalypse. There must be better ways to help families in need than just building up up up and only a tiny portion is even for them.
@Will,
Developers are taking over the neighbored and with the help of cheap loans from banks which only benefit the wealthy, a pro-developer mayor who hands over large swathes of public land which give birth to hellholes like Hudson Yards, anyone entering retirement age, low income or god forbid has a child or two will need to be a lucky housing lottery winner to stay in a neighborhood they love and lived in their entire lives. I understand your opinion now but your previous brief comment one line pro-variance statement usually comes from real-estate trolls, my apologies.
Some interesting facts-
The developer claimed they could not build a complying building with 23 "affordable" units and sought the variance (to build higher and more luxury units with higher floors for more millions of profit.)
What is being built actually has more "affordable" units-30- than what was claimed was not possible within zoning-23.
No variance actually led to more affordable units in the building, how about that? Almost like real estate interests and developers do not always tell the truth.
Thank you Noble, I just come at this from a completely different angle––the way I see it is that our neighborhood needs more housing period, that remarkably little housing is being built at all. Over 60% of East Village housing stock predates 1939, and the construction allowed here was curtailed even further by the 2008 downzoning––and I think that lack of new construction is how EV tenements that predate the Civil War can rent for over 3k a month.
(You can look at those housing age stats here, if you scroll down to Year Structure Built: https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/profile/180/housing )
Ultimately, I think we need to allow enough construction so that market-rate rentals are affordable for the middle class, but in the meantime I'm very supportive of getting as many cross-subsidized units as we can.
Affordable housing is called RENT STABILIZATION. Which the city soldout to billionaire developers
Haha good point!!!
Post a Comment