Thursday, August 17, 2023

Report: How 1 East Village landlord stopped a mega-development from rising next door

News of the pending demolition of six buildings — 50-64 Third Ave. — on Third Avenue between 10th Street and 11th Street prompted some reader questions about the stalled development at 42-46 Second Ave.

As previously reported (first here), there were approved work permits for an 11-floor mixed-use building on the site of a former three-building parcel between Second Street and Third Street.

Gemini Rosemont Development was behind this 100,568-square-foot new building ... the development, using 42 E. Second St. for its address, included 88 residential units and 9,600 square feet for retail.

However, those plans are officially dead as the city moved to revoke the permits.

Earlier this month, The Real Deal took a deep dive into what happened:
All that stood in Gemini's way was a small-time landlord next door. Robert Proto, however, proved to be a big-time problem.

Proto made unceasing calls to officials for weeks, triggering an audit by the Department of Buildings that found code and zoning issues that had initially slipped past the agency.
Proto owns the building on the SE corner of Third Street — the last one standing on this Second Avenue block, not to mention the home of Proto's Pizza

Here are a few more details:
Proto's landmarked building was built in 1899 with brick with wood joist construction and rubble stone foundation walls, making it "fragile and highly susceptible to settlement and cracking," according to court records.

Gemini Rosemont brought in a hydraulic hammer to break up the foundation of the former church, shaking Proto's building violently, bursting heat pipes and water lines and flooding a retail tenant, he said. He filed a lawsuit last year alleging that Gemini Rosemont broke its construction agreement with him. The suit is pending.
Gemini Rosemont is reportedly moving on from the project. A rep told us previously, "The project is frozen, and we are currently evaluating options for the site." 

In 2020, Gemini Rosemont bought the former La Salle annex at 38 Second Ave. and Second Street. The $14.5 million purchase of the four-story building was the third of three contiguous plots they acquired. The Los Angeles-based commercial real estate investment company closed on 42-44 Second Ave. and 46-48 Second Ave. (the former Church of the Nativity) in March 2020 for $40 million

So they're out $55 million just for the properties, not including any other associated costs for the design and preliminary work on the lot. 

Still waiting for word on what might be next for the space. Whoever the new owner turns out to be, they must be made aware of the past development crisis here — and maybe even work with Proto on the project.

Speaking out which... back to The Real Deal:
Proto stopped the firm's project but says he's out $500,000 from legal expenses, engineering fees and damages to his building. He hopes to recover some of that with his lawsuit.

Yet he considers himself fortunate to have had the time and resources to defend his building.

24 comments:

  1. How many slices make 500K? Let's go...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Score one for the little guy! We as EV’rs need to support this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, kudos to Proto

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll be getting a slice from Proto tonight! One of the best slice joints in the hood!

      Delete
    2. Definitely gonna order a pie! Such good news!!

      Delete
  4. Yes, let's support Proto. Continued Prayers from former Nativity/Lasalle Alumni.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I commend Proto for successfully stopping a bad developer from inflicting collateral damage, and it sounds like that developer is in bad shape anyway. But the focus has to be on turning over this site ASAP. Whatever you think about ugly glass buildings, this site does nobody good if it's a brick lot for another 10 years.

    Nobody likes to hear it, but giving a few apartments to rich people is a couple less walkup buildings that those rich people are going to occupy, throw out all the stabilized tenants, and do some ridiculous mansion conversion. East Village invaders are dedicated people, they want to live here at any cost... far easier at this point to grab an apartment on the Upper East or in LIC if you are just a tasteless idiot with a lot of cash.

    Ideally the city would buy this lot and make socialized housing. But none of the applicable government programs have the cash to do that today, and we shouldn't sit around and wait for that to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh yes let’s celebrate a vacant lot instead of housing. Ridiculous

    ReplyDelete
  7. No one is celebrating a vacant lot. The issue is developers think they can come in and destroy a neighboring building with impunity. It happens all the time, but this is one of the few times I've heard of where the neighboring building prevails. It's a shame there was so much damage to the Proto building - I've always loved its architecture. Kudos to Mr Proto for rising to the fight. I'll be buying some pizza.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Again everyone's saying I'll buy pizza. He sold the pizzeria recently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. even if that is true, and i dont think it is, his name is still on the pizzeria and he still owns the building. so this is a way to support him because the pizzeria pays him rent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can read about the sale here on EV Grieve from 3 weeks ago.

      Delete
  10. Good for Proto. What were the zoning and other issues that “slipped by” the agency. How did that happen? Is there an investigation into that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regarding Brian's comment, I'm with you, but socialized housing does not make sense as a solution to your 'tasteless idiot' problem.

    The real solution would be making buildings respect the architecture of the area.

    EV is an expensive area there's nothing that can be done about it; giving away apartments to a lucky few will not attract taste.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fuck yeah!! Kill the Ugly Mall Architecture!!! Progress does not mean hideous!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'Progress' is not a rat infested hole in the middle of downtown. That stretch of 2nd ave has become a hell hole. This is not going to help. There are 'glass boxes' not 20 feet away above Whole Foods. Not being able to afford something, or like the way it looks is not justification for it not existing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Buying a property doesn't entitle you to destroy a neighboring property with construction, though. Even the capitalists must admit this.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't understand why the developer would be "moving on". Yes, that is a fragile building. It would need to be treated "gently" and its condition would have to be taken into account per Chapter 33 of the NYC Building Code: "Safeguards During Construction or Demolition". Rubble wall foundations are supported All The Time. This isn't rocket science. Landmarked buildings are protected All The Time. I could list literally dozens of projects I have worked on where there was adjacent property to be protected that was landmarked, fragile or both and, guess what? The project was completed! The developer developed their site!

    The only logical explanation to me is that the developer is under-capitalized, spent too much money on their renderings and not enough on engineering, and figured they could just get away with having the contractor doing the cheapest possible job without actually safeguarding the neighbors.

    This is -- IMO -- not at all a difficult site to develop compared to others I have worked on. Probably a little more difficult than some, but, not beyond the pale. Everything in Manhattan is dealing in the game of inches that is Lot Line Construction.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All for what? Another ugly glass box like the one on 1 Ave and E5th? Which has nobody in it?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am also intrigued by the “code and zoning issues that has originally slipped by” the Buildings Dept. I wonder how often this happens — my guess is a lot, as the developer has much greater resources than the Buildings Dept. I would like to know what the specific issues were.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The only logical explanation to me is that the developer is under-capitalized, spent too much money on their renderings and not enough on engineering, and figured they could just get away with having the contractor doing the cheapest possible job without actually safeguarding the neighbors."

    ding ding ding!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Agreed with 9.11pm. Bravo Proto!

    ReplyDelete
  20. The Church of the Nativity was a significant brutalist structure. If it has survived another decade or it would have been landmarked. Too late noe

    ReplyDelete

Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.

If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.