Photos by Stacie Joy
The board at Village View, the 1,236-unit Mitchell-Lama cooperative that opened in 1964 between First Avenue and Avenue A, has taken another step toward exploring the future of Parking Lot 7.
According to minutes from the co-op's January board meeting, directors voted to hire Alan Cohen of ABS Partners under a six-month exclusive contract to market Parking Lot 7 — located on Second Street between Avenue A and First Avenue — to prospective residential developers.
The board had previously met with representatives from the law firm Sheppard Mullin, former City Council member Domenic Recchia, and Cohen to discuss potential economic opportunities associated with the site.
While no formal redevelopment proposal has been made public, the board's decision to retain a broker has prompted questions among some shareholders about what, exactly, could be built there and how any future project might affect the co-op and the surrounding neighborhood.
The possibility of redevelopment has raised concerns among some shareholders, who say they want more transparency about the process and assurances that affordable housing will be considered if the site ultimately moves forward with development.
Since January, several residents have contacted EVG, saying the concerns extend beyond parking.
"Village View has been a steadfast example of mixed-use affordable housing that works and is financially stable — a godsend for many families," one resident said. "We want transparency and to know that affordable housing is being considered in this project."
A resident-run website, VillageViewCommunity.com, has been documenting concerns surrounding the proposal. In recent posts, contributors questioned the board's handling of the process. They cited statements made during an April 28 meeting, including discussion of more than $300,000 in spending on legal, lobbying and development-related work before many shareholders were aware of the initiative.
The site has also raised concerns about whether shareholders will have an opportunity to vote on any future transaction involving the property.
32 comments:
Nice! I’ve always thought it’s crazy how many parking lots there are on in the east village. Housing, of any sort, is SUCH a better use of the land. This is great news.
Yes let's increase the density of the population even more. Millionaires need a place to live too.
covert one of the lots into a garage, that could free up several spaces for building.
So adding more residential housing to an area that is already overcrowded is a good idea? I guess you don't walk around the area much. A lot of the apartments here are already underutilized meaning that the people reside elsewhere or just stand vacant. What about the noise and construction and the loss of just open areas? Its a parking lot , but at least there is some open space. Maybe add some plantings to umlrive it.
Heck yeah let's increase the density in an area close to multiple mass transit options! Second Street is extra wide there - gimmie some mixed use buildings with retail on the ground floor and a variety of residential options on top. You could even excavate and keep a lot for the VV folk. A dedicated single level parking lot in the East Village is absolute insanity.
Parking lots are quiet. Leave it as is.
Sigh... Yes we need housing. Inevitable it will go "luxury." Too bad it could not have a ground floor with reasonable rents for services that have been priced out of the neighborhood like a cobbler, a fix it shop, even an upholsterer, all with apprentice programs, and a reasonably priced laundromat. ($10 for a large washer load at a nearby one.) Maybe room for some nonprofits too and even an old school Essex Market stalls setup for local vendors. Much less senior housing with a more communal living setup. And population density is indeed getting nuts around here.
a park would be excellent
What about a dormitory? We are already NYU's campus and playground. Why not just add another dorm? There is no greenspace available for the community living here already. Even the sidewalks cannot accommodate the people coming in to party here in the weekends. The sidewalks are overcrowded. Did any of you try to go to a restaurant on a Friday night? After standing online you get a table in an overcrowded noisy restaurant. For some reason all the patrons seem to think that their conversations are interesting and have to scream. What fun, especially after you get the bill and have to overpay for the meal.
Let' s put in some more high-rise buildings full of people who will never become part of the community. People come here to "experience" the East Village and leave. There is the biannual NYU exodus. These people do not give back to the community.
Multi use? Luxury Condos more likely. They will drive themselves or use ride share anyway.
This is a great idea; hope they're reading this site.
Curious why their board wouldn’t propose the construction of a new multilevel parking lot?
This would allow VV to rent out parking spaces at market price which would generate additional monthly income for VV.
Importantly, this plan would be structured to allow current VV shareholders who utilize parking lot 7 to maintain their existing spots within the new facility.
I believe this transition would provide a significant financial benefit to VV while ensuring their shareholders continue to have reliable access to parking.
More housing, yes! More families, yes! Less cars, yes!
Families always need cars; even people with dogs state they bought a car so they'd be able to have a dog.
NYC is pushing cars out. There are working class people who use cars to make a living to pay their bills. Cars are not a luxury item for some people but a necessity.
As far as housing for families - affordable housing is no longer affordable. There are a lot of wealthy people in the neighborhood as well as trust funders. Their income brings up the "Average Median Income" in the neighborhood.
Affordable housing rents are based on the average median income in the community. The only people who benefit from these developments are the wealthy.
I remember when my sister was born, in the 70's my Mom and I walked around the neighborhood looking at bigger apartments to accommodate our family. We were able to do that. That is no longer an option.
"Village View has been a steadfast example of mixed-use affordable housing that works and is financially stable — a godsend for many families,"
"Mixed use" implies "more than one use", and from what I have seen Village View has only residential usage. If anything, that block could use some retail.
The reason for the exploration is that costs to maintain the co-op have increased. Oil prices over the years, utilities, and huge maintenance bills - repairs to plumbing, which is now hitting 60 years of age. Repairs to roofs, elevators, etc. Maintenance fees barely increased over the decades, and haven't kept up with the maintenance on a 7 building complex.
In reality, the likely desire is to make millions from the sale of the land to fill the capital repair fund coffers for future building needs, like new elevators, etc.
Can't be overcrowded *and* underutilized, you know. You know you're reaching when you try to describe a fricking parking lot as "open space!"
I respect the VV shareholders for trying to make sure their assets go towards the same purpose as the complex itself. Haven't they also decline to privatize at least a couple of times? Actual values, a beautiful thing to see.
Either the late 80s or early 90s we called that block Dog Poop Way. It was unbelievable before people started picking up after their dogs.
I am a neighbor of VV and I think this is a great idea. A good deal would create more housing units (whether luxury or “affordable” is really just a financial/developer/deal term). A good deal would also require the developer to expand utilities (sewer capacity, etc) green spaces, drainage, and landscaping, require efficient heating/cooling and meet top standards for building emissions and water runoff. This dream deal would also fulfill a social objective of funding VV’s needs without assessments or expenses to shareholders - therefore preserving “affordable” housing. The reality will require some compromises but this seems like a boon for VV resident shareholders who will see increased equity as well as the neighborhood that could see more greenery and yes, affluent residents who spend money locally in the east village.
Affluent residents who spend money means local stores catering to the needs of the affluent bringing up prices in the neighborhood. Affluent shoppers buy different products then the rest of us. Keep dreaming -"A good deal and a "dream deal" are never in the cards. Name one development who provided adequate green space for the additional residents they were bringing into the neighborhood. We have seen development who provided pedestrian plazas, little more a couple of benches which are opened "to the public" on a limited basis. All the new people use overutilized neighborhood resources. As for VV the question should be how it has come to this point. The board at VV has increased yearly maintenance by 8%, 10%, much higher than rent stabilization guidelines. The board has stated that the increases will continue, not stop, maybe at a lower rate. Sounds like a lose/ lose situation for all- neighborhood and VV.
You say, " fulfill a social objective of funding VV’s needs without assessments or expenses to shareholders - therefore preserving “affordable” housing. " But, other Mitchell Lama developments also aging into needs for lots of repairs are refinance with the city
30MM for mortgage (looks like a balloon mortgage but is not - they are ment to be and will be refinanced at the end of term. … enforcement mortgages). There are solutions to finance the needs of Village View that have not been looked at.
@12:03 pm: This isn't accurate. "Area Median Income" is actually based on, roughly, all of NYC *plus* Westchester County! It does not look at the specific neighborhood at all. And, as you might guess, the really big push up comes from Westchester.
Speaking of VV maintenance increases, HPD approved increases of 14%, 10%, and 5% for the 2026, 2027, and 2028 calendar years, respectively, to take effect each January 1. 14% took effect this January 2026
I am so glad that this has finally found the cleansing light of this awesome publication! Thank you EVGrieve! Now perhaps we will find input from wiser minds than have thus far coveted the entire debate/decision making process. This one piece of property is part of a much larger discussion about successful social housing models. Infill - yea or nay? or maybe just a little...? Where will NYCHA residents stand? The Fourth Estate does play an undeniably important role. Helps widen the aperture. This is not just about parking vs. housing. Quality of life. Whatever happens here will affect The First Houses which will be overshadowed by whatever development is coming. See landmark designations - https://www.villagepreservation.org/2015/12/03/landmarks-50-first-houses/ Will there be an environmental review? Perhaps now with press coverage and community input we can slow the roll that has been occurring out of the light.
Wow that would suck. Parking is hard enough as it is. Those people and everyone else needs places to park, we can't get rid of lots, the city is way too dense with too many people.
Ignorant statement. Cars are important in modern society, so your comment isn't helpful. They are incredibly useful for many many people including yourself. Enough with the extreme stance.
Thank you — I was going to make this point. The cost pressures on older coops in the neighborhood are serious, both operating (taxes, insurance, people) and capital needs. I don’t know the Village View details but even if they’ve been raising maintenance every year and socking money away, I expect they are looking at large, unfunded capital needs. Btw people who note that maintenance has increased faster than rent stabilized rents are just making the private landlords’ case that they’re getting squeezed. Coops, as non-profits, are just trying to keep in balance and they are needing bigger annual increases.
i remember that. Didn't know other people also called it that
80% affordable 20% market rate
I'm all for a PARK ! Plant more trees
If VV has been mismanaged for years, then what will happen with the money from the sale? How will this money be safeguarded to ensure it is not spent frivolously, or will there be another parking lot or playground being sold soon after?
Post a Comment