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.
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.
ReplyDeleteYes let's increase the density of the population even more. Millionaires need a place to live too.
DeleteHeck 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.
DeleteMulti use? Luxury Condos more likely. They will drive themselves or use ride share anyway.
Deletecovert one of the lots into a garage, that could free up several spaces for building.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great idea; hope they're reading this site.
DeleteSo 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.
ReplyDeleteCan't be overcrowded *and* underutilized, you know. You know you're reaching when you try to describe a fricking parking lot as "open space!"
DeleteI 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.
There used to be beautiful flowers that grew along the fence.
DeleteYes it is overcrowded from hordes of tourists and post grads coming in to eat at the various restaurants and night clubs. The apartments can be vacant and there can be people coming from outside the neighborhood but building more apartments will simply increase congestion in the area.
DeleteParking lots are quiet. Leave it as is.
ReplyDeleteSigh... 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.
ReplyDeletea park would be excellent
ReplyDeleteWhat 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.
ReplyDeleteLet' 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.
Curious why their board wouldn’t propose the construction of a new multilevel parking lot?
ReplyDeleteThis 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!
ReplyDeleteFamilies always need cars; even people with dogs state they bought a car so they'd be able to have a dog.
DeleteNYC 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.
DeleteAs 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.
@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.
DeleteIgnorant 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.
DeleteI looked up the AMI - The median household income in the East Village (Manhattan) is about $123,569 per year, based on the most recent Census-derived data available.
DeleteWhat this means in context
East Village sits well above the NYC citywide median (~$70,000) and even above the Manhattan borough median (~$105,000).
The neighborhood’s income profile reflects its mix of young professionals, long‑term residents, and higher‑earning households.
The affordable income would be based on the $123,000 AMI. It would not be affordable for many including myself.
If you own a car and live in Manhattan. Don’t complain. Please.
Delete"Village View has been a steadfast example of mixed-use affordable housing that works and is financially stable — a godsend for many families,"
ReplyDelete"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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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.
DeleteIf 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?
DeleteThe VV board has been quietly working on this for a couple of years now. Yes, they have put a sentence or two into the minutes every now and then. However, they have not been transparent in what they have been doing, or how much money they have spent on this project. What else are hey hiding? How can we trust them. We are all shareholders. VV is a coop. Shouldn't we have a say in what happens to the land we all own???The board members are acting like this i their personal property.
DeleteEither the late 80s or early 90s we called that block Dog Poop Way. It was unbelievable before people started picking up after their dogs.
ReplyDeletei remember that. Didn't know other people also called it that
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteAffluent 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.
DeleteYou 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
Delete30MM 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.
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
Delete@3:02 what are examples of the solutions that are available that VV has not looked at? If you have knowledge, please share.
Delete@2:31pm typically maintenance charges go to operating expenses - not capital improvement. Yes, maintenance charges are expected to increase over time as a matter of basic accounting. Utilities, staffing expenses, and basic repairs tend to go up in cost over time, not down. VV sounds like they are looking for sources to finance capital improvements with this deal. If you are a resident (shareholder), you should express your concerns by contacting the co-op board. If you have a better option in hand by all means share it - but raising money from working w a developer might be a more attractive option even if most of the “dream” components don’t make it to the final transaction.
DeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteThe shareholders must have concerns regarding the historical management of their building's funds.
DeleteGiven that Village View has faced mismanagement issues for many years, they must want to understand how the current board—which includes several members and officers who have served for decades—proposes to manage their finances properly moving forward.
Specifically, how can the shareholders trust that these funds will be effectively safeguarded and managed under the same leadership that has overseen these long-term issues?
I am interested to hear what new oversight measures or transparency protocols are being implemented to ensure fiscal responsibility.
I hope evgreive will continue to monitor the status and continue to encourage dialogue for discussion from various points of view.
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.
ReplyDeleteNonsense: take note of the parking lot and see how tiny circulation happens: car storage is car Storage.
Delete80% affordable 20% market rate
ReplyDeleteHousing is good. There is space. Manhattan had 2.3 million residents 100 years ago. It’s 1.7 million now.
ReplyDeleteI'm all for a PARK ! Plant more trees
ReplyDeleteVillage View is and has been an island of affordable housing in an increasing sea of multi-million dollar market rate condos buildings. They should do whatever they can do maintain this important housing stock for future generations. The fact is, Michell Lama housing is slowly dying across the city. These developments cannot keep doing the necessary work to maintain these buildings when when the rate of inflation out paces maintenance increases. I applaud Village View for making this tough decision to secure their economic security going forward.
ReplyDeleteSome people hate the autonomy and liberty private vehicle provide. They hate our feedoms! (purposeful typo) If they ran on magic pixie dust that ejected rainbows as waste products they would still hate individual vehicles.
ReplyDeleteI’m all for keeping parking, but at market value. If you can afford a car, you shouldn’t be allowed to live in VV. I know someone that was called after about 20 years on a waitlist. By then they had retired and a net worth of several million dollars. They didn’t look at that, only that they were retired and that they didn’t have a large income. That’s not who these apartments were intended for. As far as building on the property, what’s nice about the property is that there is some greenery. Building on every single space ruins the quality of life for everyone. What’s nice about our neighborhood is that there are lots of community gardens and places to relax Everyone can’t live in Manhattan just because they were born here and feel entitled that it is their right to live here.
ReplyDeleteI'm a VV resident and I hope they sell the lot for development. I agree with the folks who want to ensure whatever is built there has an affordable housing component. But once that is secured, this can be a huge benefit for our building reserves and future expenses.
ReplyDeleteTo my neighbors who oppose this: do you want another maintenance increase soon? Operating costs are only increasing each year. So many of you were vocal about being on a fixed income after the last increases, but you're willing to subsidize your neighbor's parking spot at the expense of improving VV's longterm finances?
Give lot preference to people with disabilities and those who use their cars for work. Everyone else can figure out their own parking situation instead of insisting that cheap parking is a right while our development continues to incur unavoidable expenses and shortfalls.