Image from the Meltzer Tower PACT resident presentation.
The building design is conceptual.
The heavy machinery and soil testing recently spotted on the grounds of Meltzer Tower now have a clearer context.
Multiple residents along Second Street between Avenue A and First Avenue notified EVG of workers using a soil-boring machine in the tree-heavy landscaped area west of the 20-story senior housing complex at 94 E. First St. (Photos below by Stacie Joy from Sept. 10.)
The work raised concerns that NYCHA was again considering new construction on the property. A controversial 2013 "infill" proposal, which called for leasing NYCHA green spaces and parking lots to private developers, was shelved after community opposition.
At the time of the recent testing, a few residents heard that NYCHA was conducting preliminary work in case it decided to build on the site.
Presentations to Meltzer residents from March, July, and August show that NYCHA and its private PACT partners are proposing a new building beside the existing tower.
Under the "build first" plan, residents would remain in their current apartments during construction and then move directly into the replacement building.
The new-building proposal was not part of the project initially described to the public.
In 2024, NYCHA announced that Meltzer Tower, Hernandez Houses and the Seward Park Extension would share $318.1 million in repairs through the Permanent Affordability Commitment Together program.
The Meltzer PACT website still refers generally to upgrades, apartment renovations and site improvements.
According to the new presentations, the plan would replace all 231 apartments at Meltzer Tower. Most residents would receive one-bedroom units, even if they currently live in studios. About 12 two-bedroom apartments would be available to qualifying households.
Plans also call for larger apartments and elevators, improved accessibility, individual heating and cooling controls, and a 24-hour lobby attendant.
Possible amenities include in-unit laundry, dishwashers, resident lounges, hobby rooms, a fitness center and outdoor space.
Several of those features remain subject to NYCHA and resident approval.
The project would also include at least 5,000 square feet for a community facility and indoor amenities, along with at least 5,000 square feet of outdoor amenity space.
The case for a new Meltzer Tower
The proposal for a new tower comes as the PACT team has documented extensive repair needs in the existing building. The presentations are available as PDFs under a section titled "Resources for Residents" in recaps of the resident meetings on the Meltzer PACT website.
At a May 15 resident meeting, the PACT team said Meltzer Tower has more than $80 million in projected repair needs over 20 years, with many building systems beyond their useful life. The work would include repairs or replacement of the façade, roof and windows; heating and hot-water systems; plumbing and electrical systems; ventilation equipment; kitchens, bathrooms and flooring; and building security systems.
The presentation also cited asbestos in floor tiles and textured ceilings.
According to the PACT team, renovating the existing tower would still leave some limitations unresolved. Apartments could not be enlarged, parts of the building could not be brought fully up to current accessibility standards, and residents would have to temporarily relocate within Meltzer Tower while their apartments were renovated.
A change in management
The proposal timeline shows that Meltzer Tower would convert from traditional public housing to Project-Based Section 8 under PACT next summer. Wavecrest Management would take over management of the existing building while the new tower is under construction.
The presentations state that existing residents will not be rescreened based on income, credit or criminal history. Rent would generally remain at 30% of adjusted household income, and residents would retain the right to an apartment in the replacement building.
Residents would sign new PACT Section 8 leases that renew annually and may be terminated only for good cause. They would not be charged additional fees or utility expenses greater than what they currently pay, according to the presentation.
Households considered over- or under-housed, however, would be moved into apartments deemed appropriate for their household size.
The current timeline — subject to change — calls for construction to begin in late 2027, with the building completed and residents moving into their new homes in late 2029.
Unanswered questions
The presentations do not explain what would happen to the existing Meltzer Tower or the site it occupies after residents move. It also does not say whether the site would eventually include additional housing or other uses.
The replacement building's size and final location have not been determined, and the rendering shown to residents is conceptual.
It also remains unclear how construction would affect the mature trees and green space on the western side of the property — the same area where residents observed the recent soil testing.
Other questions include which amenities will make it into the final plan, who will operate the proposed community facility and what safeguards will be available to residents if construction extends beyond 2029.
To date, meetings about the proposal have been limited to current Meltzer Tower tenants. Residents of buildings directly adjacent to the property along First Avenue and Second Street said they have not received any direct information about the proposed construction or its potential effect on their block.
While the final building footprint has not been determined, neighboring residents are concerned about what construction could mean for the existing green space.
"Many of the apartments on East Second Street look out over that park," one resident told EVG last week. "Building there would mean the destruction of the park, loss of all the trees, a minimum of one or two years of heavy construction, noise, dust, and dirt. And ultimately it would result in the loss of the cleaner air the park provides, fresh air, sunlight, and birds. In its place would be a tall building that would block out the light and air to all of the buildings surrounding the park."
A check of Department of Buildings records at the time of the soil testing found no new-building applications for the property.
The next all-resident meeting is scheduled for Sept. 24 and described as a "New Building Design Charrette." According to the presentation, residents will be asked to provide feedback on indoor and outdoor spaces and terrace programming.
The presentations shared from the spring and summer do not mention a public-review process.
The current Meltzer Tower, named after Lower East Side lawyer and community leader Max Meltzer (1908–1962), was completed in 1971.
I am.all for green space, and as someone who looks out at a NYCHA building where there was (long ago) a vacant lot, I understand how people losing their park view must feel. But in my experience as a passerby, that treed area by Meltzer is rather desolate and lightly used, with the ground fully paved and overall not inviting. This plan would seem to give the Meltzer residents a much better and healthier quality of life as well as open up the opportunity for additional housing, with the new building positioned to maximize distance from the buildings in back. The plan can also better use (in the second phase) that parking lot behind Meltzer.
ReplyDeleteWe need to start pushing for buildings that do not look like Soviet prisons just because they are affordable. This could be a very nice brick building with some attention. My worry is all these rainscreen cladding and aluminum composite panels that make buildings look sad and cheap. The neighborhood should have a meaningful voice in to push the design to be better as they do in more affluent neighborhoods -- these are opportunities to not end up with another value-engineered precast monstrosity that will rot in 5 years.
ReplyDeletehorrible
ReplyDeleteI am against the cutting down of any trees and eliminating any park space even if it is for housing. We need to protect our green spaces in this overcrowded congested city.
ReplyDeleteWill you stop it already? This isn't Yosemite. Most people don't even notice this space is there. We need housing and we cant come up with yet ANOTHER BS excuse every time we actually push through the miles of red tape to get something done. Enough whining. If you want trees, move Upstate.
DeleteThank god, any change is an improvement over this place. After this NYCHA needs to take a hard look at redeveloping the 1st houses on 3rd St. It looks like hell living there from the outside.
ReplyDeleteThat's terrible news. It's totally pushed by the local political machine; it's a great opportunity for kickbacks. It's not like this neighborhood isn't super densely populated as it is. They want a high-rise on every lot.
ReplyDeleteI dunno friend, have you ever been inside Meltzer Tower? It is not ideal and if a new building is a more affordable long-term solution for NYCHA, while giving current residents better living options without being displaced in the intermi AND maybe even getting rid of a parking lot, that seems like a good thing to me.
DeleteWe have SO little green space around these parts, please leave the park for us residents to enjoy!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteWe have more Community Gardens than just about any neighborhood in the city. Plus a great park right in the middle of the EV and Parks right on the other side of Houston. Stop with the excuses that do nothing but drive housing costs up.
DeleteRight ! Plant more trees
ReplyDeleteThat park used to be open to the public and it was easy to walk in from north or south of the lot to the park. Now it has been closed off for a few years and rarely been accessible. Sadly I have so little faith in NYCHA and NYC government in relation to anything with real estate developers, public and low cost housing, much less management being turned over to a private for profit management company. At this point just turn it over to the nonprofit Cooperative Square Committee to manage and negotiate on behalf of we locals.
ReplyDeleteNYCHA should build on the parking lots. None of these buildings should have parking lots.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like a great solution for an expensive repair problem to the old building.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the cult of Open New York and Abundance is in the ear of all the local politicians. What the uninitiated doesn’t understand is that these PAC schemes will move tenants from section 9 to section 8. The developer will get the government to pay them the difference between the market rate rent and the subsidized rent. So rather than taxpayer dollars going to fund NYCHA (which they should) the government is taking the public’s money and paying the developer an outrageous sum per tenant. Also, the tenants have way fewer protections under section 9. This is to say nothing of the right sizing that will occur.
ReplyDeleteWe should not be privatizing public land. We should be appropriately funding NYCHA. By the way, you absolutely CANNOT trust the building condition assessments because the developer and the city have every Incentive to make the buildings seem way worse than they actually are. This helps them mislead the tenants. This helps them justify their scheme to sell the land out from underneath the tenants.
There’s no flipping way the cost of repairs is more than the cost to completely demolish and reconstruct a new building. This is a land grab. They are doing the very same thing that Fulton Elliot and Chelsea. It’s shameful.