Meltzer Tower as seen from 2nd Street
Signs opposing the proposed replacement of Meltzer Tower have begun appearing around the East Village, as both neighboring residents and some tenants of the NYCHA senior complex voice concerns about the plan.
One flyer spotted on Avenue A, headlined "Help Us Save Meltzer Park," focuses on the landscaped open space next to the 20-story tower at 94 E. First St. It warns that a new building on the site would mean the loss of the park and its trees, along with years of construction, and says residents of First and Second Streets between First Avenue and Avenue A would be affected.
The flyer also criticizes the lack of outreach to the surrounding community and directs neighbors to EVG's Sept. 18 report detailing the proposal.
An email address — meltzerpark@gmail.com — is provided for people interested in updates or joining the East Second Street Block Association.
A second flyer, titled "Stop the Demolition of Meltzer Tower," raises concerns among current residents about the plan itself, questioning why the existing tower couldn't instead be renovated and modernized — as originally announced in 2024 — and calls for preserving the open space along First Street for senior amenities.
The proposal for a new tower comes as the PACT team has documented extensive repair needs in the existing building. Presentations from the resident meetings are available as PDFs under the “Resources for Residents” section of 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 proposal remains in the planning stages. The building shown in materials presented to Meltzer residents is conceptual, and the final footprint has not been determined. The current timeline calls for construction to start in late 2027, with residents moving into the new building in late 2029.
The plans presented so far have not detailed what would happen to the existing tower or its site after residents move.
Previously on EV Grieve:
No doubt they will try to develop the existing site into largely-market-rate apartments. That's the point of PACT, really. Part of the larger neoliberal project to underinvest in public infrastructure over the years and then, claiming it doesn't work, privatize.
ReplyDeleteThere is a substantial surface parking lot on the other side of the tower which is a luxury in Manhattan these days. Something could be built alongside the tower that could stand alone and later joined to a refurbished tower. Most or all of the park could then be preserved. Green space on Houston St. is a necessity during increasingly warmer summers.
ReplyDeleteIf the people fighting this are so worried about seniors, why are they more upset about losing some shade than about 231 elderly neighbors living with heat and plumbing past its expiration date?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't seniors have both good infrastructure and green space? Do you expect them to enjoy their new plumbing so much that they'll never want to go outside, sit on a shady bench, talk to their neighbors?
Delete可以，這版你可以直接整段貼上：
DeleteAs a neighboring resident living directly next to Meltzer Park and the Meltzer Tower site, I am very concerned about the potential long-term impact of this redevelopment on the surrounding community.
I strongly believe that any redevelopment of this scale should be transparent and should meaningfully consider the impact on surrounding residents before major decisions are finalized.
Before moving forward, NYCHA and the development team should clearly disclose how the project may affect existing mature trees, sunlight and shadows, air quality, open space, construction noise, dust, vibration, traffic, and the overall quality of life of neighboring residents, as well as what measures will be taken to avoid or reduce those impacts.
Meltzer Park represents one of the relatively limited areas of mature greenery and open space in this part of the Lower East Side. Any substantial loss of this green space could negatively affect not only immediately adjacent residents, but the broader neighborhood through reduced tree canopy, shade, habitat, open space, and overall environmental quality.
Before any irreversible alteration of the park or removal of mature trees is permitted to proceed, the responsible agencies should require a clear assessment of these impacts, meaningful alternatives, and specific mitigation measures.
If these impacts have not been adequately evaluated, disclosed, and addressed through the applicable review process, I do not believe the project should advance to final approval or construction until those requirements are satisfied.
Any failure to comply with applicable environmental, land-use, public-notice, or construction requirements should be subject to the appropriate governmental review and enforcement procedures.
I support improving the living conditions of Meltzer Tower residents, but those improvements should not come at the unnecessary expense of existing green space, mature trees, natural light, and the long-term quality of life of the surrounding community.
I don't know about the "save Meltzer Park" people (is it really a park?), but opposition to this sort of scheme has lately legitimate grassroots sources in residents themselves. See the Fulton/Elliott-Chelsea mess.
DeletePersonally, if they were going to build a new building, move everyone over, and then renovate/redevelop the current building into MORE public housing, I'd be all for it.
It's a good idea to build new and better. Renos are slow and very costly. Some compromise can be worked out for the sake of the seniors.
ReplyDeleteNew Yorkers: Housing Prices and Rents are too High!!! We need MORE HOUSING!!!
ReplyDeleteAlso New Yorkers: Don't ever change anything ever, anywhere. Everything must stay exactly the same.
If you're not worried about the medium- to long-term effects of PACT, you're not paying attention.
DeleteBuilding on parkland is NOT the inevitable solution to high housing costs.
DeleteAdding more housing won’t bring housing prices down. It will bring more affluent people to the area who will want to shop at higher end stores, which the rent stabilized and affordable housing people can’t afford. It will make it less affordable to those on a lower income.
DeleteThe choice here should not be between good housing for 231 seniors and preserving the green space outside their homes. That is such a pathetic formulation. The seniors absolutely deserve safe, modern, accessible housing, and if the existing building needs major work, that needs to be addressed. But why does that mean sacrificing the green space?
ReplyDeleteThe green space is part of what makes a good home for seniors. Trees, shade, places to sit, fresh air, and opportunities to be outside and socialize aren't luxuries—especially for older residents.
I know that the final footprint hasn't been determined, and there are still unanswered questions about what happens to the existing tower and how the mature trees and open space would be affected. Before locking in a plan, shouldn't everyone involved be required to seriously examine alternatives that could provide seniors with the new or renovated housing they need while preserving as much existing green space as possible?
"Seniors need better housing" and "this green space matters" can both be true. The goal should be to achieve both.
There are also the needs of others in the community, who live alongside the green space, many of them older folks in rent-stabilized units whose living situations would be negatively impacted by the lack of light and air, never mind the years of construction. It isn't luxury housing that would be impacted here.
Yes to the seniors. Yes to the repairs. Yes to the investment. But let's not accept the destruction of public green space or the transfer of public control as inevitable consequences of providing those things.
ReplyDeletethere is no such thing as Meltzer Park. This is private NYCHA land that is not open to non-NYCHA residents and not used by the residents that live there. Anyone who lives in the area can see that it is not used. The private property owners on the block do not want their views messed up. Whether the NYCHA land should be used for a new building or whether the old building should be renovated should be decided by the NYCHA tenants who live there.
ReplyDeleteI use it every time I walk by - such a relief to pass under the trees on a hot day. So pretty.
Delete