64 East 1st Street

Six stories at sixty feet on a twenty-five-foot-wide lot, in a masonry facade of oversized casement windows and metal detailing. The design reference is the industrial loft — exposed rafter-style ceiling treatments, deep open plans, large glazed openings — applied to a new building rather than inherited from one.

The stack is simple. Six residences, one per floor, designated TH, 2, 3, 4, 5 and PH. The ground-floor townhouse residence shares its level with the residential lobby and has direct outdoor space at the rear. Floors two through five are full-floor apartments. The penthouse is a duplex opening to a private roof terrace with downtown views, which is why several published accounts describe the building as seven stories — the top residence occupies two levels within a six-story envelope.

Residences average roughly 2,000 to 2,180 square feet, with two bedrooms in the original configuration and private outdoor space at every level. At 11,226 square feet of residential area across six units, the average is unusually large for the neighbourhood, and the full-floor plan means no shared walls between neighbours and exposures at both the street and rear.

The building is under its permitted bulk — 3.38 built FAR against 4.00 allowable in R8B — which means the roof and terrace configuration is a design choice rather than a zoning ceiling, and there is no meaningful development right left to argue over.

A six-unit condominium runs lean by definition: a managing agent, a board of managers drawn from six owners, one passenger elevator, and no staff. The amenity program as marketed at launch is a first-floor fitness room and a common roof deck with a grill and north-facing views — modest, and appropriately so for a building where the common-charge base is six apartments.

The maintenance record is quiet, which is what you want from a building of this vintage. There are no Department of Buildings NOW filings at all since the building's completion — no facade work, no mechanical replacement, no structural alteration. HPD carries no open housing-maintenance violations. The Department of Buildings record shows eleven violations against the building in total, nine of them dismissed and two active; on the timeline, most are construction-era items. A building completed in 2016–17 will not face its first Local Law 11 facade cycle for some time, and its mechanical systems are still inside their first replacement window.

The corollary, which a buyer should price honestly: with six units, every capital event is divided six ways. A roof, an elevator modernization or a facade cycle in this building is a large per-unit number even though the absolute cost is small. Ask the managing agent for the reserve balance and the reserve-contribution policy, and read the last two years of financial statements before contract.

PLUTO's historic-district field is unreliable in both directions, and this block is exactly the situation that catches people out.

Checked against the Landmarks Preservation Commission's own building database, block 443 carries ten designated buildings, all in the East Village / Lower East Side Historic District: 32 Second Avenue (the 1917–19 Alfred Hopkins building, lot 8), 51 East 2nd Street (D. & J. Jardine, 1890, lot 9), 59 East 2nd Street (J. C. Cady & Company, 1891, lot 16), and the row at 65, 67, 71, 73, 75 and 77 East 2nd Street on lots 19 through 25.

Every one of those addresses is on Second Avenue or East 2nd Street. Neither lot 45 nor billing lot 7504 appears anywhere in the database. The district takes in the back half of the block and stops. The Department of Buildings new-building application confirms it from the other direction, carrying a landmark flag of "N" — a designation would have required Landmarks approval before a permit could issue on a ground-up building, and none was sought.

Practical consequence: exterior work, windows, roof-deck alterations and mechanical installations here run through the Department of Buildings alone. There is no Certificate of Appropriateness requirement and no Landmarks review layer, either for the condominium or for an individual owner.

This is a genuine for-sale condominium, and the recorded chain makes that unambiguous rather than presumed.

The sponsor recorded the declaration on November 17, 2016 and, in the same month, obtained a Department of Buildings subdivision of tax lot 45 into six condominium lots. Between June 29, 2017 and April 13, 2018 the sponsor deeded all six residences — units 4, 3, PH, TH, 5 and 2, in that order — to six separate and unrelated purchasers, several of whom financed with institutional first mortgages. The sponsor's construction loan was satisfied unit by unit as the closings ran. Since the sell-out, unit 5 resold in June 2021, unit TH resold in July 2021 and again in December 2025.

No entity holds more than one residence. There is no sponsor-retained rental block, no bulk transaction, no condominium wrapper around a rental building, and no Department of Finance class-RR treatment on the unit lots. Every unit is individually deeded and individually assessed.

No offering plan or amendment for this condominium was located in either document library, so the house rules and board policies are unpublished. What is structurally true of any condominium applies here and is worth stating because it is the main reason a buyer chooses this building over a comparable co-op:

• Purchases are approved by right of first refusal, not by board interview. There is no board package in the co-op sense, no financing ceiling, no post-closing liquidity test and no debt-to-income screen.
• LLC, trust and foreign-national purchases are ordinarily permitted, as are pied-à-terre use and investment ownership. The recorded transfer history here includes purchases taken by an LLC and by trusts, which is consistent with that.
• Subletting is ordinarily permitted, subject to whatever minimum lease term and notice the by-laws impose.

None of that is a substitute for reading the actual documents. Request the offering plan and all amendments, the by-laws and house rules, the last two years of financial statements, the reserve balance, and any pending or recently concluded assessment. In a six-unit building, also ask a question that does not arise in larger condominiums: whether any single owner controls enough common interest to influence board decisions, and how the by-laws handle deadlock.

Recent sales

Recent closings at this building, curated by The Roebling Team research desk. Prices are the transfer amounts recorded with the NYC Department of Finance; apartment-level detail is checked against the building’s own file in The Roebling Research Library before publishing.

Market read. Most recent trades (2025) cleared a median $1,667/sf across 2 sales. Median listing discount 1.9% from the last ask — a recurring negotiation gap worth pricing into any offer or listing strategy.

Sales sourced from NYC Department of Finance recorded transfers (BBL 1-00443-7504) and verified listing data. Apartment-level facts (line, condition, asking-price context) curated and cross-verified by The Roebling Team research desk. Not all transactions cross-verify with ACRIS records — sponsor and LLC purchases sometimes record at stipulated values rather than market price; square footage from recorded condo declarations and offering plans.

Compare stabilized carrying cost, not year-one carrying cost. There is no abatement here. Against an abated 421-a or 485-x building, this one looks more expensive to carry today and less expensive to carry in year eight. Model both. Run the True Monthly Carrying Cost Calculator with the real tax bill, not the sponsor-era projection.

Underwrite the six-unit denominator. Small condominiums are efficient until they are not. A roof replacement, an elevator modernization or a facade cycle is divided six ways. Get the reserve balance, the reserve-contribution policy, and two years of financial statements. Ask specifically whether any assessment has been levied since 2018.

The building's quiet record is a real asset. No capital filings since completion, no open HPD violations, and a final certificate of occupancy in hand since February 2018 — a building that has needed nothing in eight years is telling you something useful about how it was built.

No landmark layer. Renovation, window and roof-terrace work runs through the Department of Buildings alone. That is a genuine cost and schedule advantage over apartments a hundred feet away on East 2nd Street, which sit inside the East Village / Lower East Side Historic District.

Walk the block at different hours. East 1st Street between First and Second is a mixed block — First Park is directly opposite, and the immediate neighbours include light-industrial uses alongside residential. It is quieter than Second Avenue and busier than it looks on a Sunday morning. The F at Second Avenue and Houston is a block away.

Lead with the full floor and the outdoor space. Roughly 2,000 square feet on a single level with private outdoor space and no shared walls is a scarce product in the East Village, and it is the reason a buyer chooses this building over a larger, more heavily amenitized condominium a few blocks north.

Present the tax position deliberately. No abatement means no step-up. Buyers who have been shopping abated new development will see a higher tax line and assume they are being penalized; show them the ten-year comparison and the argument reverses.

Document what the building has not needed. No capital filings since completion, no open violations, final certificate of occupancy since 2018. In a six-unit building, buyers' attorneys look hardest at capital risk; a clean eight-year record is the best answer available.

Condition still sets the number. These are 2016-era finishes now approaching their first refresh cycle. Run the Renovation Cost Calculator against your asking strategy so that the pricing conversation is grounded rather than defensive.

If you're considering 64 East 1st Street, also evaluate:

• 24 Second Avenue — 2017 ground-up condominium on the same tax block, at the corner of Second Avenue and East 1st Street; the closest possible comparison on vintage and geography
• 14 Second Avenue — East Village condominium a block south on Second Avenue
• 52 East 4th Street — fourteen-unit ground-up condominium of the prior development cycle; the scale-up on the same product idea
• 250 Bowery — 2013 ground-up Bowery condominium, twenty-four residences plus ground-floor retail
• 195 Bowery — Bowery condominium two blocks west
• 199 Bowery — Bowery condominium at Rivington Street
• 101 East 2nd Street — boutique East Village condominium a block north
• 298 East 2nd Street — seven-unit ground-up condominium completed 2020; the closest match on unit count and building scale
• 175 East 2nd Street — 1920 loft converted to condominium in 1986; the prewar-conversion alternative
• 72 East 3rd Street — East Village condominium one block north