In what will surely go down as the single greatest day in the life of the Associated Supermarket's owner, plans have been submitted to build a 23 (count 'em) story building on Flatbush near Hawthorne, that sort of orangey stucco medical plaza building that seems to be an edificial lost soul. Here's the story:
The Real Deal. The architect's name is Marvel.
Remember, permits haven't yet been granted. There will undoubtedly be some sort of ULURP timeline. But it's safe to say that this would be a monumental change to the neighborhood. And you'd see this building from half of Prospect Park. Heck you'd probably see it from space.
What think? A good idea? It's certainly a tall idea...
29 comments:
Is this zoned for a 23-story building already? If so, I don't think opponent can expect much from ULURP.
I'll believe it when I see it, although Hudson Company does seem to be a credible developer.
I followed the Hudson Companies blog about their Third+Bond development [on Brownstoner] for years. If this proposed development actually were to get started, and if Hudson was as transparent about it as they were about Third+Bond,I'd feel better about it than I do about most developments.
Here's a link to a NYT story about that blog:
http://tinyurl.com/2vz9d4b
Sounds great to me. If we want amenities, we need more population. I for one would rather more housing rather than gentrifying existing housing at a faster rate
A 22 story building is out of character and I hate it already. I grew up in Manhattan, and one thing I don't miss are all the tall buildings I have to see everyday anyway. I love coming home and not feeling like it's Manhattan. The death of Brooklyn, sigh.
I concur Anonymous 9:14 PM! I think this is fantastic redemption for the neighborhood ever since the original 23 story condo project got cancelled at the Lincoln Road site, which is sadly developing an affordable rental unit building now. PLG badly needs modern market rate housing.
I love Hudson Co. Good, conscientious developers. And if it''s a rental building it will be a total game-changer.
On a purely aesthetic front, it always kinda bums me out when I'm in the park and see the Ebbetts projects poking out over the trees. I imagine that this one will lord over the Nethermead in a similar way. Who knows, though.
Babs,
What game would be changed exactly?
I'd fully support this project if it weren't so dang tall. Why 23 stories?? As Anon 9:28 stated, it will be completely out of character for the area.
Beggars can't be chooses. 23 stories, 10 stories, 12 stories, whatever.
Babs got it right. As I recall, there have been complaints on this blog about how Lefferts Manor (due to its single family zoning) prohibits neighborhood growth. This 23-story dwelling would be a saving grace for the community, especially if it were a rental.
The Hudson has my vote...
Mind-blowing. This would completely transform PLG's stretch of Flatbush. But Babs, why would it being a rental be more of a game changer than if it were condos? 250 market-rate units of either kind would be a massive infusion in the neighborhood, right?
Because profitable condo sales, unfortunately, are not likely in this neighborhood yet on this large a scale. It would take YEARS to sell this many condo units at a price high enough to be profitable for the developer. Good, quality, rental housing would be wonderful - I know many people who love this neighborhood, and who are ready to pay more in rent than they currently do, but there's a dearth of quality product here. Imagine things like dishwashers, two bathrooms for 2 - 3 bedroom apartments, even (gasp!) w/d hookups in the apartments.
I totally opposed that hideous tower proposed for Lincoln Rd - this site is better for something like that, removed as it is from the park and on a street that already has Patio Gardens to provide a little context (though I am hoping that ultimately it's smaller than 23 stories).
And anon 9:35, the building on Lincoln Rd is an 80/20 building - 80% market rate (and again, market rate for a market that doesn't exist here yet, with quality finishes and fixtures), so save your sadness for yourself - both types of housing are needed here, and that building does provide both.
I hope this one does, too.
However, given the property's convoluted legal situation, Hudson may full well walk away from this deal before it's untangled, which would be too bad.
I completely disagree that "this site is better for something like that, removed as it is from the park and on a street that already has Patio Gardens to provide a little context". Patio Gardens is itself out of context, we don't need another one. I live near that site, and I don't want it here. That's just my two cents.
Exactly, 2:43. Flatbush Avenue, already plenty congested, is not the ideal spot for a project of this caliber. There are no buildings like this on the 7th Avenue corrider in PS so we certainly don't need a building of this scale here on the Flabenue. I think Empire Boulevard near Rogers would be a much better location. Plus, it would help boost and possibly bring more potential businesses to that area of PLG.
Something the size of Patio Gardens would be fine, I think, but given the premium they can get on park views I'd say they'll want to build as tall as possible. But if Babs is right about it being market-rate rental, 250 units like that would be a major driver of new services on Flatbush. It would be great to see more new development on the Empire end of the neighborhood, but I think there's some zoning issues that prevent it. I'd love to see that Wendy's, McDonald's and the Western Beef replaced with residential with ground-floor commercial (or for that matter, have something built on the gargantuan vacant lot on Franklin just north of Empire.) Franklin avenue is transforming rapidly, but it's basically a dead zone from Empire to Crown. It would be great to have that stretch develop into a more welcoming foot corridor to Crown Heights.
bottom line, as much as people fret over new developments being out of scale or context, high-density development walkable to mass-transit and public amenities like parks is the wave of the future. Our neighborhood needs more people, not less, and it's actually lost population density in the last decade.
Our neighborhood "needs more people"? I disagree, but whatever. I hate gentrification and all that comes with it, which is more expensive everything. I don't care if an organic market is not in this 'hood. All the things I want are close enough for me to get, I don't need it right on my street. Change is coming, no doubt, but that doesn't mean all of us care for all the change that is coming.
2:28, You're welcome to hate gentrification and all that comes with it as much as you like, and should take comfort in knowing that almost no conceivable amount of it is going to turn PLG into Park Slope. But do you also hate when people don't throw trash everywhere and there aren't gangland hits on residential blocks? You're in luck, as those indicators of gentrification have yet to arrive in PLG. And the hair&nail places and 99-cent stores aren't going to vanish either--they're all thriving concerns. There will be ample cheap stuff for you to buy for the foreseeable future, even if some of us get our wish to have a few more decent options that don't involve a subway ride or a bus.
To the last anonymous? I can't agree with you more. Right now I refuse to get off at the Parkside station and slog my way past the drug dealers, criminal element, and filth in the streets.
'Those people' I know who they are and they are criminals. Take a good hard look at Flatbush on the east side... walk past that laudromat and tell me that that is OK.
I want decent options that don't involve a bus or subway.
The Parkside station is totally fine, you just have to not be talking on your iPhone when you walk down the street. And as far as the drug dealing/criminal element, I don't think there's anybody doing a more engaged job of trying to start a productive dialogue and clean things up than Mr. Q here. The only way to effect real change is to get a lot of different constituencies involved. homeowners, renters, activists, politicians, clergy, police, everyone. This exact same process is going in Crown Heights, Bed Stuy, and every other neighborhood that's undergoing a demographic and economic shift. Avoiding the train station won't help change anything. Maybe we can't all agree on what the change we'd like to see should be, but there's got to be a common ground.
The scale is a bit high but people will pay for views of the park. Prices are increasing dramatically for apartments in coops along Ocean Ave and people are certainly willing to pay a premium for new construction. Babs is underestimating demand from young professionals looking to get in on a nabe before it becomes Park Slope or Prospect Heights. They may be delusional but the idea is out there about PLG.
Hudson is a great developer and I know they have been monitoring the nabe closely for over two years. Much of the reason for the delay in this project is that they were trying to figure out what the market would be for new rentals in our hood because there were simply no comparisons.
A would just add that the height does not bother me that much because it is on a commercial block that can handle the density.
Actually, I'm currently dealing with several young professional first-time buyers, all of whom currently rent in the PLG, Flatbush, Prospect Heights, Crown Heights areas - they all want to get closer to Manhattan, but the market is crazy - one client of mine was at the first open house for a one-bedroom co-op in Brooklyn Heights yesterday. I just spoke to the listing broker - he already has six offers, several over ask, several all-cash, and two from people who haven't even seen the place yet. Manhattan is actually cheaper than many places in Brooklyn - we're looking in Murray Hill, Gramercy, UES and the supply is more plentiful as well. I don't think 254 condos on Flatbush Ave in PLG would go like that. However, if these are not stabilized rents, and the market heats up here, I see a condo conversion in 3 - 5 years, so Hudson can have it both ways - collect good rents now, and sell when prices here are higher.
By the time this new tower is completed, which no doubt will take as much as three years, why not start them out as Condos. If folks are willing to spend big $$$ in the Manor on townhouses, surely there must be many young professionals in the market that would be attracted to an investment of this type albeit it on a much smaller scale.
I honestly don't think 254 condos would sell as well as townhouses here do - unless they were 3 bedrooms and over (but you couldn't build 254 3 bedroom condos in 23 stories). Townhouse buyers are at a different stage in their life and are looking for a different experience than are studio, one, and even two bedroom buyers. Compare Third+Bond with J Condo - I think Hudson learned a lot from J Condo - they wound up renting out many of the units (especially studios and one bedrooms) for many years (maybe some are even still rented), so when they built Third+Bond, in "family friendly" Carroll Gardens, it was a much smaller-scale development, concentrating on larger apartments (although there were some smaller ones). Their conclusion (and one I agree with) would seem to be build towers as rental units, especially in "unproven" neighborhoods (and remember, they're also building a 73-unit rental building on Caton Place in Kensington - think that might make a better condo project) and smaller buildings as pricey, boutique condos. They also converted a loft building in Bushwick to condos (The Knick) - also took years to sell out.
And I meant a condo-conversion after 3 - 5 years of renting, not necessarily in 3 years from now (although I don't think the building will take three years to build - Hudson is well-capitalized, knows the ins and outs of dealing with the Department of Buildings, and doesn't do things in fits and starts and 23 stories isn't all that high in Manhattan terms - not that I want Manhattan-scale towers invading Brooklyn, just as a comparison).
SIGH. If a developer can't be allowed to make a profit building market rate apartments then they won't build nice market rate apartments period. They're not running a charity. We've learned the lesson of what kind of building we get instead when we oppose a highrise already, at the site next to the Prospect Park Q station on Lincoln Rd. At least SOME of us have learned something from it. Seems others are doomed to repeat mistakes over and over again. I'm especially frustrated because what I predicted would be the outcome if the Lincoln Rd glass tower developer was stopped, was exactly the outcome. An ugly cheaper building. There's no such thing as an expensively built lowrise building in a neighborhood that isn't already well established and highly desirable and high priced. You all need to accept and deal with the truth.
Anon 10:42. Community opposition had nothing to do with the stalling of the Lincoln Road glass tower. Far from it. Market forces were to blame, in particular the massive economic fallout of 2007. Listen, a few people complaining can make headlines, but it is next to impossible to stop a project in this town by will alone. Witness a certain rusty turtle at Flatbush/Atlantic (where I'm finally going to see the Nets tomorrow night!)
Community input is required when land-use changes are being proposed - but political will trumps the "people" every time. Again, it will be market forces that drive the Flatbush apartments, and as the very informed Babs has suggested, it would be hard to imagine that many condos going quickly at top dollar. However, things do seem to be "heating up" again, so who knows.
Post a Comment