Bushwick Site Could Move Gentrification Further East

Last week a story in The Observer looked at a large development site for sale in east Bushwick. The site–several lots over a few blocks around 386 Weirfield Street near Wyckoff (mostly the large empty lot and the u-shaped building with the red roof in the center of the image above)–includes 87,000 buildable square feet for residential development as well as some commercial space. The potential development is near the Halsey stop on the L train, a few stops past the Morgan Avenue and Jefferson Street stops where Bushwick has undergone the most intensive gentrification. Massey Knakal is marketing the site for $8.5 million. The article pointed to the success of another nearby rental project, the loft apartment building at 550 Irving Avenue, just a few blocks away. That 65-unit rental building building offers amenities like an indoor  pool, rooftop lounge and a garden with a jacuzzi despite the location and its industrial neighbors. Noel Caban of Winick Realty Group told the paper: “Dropping a few of these types of projects totally changes the market dynamics of not just retail rents but the kind of shops that are there, the kind of restaurants that are there, and even how the locals feel about this implosive gentrification that’s happening.” What do you think, is this part of Bushwick, about as close to Cypress Hills as Flushing Avenue, ready for this type of project? If it does happen, will the other changes necessarily follow?

East Bushwick Development Site Could be Catalyst for Change [Observer] GMAP
Bushwick is Getting a Swimming Pool [Curbed]

Photo Via Google Maps

7 Comment

  • USGrant

    Interesting. Looking at the sites on the map from the Observer article you see four separate lots on four separate blocks – there are a few long thin spaces (on separate blocks), with the bigger lots in between them (also on separate blocks). I guess I got the impression that they were building a large development on just one block. I wonder how they could possibly be building anything that they could make money on, though, on the longer, thinner lots??/

  • I’ve lived off of Wilson Avenue stop (one stop closer to Cypress Hills) for three years and the changes I’ve seen are significant. There are renovations on nearly every block – including a new construction condo building on two lots on Wilson across from me. Three six-family homes in renovation on Shaeffer behind me including one with the addtion of a penthouse, and many more. A huge new Planet Fitness is going in on Myrtle Wycoff, which was a surprise . What I like is the location provides easy access not only to East Williamsburge, Williamsburg and Manhattan, but also easy access on the Jackie Robinson to Forrest Hills (Trader Joes) to La Guardia and JFK (I travel for work). The long term families I’ve made friends with who’ve live here for generations tell me they are happy about the changes. The stories they tell about the “old days” will make your hair stand on end, and they express relief that they feel it’s so much safer now for their kids and grandkids. The hope is that it continues to get safer and positive changes continue, but that development stops short of Williams-burg like gentrification. My hope is this little pocket is just far enough to keep that at bay, while maintaining a diverse mix of families and young people.

  • dash

    So the Commercial Observer interviews experts in the real estate industry to ask their opinion on an area they have a vested interest in developing? This is not journalism.

  • I think this article is putting the cart before the horse. Sure, new upscale developments attract handfuls of desirable, productive tenants to a neighborhood. But outside of these pockets, I don’t see the buildings acting as a catalyst for complete neighborhood gentrification, as Noel Caban says “totally changes”. Sure, in 10-20 years the demographics and amenities will be different, but that’s true from Jersey City to Inwood to Jackson Heights, and it’s not happening because of jacuzzis and rooftop lounges as the article tries to imply.