Lyceum Will Be Condos!
The landmarked Brooklyn Lyceum at 227 4th Avenue will become condos. Interestingly, the developer plans to put only two or three luxury units inside the relatively small building — it is 12,200 square feet — but will put up a 12-story rental building next door with as many as 70 apartments, Crain’s reported. Real estate…
The landmarked Brooklyn Lyceum at 227 4th Avenue will become condos. Interestingly, the developer plans to put only two or three luxury units inside the relatively small building — it is 12,200 square feet — but will put up a 12-story rental building next door with as many as 70 apartments, Crain’s reported.
Real estate investment firm Greystone just closed on the Lyceum, which it purchased at auction for $7,600,000 in October, as we reported at the time. It is in the process of buying the empty lot next door at 225 4th Avenue for $13,500,000, Crain’s said.
We had speculated in October the building, a public bathhouse built in 1910, was unlikely to become apartments because there wasn’t enough room for more than a few, unless Landmarks allowed an addition on the roof.
By buying both sites, the developer can transfer about 20,000 square feet of development rights from the Lyceum to the empty lot and build bigger there. Greystone is also planning to restore the exterior of the building.
The developer plans to start construction in the spring and finish early in 2017. Work on the Lyceum will begin whenever Landmarks approves the plans, the firm told Crain’s.
“We’re looking forward to restoring the building,” a Greystone exec told Crain’s. “This is a brownstone neighborhood, so we’re going to try to create something in context with that, inside with the units.”
What do you think of the plans?
Landmarked Brooklyn Lyceum in Park Slope Slated for Condos [Crain’s] GMAP
Developer Buys Landmarked Baths on 4th Avenue for $7.6 Million [Brownstoner]
Update: We just received a press release from Greystone, which says 225 4th Avenue will have 68 luxury rentals and 3,500 square feet of stores on the ground floor. Amenities will include a gym, bike storage, and roof deck. RKF is going to be the leasing and sales agent for both buildings.
Yeah they’ll restore it very lovingly. Just like the developers in the Brooklyn Bridge park lovingly respected the view from the promenade. Fuckers, every last person associated with this. The developers, the landmarks office, the borough, the previous building manager. 70 units on that tiny lot next door? Is Park Slope destined to become Hong Kong?
Actually really sad. In light of recent loss of Tea Lounge quite depressing. I wish this place had some regulation requiring it to be a public venue, be it a spa or a concert space.
Venues and public spaces are some of the major components that makes this neighborhood great. Not cosmic property values and luxury condos (especially high rise ones). 3 more apartments adds no value to the area.
LYCEUM RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR COMMENT:
Sorry,
The story is pretty complicated but the issues are strikingly simple and every news organization has, much to our chagrin, glossed over the salient details. And, as such, we don’t see much use in that arena.
We have noted, to all who would listen, a stench on the process that has been roundly ignored. This closing is yet another one of those things with such a stench on it.
As we are working to reach a just result we can’t at this point say anything.
Suffice it to say that it is still being fought and the issues before the closing remain.
Eric Richmond
to Lyceumguy Eric – good luck with that, but you’ve had legal advice that this was a dead end.
The real problem is that for 15yrs the Lyceum didn’t have viable plan to continue to operate. For all the good intentions, there apparently wasn’t enough money coming in to pay the mortgage and get the building fixed up. If you somehow win your case of the judge’s incompetence and conflict of interest, what would you do differently that you haven’t tried over the past 15yrs that would produce enough income to stay in the black?
to johnt:
My, your question was remarkably refreshing. You reviewed what was said and delivered a cogent question / critique.
What would I do if/when I am successful?
Well the last two decades of trying to keep the place open no matter the cost while I fight people in court would change. That would mean bringing in people to run it and stepping back to the original gameplan, a community facility managed by others where I get to put on a few productions a year and or use apart of it for some projects I have pondered for years. Never got to that point, but many good lessens were learned. But specifically, I resisted offers to do just this, turn it into condos and/or boring retail. Hopefully it won’t end up being residential as it has served a public purpose for over a century.
The days of renting it out at little or no cost would come to an end. While I enjoyed all the wonderful activity, it needs to be spiffed up and the windows fixed in ways that would bring it back to its original exterior grandeur as created by Raymond Francis Almirall. He took the Tammany Hall hit and so may I but I will fight to the end.
And, more weddings.
It is tough to accomplish all that when you run into legal buzz saws.
Thank you.
Eric
can you please translate your comment? I do not understand what you are talking about. very cryptic!
meant to ask Eric Richmond to translate, not no-permits. thanks. What are you talking about “a stench on the process that has been roundly ignored”????
Whats’ the point of restoring it, if 4 or 5 people get to own it privately? Will it still retain it’s old name? Will condo owners (they’ll be renters btw, this type of development is all about speculation on rent contracts) want to live in a bathhouse? Why were BAM or St. Ann’s Warehouse unable to make a deal with the borough for what could have been a world class performance venue and conservatory? Who benefits from the giant sums of money being transferred to God Knows Who?