Tower To Go Up Next Door to BAM?

I think this is great, the downtown area needs another hotel and something to spruce up that block

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 8:58 AM

Someone posted that that some bldgs on that block are going to be torn down for a luxury hotel & condo.
used to be Hot Yoga people on the Fulton STreet side of that block. They stated on their website they are closing their space due to this new devleopment.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:50 AM

I agree. As long as the towers are nice and don't look like housing projects, it should be good for the downton bklyn aesthetic. More housing is always welcome in this city, and more people around should make the area safer. Right now it's pretty desolate at night.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 11:15 AM

Their other buildings are of quality, so Id expect the same here.. Could also help the other back side on Dekalb. That stretch before South Elliott is pretty ugly. What I really want is a new Fulton Place mall. Could it get and tackier? How many hip hop and sneaker stores do we really need? And ascetically its the worse. Someone should buy the stretch on Fulton between Flatbush and Ashland- that could be a LOT nicer and its a hot location. Plus, do we really need te dirty popeyes? OK. Done random rambling for now

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 12:35 PM

While I think a mid-rise condo would be good for the neighborhood, I just don't see that many guests at a hotel located up on Ashland at this point in time. Perhaps if the hotel is desinged to go online after another batch of signifciant corporate type space becomes available in the Metrotech/Downtown business district expansion plands, it could work -- but I don't see it. (I also don't see how that hotel on Atlantic and Smith will really be that successful on a long term.)

On a related note, I agree with the poster's comments below on the the need to clean up that SE corner at Fulton and Flatbush in front of the Popeye's. That is one of the most trashed corners I come across in all NYC and really is a disservice to what could be a pleasant large plaza corner at a very busy intersection of auto and pedestrian traffic.

On the other hand, I quite like the multitude of sneaker and clothing stores on Fulton Mall itself. My only complaints are that the store facades too often and too unnecessarily mar the existing building appearnces, and that the BID for the mall does not seem like one of the better ones in the city in terms of keeping the sidewalks clean and getting better plantings etc in key locations.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 2:51 PM

I know, I know. I hear you about the Fulton mall, but being a design freak, its always so frigging dirty and gritty. Its New York, and its downtown, so Im not offended, I just wish it could be a tad more pleasing to the eye...
On a side note, not sure why you claim the stores are targetted towards project residents...
Anyone hear anything about the Walt Whitman Fort Greene projects being torn down? Heard they are currently 60% vacant, and may be bought by a developer

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 3:30 PM

I would bet that rumor about project is only rumor - including part about vacancies.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 3:51 PM

If they could take down those projects, whoaa, very prime real estate.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 3:55 PM

I would kiss the sky if they ever tore down those projects (and while they're at it, every other housing project in the city). What a public policy disaster, all around. But I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 4:21 PM

Its prime property!! They have to take it over at some point. The location just doesnt make sense...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 4:25 PM

Prices low??? Give me a break?
Designer shoes for $150 bucks and brand name hip hop gear? That stuff is waaay more expensive than the Gap. Those jerseys cost over a hundred bucks and the Air Jordans, etc, are outrageously priced. The stores in the mall are, for the most part, NOT cheap, outside of the conway types and the like....

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 4:29 PM

I'd bet that hundreds of thousands of current and former NYC wouldn't call the housing projects
a 'public policy disaster'.
No matter what negatice effects, they have provided decent shelter, a real home, for generations in this city who probably would not have had a decent place to live otherwise. Although I have never lived in one, plenty of hardworking decent taxpaying people I have known throughout my life have - and was a blessing compared to available alternatives.
That wonderful capitalist 'marketplace' has never been able to provide affordable decent housing for a large segment of population - (and I don't just mean just in this expensive city) - and it never will be able to.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 4:45 PM

I'm not sure what the poster meant when he said a "public policy disaster", but one thing that is sad is that they put up public housing in such central prime areas. I suppose the areas were not "prime" when they were built, but what poor planning from a long term perspective. It might sound controversial, but the public housing should be moved to less expensive parcels of real estate away from central locations which would otherwise become nice neighborhoods.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 4:59 PM

projects aren't getting torn down. they are currently under renovation and being updated. because of this some residents were temporarily re-located, that's why the buildings are not at full capacity.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 5:02 PM

I agree with anon 4:59. Why there? And the projects are being RENOVATED??? You gotta be kidding me.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 5:17 PM

uhhhm, poor people need a place to live too.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 5:52 PM

I agree, poor people need a place to live too, but not in a prime residential neighborhood, sorry. There is no public policy that requires drug and crime ridden projects be located in nice neighborhoods.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 6:00 PM

The projects already are ghettos, always have been. Why should they be in prime areas? Give me a break, it is nearly free housing and you want to complain if your not in a prime area. If there is ever an argument for improving a blighted area, a project is the best thing to be demolished and rebuilt somewhere else. Sorry but beggars can't be choosers. I know it is insensitive but what do the already "ghetto" projects contribute to the surrounding community?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 6:03 PM

I think any public housing should be located in less desirable neighborhoods and thought should be put into what neighborhoods are likely to have potential to gentrify in coming decades when building plans for public housing are drawn up. Why should neighborhoods continue to be bad places to live because of numerous projects being built in them in years past. It is poor planning. Projects are a safety net and those living there should view them as such. If we are uprooting "generations" as you say, then that is indicative of the problem too. But you can't complain if the free/subsidized housing is moved to a different location.

People who rent normal apartments have to move nabes when rents are too high, why should people in projects get special treatment?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 6:08 PM

I'm the 6.03 poster. I don't disagree, the jail should be demolished first, but I would welcome the projects being relocated too.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 6:09 PM

I feel for them, but as I said, why do they get preferential treatment compared to other renters in a neighborhood who get priced out? Because it is a project building? I know not all are drug users and criminals, of course not, but projects are where a huge percentage of that sort of activity originates, no denying it.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 6:13 PM

I gotta agree. If you give something to somebody for free, why would they ever work? Why would they ever become a productive member of society?

There's nothing unjust about poor people living in poor neighborhoods. If they work hard and make more money, if they so choose, they can move to better neighborhoods.

Capitalism works. Down with socialism!

Posted by: Anonymous at August 10, 2005 10:45 PM

Exactly, so HOPEFULLY they are moving...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 9:21 AM

"The appalling #s you will find are not the fault of the good people who live there, it is the fault of the virtual prison they've been forced into"

Gimme a break..where do I start? If its all good people in the projects, we wouldnt have any issues with them being there and it wouldnt be a virtual prison. There are great, and not so great people in the projects. Thats a fact. But the point of this was to say that there is absolutely no reason that prime, waterfront property should be dedicated to free housing, especially in neighborhoods where homes are in the 1-3MM range. Its horrible to be poor, but If I cant afford to live in Fort Greene/Brooklyn Heights/Park Slope, I shouldnt be there....

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 9:26 AM

to anon, you make no sense. Plus, 99.9 percent of the people buying are not "trust fund rats". They work long hard hours to be able to afford these places. You sound like a real bitter loser.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 10:22 AM

Oh ok, i apologize public policy...sorry. Wrote too quickly

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 11:24 AM

So everyone think the FG Houses are here to stay or no? I just cant imagine that considering the cities financial situation, we'd actually be renovating the projects. That sounds like a big rumor to me. Ive never known a metropolitan city to update public housing and then relocate its residents temporarily...
I could be wrong. Anyone work for the city and have some inside information on how the decision is made to demolish (or not) public housing projects? Or if they actually "renovate" tons of apartments? I heard a lot about that in Chicago, but not in NYC.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 11:51 AM

If you check out nyc.gov, those projects are
part of a redevelopment study, one of several for downtown Brooklyn. Late councilman James Davis was involved in something related to this. ot sure where any of this stands now.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 12:17 PM

well its true. a big problem with the housing projects is that they tend to breed complacency. Sad, but true.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 12:32 PM

On their website, re: the Brooklyn land on Ashland, clarett writes,

Luxury Condominium Homes

Clarett is currently developing a luxury condominium to be located in one of Brooklyn’s hottest, trend-setting residential neighborhoods. Design is underway by Fox & Fowle Architects with construction estimated to begin in late 2005.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 12:57 PM

ok. there were rumors that metrotech bought the projects and were going to build condos. also at that time people who lived in the projects were saying they received notices that they had to move within the next 3 years. next came rumors that donald trump was involved as well. then a realtor in the ft greene area told us that the projects were all going to be torn down and new condos built and that it was going to be kind of like styvesant town (of course a realtor would say that, it was fillmore btw). at this point i was starting to believe it, especially when people were getting moving notice, but i wanted final word so i scoured the internet. what i found was that the only truth was that people in the housing proj's got notices to move. i found a newsletter in PDF format that concerned all things brooklyn put together by the city and it said they were updating the ft greene projects and moving people either impermanently or into section 8 housing - their choice. apparently those projects were getting very run down and the city felt need to do something. i can't find the PDF documents anymore and i don't have the time to surf for them again. i also must admit that to me at the time this temporary relocation seemed like some kind of beginning to get rid of the projects by the city, just because it all seems like such a strange plan. good luck though because it is very hard to get rid of projects. this is all i know and if i find the link to the PDF's i'll post it.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 11, 2005 5:05 PM

Thanks! I will look for that pdf link also, and pls post if you find...

Posted by: Anonymous at August 12, 2005 7:51 AM

anon, you seem to be the one generalizing by implying that all relatively new owners in FG are trust fund babies. What good would it do to make them live in the projects? Everyone knows the projects are horrible ghettos? I don't understand your point? Do you think the people in the projects have some right to special treatment to have their public housing remain in the area of their choosing? Everyone else who rents has to deal with market forces and move to an affordable neighborhood. Why should it be any different for those in projects?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 12, 2005 1:21 PM

To anon. Ok, maybe your not bitter about the market because you've done well with your recent purchases. Maybe you're just racist and don't like white people or "buppies", I don't know, but why do you have such hositility to the newer buyers in the neighborhood - especially if you are doing well with "your recent purchases"? Why the anger over the idea of the projects being moved?

Posted by: Anonymous at August 12, 2005 1:33 PM