« Curbed Brooklyn Round-Up Cheap New Construction a Deal? Not a Chance »

January 30, 2006

Atlantic Yards Environs Booming in Anticipation

washington
The Daily News is reporting that developers have"at least two dozen" condo projects on the drawing board in the area surrounding Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards project. One developer, Eli Karp, alone is building five separate buildings alond the stretch of Pacific Street between Grand and Washington. "I decided, why wait for the arena?" Karp said.

In the same article, we get a much-needed update on sales at The Washington Condos, where Aguayo & Huebener trumpets their success at being able to sell 28 of the 39 units from architectural plans. Even more interesting, the article notes that prices have been raised five times and are now range from $575 to $700 a foot. We also learn that Jerry Minsky sold the three-story brownstone at 181 Prospect Place in 48 hours.
Condos Rise While Ratner Fights [NY Daily News]
Development du Jour: Pacific Blue [Curbed]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:01 AM | Comments (22)
Categories: Development

Comments

can someone update on the washington condos? model units? restarting the marketing/sales process? closing dates? open house?

great to know they've raised prices 5 times, but some concrete news for people who are currently in contract would be greatly appreciated.

june 2006 is right around the corner and the offering plan expires then, so i guess we have to look forward to this before we making our next move.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 30, 2006 10:23 AM

I found this article interesting. What amazes me is the change occurring in the area of Washington and Classon Avenues. 10-15 years ago, I never would have dreamed that expensive condos would be built there. On DailyHeights there is a lot of talk about New World Coffee opening up on Washington Avenue; nearby, I noticed that several storefronts have leasing signs in their windows. Times certainly are a-changing.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 11:43 AM

i am all for the new construction in this particular area. as long as it's not in a historical district, then i think us new condo fans will steer clear of some of the more vocal ones on this site.

i like the idea of washington ave not being the 'final frontier' of prospect heights. i think grand and classon would do well to have some new construction, if more of a buffer for those on washington, than anything else.

it will also give new business owners think of washington as a more viable area to open new businesses, especially since you will have ppl from the east coming to shop on washington also.

lastly, this healthy influx of new units will also raise the bar for all developers and marketers alike.

Posted by: ltjbukem at January 30, 2006 11:49 AM

Predicition - Anti-AY folks continuing a tradition of taking any fact and making it fit the anti-AY agenda will instantly ignore their never ending claim that no one is going to want to live near a 15 year construction zone and AY will destroy neighborhood; to take this article as proof that AY is not needed as development will take place w/o Ratner.

Of course besides ignoring their past arguments this ignores the fact that much of this development is supported by the future promise of $100s of millions of investment in the area by Ratner (and state) including the covering of the eyesore that is the railyards.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 12:01 PM

David,

They're one step ahead of you. NoLandGrab is already using this article to advance it's "no blight" agenda.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 12:14 PM

You're full of yourself! Any new development in Prospect Heights is supported by itself and the neighborhood and not by the proposed arena.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 12:16 PM

david,

first off, its not ratner's hundreds of millions that are being invested in the area. if you pay taxes, its your hundreds of millions. he's got about $1.9B in subsidies wrapped up in a $3.5B project.

but forget the axe-grinding: can you show some evidence that these new luxury condos are being marketed with the promise of ratner's development plan as enticement? i haven't seen any such marketing. what i see being marketed are the bistros on fifth avenue, the little shops on atlantic avenue, the coming of the gowanus whole foods and those more organic, small-scale developments. i don't see brokers emphasizing, "hey, you'll live next door to a massive, inconsiderately designed arena with loading docks and blank walls facing the street!" but maybe i haven't seen it. have you actually seen this kind of marketing?

Posted by: adn at January 30, 2006 12:28 PM

adn said it best. there is no proof. as a matter of fact i think most brokers are steering way clear of playing up Ratnerville to potential buyers. buyers don't buy in brooklyn to live next to such a behemoth.

and yes, this article IS proof that the area is not blighted and doesn't need the government's abusive jump start of eminent domain to further more development. development is doing just fine without eminent domain. THAT is inarguable.

Posted by: ratnerville at January 30, 2006 12:39 PM

No one said they were being "marketed" w/ the arena proposal - I said that you Anti-AY will ignore your past arguments that the AY proposal will STOP development cause no one is going to want to live near 15 yrs of construction and/or the AY after completion AND that you will ignore the spark that the $1 Billion+ investment that AY represents.
The fact that the developer (Karp) bought all of the property he is now developing in 2005 seems to suggest that developers do not view AY as the negative all of you naysayers claim. (and is evidence of the development spark that AY is)

BTW - didnt take long b/4 prediction fufilled

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 12:58 PM

This listing (condo State/Atlantic) mentions proposed new development in area including 'sports'... so must be referring to proposed arena
http://corcoran.com/property/listing.aspx?Region=NYC&ListingID=823113

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 1:51 PM

David,

This idea that Ratner's proposal would stop "development cause no one is going to want to live near 15 yrs of construction and/or the AY after completion" is just a secondary argument against the project, like the concerns over underground parking leading to a truck bomb attack. It's not the main issue.

The primary arguments against the project are the massive govt subsidies, the threat and use of eminent domain, and the lack of city oversight and planning in the development process. Regardless of whether you support the Ratner idea, the more you learn about these three areas of concern, the more you have to be very worried about the Atlantic Yards proposal -- that is, if you actually care about the neighborhoods around it.

But if you want to stay focused on these petty, he-said, she-said kind of arguments, that's understandable. That's pretty much how important policy gets debated in the US these days.

Though there are plenty of folks out there who would have you believe otherwise (many of them are on the payroll of the developer -- BUILD, ACORN, the ESDC), there's really no reason why we can't have jobs, affordable housing and a decent, healthy, community-oriented development atop the Vanderbilt Railyards.

Posted by: adn at January 30, 2006 2:20 PM

I was at an open house in a building on Eastern Parkway a couple of weeks ago and the broker was touting the Prospect Heights area as the region of choice for starchitects -- cited Richard Meier and Frank Gehry. My client got a little freaked out at the prospect of so much construction, at which point he quickly changed his tune to, "Of course from here you'll never notice the Atlantic Yards project." The apartment needed too much work for her anyway, but she was turned off by the broker's approach as well.

Posted by: babs at January 30, 2006 3:20 PM

adn
Sorry I'll change it -

I predict "Anti-AY folks ...will instantly ignore their never ending [NON-PRIMARY]claim that no one is going to want to live near a 15 year construction zone and AY will destroy neighborhood; to take this article as proof that AY is not needed as development will take place w/o Ratner"


I have discussed your "main" arguments on this board and elsewhere ad-nauseum, so your claim that I am only focused on this petty flip-flop is ridiculous.

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 3:29 PM

I agree with David. Anti AY folks should stick to the important issues like improper use of eminent domain, appropriate land use, and the scale of the project. When they lie about the government subsidy ($1.9 billion is a joke and not supported by the facts), and delve into the impact on local real estate, they just look foolish.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 4:04 PM

anonymous, if its a lie, prove its a lie. or just go with Jim Stuckey's own year old estimate of a 1.1 billion dollar subsidy.

Posted by: ratnerville at January 30, 2006 4:13 PM

Please define subsidy -

is it a subsidy to defer taxes that wont exisit if the site is never developed (my answer=no; your answer=yes-especially if Ratner is the developer)

Is it a subsidy if the city/state needs to improve the infrastructure to support the growing population/economy related to successful development (my answer=no; you answer=yes;especially if Ratner is the developer)

Posted by: David at January 30, 2006 4:31 PM

David,

Sorry I'm not more aware of your fine work in the Brownstoner comments section.

Deferred taxes are definitely a "subsidy," even by Ratner's own definition.

Posted by: adn at January 30, 2006 5:38 PM

david,

virtually every community opponent of the ratner proposal, without exception, supports development and improvement of the vanderbilt railyards. so, this idea that the site will "never" be developed unless ratner does it in the way that he proposed in his first draft is kind of strange. it's an extraordinarily desirable and valuable site. there is every reason to believe that it could be developed in a way that is satisfactory to most if not all of the stakeholders.

>>

Posted by: Anonymous at January 30, 2006 10:21 PM

Most people do consider a deferred tax a subsidy, but I've never understood that logic. I've always thought of a subsidy as public money that is granted to some entity. But allowing that entity to keep its own money? Is that some kind of gift? It's like saying the 60% of my salary that I'm allowed to keep is actually a subsidy equal to that amount of money. Gee, thanks!

Posted by: escap at January 30, 2006 11:07 PM

gee, escap, maybe some of the money we earn is enabled by public services that create the environment in which business and civic life is capable of functioning.

so, yes, getting a 30-year tax deferrment on a humongous development project is a pretty significant subsidy unless, of course, you're a libertarian ideologue and don't believe in taxes.

if you want to go somewhere without government or taxes, i would recommend iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 10:50 AM

"If you want to go somewhere without government or taxes, i would recommend iraq."

Typical anti-Ratner hysteria. No wonder you guys are failing. All you can do is point fingers and scream. I can't wait until this arena is built and you all can move on to your next cause (which will hopefully be far from my neighborhood).

Posted by: Anonymous at January 31, 2006 11:07 AM

Free Hardcore Gay Anal Sex http://GayAnal69.servik.com/

Posted by: Painful Gay Anal at May 26, 2006 7:18 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions