« Advertisement Condo of the Day: 555 Washington Avenue 2 BR »
August 1, 2007
Development Watch: Schermerhorn House Rising

It's been a long timemore than a yearsince there was much to report about the Schermerhorn House, the second phase of the Abby Hamlin/Time Equities project that began with the 14 Townhouses. But there she is, rising like a phoenix from the asphalt. According to DOB filings, the 11-story building will have 190 units (a Fort Green Courier article last year said the number was 217), half of which will be for the formerly homeless and the other half for low-income residents and artists (which begs the question of whether you could be a high-income artist and still live there). We believe that all the units will be studios. In all, you're looking at about 100,000 square feet of new space, including the street level.
Some More 411 on the "Schermerhorn House" [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1749
Comments
Can anyone explain why "artists" are more valuable to a community and thus more deserving of affordable housing than, say, cops, engineers, or taxi drivers?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 12:47 PM
Kinda amazing to see a new building go up that ISN'T all luxury condos. Studio apartments are an incredibly important component of urban housing and serve many needs: for anyone who finds maintaining a larger space challenging (the elderly, the disabled etc) and for people with a limited or fixed income. I've often wished I could be a socially conscious developer and recreate the old SRO model in a genuinely non-exploitative way. Kudos to Time Equities, Abby Hamlin and Francis Greenburger. Btw, I have no realtionship to any of them and please don't jump on this post as naive socialism. Housing needs to be diverse and -- most importantly -- it needs to be AVAILABLE!
Posted by: NeoGrec at August 1, 2007 12:50 PM
artists contribute to a community's culture in a way that other occupations don't. sorry, but it's just true. (and, no, i'm not an artist.) for this reason, lots of countries/cities subsidize housing for artists. there are examples in nyc like wesbeth in manhattan for instance.
Posted by: anon at August 1, 2007 12:58 PM
Many other occupations contribute to a community's culture in a way that an artist cannot. Sorry, but it's just true.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 1:11 PM
i knew you'd respond that way so i shouldn't have bothered. obviously it's your prerogative to think driving a taxi contributes to a community's *culture* as much as creating art.
Posted by: anon at August 1, 2007 1:22 PM
i think the point, 12:37 is that no one said artists are MORE valuable. they surely are valuable, but who said MORE?
you are twisting the words to make an arguement that isn't there. artists are valuable, so they are building a place for them. there are other units of affordable housing available (no, not enough) in other buildings and in other areas of the city that are affored to cops, taxi drivers, etc.
you do realize, however that artists are the people who have essentially made nyc what it is today and have had arguably the largest impact on transforming many of the neighborhoods we know and love. take a look at the cities in the u.s. that are most desireable. they are the ones home to large numbers of creative people and artists.
there's a reason why madison, wisconsin is more attractive than milwaukee, or san francisco over sacramento, or santa fe over albuquerque.
it's the artists.
Posted by: slopehead at August 1, 2007 1:51 PM
no one ever has an art emergency. but you do need plumbers and electricians and cops.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 2:08 PM
You read that another hotel going to happen downtown - a block and 1/2 up from this development.
When or what is going to happen with the SMith St. side of this block (between State/Schermerhonr). Seems to me prime spot but still a parking lot
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=5&id=14505
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 2:26 PM
I would much rather live next door to a cop than some rent-subsidized buffoon who spends all day choreographing interpretive dance pieces about Dick Cheney's insatiable thirst for blood, oil, and money.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 2:26 PM
this is quite an engineering challenge..raising the building over all of the subway infrastructure below. I hope the artists appreciate good engineering.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 2:41 PM
I would much rather live next door to a cop than some rent-subsidized buffoon who spends all day choreographing interpretive dance pieces about Dick Cheney's insatiable thirst for blood, oil, and money.
then you'd probably be better off living somewhere other than nyc. they've got a lot of cops in baltimore and detroit. how bout giving them a shot?
pun intended.
Posted by: slopehead at August 1, 2007 2:47 PM
and given the following news, i'm in full support of this project...
In Wednesday’s (8/1) New York Times, columnist Jim Dwyer writes, “For more than a century, artists and performers and musicians have nested, unnoticed but in plain sight, directly above Carnegie Hall in tower studios built by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie. Some artists actually lived there; others used the space to write scores or choreograph dances or practice for concerts. Now, the last 50 of these tenants are being evicted, a process that began two weeks ago. The trustees of Carnegie Hall say they need the space for educational programs, rehearsals and backstage areas.” Dwyer quotes screenwriter and filmmaker Andrew Bergman. “I don’t have to be in that building,” he said. “But I love that building. When I moved in 25 years ago, I was next door to a ballet studio; it was like a Degas painting.” Noting that the studios are owned by the city and leased to the Carnegie Hall Corporation, Dwyer writes, “its trustees have decided to gut the towers, at a cost estimated at $150 million to $200 million. The trustees notified the tenants of the plan at the first possible moment, to give them time to move, said Synneve Carlino, a spokeswoman for the corporation.”
Posted by: slopehead at August 1, 2007 2:50 PM
This building has looked like this for quite some time now. Is construction active or has it stopped?
Compared to the building down the block between Livingston and Schermerhorn that has gone up in lightening speed, this one seems to be very slow.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 1, 2007 3:35 PM
Thanks for that anecdote, slopehead. I used to take tai chi lessons in one of those Carnegie Hall studios with an amazing octagenarian who learned her tai chi in pre-revolutionary China. Always loved going into that building. It's the end of an era.
Posted by: Anon at August 1, 2007 4:17 PM
Imagine New York without all the museums, theaters, galleries, bookstores...
Francis Greenberger is both a real estate developer and a serious patron of the arts. See this website www.artomi.org and know that he has supported many, many other great artists. Kudos to him for marrying the two interests. As for Cops (with the rate plumbers charge, they don't need subsidized housing) there are programs available to them as well. This isn't one of them. Your complaint is a red herring, go plow sand...or would you rather Mr. Greenberger kick out some homeless...
Yes, New York without artist would be...just like Dallas.
Posted by: kuroko at August 1, 2007 5:02 PM
thanks slopehead and kuroko. i tried (12:58 and 1:22) but sometimes it's pointless. some people are just itching for a fight.
Posted by: anon at August 1, 2007 7:41 PM
If you want artists to have a sustainable place in a community, you have to find a sustainable kind of art. WPA murals = good. Artists working the gallery system or some kind of shock of the new = notsomuch. I'd rather have cab drivers. Art shouldn't be a "get-out-paying-market-rent" card.
Posted by: Heather M at August 1, 2007 7:45 PM
people always want artists to create the same kind of art that was made 100 years earlier. the suggestion that people actually become artists to "get out of paying market rent" is one of the most ludicrous and ignorant things i've read on this blog--which is saying something.
Posted by: anonymous at August 1, 2007 8:06 PM
Right, because artists are actually all genius visionaries, without which we'd all be lost. Uh-huh. Naturally, that is why all artists in subsidized housing are hugely influential and important.
Posted by: Heather M at August 1, 2007 8:41 PM
yeah, heather, that's exactly what i said. your interpretation is so creative, you could be an artist yourself!
Posted by: anonymous at August 1, 2007 8:44 PM
heather: "all artists in subsidized housing"?? who are you talking about? do you know a single artist in subsidized housing? even if you do, what percentage of artists do you think live in such situations? i hope it goes without saying it's a miniscule fraction. also, they are more likely to pave the way for others, probably like you, to move into previously "under developed" neighborhoods.
Posted by: lemlar at August 1, 2007 9:02 PM
heather: your comments don't warrant more response than this . . .
Posted by: stoner at August 1, 2007 9:21 PM
stoner, you're right.
Posted by: anon 8:44 at August 1, 2007 10:00 PM
I know several artists in subsidized housing. I've heard of more. I know more than one non-artist on the waiting list at Westbeth too.
And, sorry, but I think the idea of importing artists like cheese just to make your neighborhood "more cultured" is laughable. Not to mention a bit creepy, as it ignores the housing needs of people who work a lot harder for a living. Art is a luxury. It would be nice if everyone had a little time to practice it, not just people who are too "visionary" to have real jobs.
That's just my opinion though, carry on.
Posted by: Heather M at August 1, 2007 11:07 PM
you're right heather. it makes MUCH more sense to import cab drivers.
sounds as though you are one of those that always wished she had a talent to pursue but mommy and daddy told her to be a lawyer instead.
Posted by: slopehead at August 2, 2007 1:41 PM
heather, you're a twit. just wanted to close on that note.
Posted by: anon at August 3, 2007 9:53 PM

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