« Dead (Murdered?) Squirrel Raises Questions Today on the Renovation Blogs and Forum »

November 2, 2007

Commercial Sales in Brooklyn

271hawthornestreet.jpeg
PROSPECT LEFFERTS GARDENS $8.75 million
271 Hawthorne Street GMAP
The 91,596-square-foot, 82-unit, 6-story rental was built in 1927. The deal closed on October 11th. According to city records, Moshe Kestenbaum (of 184 Kent fame) sold the building to Peter Rebenwurzel.

DOWNTOWN BROOKLYN $11.9 million
300 Schermerhorn Street GMAP
Hotel developer Tyler Hospitality purchased the 187-by-80-foot site in a deal that closed on October 9th. Tyler, which is also currently developing a hotel in Times Square, plans to build a 14-story, 250-room Holiday Inn.

Photo of 271 Hawthorne by Nicholas Strini for Property Shark.




Posted by Gabby at 10:31 AM | Comments (16)
Categories: Sales

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2757

Comments

How come Manhattan gets The Standard and all we get are Holiday Inns, Marriots, and Lux Pops (that look like Holiday Inns)? When is someone going to build Bklyn a stylish hotel that we deserve!

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 11:15 AM

that french one on 4th ave

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 11:36 AM

Hotel Le Doom... still yet to open.

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 11:46 AM

I love the building at 271 Hawthorne. It was build generations ago and exceeds the current FAR by almost 50%! Suck it anti-development nazis!

Gee, could this be why there is a housing shortage in this city? This modest, 6-story apartment building is considered a monstrosity by the NIMBY crowd of rich homeowners. Certainly, the residents of that building are happy zoning laws aren't retroactive!

Posted by: Polemicist at November 2, 2007 12:04 PM

stfu 12:04

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 12:24 PM

Polemicist,

The Hawthorne Street zoning change certainly wasn't done at the request of any "NIMBY crowd of rich homeowners" in the 1/3rd of a century I've lived in PLG. Perhaps it was some earlier generation of NIMBYs--who knows?

In any case, you'll be glad to know that there are a few large condo buildings going up on Lefferts Ave. west of New York Ave., so there's no lack of new housing here.

BTW, my own 1899 Lefferts Manor house is almost 3X the current FAR--even more of a restriction than our 1893 single family deed covenant or our Historic District status. Are these also NIMBYism? If they are, call me a NIMBY.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 2, 2007 12:58 PM

Hi there Bob,

So, who did support the zoning change? The tenants of these buildings? I think not. In the current market, anyone who owns a home is rich. It has nothing to do with income, but wealth and in this borough simply owning a home affords great wealth and is but a distant dream for the vast majority of Brooklynites.

I have made no criticism of historic preservation, or deed restrictions. However, reducing building density far below what was considered typical when Brooklyn had half the population is simply impossible for me to understand.

If you live in a building, especially a house, that so dramatically highlights the absurdity of the current zoning laws AND you support such laws - you are worse than a NIMBY, you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. You deny the people the same benefits you enjoy, and that Mr. Marvin is the most oppressive kind of selfishness imaginable. I do hope, for your own sake and the fate of your eternal soul, that you are not one of those kinds of people.

right back at you 12:24.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 2, 2007 1:29 PM

Instead of arguing about WHO is responsible for an alleged downzoning, let's argue IF a "downzoning" even occured. 271 Hawthorne is zoned R6, which I bet is the zoning designation made in 1961, which I consider the first really substantial zoning. If that is true, then use of the term "downzoning" isn't accurate, IMO.

I'll give "Polemicist" credit for taking on an honest web-name. Points off for unnecessary crudeness.

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 1:47 PM

stfu = save the fabulous unicorns. thank you for your support.

Posted by: guest at November 2, 2007 2:38 PM

Polemicist,

I most certainly DO support zoning laws, as well as our (LM) restrictive covenant and landmarking. That is PRECISELY what may make it possible for future generations to enjoy the same benefits as my neighbors and I.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 2, 2007 3:33 PM

Well Bob, you are a hypocrite and when push comes to shove, you'll be remembered as such. Enjoy it.

1:47: I'm talking about current support for the original zoning act, which I have criticized relentlessly. Most citizens are not aware how oppressive that zoning regulation is. It was only because of the downward spiral of the city a few years later that it was a none issue. Today, we are living with that misguided attempt at promoting social harmony. Instead, we have incredibly expensive housing a city that has barely changed since the law was enacted, despite the fact the population increased substantially.

Most people are harmed by these zoning laws. Only the lucky few like Bob Marvin benefit, and if they truly understood how such laws harmed them, they would receive almost no public support. If that is crude, so be it. Until every family has the opportunity to have a decent home, I will continue to raise such points.

Posted by: Polemicist at November 3, 2007 2:57 PM

"...we have incredibly expensive housing [in a city that has barely changed since the [1961 zoning] law was enacted, despite the fact the population increased substantially." Actually, no.

1. Official 1960 population for New York City: 7,781,984. Official 2000 population for New York City: 8,085,742. That's roughly a four percent increase.

2. Of the 3,200,912 housing units in New York City in 2000, 1,051,557 (or about a third) were built since 1960.

Posted by: guest at November 3, 2007 5:17 PM

Polemicist,

LOL--to be called a hypocrite by someone who glorifies a fascist bigot like Ezra Pound is, I suppose, an honor.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at November 3, 2007 7:52 PM

hey ignoramus at 5:17.

it's almost 2008 now. not 2000.

how bout you figure out some more realistic stats.

7 year old data is pretty useless, at best.

Posted by: guest at November 3, 2007 10:30 PM

Gee gosh, 10:30, I'll call the United States Census and see what we can rustle up. Get some perspective. The most recent deccenial census is good enough for a post on a blog. What? You think the city's population has increased by a half-million people in the past eight years?

At least I used statistics. The Polemic One spouts off without any evidence and you, well, you just stamp your feet and call people names like a seven year old.

Posted by: guest at November 4, 2007 10:03 AM

"Ignoramus" here again. While doing some research to debunk yet another, evidence-free Polemical post, I found more recent census data and now update my response "at November 3, 2007 5:17 PM."

"...we have incredibly expensive housing [in] a city that has barely changed since the [1961 zoning] law was enacted, despite the fact the population increased substantially." Actually, no.

1. Official 1960 population for New York City: 7,781,984. Official 2006 population for New York City: 8,214,426. That's
a 5.56 percent increase.

2. Of the 3,200,912 housing units in New York City in 2000, 1,051,557 (or about a third) were built since 1960.

So, the population has not "increase significantly" but one-third of the housing has been built in the same 46 year period.

Posted by: guest at November 15, 2007 10:30 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions