Closing Bell: Moving Out at 475 Kent Avenue

Hey Mr.B while we understand and feel bad for the folks @ 475 Kent do we have to post about this topic everyday? I mean whats with this new obsession? Enough already. Please put more emphasis on Brownstones!

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 4:21 PM

Shut the F up 4:21! You're not the one waiting outside in the cold. You think everyone's a trust fund kid? I hope you're brownstone burns.

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 4:34 PM

This is a totally newsworthy event, and should be covered as news breaks.

This blog is, essentially, about the gentrification of Brooklyn: its real estate values; who's living here; how the amenities (food and drink roundup) change. 475 Kent is a story about gentrification. The people who have the most invested in this live-work space made Williamsburg the yuppie-infested strollertrap that it is today--they moved in when Kent and Division was a desolate wasteland.

People with serious influence in the cultural community of Brooklyn, like Eve Sussman and the director of SmackMellon, Kathleen Gilrain, are tenants at 475 Kent. This is an opportunity for Bloomberg to really be pro-arts and work with the Loft Board instead of the DOB to get these people back to work, back in their houses.

There are so many artists without Sussman and Gilrain's influence living in exactly the same circumstances in gentrifying neighborhoods like Bushwick and Bed Stuy that are clinging to every bit of 475 Kent news, because whether or not this administration is willing to protect them has everything to do with whether Brooklyn remains a cultural capital.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, has *everything* to do with whether or not your real estate values continue to climb. Bloomberg is not pro-arts out of the goodness of his heart. He knows what side the bread is buttered on! The artists of Brooklyn, and the rest of this city, add value to your enterprise, no matter what you greedy Philistines think about art.

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 4:40 PM

Such anger.....serenity now!

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 5:09 PM

#4:40 I have been on the biz side of the creative world for years. Of course we have to support art and artists, etc... But the point you are missing, that many DO NOT break the law. I worked with and/or known so many people who struggled financially, but managed to rent commercial space for their art and also rent residential space to live in. This includes me too as a small biz owner. Not even has no respect for the law, it is not a given.

It pisses me off that anyone could be sympathetic to these lawbreakers. F them. they broke the law, and now they have gotta pay.

karma's a bitch!

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 5:35 PM

sorry, meant to say "everyone" instead of even, but you get the idea...

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 5:37 PM

The landlord broke the law, not the tenants!

They are paying market rent (mostly) for live-work spaces in a residentially zoned building. They, as tenants, have no control over whether or not they have a C of O or an illegal bakery running in the basement, or even a working standpipe or working sprinklers!

What Karma? These people paid rent to someone who did not hold up their end of the deal, and they are the ones suffering and losing money for it--not the landlord.

This turns into an excuse for artists to hate other artists. Great.

What was that about Karma?

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 5:46 PM

I know someone who lived there and there and I was under the impression it was all rent stabilized. I don't really see why if it wasn't built to be residential. Moreover, lets not weep for these people on the basis of their being artists. They are mostly small business owners. As the such they should be given opportunities to develop the kind of viable businesses that create a strong economy. No business owner should get a break because their business is somehow "creative". Nobody gives the drycleaner down the block a break on their rent. Do you honestly think they deserve to pay less because YOU think they make the neighborhood seem cool? If their work is that good they can make a decent living off it. If not, they need to go do something else for their rent money.

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 6:14 PM

I know quite a few people who live there, and the only people who are getting a break on rent have lived there for a very very long time and negotiated long leases (to my knowledge).

Even if it is rent stabilized--that's hardly some kind of artist's welfare, lots of people have rent-stabilized places. There is no handout here--why the aggression about a potential handout? Nobody is saying that the people in 475 Kent deserve anything "special." The argument has nothing to do with handouts. It has to do with the fact that small business owners who sign leases and pay rent and are doing *their part* right shouldn't be literally kicked to the curb in the middle of a very cold night and face permanent eviction.

No artist should face that, no dry cleaner should face that. No tenant should face that, period.

In a strictly residential building, there are laws against this kind of mass-eviction, and for good reason. The Loft Board is merely extending that basic humane idea that people who pay rent should have a place to live to artists living and working in the same place.

Why would such an idea even provoke hostility?

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 6:55 PM

MrHancock,
The landlord broke the law by operating an illegal business and renting space under the auspices of legal residential use. The tenants (most of them unwittingly) broke the law by living in space zoned as a commercial warehouse.

What in hell are you talking about?

Hippies? Many of the tenants were professionals and business owners.

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 9:17 PM

Mr. Hancock or Mr. Burns?

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 9:30 PM

4:34PM I hope your stupid ass freezes to death you dirty law breaking hipster..booo hooo
and 4:26 the only one that needs to stop complaining are the stupid tenants who got caught breaking the law and feel entitled to cheap / rs housing. Get a clue idiot most people suffer to make ends meet but do it legally OK?

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 10:55 PM

Friday must be hyperbole day around here.

While I agree generally with 4:40, 475 Kent did not pioneer Williamsburg, not even this small corner of it. 475 Kent was largely converted in 1998 by a number of artists holding master leases, who then subdivided the space and rented it out. There are other buildings a block away that have been live/work for much longer than that; and by 1998 Williamsburg was well down the slippery slope to gentrification.

Yes, residential use is not legal here, but everyone in the building - landlord, master tenants and subtenants knew that (or should have). So yes, living there is "illegal". Anyone who is surprised (or offended) by the idea of people living illegally in a live/work situation is either naive or very new to NYC. This is exactly how most of Soho, Tribeca, DUMBO and many other areas have been occupied for DECADES. The City has always tolerated this, so long as the buildings are safe.

Of course there are laws against mass eviction. But this ISN'T a mass eviction - the Fire Department has VACATED the building for legitimate safety concerns. Once those concerns are addressed, the City (DOB) should (and hopefully will) allow all of the tenants back in and everything will return to the status quo ante.

The building IS zoned residential, but that does not mean that residential is allowed. It is a manufacturing building, with a CO that does not include residential use. It can be converted to residential use as of right (i.e. without variances, special permits or rezoning), but that is a process that would take a lot of time and a fair amount of money.

While the tenants did not have control over the bakery or the condition of the sprinkler system/standpipe, they DO have control over whether or not there is a CO for residential use. The tenants signed leases, and I would bet that all those leases were COMMERCIAL leases (if not, that could be grounds for a suit). They probably even included language noting the use restrictions on the building. The only people who can plausibly claim ignorance would be subletters who did not sign leases. (And if the "landlord" did rent spaces "under the auspices of legal residential use", that a) be surprising, and b) could be grounds for a suit to recover rent paid. But I think that would require an actual lease for residential use, not a commercial lease and a wink.)

And as far as I know, everyone was paying market rent. The master leases were negotiated in 1998, based on then market rates (and like all commercial leases, I assume they had annual increases and options along the way). The subleases were always based on market conditions (obviously higher today than they were 10 years ago).

Finally, its been said over and over again that many of the tenants here are older, established and working artists. I'd bet that a lot of them could afford luxury "lofts", but what they need is real artist's space, and space away from other residential use. (Loft living is chic and all, until your neighbor starts welding sculpture on a Sunday morning.) The whole hipster hatred is pretty stupid to begin with, but it doesn't even apply here.

What the city really needs is a viable live/work category of occupancy (not the sham artist certification of Soho). That would make these buildings more valuable to landlords, and provide much needed space for commercial uses and related living.

Posted by: guest at January 25, 2008 11:05 PM

11:05 excellent post. bear in mind that working people whether artists or whatever who need this type space can rent commercial space for this, and many do. many do not illegally live in these spaces as these tenants did. they stretch themselves financially to pay for their residences and their commercial space.

no one is entitled to break the law and the fact they many do and get away with it is irrelevant.

also, there are legitimate live/work spaces available, and it is not necessarily up to the city to provide more.

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 12:31 AM

11:05 here - I agree in principle, but with all the rezoning that has happened in Williamsburg, commercial space is increasingly expensive - $20 a foot and up. That puts a real squeeze on business, but also artists (who are business people too). Most artists can use the upper floors of old buildings - floors that regular industry does not really want. Allowing live/work in these locations helps landlords (they can rent unrentable space, sometimes for more than their rentable space would command).

I think that the fact that many get away with it is relevant - the city has long tolerated this type of occupancy. If the city is going to no longer tolerate it, it needs to do so consistently. Sure, its illegal to live in commercial buildings - but then we have to shut down ALL illegal live/work situations, not do it on a case by case basis.

To my list of all the people who are complicit in all of this, you have to add the city. NYC has winked at this set up for decades. If we're going to change policy now, lets be clear about the intentions and even-handed in the application. (Somehow I doubt DOB is going to start verifying artists' certifications in Soho!)

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 1:06 AM

Landlord allows an unsanitary and dangerous illegal bakery in his basement, where the rodent infested grain threatens the safety of all building occupants. Somehow, for some people this is about the tenants' violation of a certificate of occupancy. Baffling.

I hope none of you ever jaywalk, or you deserve to get hit by a car and die--and your family shouldn't collect any life insurance, as you were breaking the law. And I hope you pay all your taxes to the great state of NY on all your online purchases, or else you should face financial penalties up to and including seizure of all your assets--it is the fair punishment for breaking the law.

By the way, breaking one law doesn't mean that the rest of them don't apply any longer, in your case. The landlord allowed a disgusting and illegal bakery to operate in his basement, presumably for rent money. NYC's bravest, finest and the DOB had to respond and deal with it, with all of us picking up the tab.

Why the anger directed at the building's non-lethal tenants? I think I know, more about that below. Whether you like hippies or artists, or not, these people are in a fine mess. They didn't put themselves or the city in any danger in their lawlessness, something worth considering when thinking about different kinds of laws and what it means to break or to follow them.

Unsurprisingly, everyone has missed what is really going on here, which is an ancient story. Anyone who knows anything about matzoh and and how it's made knows what was really happening down in that bakery.

(totally kidding about that matzoh bit, just too good an opportunity to pass on reviving a centuries old libel--i mean, it was a matzoh factory that got this whole thing started).

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 2:02 AM

I find it interesting that people think painter the moment they hear artist.

but I guess people are dumb.

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 12:34 PM

11:05, thank you for your clear voice. That was a magnificent set of posts.

It does matter that the city has tacitly approved of this kind of occupation of space for many years. It also matters that Guliani (of all people) actively opposed the kind of DOB action

(the mass eviction waiting in the wings)

that may or may not take place at 475 Kent.

These people did not hurt anyone (except perhaps themselves if they are living with toxic work processes), got no handout, and are living and working within a system that tolerates this kind of commercial use and has for so long that it is reasonable to feel secure.

It is terrible that their fate is a political matter and not one of policy. It is literally up to the mayor and the DOB to decide what to do now that the immediate threat to life is over.

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 1:12 PM

12:34 - Who said painter?

Posted by: guest at January 26, 2008 9:16 PM

2:02 obviously the landlord is at fault in the extreme, however, when you agree to help him by allowing him to operate outside of the law, how are you not also part of the problem?

the press release put out by the tenants is beyond belief. none of them seem to want to take responsibility for their part in this. they all seem so entitled - it's a total turn off. that is probably where they lost sympathy.

you get cheap rents renting a commercial space rather than a residential one, but you run the risk of getting tossed out. They got their reward (paid less money), but now the party is over, and they will have to pay residential rates just like everyone else.

Posted by: guest at January 27, 2008 4:05 PM

@4:05

What people don't understand is that you cannot get comparable legal live/work space at any price in this city

If you did find it, (you and) your neighbors would be paying so much money that they too would feel entitled to absolute peace and quiet and freedom from commmercial activity of any sort.

Posted by: guest at January 27, 2008 9:08 PM

9:08 yes, you can find a place to live and a place to work. you have to tough it out. and, maybe it's not in NY. it you can't make it here, you just can't. no one is entitled to shit.

Posted by: guest at January 28, 2008 12:15 AM

I can't believe the amazing number of philistines on this site. Landlords and developers, no doubt.

Posted by: guest at January 28, 2008 11:00 AM

Empty warehouses aren't usually occupied by Hispanic, Italian or Hasidic tenants prior to being rented to artists. It housed used stereo components prior to artists, and very few of the former.

Probably over a million dollars was spent in 1998 by the buildings original group of tenant/developers to install code quality heating, gas, electricity, and plumbing.

Those who resided in the building were paying market prices and were in negotiations with the owner to obtain a residential c of o by continuing ten years of steady progress in improving the buildings infrastructure.

It was therefore a safer building last Sunday night than it has been at any time in its recent history.

All city departments had conducted inspections of the building regularly-- every few months for years, and knew of each and every allegedly unsafe condition, each and every violation of the building code, including the mazoh making in the basement twice a year in celebration of the Jewish High Holidays. Nothing about the use of the building for work or dwelling was clandestine in any way, and was well known to the same agencies.

The walls and floors of the building are foot thick concrete-- it is one of the so-called "daylight factory" building constructed in New York after the infamous Triangle Shirt Factory fire. Whatever its current technical code violations, it is essentially a fire proof building.

Emergency evacuation procedures are just that. They should be restricted to those occasions-- like a building that is actually ablaze-- when lives are in immediate danger. They should not be used as a way of evading normal legal processes like eviction proceedings.

As for whether a sprinkler system is legally required for this particular building, experts have disagreed for years and continue to do so. In 1998 the consensus opinion was that a sprinkler system was not required. The residents and the owners of the building both are eager to comply with the law-- whatever it might be, and spend whatever is reasonably required to do, within a reasonable timeframe. Announcing with NO NOTICE of any kind that an as yet undetermined list of physical improvements (but potentially involving $100,000s or millions of dollars) as well as documentary changes of legal "classification" must be fully effected between 6pm and midnight or the building cleared-- at least to me-- isn't how I thought the USA did things.

The block of Kent Avenue on which the building is located has been zoned as "residential" since 2005.

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:45 PM

FINALLY #21- A POST WITH ACTUAL FACTS AND INTELLIGENCE! All by the way Accurate from a Architectural standpoint- Bloomberg should be shamed by the hypocracy of such an order! and he calls himself a capitalist?
NEW YORK, ARGUEABLY SINCE THE 1970s and BEFORE, HAS BEEN ECONOMICALLY BUILT ON THE VERY PRACTICE THAT THESE OPPURTUNIST HAVE BRAVELY UNDERTAKEN!
look at SOHO, CHELSEA, MEATPACK, TRIBECA ETC. THOUSANDS OF ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED BUILDINGS TO THIS DAY! its why the CPC rezones areas in the first place- do you think they know where people want to live and where they want to work?- not a clue! the proof is in the pudding seeing how they rezoned the lot 475 sits on as purely residential- its one of the biggest oversights in NY zoning yet! that is a mixed use BLOCK if there ever was one!
Are we all keeping manufacturing jobs out of the neighborhood? NO- the market is just like it does in Manhattan and everywhere else! many of us would never want to (and decry the zoning which has not mandated ground floor commercial space in williamsburg), live in all residential areas and prefer this type of building to all others. WE WANT TO WORK ON AND IN OUR SPACES CONTINUOUSLY- ITS WHY WE MOVED IN!
much of the entire brooklyn waterfront manufacturing zone was just sitting there largely crumbling and dying for many many years- this building and many others were empty, enchanted post industrial spaces waiting to be occupied by DIY types with the ingenuity and spirit that make NY the place everyone wants to come to! IF DWEEBES AND OTHERS LOVE TO FOLLOW ARTISTS MUSICIANS AND HIPSTERS to the neighborhoods they inhabit and help create, then so be it- WHY should the innovative be to blame for seeking out of the ordinary and economically availble areas. I count myself as the artsiest hippest of the hip artists having lived here for 20 years- thank the cosmos or the pathos best described by Darwin for creating such engines of ingenuity! if you have a trust fund then put it to good use! if you dont then live your dream on your own dime! fuck all the idiots who would sit in their armchairs saying no one should live in a building like this---go find your idiotic K Fisher designed sophomoric luxury box AQUARIUMS built of styrofoam and I-Beams covered with plastic bricks and sheetrock- it may be LEGAL but it will always suck when compared to a monument like 475 KENT! now theres a 250LB per Sq ft load monolith! you folks could only dream of living in these spaces, with their massive features, and beautiful concrete form work, because the cowardice in you returns your feeble mind to the sofa and your cable program night after night for another lesson in correctness! FOLLW PARIS HILTON IF YOU WANT EXCITEMENT- JUST PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS TO YOURSELVES AND LEAVE US HIPSTERS TO LIVE AND WORK WHERE WE CHOOSE!

Posted by: guest at January 29, 2008 1:47 PM