What Would a Myrtle Market Mean for Admiral's Row?

myrtle market would def. cover whitman and ingersoll pj's, but not exactly around the corner for farragut

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 11:20 AM

"albeit long ones" are the key words here, not to mention having to the maze of streets in and around the expressway. Plenty of neighborhoods have more than one grocery store, so why not here?

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 11:35 AM

As I have pointed out previously, if a Gristedes is built on Myrtle and a Foodtown at Admirals Row, we're probably talking different clienteles.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 11:38 AM

What is this - 'Supermarket' Day on Brownstoner? You obsessed with food ?- is it the NewYear diet getting to you?

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Will most of the customers go to these markets on foot or by public transit? I think that might make a difference if people are coming by foot, naturally shrinking the markets', well, potential market. Without knowing the neighborhood very well, I think that there's room for at least two supermarkets up that way.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 1:12 PM

I think that the old Brig site on Flushing between Clermont & Vanderbilt would be perfect for a large, higher-end supermarket such as Whole Foods. Leave Admiral's Row alone and put a Gristedes on Myrtle. This area is chronically underserved with both supermarkets and pharmacies.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 2:15 PM

Based upon the planned size of the two supermarkets for the neighborhood, I feel its too much. I keep reading about these markets coming in with thousands upon thousands of sq ft.

The 'old brig' site on Flushing Ave. is getting middle income housing, no room for a market there.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 2:39 PM

Actually, the former brig site is getting nothing any time soon. I hear that, after choosing a developer, the city went back and told them to change their plans. Kind of like that play, "I Love You, You're Perfect, Now Change."

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 3:13 PM

Admiral's Row Supermarket is going to be car-based. A supermarket for pedesterians and neighbors (say the C-Town on 9th & 5th Ave) is not 65,000 sq. feet and does not require 300 parking spots. Think Costco.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 3:43 PM

The more supermarkets there are in these areas, the better choices for the community. Flushing and Myrtle need one big supermarket for each at least. People will come from all over just like Fairway if you offer competitively priced and quality food. Dumbo, Vinegar Hill, Clinton Hill and Downtown Bklyn will all benefit from it. Lots of space in Brooklyn for parking, too.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 4:11 PM

The Gristedes planned is just going to replace the crappy Associated that was there before. Like 4:11 said, a large, quality supermarket would do very well in this area.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 5:23 PM

I've been wondering what the Public Housing community has been saying about that area on Myrtle, because there was an Associated, Duane Reade, bodega and Laundry there - now totally destroyed. Where are the residents going for food and laundry???!!

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 5:37 PM

the funny thing is that when they destroyed all of the services on myrtle for the projects they never asked a damn person. they never asked the projects if they wanted all of their restaurants and laundramats and drug stores and bodegas and supermarket destroyed, they just did it. and now they're all about the projects when talking about leveling admirals row to build a new supermarket with parking. if you smell a snake in the grass it's because there's a snake in the grass. and by the way, the justification for demolishing the brig site was to build a supermarket there too. keep that in mind as they now have no intention whatsoever to build a supermarket at the brig site. this is all bait and switch folks.

Posted by: guest at January 12, 2008 12:07 AM

They don't care about you, you're a nobody in this town if you ain't got the dough. All because of corporate greed and Bloomberg. In fact, they'll soon get rid of you, you know that.

Posted by: guest at January 12, 2008 9:26 AM

12:07 - I was at the very early public meetings (charrettes) about the brig site. Building a supermarket was most certainly not the justification. The justification was to put an empty and blighted piece of property back into use, to provide housing, provide affordable housing, and some retail. As far as I know that is still the plan.

Also, you should realize that the associated and Duane Reade were knocked down by as private developer and property owner. He doesn't have to ask permission to knock those down. That's his right. The Navy Yard is a quasi-governmental agency, so they actually take the needs of the surrounding community into consideration. Comparing the two situations is ridiculous. There is no conspiracy going on here. The private developer is doing what is in his best interest, and the gov't is trying to provide services to a disadvantaged community.

That is all.

-Ella

Posted by: guest at January 13, 2008 1:06 AM

Why is 'affordable housing' such a catch phrase for developers to make a go of all developments on Myrtle or the Admiral Rows. Bait and switch? If the semi-gvmt Navy Yard really want to provide svcs to the disadvantaged area, what's taking so long? If I recall correctly, in essence, the Navy Yard said it's not cost effective to rebuild the row, they rather raze it and build anew. It's business. In other words, they first want to make much money before helping the community. That's disingenuious. Statistics show only a very small %, if any, of affordable housing are available on site in most hi-rise condos in the city. Otherwise, the loopholes in zoning laws allow builders to build somewhere else. And what's wrong with having more than one supermarket in close proximity to these neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at January 13, 2008 8:40 PM

Ella, there is more than enough housing going up everywhere in Brooklyn. Where are the services for the people who are already here?

Posted by: guest at January 13, 2008 10:46 PM

Ella's defense of the quasi-gvmntal corp above is one-sided and smacks of lip service maybe due to loyalty to the hands that feed her. Of course, it makes sense if they say they're a business enterprise and they're here for profit. But none of the justification that Ella, who sounds like a spokesperson, is saying holds water. Rather it's an insult to the community's intelligence. Do you really want us to believe that the yard might do this for altruistic reasons bec it's a philanthropic org that cares about the disadvantaged? Conspiracy in the board room is alive and well, and not because the are conspiracy theorists.

Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 12:24 AM

Honestly I'm not sure what the last 3 comments had to do with what I said. I wasn't making an argument for or against anything. All I was doing was pointing out to the commenter at 12:07 that his conspiracy theory had a big whole in it because he was trying to draw a link (or a comparison) between the actions of a private developer on myrtle and govermental actions at Admirals Row.

But to answer some of those comments:
1) What's taking so long is that the federal government has not yet approved the sale of the property to the City
2) "Not cost effective" doesn't mean that Navy Yard is making money on the deal. Just that the amount of subsidy they would have to provide is too high. Choosing the option that loses you the least amount of money is very different that choosing the option that makes you the most money.
3) Not sure what the critique of affordable housing has to do with my point, which was really that the folks who are advocating the re-use of the brig have never really promised a supermarket and in fact, the RFP for the site only required a small amount of retail - nowhere near enough for a supermarket. I was simply refuted an incorrect statement made by 12:07.

4)And 12:24 - yes, I do belive that people who work for City gov't and related agencies do what they do for altruistic reasons. Why? Because I know many of them and talk to them often, and many of them could be making double their salary in the private sector, but choose to do this because they want to help the City that they love. Whether or not you agree that what they are doing is actually helping, you can still accept and appreciate that they are trying to help. I'm not sure how you think that these people will personally profit from this deal as it would obviously be audited pretty closely by the City (as all deals the Navy Yard makes are).

Ella

Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 9:29 AM

Ella - sorry, but to say that people who work for the city gov is altruistic is a joke in general. Some are fine workers alright. Like anything else, in private and public realms, it's a job and it's so easy to abuse power. Based on the results we know and what the population get in basic govt services, the govt fail in every case. If the bureaucrats who are prone to ineptitude and corruption want things done, they can be done. If what you say is true, this city will be on the cutting edge in all aspects of human services and quality of life issues.

Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 3:05 PM