160 Imlay Street: A Sacrificial Lamb?

I agree whole heartedly Mr. B. What a waste. Do something with this structure. Don't let it just rot. I know developers aren't this blog's favorite people, but this costing them a lot of money in holding costs/lost opportunity. I feel this is a case of misguided activism.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:13 AM

Amen.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:19 AM

Nice reporting, Brownstoner. This is an example of why I adore this web site.

Red Hook seems like a place that's got some major unresolved issues, and I think you're just scratching the surface of the kind of greed, corruption and hubris that's kept this part of the city in a delusional bubble.

Friends who live there say the area is so rat infested its scary to walk around -- no doubt the empty lots and buildings don't help much.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:26 AM

The Chamber is a total front for O'Connell. Its shocking that this fools anyone. How does Fairway and the apartments upstairs promote the industrial character of the neighborhood? How does Ikea promote the industrial character of the neighborhood? They dont! Its not hard to figure out why this project was stopped.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:29 AM

Another example of corruption and absolute greed. Lines the pockets of local mafiosos while residents are screwed.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:31 AM

It's about time someone noticed this---keep on it. Don't let the story die.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:31 AM

Are the politicians really worried about being anti industrial or are they getting greased? I wonder whats really going on here.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:43 AM

Not to defend this too much, but I think a very credible argument could be made that (i) this part of Red Hook (which next to a number of operating piers on the East River) should be kept industrial, and that (ii) comparisons to the commercial/residential development along the Erie Basin where Fairway, Ikea, etc are located are inapt.

Imlay Street is basically an 8 block road feeding warehouses built for the piers, and is 10-15 blocks away from the Erie Basin piers and even more from the Red Hook soccer fields, pool and other type amenities. Once an industrial park starts to become resdiential, the resistance to the shipping and hauling will grow and incentivize the remaining industrial usage to reloacte. Although the years-long tie up is bad news for attempts to revitalize the working waterfront, I think it's a fair issue to decide at the macro-level.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Good summary, but I think you missed one important point. Right now there are many industrial-zoned properties in the neighborhood that are vacant. The property oweners do not want to lease them out because they hope to get them rezoned (or get a BSA variance)to residential use, which will make the properties much more valuable. They are all waiting to see what happens with the 160 Imlay since it is viewed as a tipping point. If Imlay get the variance then it sets a precendent and all of the other industrial property owners will be able to make the same argument. In the meantime, all of this industrial propert sits vacatn, but not for lack of demand. If you look at the Navy Yard - it's 3.5 million SF of industrial space are completely full. There is clearly demand for industrial space. But I really think that Imlay street is viewed by both sides as the tipping point. If the variance is rejected, many of the industrial landowners will give up their dreams of residential conversion and rent out their spaces to the industrial tenants that are lining up to rent them. If Imlay gets it's variance, then we will see a flood of variance application from all of the other property owners in the neighborhood. The only thing that I can think of that would allow both to co-exist would be for City planning to step in and rezone the neighborhood creating a clear residential neighborhood and a clear industrial zone, and to make it clear that no variances will be granted in the industrial zone - maybe make it an IBZ (indutrial business zone).

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:00 PM

12:00 that was really informative. Thanks!

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:08 PM

12:00 very insightful.

It is a shame for this building to sit idle; however, I've walked by it several times, and drove by as well.

It is immediately next to the working part of the waterfront. As things stand, it's a terrible place for residential development.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:14 PM

For better or for worse, 161 Imlay Street is perceived as a beachhead by both the industrial retentionists and Red Hook’s pro-residential conversion faction. Sure, some so-called Red Hook chamber folks are faking the funk and are simply looking enlarge their empire, but there are plenty of legitimate Red Hook businesses and manufacturers which see Imlay Street as spot zoning and a sincere threat to their livelihood – the old domino effect.

On the other hand, I understand pro-residential contingency and their desire to bulk up the neighborhood in order to bring about more amenities and services. Perhaps their aim, converting wicked cool, Meat Marketesque buildings into luxury condos, is way too controversial and perhaps incongruous with the desires of many community stakeholders. If the goal is to bring more people to RH, would it not be easier to build housing on currently vacant residential lots or residentially zoned buildings which are nowhere near the allowable FAR such the Fine Fare Supermarket?

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:14 PM

Fairway and its connected appartments are actually waterfront. This property does not connect to the water. The fairway buildings would been great industrial space, but it did not go that way. This is not the tipping point. The tipping point passed a long time ago in Red Hook. This is protecting personal interests with false activism.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:16 PM

12:00 PM

Red Hook is in the IBZ, but Imlay Street and Revere Sugar are in the ombudsman zone which permits conversion.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:17 PM

"This property does not connect to the water."

Yes, and what lies directly between this site and the water again?

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:39 PM

In a selfish note, the delay has kept imlay as one of the best running routes in the city...

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:47 PM

In a selfish note, the delay has kept imlay as one of the best running routes in the city...

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 12:47 PM

12.39 - this property connects to the cruise ship terminal. The terminal delivers people/tourists into the New York area - not goods. This is part of the evidence that the tipping point away from an industrial waterfront has already occurred. The fact that the Fairway and Ikea stores exist in Red Hook at all is further evidence that this shift has already occurred. Maybe this property should be converted into a Duty Free retail location or a row of gift shops selling little Statue of Liberty toys and I Love NY tee shirts. Would that help promote the "industrial character" of the area? The point is that the argument does not hold water (excuse the pun) because its is not consistently enforced. It is enforced based on wholly different set of forces that are political in nature.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:18 PM

Thanks for reporting on this Brownstoner. It is so depressing to drive past this building month after month, year after year, watching it decay. I would love to see the whole area be converted to a mixed use special purpose district where some light industrial can peacefully coexist with residential uses, similar to how it currently seems to be heading in the Columbia Waterfront District. This is prime waterfront property, with some of the most beautiful views that the city has to offer and none of the industry currently existing is using any of this waterfront property for shipping purposes, including Ikea (which kills me, but that's a lost battle). Sunset Park has a huge industrial swath of land that is entirely under utilized, with no residential development inside this zone. Red Hook is a completely wasted neighborhood at the moment and I guarantee you that if anything beyond light industry moves back into Red Hook there will be a huge protest from all the residential property that already exists in the neighborhood, including the Red Hook Housing projects. Yes, the tipping point passed a long time ago... toward residential.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 1:27 PM

Except for the pj residents, I think most red hook residents are bit schizo when it comes to land use. They desperately claim they want more residential buildings, but they also want all the perks of an industrial neighborhood - easy parking, little traffic, cheaper housing costs, more sky, and no uptight block associations blowing the whistle on any unruly activities, illegal or otherwise. However, as the community matures, hopefully residents will realize that there is a quid pro quo (more residents=no more easy parking) and be far more strategic in obtaining their goals.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:10 PM

12:14 -- These are meatpacking district-type buildings, and hence hold not only a historic appeal, but a huge aesthetic one. They're simply cool. Building new condos can't compare to the kind of value (price wise and community wise) of having buildings like this (think Dumbo or Soho) as residences. I know people hate what happened to Dumbo, Soho, Tribeca, but when you walk through those areas, you have to admit that for all the gross wealth and glamour, that kind of money permitted those areas to retain their heritage.

Unlike, say, most of brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:28 PM

Oops, I meant "to retain their ARCHITECTURAL heritage". Any other heritage has been wiped out -- in all parts of New York, glamorous or not.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:29 PM

12:14,

As few years ago, I was asked to testify in favor of the Imlay Street BSA and I couldn't do it. As a former affordable housing organizer, I could never shill for luxury housing. That said, Red Hook may not be as pretty as parts of swanky Manhattan, but it is a hell of a lot more diverse and interesting than Soho. No doubt it is Red Hook's state of limbo that keeps it that way.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:36 PM

For more than a year, I ran past this building several times a week (the German shepherds behind the fence always scaring the crap out of me). What an utter waste. This place could help anchor Red Hook in a big way. Red Hook needs a serious infusion of quality development (the other stuff being built is hideous). This could be it. Otherwise, I think Red Hook will retreat back into the shadows, with folks only going there to buy groceries, furniture or whiskey until LeNell's moves from that location. LeNell's is moving too. One of the employees told me that about two weeks ago but the owner hasn't secured a new spot.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:40 PM

Hey 2:36, I think you were responding to me (2:28). I never meant to compare Soho and Red Hook in terms of their diversity or character. I think you're right. I just meant that if you're going to use the space as retail, small industry, commercial etc.... it's gonna really suck for the neighborhood. (So long diversity here comes MORE OF THE SAME CRAP that's been invading red hook in the last few years).

Why don't you do affordable housing organizing anymore? I'm actually curious, not being facetious ("what, you just gave up?"). I have this perhaps naive thought that affordable and a-list can actually co-exist maybe even in the same building. (I grew up in mitchell lama, we had a huge mix of incomes.)

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:45 PM

I heard there was talk of converting it to a luxury hotel to service Queen Mary passengers? What ever happened to all the jobs promised?

By the way, was just down on Pier 41 on business. Red Hook, at least in the 15 years I have been going down there, has always seemed like it wanted to be off the grid. There definitely are a bunch of pirates living down there.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 2:54 PM

Times change. Imagine what the Columbia Waterfront would be like if it one day becomes an extension of the Brooklyn Bridge Park (which I spend allot imagining will actually get built itself one day). 100 years ago Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens and Red Hook lived off the jobs that the waterfront generated. Atlantic Avenue was full of bars, restaurants and whorehouses that catered to dock workers. Today Atlantic Ave is a very different place (in fact is has changed greatly in just the last 5 years). There is no doubt that this history is part of the charm and character of these waterfront neighborhoods, but times change. Most of the jobs have moved to New Jersey or simply gone away because of container technology. These neighborhoods are simply different than they used to be and in some ways this is great and in some ways it’s bad (depends on who you are). But the tipping point towards a residential neighborhood turned a long time ago. Trying to make the argument that Red Hook is or should still be an industrial oriented neighborhood is a tough one - (and I hate to say it) even if thats how you make your living.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:09 PM

The law of supply and demand. The less available apts. are in Red Hook, the more that can be charged for the luxury and pseudo-luxury apts. that are there. To those who know the neighborhood well the Red Hook/Gowanus "Chamber of Commerce" is obviously a front for developers who want to make money off of their own properties. There were plenty of great buildings on Beard Street that got demolished for Ikea parking. If someone was really serious about industry they would have sued to keep these. If they did, would they have been suing themselves?

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 3:27 PM

12:14 have you seen the new residential housing that has been built in the past three years in Red Hook? They are hideous, poorly built and all lie vacant. Developers don't seem to understand the type of person who might be attracted to living in Red Hook. Living in a giant old shipping building with views of New York Harbor and downtown Manhattan... now that might attract people to the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:01 PM

4:01,

Maybe having ugly housing stock is Red Hook's greatest asset? Maybe we don't want to attract the Sex and the City crowd. As a resident Red Hook resident, I have been completely underwhelmed with the tenants of the Fairway building. These are not engaged and involved citzens that will help bring about positive change - just transient rich folk. However, I believe the influx of new homeowners create by the Fifth Avenue Committee's buildings (yes, the ugly ones) on Wolcott and Coffey Street will indeed join the the jamboree and engage on important the important social issues affecting RH such as crime, transit schools and jobs.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:18 PM

Often ignored is the fact that the Supreme Court Justice found that BSA issued the variance illegaly.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:32 PM

4:18,
I absolutely agree with you regarding the Fifth Ave. Committee buildings. But there are other new buildings, that are not affordable housing, that lie vacant. As for the tenants of the Fairway Building, these are renters, and are for the most part, as you said, rich transients. And although they may not be community activists they do play an important part in keeping the local restaurants and stores in business, and with more restaurants and stores will perhaps come more people buying housing, and owners will be activists. I also think that 156 Imlay's first round of residents will be a much more intrepid than the Sex in the City crowd. But appreciate your point.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:40 PM

Mr. B - Much more nuanced than the typical anti-development rant. Glad to see some objective reporting. Yrs, Guest

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:47 PM

4:18, if you want activism you have to get home owners who have a stake in the neighborhood. Just look at neighborhoods like Clinton Hill that are really working toward improving their public schools. Or Carroll Gardens where they turned the Carroll School from a mediocre elementary school into one of the best.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 4:50 PM

I work at a non-profit that provides several business services to the manufacturing and industrial businesses that are located in Red Hook and can attest to the growth of these sectors in the last 20 years. We have done door to door surveying in the area and have counted no less than 455 businesses supporting 3937 jobs. These stats do not include any sort of extrapolation (we couldn’t access all businesses and some did not want to disclose their employment stats), so the actual job count is significantly higher. This same survey found less than a 3% vacancy rate for industrial property in Red Hook (as well as neighboring Gowanus, and less than a 1% vacancy rate in Sunset Park). 5% is considered a healthy vacancy rate.

People these days constantly hear about the exodus of manufacturing businesses from the Unites States, but businesses that have held on in Brooklyn, in communities like Red Hook, have done so because they service the local economy. They bake the bread that is served at Manhattan hotels and restaurants, they service the photocopying machines that keep our companies running, and they mix the concrete that is literally building New York City.

Not only do they provide us with countless services, but they provide valuable blue collar jobs. Manufacturing jobs on average pay more than $10,000 a year more than do retail and tourism jobs, often include health insurance, and teach employees with transferable skills. More importantly, they provide opportunities for people that do not have a high-school (let alone a college) degree, do not speak English, may have spent time in prison, or have other barriers to employment. In fact, city-wide, 58% of the manufacturing sector has a high school degree or less and 20% of the manufacturing sector has limited English capabilities. Especially when looking at the socio-economics of a community like Red Hook, where 70% of the population lives in public housing (according to the 2000 census), you begin to understand why such a community in fact benefits from its manufacturing zones, much more than it would from luxury housing.

On a final note, I think its worth mentioning that the property owner of 161 Imlay Street also owns several multi-storied (near) fully tenanted industrial buildings in Sunset Park. While the city may have stopped their effort to convert this property for residential use, there is nothing stopping them from renting the building to light industrial businesses that are looking for a new home.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:09 PM

5.09 - I say this with all respect because I understand that we are speaking about peoples jobs and a way of life, but 3937 jobs is a very, very small portion of the Brooklyn economy. In addition, if we consider that this is within 455 businesses, it means the average business employs around 8 people. This is not exactly earth shattering stuff if you consider that Brooklyn has a population of 2.5 million and 415,000 commute into Manhattan every day. I hate to say that (to my eyes at least) your stats confirm that light industry in these parts of Brooklyn is a thing of the past.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:47 PM

5:09, Thanks for a very informative post. I understand that it is important to keep these manufacturing jobs in Brooklyn, however I still believe that a building like 160 Imlay that is on the waterfront of New York city should not be used for manufacturing that has no use for the waterfront. We have to figure out a way to move non maritime manufacturing and industrial jobs away from the waterfront. The waterfront is just too valuable to the people of New York City who already have so little open air space.

Although Sunset Park is also on the waterfront it is a huge area that is almost entirely devoted to industrial and manufacturing sector. If the owner of 161 Imlay has buildings their as well, then they took a risk and lost and I'm sure they can live with that.

Red Hook, on the other hand has a very large residential community, one that is probably not interested in having concrete mixed in their backyard. It may be okay for the parents to work in a concrete mixing factory but it is not okay that this factory give their children asthma and shorten their lives.

I find it hard to believe that Sunset Park has a 1% vacancy rate. I quick drive around the neighborhood will turn up quite a few derelict unused buildings and properties.

Out of curiosity, why were you guys not there to stop the Ikea site from moving away from industrial use? This land certainly must have been valuable to an organization like yours.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 5:54 PM

Hands down best discussion in months.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:15 PM

Hello, 5:47: the 3,997 jobs that I mentioned are in Red Hook only. When Bloomberg established the industrial business zones in 2005, there were 500,000 manufacturing and industrial businesses city wide. I understand that you may not think one business employing 8 people is significant, but when variances like the one that 161 Imlay Street tried to get are granted, it can easily cause a domino effect, resulting in the displacement of several businesses employing roughly 8 people. You can see how these numbers add up.

Posted by: guest at February 7, 2008 6:36 PM

The "Supreme Court" (I put this in parenthesis b/c this is actually the lowest court in NY) made a number of dubious rulings in this case. The court struck down the variance b/c it claimed the developer's economic analysis did not prove economic hardship for each and every use of the building that is permitted by current zoning; the developer had shown economic hardship for only certain as of right uses. Now everyone knows that this would have been an idle exercise, since if you cannot make an economic return from using the building as, say a warehouse, you are not going to make it by using the building as a book depository (which is what it once was BTW).

Ask yourself the question: who benefits from tying up the project? Hint: the same people that are landbanking Brooklyn real estate. O'Connell (his partner is Douglas Durst) is the one pulling the strings and at one point promised to make the litigation go away. His demand? For the developers to sell the building to HIM (!) for 30 cents on the dollar. Can anyone spell extortion?

The reality is that the market will determine highest and best use of a particular property. The market wants housing. There are hundreds of families who need decent and clean place to live and who cannot afford the high pricing in more established neighborhoods. Any economics 101 student knows that when supply is artificially contrained, prices stay inflated. As a result of this litigation, supply of housing has been removed from the market. NY City has spent a million dollars on the appeals (if you did not know this, the litigation is betwen the Chamber of Commerce, an O'Connell straw, and the City of NY -- the developer was never named in the suit). Yes, your tax payer dollars are being hijacked by O'Connell's litigation! And the City has lost millions of dollars in real estate taxes that would have been generated in the past 3+ years; together with loss of approximately 1,000 construction JOBS. It's a sad state of affairs b/c after burning up millions of dollars in carrying costs, the project is probably not viable any longer.

The only reason that O'Connell is advocating industrial use is b/c he had assembled his Red Hook holdings from the city at pennies on the dollar. By denying others the chance to make a viable economic return, he hopes to bleed them dry and displace other land owners from the landscape. He then has a chance to grab the remaining assets from the banks at depressed prices. Once he controls a critical mass of real estate, he gets to redevelop it. Prediction as to what that will be? Condos! O'Connell knows that housing generates more profit than industrial space (and I assure you he is a profit maximizer, despite his public persona to the contrary)

Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 10:27 AM

I've been working in Red Hook as a welder for almost 3 decades. I've spent my entire time working at one company. When I first started working in Red Hook, Red Hook was a dangerous place. I was scared to go on the street. My car was broken into many times and a few times I wish I'd had a gun with me while trying to get home. I could not take my daughters or my wife to show them my shop, and I felt uncomfortable even going to work. I've been waiting for Red Hook to get nicer for as long as I can remember.

Now it's actually a good place to live and it's getting nicer. Too bad it didn't happen 20 years ago.

And now that someone wants to make Red Hook a little nicer still and a little safer for us working folk, why do people not let this project go on? It's a big building and that means a lot of work. Plumbers, carpenters, electricians, you name it, maybe even a little welding work. There'd be a lot of guys working there, making good money, every week. And paying taxes and buying beer after work. Instead, you have a big empty building doing no one any good. Even the dog inside seems hungry and pissed off.

So to anyone who has stopped this project, I say, stop screwing the blue collar worker with your academic garbage. Let us work in peace and let us make a living. You can paint your castles in the sky and tell us stories about factories coming here and a bunch of other baloney. And even though I'm not some smart lawyer, I know at the end of the day, you are just trying to line your own pockets. I don't know how exactly, but I do know that's why you're preventing me and my buds from working. So let me work. Let my buddies work. Let the working class do what it does: work. We're not interested in waiting for your factories or your industries or listening to whatever nonsense you're selling.

Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:03 PM

This would make some very interesting investigative journalism if it was agressively pursued. Who is being used? Who is being paid off? What are the real forces at play here? Is the activism rooted in the desire to protect real workers and a dignified way of life or to advance the agenda of rich landowners at the expense of local residents?

What is better for the stability of a neighborhood - Fairway with its traffic and the transient nature of rental tenants? Maybe new condo owners who are vested in the neighborhood (even if they watch sex in the city) or maybe even good old fashioned light industry? There are some complicated forces at play here and many of those forces are not exactly as they appear at first glance.

Posted by: guest at February 8, 2008 3:11 PM

well, Brownstoner, perhaps this is a much more interesting discussion because your post was about something other than the usual "here's a 3 million dollar house, for which I'm providing advertising for the broker, hot or not? discuss.." types of posts. There are a lot more interesting development stories out there - problem is, I'm not sure you current advertisers would pay for them. Perhaps a better mix of stories can be had - let one pay for the other...

Posted by: guest at February 9, 2008 1:49 PM