« Big in the Burg: Rose Plaza on the River Development Watch: 80 Dekalb Avenue »
May 19, 2008
Development Planned Above Waverly Associated

Most of the supermarkets in the Clinton Hill area are housed in one- or two-story buildings, an arrangement that is presumably leaving lots of developable air rights unused. One owner of one of these properties is starting to move on a plan to more fully monetize his propertyand we won't be surprised if others follow. According to an item that's been placed on the June 3 calendar of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the owner of 367 Waverly Avenue, a one-story structure that currently houses an Associated supermarket, has submitted a proposal "to modify the existing building and construct a new 3 story addition." We haven't seen any drawings yet, but presumably they will be on view at LPC. Anyone heard anything about this one?
June 20 Calendar [LPC] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4904
Comments
"Monetize"?
Just say no to Wall Street jargon infiltrating the daily idiom!
Posted by: Cobblekrill at May 19, 2008 11:53 AM
I've been waiting for years for the Key Foods on 7th and Carrol, 5th Avenue around St. Marks, and the Mc Donald's on 4th and 1st to become residential properties. All huge lots, 1 story buildings, and businesses with pretty thin profit margins.
Anyone know what was on 7th and Carrol before the Key Food? I've always wondered about that.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 19, 2008 11:57 AM
"Businesses with pretty thin profit margins..." OK, so close those supermarkets too, and where are people going to buy groceries? We shouldn't have to get into our cars, spend $4+ on gasoline, just to buy food. Ridiculous.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 12:01 PM
"We shouldn't have to get into our cars, spend $4..." no you shouldn't and have no excuse to if you shop in either of those two supermarkets. Join the Coop and stop your bellyaching.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 19, 2008 12:10 PM
Which Co-op are you talking about? The Park Slope Co-Op is no place near Clinton Hill. If you are talking about the still in the planning stage Fort Greene Co-op, there is nothing to join (or rather to buy yet). It is more than belly-aching to comment that many low-income, and even middle income neighborhoods like Clinton Hill are underserved by supermarkets. Does anyone know if the plans on this site include maintaining the supermarket on the first floor?
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at May 19, 2008 1:22 PM
Hey Putz can you read? I brought up two supermarkets in PARK SLOPE. 12:01 then said "so close those supermarkets TOO, and where are people going to buy groceries." So, we're talking about Park Slope food stores not Clinton Hall. Moreover, we shopped at the Coop for years when I left in Williamsburg. You could take the bus there, then pay for car service home and still save a bundle.
Posted by: Brooklynnative at May 19, 2008 1:32 PM
Brooklynnative, 12:01 here. I don't even have car and I'm not near the Co-Op...and I am talking about the editorial "we." NYC, in general--not just Brooklyn--is suffering the loss of too many supermarkets (lengthy article in the NYTimes not too long ago...look it up). So just keep on bringing in the developers and eliminate what little we have left of choice.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 1:43 PM
I am wondering which member of the brain trust allowed the Myrtle Ave. market by the Walt Whitman houses to be closed without replacement? This was supposedly "soothed" by a temporary free shuttle from the projects to Pathmark.
How can current, heavily used services be demolished leaving an entire community with nothing? While I am continuing in this trend, where are all the new schools and services needed to support the presumed children and families in all of these two and three bedroom apartments springing up everywhere? As witnessed in Williamsburg, where they could use Tokyo style "people pushers" to cram crowds into the L train doors during rush hours, overdevelopment leads to real competition for scarce resources.
Give us some schools and a decent reasonably priced clean butcher/baker/fish store/drygoods before we build anything else!
Let's urge the LPC to consider this ONLY with a well paced plan in place for preserving the market during construction.
Grrrrrr.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 2:27 PM
Um, what part of ""to modify the existing building and construct a new 3 story addition." was not clear?
ADDITION to the building, as in put something on top of the existing grocery store.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 2:33 PM
Vote for Obama if you want lower gas prices.
Screw the free market.
Socialism is the answer and Brooklyn rocks!
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 3:05 PM
Is 2:27 from Sweden or some place?
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 3:26 PM
3:26, it's probably safe to assume he/she is from some place.
Posted by: Biff Champion at May 19, 2008 3:33 PM
2:27 has lived here since 1971 and has never been to sweden.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 3:44 PM
And what part of ""to modify the existing building and construct a new 3 story addition." says the store won't close while they're working on it? We're SOL.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 4:02 PM
Thanks, Biff, that's real helpful. Let me rephrase: whatever made 2:27 think that the owner of the property opposite Ingersol had an obligation to replace the services in the buildings that he tore down so he could construct new ones? And what makes 2:27 think that LPC can block a redevelopment plan based on the need for more supermarkets in the area? -- 3:26
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 4:29 PM
Hi 4:29. I have no illusions that the owner of the property facing Ingersoll has ANY obligation whatsoever. That obligation remains the responsibility of our elected officials who have been blinded to the real needs of the community. It's not unusual to provide zoning waivers or other bonuses to developers in exchange for schools, parks or other community enhancement. It's our officials who need to enforce this because there's not a chance any developer will do it without coercion.
We should be demanding a little less NIMBY from people who want no change at all and a little more realistic public demand for basic community services in exchange for their perceived right to overbuild.
Our elected officials can and should demand more.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 5:40 PM
I could care less about more apts or condos being built. Give me a decent supermarket that doesnt smell like a cat or damp mop,where the meat isnt all but black when you get home and take it out the package and flip it over, where the oranges have some juice when you cut them and arent old and shriveled up and the milk's expiration date is at least a week out.With these gas prices , I am tired of trekking to other nabes to do my shopping and DONT mention not fresh direct.
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 6:16 PM
2:27/5:40 - the developer of the site is the owner of Gristedes and is building a supermarket. The article was on Brownstoner just two months ago.
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/03/catsimatidis_sa.php
Do a little research before your spout unnecessary venom. And please try to be a little nicer to the people around you.
Love,
your neighbor
Posted by: guest at May 19, 2008 6:19 PM
"Brooklynnative" could you stop with the nastiness already? If I misread your comment, I'm sorry - but really calling me a "dick" in any language is really tiresome. Take it down a notch. Do you speak pleasantly to people in person? If so, please try to carry those skills over here.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at May 19, 2008 8:20 PM
I would like to focus this discussion to the practical. The problem with the assoicated is that it is not at all in the context of the neighborhood and that there is really no proper delivery area or regulation of the deliveries made to the market (not to mention where the garbage is kept and picked up from). Almost every morning I wake to the sound of someone holding a car horn and cursing at a delivery guy that is blocking the street (this is probably a good thing since I am a chronic snoozer). If landmarks and city planning (I am assuming they will have to get some sort of zoning change or varience) allow this development to go forward they should require changes that bring the building into the context of the existing architechture (namely, get rid of the awful red sign that casts an erie light into my window at night)and require a legitimate delivery and garbage storage area so the street is not incumbered. Adding some parking would be a good thing as well. I saw a condo project go up in a landmarked area in Philadelphia where they tunneled under the building to grant access into the back of the building. I would love to see them do something like that.
Posted by: guest at May 20, 2008 11:24 AM
ISn't Waverly one of the few "alleys" - in that it was originally lined with stables for the larger houses on Clinton and Washington? I'm with 11:24 in that I understand his/her irritation with noise and light (I have a Masonic Temple across the street whose crowds wake me up many a weekend night). On the other hand if we accept NYC as being unlike the suburbs in that residential and commercial areas are not strictly separated, it is hard to see how one could avoid this. ISn't there a no-parkign trucks only zone in front of the market? Perhaps that could be extended - of course at the cost of reducing on the street parking for others...
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at May 20, 2008 12:19 PM
As someone who lives in the Clinton Hill Coops, I really hope the Associated will continue to be there. It is wonderful to have a decent (compared to a lot of Brooklyn supermarkets like Pathmark--uggh) place to pick up last minute ingredients and produce, and the hours are pretty good. The folks who work there are really nice and friendly, and always say hello when we see them on the street. We also shop at other places in the neighborhood, like L'Epicerie (for special treats), and of course the Ft. Greene Park farmer's market, but without this market we'd be forced to rely on Fresh Direct.
P.S. I also think it's a crime that the only grocery store near the Ingersoll Houses was torn down. But that's capitalism for you. During the Depression, chickens were dumped into the East River because no one could afford to buy them.
Posted by: guest at May 20, 2008 12:38 PM

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