« Wednesday Links No More Free Rides From Ikea? »

July 16, 2008

Whole Foods: Not the Best of Neighbors

3rd-street-landmark-headon.JPG
About a month ago, we posed the following question: Is Whole Foods to blame for the sorry state of the city landmark on the grocer's property at 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue? The answer, according to a story in today's Daily News, is yes. The property's owner entered into an agreement in 2005 with Whole Foods wherein the grocer was supposed to repair the structure, but the landmark Coignet Stone Company building has been abandoned to the elements for years as Whole Foods fails to make progress on its Gowanus supermarket. "The whole thing is a disaster," says Richard Kowalski, the building's owner. Kowalski planned to open an art gallery and gift store in the rehabilitated property. A Whole Foods spokesman is evasive about the supermarket's pledge to repair the landmark. "We have not been contacted in over a year by ... the owner of the building ... and we have no information whatsoever regarding the owner's plans for the building," spokesman Fred Shank told the Daily News. Our take: Whatever benefits this Whole Foods would bring to the neighborhood and Brooklyn have been greatly overshadowed in the past year or so by the store's lack of action in Gowanus. The fence at the abandoned toxic site has been destroyed again and again, giving the general public open-access to a potentially harmful property. At the same time, we now learn the grocer has reneged on its agreement to preserve a city landmark. Whole Foods, it's time to s*&t or get off the Gowanus pot.
Gowanus Landmark Building Caught in Repair Dispute [NY Daily News]
3rd St. Landmark Crumbling; Is Whole Foods to Blame? [Brownstoner]
Obstacles Remain for Whole Foods [Brownstoner]
Whole Foods Fence Saga Continues [Brownstoner]




Posted by Gabby at 9:00 AM | Comments (28)
Categories: Gowanus

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5532

Comments

This is truly abrogation of duty by WF. I suspect that they're hoping if they just ignore it long enough the building will fall into such disrepair that they can just tear it down.

Posted by: Atlantic Frantic at July 16, 2008 9:17 AM

I wonder what Whole Foods' carrying costs are for that site. Anyone have a ballpark guess about their monthly burn rate?

Posted by: plgdude at July 16, 2008 9:20 AM

The building doesn't seem any better or worse than it did 10 years ago.

Posted by: Polemicist at July 16, 2008 9:32 AM

I'm curious. doesn't the owner have some responsibility for this? He owned the building long before his agreement with WF and it is illegal to allow a landmarked building to simply fall into disrepair from neglect.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 9:42 AM

"doesn't the owner have some responsibility for this?" Exactly what I'm thinking. That building has been a wreck for decades. Now the owner is pissed at WF for not fixing it for him? WTF is he doing about it other than waiting for them to do it for him?

Posted by: Brooklynnative at July 16, 2008 10:13 AM

seems to me the owner is a greedy sob. plus i think the city is giving a whole food problems with building their thing. let them finish already.

Posted by: armchairwarrior at July 16, 2008 11:10 AM

Isn't the problem with Whole Foods "building their thing" that the site is chock full of toxins?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at July 16, 2008 11:21 AM

Whole Foods will NEVER open here - the site is too polluted - and please expect similar delays and cancellations of all the grand plans for residential housing along the canal (Public Place, Toll, etc...)

The liability related to cleaning and living on this land is enormous....Canal-side development sounds good - until you try to build

Posted by: fsrg at July 16, 2008 11:30 AM

Does anyone seriously expect WF to spend $$ to repair this building before getting their permits etc. settled with the city? That would be a poor use of what leverage they have here. Whether or not you're waiting with bated breath for the WF to open (and I'm not) - they're a business.

Posted by: geekspice at July 16, 2008 11:34 AM

wasn't WF aware of all this before they decided to build on the site? And can someone answer, is this site more polluted than the surrounding area? How are other nearby properties affected?

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 11:36 AM

I just went ahead,googled and found this article from 2006: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/50/29_50benzene.html

According to this the benzene pollution is spreading out, and going toward Park Slope in an ever widening circle. So if they can't get their permits, they will have lost a ton of money to do a massive failed clean up. If the pollution is spreading, the city really doesn't have much choice but to do a clean up- I have no doubt the residents of Park Slope will make certain they do.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 11:44 AM

Did any of you read the NY Daily News article before posting? Atlantic Frantic said: "abrogation of duty" .. WTF?!

["They were supposed to finish in two years," added Kowalski, who noted that a timeline he agreed to with Whole Foods was a nonbinding verbal agreement.]

This is real estate people ... "nonbinding verbal agreement" ... hahahhahah.

Feel bad for the guy but please get a clue.

Posted by: Mr Joist at July 16, 2008 11:48 AM

More the fool he. So is going to the papers a way of putting pressure on them? And why would he depend on a non-binding verbal agreement in the first place?

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 11:54 AM

This building is utterly insignificant architecturally (its proportions and detail suck) and the neighborhood would be better served by removing it. However if WF made a committment they should honor it, after they get their permit.
Regarding the pollution, its not really that complicated. I believe they've already removed much of the contaminated soil and are ready to cap over (within permissible guidlines) the rest.

Posted by: HDL at July 16, 2008 11:57 AM

"Did any of you read the NY Daily News article before posting." Mr. Joist, what else would you expect of Gabby. She has yet again shown how her posts bring down the quality of this site. I don't know what Stoner pays her, and I doubt it's much, but it's still clearly way too much. According to the article that she posts to, the owner has had the building since 92 (and has done nothing to it) he enters into a non-binding verbal agreement with WF, and he then fails to even contact them for the past year. Her conclusion upon reading or maybe not reading the article, is:

"the grocer has reneged on its agreement (reneged on a non-binding verbal agreement?) to preserve a city landmark. Whole Foods, it's time to s*&t or get off the Gowanus pot."

I think it's time Gabby for Gabby to go.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at July 16, 2008 12:05 PM

Has WF removed the contaminated soil?

Have they actually done anything on the site?

Looks pretty much abandoned.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at July 16, 2008 12:34 PM

a more prudent effort would be taking steps to see that whoever whole foods flips this site to commits to rehabbing the building in a timely fashion.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at July 16, 2008 12:49 PM

I've know a little, not a lot, about the requirements to clean up a toxic waste site like this. The state has probably required quite extensive testing done by boring into the ground into multiple locations. You then send them the results what was done there and then they may take years to get back to you on what they will require to be done. It's not easy to just clean up a site like this and you cannot forget that there are at least two if not multiple parties involved that need to coordinate and agree upon a plan of action. Often, it's not obvious what the best course of action is and you can have honest disagreements between the private party and the state.
If you don't know all the facts it's very easy to blame WF. Maybe they're dragging the feet or maybe they are simply waiting for the state to give them a decision on what it will require for them to move forward.

Posted by: Brooklynnative at July 16, 2008 12:59 PM

or maybe they're trying to sell b/c they can't afford to remediate.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at July 16, 2008 1:04 PM

HDL, LPC had a different opionion, but WTF do they know?

Posted by: g_man at July 16, 2008 1:16 PM

Sorry HDL, I don't agree. I think its a charming building and once renovated and spruced up it will be wonderful. Especially when juxtaposed with WF new building which will surely be a bland big-box warehouse. Besides, WF has deep pockets, if it wants to operate in BK it should be a good neighbor and lend a hand...

Posted by: qis4quincy at July 16, 2008 1:31 PM

deep pockets or not, if it's going to take years of operation to recoup remediation costs alone, the development is not feasible for their business. this is a supermarket operator, not a real estate developer.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at July 16, 2008 1:48 PM

LPC has designated it because of its historic value as gatehouse to some large estate now gone. It is totally out of context in its current location and creating meaningful context to it is a century or so out of date (maybe moving it would be better).
Why is it that anything with some neoclassical detail however ill conceived must be preserved. In its context, in its time... maybe as part of a larger historic fabric but not on its own. Nah. Ain't worth it. It was just NEVER that good.

Posted by: HDL at July 16, 2008 4:56 PM

I thought that the interesting thing about this building is that it is made entirely of concrete, and was in fact used as a showcase of all the nifty things one could do with concrete, by a manufacturer of - you guessed it - concrete.

Posted by: SnarkSlope at July 16, 2008 5:36 PM

Which makes it pretty cool, actually.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 6:12 PM

HDL,
It's too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. The building is the oldest known example of a concrete building in NYC. And the owner of "some large estate" was Edwin Litchfield, who owned much of the area and whose house still stands in Prospect Park--Litchfield Mansion. It would be great if you could inform yourself before spouting off. If you knew anything about historic preservation, which it is clear you do not, you would know that the importance of a structure or place lies in its historical associations and use of innovative materials, among other things--not just in its architecture per se.

Posted by: brooklynbridge at July 17, 2008 2:33 AM

Has anyone ever seen the interiors? Are there any photos anywhere?

Posted by: bxgrl at July 17, 2008 9:34 AM

I may not have gotten the history entirely correct, but that doesn't change my architectural opinion that it is an ugly, malproportioned, eyesore standing on its own totally out of context. "Oldest known concrete structure in NYC" ... still sucks. Send it to the Smithsonian.

Posted by: HDL at July 17, 2008 11:38 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions