« Draining the Pool of its Party Shell of Its Former Self, 925 Fulton Street For Sale »

August 1, 2008

DoBro Redevelopment Not So Great for Everyone

Not everybody is profiting off the Downtown Brooklyn boom, according to a recent report. Families United for Racial and Economic Equality (FUREE) and the Urban Justice Center conducted surveys of 61 small businesses in Downtown Brooklyn over the past year and found 35 have since moved or gone under. Many of the closures were attributed to four large projects &mdash City Point, Al Laboz's planned Willoughby West tower, Stahl Real Estate's 50-story office tower, and the planned Willoughby Square Park &mdash and the decrease in daytime business as office towers were emptied for residential development. Three-quarters of the owners surveyed are immigrants, 64 percent non-white, and 23 percent women.

The report, "Out of Business," points out that Fulton Mall was already one of the city's most successful retail corridors with 100,000 daily shoppers and $100 million in annual sales. In fact, a prominent local broker explained to us that Fulton Mall's retail space is so lucrative that landlords actually removed stairwells and elevators in many of the buildings to create more ground-floor space, which now rents at between $150 and $300 per square foot (we were wondering why all the unsightly boarded-up windows). He said residential and low-end office tenants who would have rented out the upper levels were more troublesome and less lucrative, so landlords simply boarded up the windows and stopped maintaining those floors. FUREE co-director Ilana Berger suggested landlords re-open that less expensive space to small business owners, many who had already been paying prime ground-floor rates, as one way to maintain Fulton Mall's diversity. But she acknowledged that after decades of neglect, renovation would be costly. Berger said she also tried to meet with the City Point developers to help secure space for displaced and aspiring small businesses owners in the tower's 500,000 square feet of planned retail, but was met with disinterest. Click through for stories on some of the businesses profiled in the report, and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership's response...

Alas, the report alludes, the new residents and office tenants the city hopes to attract don't generally shop at the same book and apparel stores; they don't get their hair and nails done at the same places; and they want a different crop of restaurants. And the landlords (only five of the entrepreneurs surveyed owned their store or building) want to cash in on the lucrative 2004 Downtown Brooklyn re-zoning, but in order to build towers, the existing business owners had to be kicked out. But will they be invited back?

Joe Chan, president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, a public-private agency, responded with a statement: "Downtown Brooklyn is one of the fastest growing urban centers in America. The redevelopment activity in the area brings with it jobs and a permanently enhanced local economy. The Downtown Brooklyn Partnership with its BID partners work to connect small business owners with available resources and appropriate service providers."

According to the report, many small business owners weren't offered this assistance. Berger said the city could create a Business Relocation Assistance Corporation for Downtown Brooklyn like they have in Williamsburg-Greenpoint and other parts of the city. Displaced small businesses are provided grants that help with relocation costs such as moving heavy equipment; hiring lawyers, architects and contractors; and other costs associated with signing a new lease. Otherwise, relocation assistance is on the onus of landlords, isn't always honored, and often involves lawyers. Here are a few businesses profiled:

Gallery Religious Supplies owner Maisha Morales bought the business around 2001 when it was still at Albee Square Mall, and increased its daily earnings from $100 to $2,500 by 2006, according to the report. In in effort to sign a 20-year lease under previous owner Thor Equities, she spent $15,000 on lawyers, architects and contractors, then was served a nine-day eviction notice when rights to develop the building were awarded to the new owners, MacFarlane Partners and Acadia Realty Trust. She had to spend $85,000 to move and now pays three times her former rent for space on Willoughby Street.
A & B Books owner Eric Gift, at one time the largest distributor of African American literature in the country with three stores in the Downtown Brooklyn area, may have to close his last location on Duffield Street, in the footprint of the planned Willoughby Square Park, if the city moves forward with seizing the property via eminent domain. The Lawrence Street and Atlantic Avenue locations closed down due to lack of business because of ongoing construction and changing demographics, according to the report. They first opened in 1989.
Lawrence Street Wigs and Hats owners Joyce and Jee Kiehm ran a thriving business since 1986 by making customized wigs. They were forced out of 141 Lawrence Street because the new owner of their building, Stahl Real Estate, wants to build a 50-story tower, according to the report.
Bagel Guys, at 102 Willoughby across from MetroTech, ran a thriving business until the Verizon building was sold and many Chase workers were relocated to New Jersey, but stuck around hoping the new BellTel residents would boost business again, according to the report. Despite being on a month-to-month lease since 2005, owner Jeff Garguilo bought out his partners with the understanding that his business would be safe for at least the next five years, then was served with a 60-day eviction notice once his landlord decided to redevelop the property. He is unemployed and unable to find affordable space within the vicinity, but is still looking.

The questions of the day are: What responsibility does the city have to ensure that these small business owners don't fall into financial ruin in the process? And is there going to be a higher demand for the new businesses coming in than the ones already there, considering what's available in surrounding retail corridors?

DoBro's Average Household Income to Double? [Brownstoner]
Massive Bridge Street Tower In The Works? [Brownstoner]
Albee Square Mall Clears Out [Brooklyn Eagle]
Much of Downtown Brooklyn Is Going Out of Business [Brooklyn Eagle]

The study area:

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5706

Comments

Was there opposition to the rezoning in 2004?

Posted by: bklynite at August 1, 2008 9:49 AM

I know there will be many writing in who say, "tough sh@t. If you can't pay, you can't play." That is shortsighted and untrue. There certainly is plenty of precident for very large businesses to be underwritten, given huge tax breaks, money under the table, and countless perks to have them stay or relocate in an area, including downtown Bklyn.

Small businesses are vital to any good economy. Minority business empowerment can mean more than just money to the business owner. It is jobs for others, and a step on the ladder to do bigger and better things. In a time when too many in society are still stereotyping minorities as lazy, small business owners are working like dogs to make their way. There is certainly room on Fulton St, and the side streets downtown.

Most of the landlords on Fulton Street make enough money for them to reopen and refurbish their upper floors. I don't understand why they would rather the unsightly, unsafe conditions to be the order of the day, when a beautiful downtown could command even higher rents, not to mention the extra income from renting the upper floors. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Not able to comment further as will be away from a computer all day, but I'm sure this will get quite heated. Later.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 1, 2008 9:52 AM

Two things:

1. Sounds like greedy landlords made their own beds by failing to maintain their buildings. But, in the course of doing this, they made their retail tenants the victims.

2. The displacement and destruction of local businesses in DT BK sounds a lot like what happened in many urban areas when urban renewal and interstate highways permanently altered the physical landscape in many cities. The difference is that the end result will be more people living in DT BK (which really becomes a scary area after all those businesses closes), which I can't help but see as a good thing.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at August 1, 2008 9:53 AM

DoBro? Ugh......

Posted by: Dyker Blights at August 1, 2008 10:15 AM

Downtown is empty at night, as are many parts of Manhattan that are bustling business districts during the day. The City needs a broad range of businesses and services. By catering to one demographic, and destroying healthy businesses, we're simply repeating on a local level the problem we created on a much larger citywide scale- too much dependency on too few industries- in this case Wall St., financial industries and real estate. (and that has also been reported on.)

Instead of trying to integrate the success of Fulton St. and the communities it serves with the needs and wants of newcomers, there is a concerted effort to simply do a gut reno and create what amounts to a virtual gated community in Downtown. The refined aesthetics of new residents aren't in sync with the present incarnation of Fulton St. Not pretty enough. Not expensive enough. Not classy enough.

Yet small and minority owned businesses, and the middle and lower economic classes are a crucial part of the city economy.Destroying their success is a mistake, economically an socially.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 10:41 AM

I'm on a bit of a rant about small business closings lately, after learning that A&S in Park Slope is closing because their landlord is more than doubling their rent. Having witnessed the uber-gentrification of 5th Ave over the last 7 years, and having recently moved to a much-less-gentrified but still gentrifying neighborhood, and recognizing that our family plays a clear role in that gentrification, I'm beginning to feel really strongly that the city needs to take steps to balance growth in its neighborhoods. No one wants to live in a place that only has check cashing places and bodegas, but no one - or at least not me - wants to live in a place full of repeats of the same bland, overpriced restaurants, boutiques, banks, and chain stores.

Small, locally- and/or minority-owned businesses are great things for neighborhoods, as others have said above, and there should be a way to preserve the diversity of types of business that you see in 'hoods that have seen some improvements but aren't totally over the top.

The city should provide tax credits to landlords who rent to local-owned or minority-owned businesses at less-than-market rates, and they should provide assistance to those businesses to help them stay in business. That will help curb the leaps-and-bounds growth in commercial AND residential rents, which in turn will help keep middle and working class people from being pushed further and further out. It will also create and maintain businesses that serve the myriad residents of neighborhoods instead of just the affluent new arrivals. And as for paying for such things, maybe the city could cut back on the giveaways to the Goldman Sachs and the Bruce Ratners a bit, in favor of preserving some of the vibrancy that gives (gave?) this city its soul.

**Steps down from soapbox**

Posted by: hangonsloopy2 at August 1, 2008 10:58 AM

I totally agree, hangonsloopy2. We've been so focused on the money, that we've failed to see the whole picture. If we don't address how growth and change affect all of us, we will all pay for it in the long run.

I'll be the first to admit the financial and economic niceties are not my forte, but I do know that if you don't realistically assess the impact of single-minded development for a hi-end demographic in borderline and "up-and-coming neighborhoods, you will create social problems that come back to haunt you. this is playing out all over the city, from Harlem to Bed-Stuy, CHN, ft. Greene, Williamsburg, etc. And social problems will translate into financial ones.

Thinking development occurs in a community vacuum, or has no impact beyond a few hundred yards of the front door is completely foolish.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 11:30 AM

Come on...I am sure that as Downtown undergoes Billions of dollars of redevelopment, many small business will either change or fail but citing this report is ludicrous - ignore the fact that it is being conducted by an organization with an obvious agenda, they based their findings soley on the anecdotes of 61 people. There are literally hundreds of businesses in downtown brooklyn - the personal opinions of the 60 people willing to speak with the Families United for Racial and Economic Equality is hardly a representative sample of anything except a pre-ordained determination.

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 11:39 AM

yes hangon and bxgrl - an excellent use of limited tax dollars - subsidizing wig shops and incense shops!

Come on be real - although I share your disgust about the city giving WAY too much to Goldman as well as the apparent demise of A&S

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 11:43 AM

Downtown Brooklyn redevelopment is a unique circumstance primarily due to the 2004 Downtown Brooklyn rezoning with respect to air rights. These air rights plus the Flatbush Corridor's ideal location with respect to Manhattan and many of Brooklyn's most affluent communities such as DUMBO. the Heights, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill, Fort Green, and Park Slope makes this location an ideal candidate for attracting a business community that has previously been moving across the Hudson to Exchange Place and other communities outside Manhattan. MetroTech has been a huge success.

These tax dollars are crucial to all of NYC citizens from rich to poor. Those subsidies that were mentioned by others to support the small business owners have to be paid for with tax dollars. Downtown Brooklyn Redevelopment will bring huge tax dollars from new retail needed to cater to major inflow of residents. Hotels like the newly built Sheraton, Loft, Indigo etc. bring jobs and tax dollars to the local community as well.

All one has to do is go to google maps and see what this area, basically I'm referring to the Albee Square area, looked like a mere 2 years ago. (Google maps haven't been updated.) It was a wasteland. When City Point is completed, this area will be a 24/7 thriving community with life.

Some retailers will benefit some won't but those that are successful now will continue to be successful as long as their is a market for their goods.

Posted by: Junkman at August 1, 2008 12:13 PM

fsrq- a successful business puts money into taxes. Fulton st. is already a successful business district and it has been for a long time. sure there have been a lot of businesses come and gone, but I can still walk down Fulton and tell you which have been the long time survivors and there are more than you think. And i have seen many of then adjust and change to the market. But Fulton St. was not dependent on new construction, the Marriott or the gentrifyiers. The real issue seems to be that it wasn't as upscale as new residents feel entitled to. I loved in that area over 20 years and I've seen a lot of changes but just because you don't like FUREE, whose agenda is education and political empowerment so that minorities can compete for good jobs. What's wrong with that? Doesn't mean you should shortchange their report. frankly, what agency, developer or business doesn't have an agenda to promote?

Who is asking anyone to subsidize wig and incense shops? where the hell did that come from? We're talking about businesses that are successful.On the other hand, those shops reflect their market, so who are you to decide what's a worthwhile business? The money spent in those shops is still green.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 12:19 PM

bxgrl, I agree about leaving things alone (at least that's what I think you are saying). Just cuz many of the businesses don't appeal to the tastes of some of the refined newcomers doesn't mean that they aren't successful businesses that pay taxes, generate profits, have employees, and serve their own demographic.

Posted by: denton at August 1, 2008 12:26 PM

Re A&S, as well as Western Beef's demise, I share your disgust. But neither is a simple greedy landlord case. Western's owner owned the building and chose to cash out. A&S was a family owned building as well, and the sister who ended up with the building decided to cash in, it seems.

Posted by: denton at August 1, 2008 12:30 PM

Junkman- many of those small businesses have contributed tax dollars for years. Yet Fulton St. has been treated for years as though it is a veritable wasteland.

this is not about a blight, war torn strip of real estate (although there are many who would try to claim it is). This is about tearing down a successful business district that caters to one demographic to cater to another, richer one. And I object to that on a lot of levels, not the least of which is the inherent elitism and entitlement that goes along with it.

I realize most of the newcomers don't really give a damn about the businesses and clientele of Fulton st. and they certainly don't care about how much more of a hardship it is for them. Or the economic losses. I realize talking about fairness on brownstoner is an exercise in futility but i will still say, this kind of development will make its own set of problems in the long run and ones which we will all pay for, one way or another, in terms of community, economics or the soul of Brooklyn.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 12:35 PM

FSRG: Rather than addressing in-depth the issues in this report, which have a dramatic impact on peoples' lives, you are taking the low road by debasing this organization and this blog for writing about the report. Clever, and craven.

News flash: Most reports are conducted by people with an agenda. That doesn't necessarily make their findings untrue. In fact, they often look where other "non-biased" people are not looking because they have a better understanding of their constituency. That doesn't mean the report should be the sole source of policy-making, it means it should be taken into consideration. What about the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership's inflated statistics, speculation presented as fact, and puffery regularly funneled to the media? What's wrong with FUREE conducting surveys of small business owners and writing a report about their findings? Because the people at FUREE don't wear business suits? Because they would rather shop at these stores than H&M and CB1? Because they can't afford the hundreds of million-dollar piece of crap condos developers so desperately have to get rid of? Because they could be right that the city's little urban planning experiment might fail?

Guess what, if you look at successful urban planning across the city, usually some sort of compromise was involved. Because the measure of success in urban planning is the number of people who use what was put there, and obviously the more people something appeals to, the more people who will partake. Fulton Mall is already heavily used. FUREE is just asking that the urban planners try to keep some of these popular stores in the mall while shoehorning in their new ones. If the city tried to work in some of FUREE's ideas, and real market demand, not hoped-for market demand, maybe Downtown Brooklyn would be more successful. Instead, the city is ignoring the current market there, and playing with Downtown Brooklyn as if it were a petri dish. Will people move in? Some, but judging from sales and the inability to secure office tenants in even the existing buildings, not as many as the city had hoped, and not as many to support the high-rise infrastructure with real dollars, not subsidies.

And it's not like these business owners were even looking for handouts. They were paying their $150 per square foot rent, paying their taxes, providing products and services to people. Who are you to say a wig store or a religious supply store, that also sells incense as it is a religious supply, aren't as worthy of tax dollars as wealthy developers, corporations, and other chains that take our dollars off to some other city or country? Maybe your white mother doesn't wear a wig, unless she has some illness or treatment that causes the loss of hair, but A LOT of women of color do. And guess what, a lot of women of color live in Brooklyn! Near Downtown! You only think things are worthwhile that appeal to your own culture, and therefore you really shouldn't be opining on urban planning in a place like New York City, which caters to people of all different hair types, religions, styles of dress, choices of food, etc. If NYC only appealed to one culture, there wouldn't be enough people here to support the infrastructure built for 8.2 million people, and we would become like the decayed, vacant urban centers across America.

Posted by: giselle_123 at August 1, 2008 12:36 PM

denton- it isn't even that I think it should be left alone. I just object to the forcible demise of a viable area, instead of letting things change normally as businesses go out and new ones come in, and just letting successful businesses keep on being successful.

But the overall assumption seems to be that if you aren't catering to the rich, you can't possibly be successful. If NYC's tax base depended just on those who buy Vera Wang wedding gowns and Ralph Lauren furniture, it would shut down in a week.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 12:41 PM

I love you, giselle 123!

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 12:44 PM

Its not that I dont like FUREE - its that their report can not be taken as a serious STUDY/ANALYSIS of what is going on in Downtown Brooklyn....thats all I am saying

As for subsidizing wigs and incense - hangonsloopy advocated subsidies/assistance to keep such biz open (see 10:58)

Look be realistic - if the goal was and is to make Downtown Brooklyn a thriving 24/7 central business and residential district (which was the stated goal) of course businesses that cater to more niche markets (like wigs, incense etc) may have trouble increasing volumes to pay higher rents (not to mention that some businesses are going to be eliminated to make way for the new buildings) and other businesses like a Bagel store may survive if they can transition to the new clientele (sure no more Verizon workers at BellTell - but Verizon workers don't buy bagels on Sat or Sun and rarely buy Lox and $4 coffees either).

The point is, if the city wants to reach its goal (24/7 central district served well by mass transit) - it cant start subsidizing what is there now - then you'll end up with nothing - a crappy district - with unsuccessful stores and tons of vacancies.

Change is hard for many but in the end making downtown Brooklyn a world-class central business and residential district will be good for the vast majority of Brooklynites and NYers and everyone suffers in the long run if future workers and residents end up living in NJ instead.

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 12:48 PM

giselle - I didnt debase the organization at all - and you saying that I did undercuts all your credibility - I actually said that the sample size used and basing it soley on the personal opinions of a tiny number of individuals makes it flawed (you yourself acknowledge that the group likely has a bias - my point is bias plus lousy process = worthless report) - you know there are objective stats that could support (or undercut) the groups claims - like vacancy rates, asking rents, demographics of residents and workers, etc.... - these were all left out of this report.

As to people not caring what is there - thats not true - if the wig shoppes, religous stores, etc... can renew their leases and survive - that is wonderful - truly; but the city doesnt own these buildings, private LLs do, so it is up to the merchant and the LL to reach agreement (or not) and then survive - other than the rezoning what has the city "done" to favor the "new" vs. "old"

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 12:57 PM

Oh and as much as I LOVE A&S - I hardly think the demise of a store that sells $30lb Porterhouses and $8 a lb Mozzerella is an example of gentrification forcing out the small business owner - as stated above that is simply a case of a LL/tenant and family dispute - frankly if the LL had any brains she'd work very hard at retaining the butcher - because there are very very few businesses that will be able to pay alot for a store that is probably less that 15ft wide. In other words A&S is probably the merchant in the best position to pay the most for what is objectively a terrible retail layout.

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 1:04 PM

fsrq- if furee has a bias, what do you think the Fulton Street Mall Improvement Ass'n. has? Or any of the developers in downtown? So by your lights, their reports obviously must be worthless as well. And I have to disagree about something: " the goal was and is to make Downtown Brooklyn a thriving 24/7 central business and residential district ", putting that achievement in the future. In fact it is a thriving 7 day (but obviously not 24 hour) a week business/residential district. What they really mean to say is "make Downtown Brooklyn a thriving 24/7 central business and residential district for those with more money."

The point that you seem to be missing is that Fulton st. already is successful and thriving (or thriving as much as anything can in today's economy). Fulton st. was neglected for years and the last "improvement" done was totally crappy and cheap and did nothing to enhance the mall. It was a crap job because they didn't think much of Fulton st. But Fulton St. thrived anyway. And it still does.

there's nothing wrong with new places coming in, higher end businesses and restaurants but why should it be at the expense of what's successful there now? And the money the city might spend on subsidizing wig shops and incense stores is nothing compared to the subsidies they give to big, outscaled development like AY. They don't even get a better or quicker return on our (our taxes) investment from a project like AY as they do from the wig and incense shops. All those little businesses add up to big money that goes into keeping the economy healthy too.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 1:19 PM

FSRG, first, please point out what in the report is untrue, rather than simply saying it can't be taken seriously. Have the 35 business owners not actually been displaced? Are they not a representative sample of the larger group of small business owners who had the unfortunate circumstance of renting a building that the landlord and/ or the city decided they want torn down? Because you seem to think these businesses all closed down because the market went away, when in reality most of them closed because they were kicked out of their building, on lots that in some cases have remained undeveloped more than a year later as the financial market and lack of residential and office demand to fill these towers has put a break on development. From my recollection, MetroTech was supposed to help us keep these jobs that went to New Jersey, but is mostly filled with government agencies that have to be here anyway, and City Point and Atlantic Yards still need to find their big office tenant to fill that space before they can get financing to build.

Nobody is saying don't build, not even FUREE at this point. They are suggesting that the city put a little more effort into helping out the small business owners that are there now, or have closed down DUE TO DISPLACEMENT not a poor business plan, by providing relocation assistance and rehabbing the ugly, boarded-up upper levels of all those buildings in the Fulton Mall, which repel the businesses and residents the city is trying to attract to Downtown Brooklyn anyway. You really think these potential residents and office tenants would rather see boards on the windows than a sign for a wig shop? Or that a $50,000 grant to help with moving, funded by tax dollars AND the developers pushing these businesses out, won't pay more dividends in the long run? Developers often promise this type of assistance when they announce their projects in order to damped public outcry, this type of program only holds them to it.

Consider the sales tax and other tax revenue all these businesses generate. Why not try to keep Downtown Brooklyn generating that kind of tax revenue, the fourth highest of any retail district in the city, WHILE increasing the tax revenue base by building new towers and attracting businesses that appeal to a different clientele. It seems like FUREE has made reasonable suggestions. Unwillingness to even ATTEMP to do both is just laziness, short-sightedness and lack of creativity.

Your effort to suppress FUREE's voice rather than at least taking what they are saying into consideration actually impedes progress. Remember when the standard thought on sub-prime mortgages was that it was the homeowner's own stupid fault they got into that mess? Now it's the cause of what could be the next depression. Apparently, these stupid ex-homeowners actually provide value to the economy, and ivy league educated, white collar corporate America doesn't always know what's best for this country, or at least doesn't always do it since lots and lots of money can have a crazy effect on people.

Posted by: giselle_123 at August 1, 2008 1:25 PM

"Remember when the standard thought on sub-prime mortgages was that it was the homeowner's own stupid fault they got into that mess?"

Thats now isn't it?

Posted by: dittoburg at August 1, 2008 1:31 PM

Even though your tag refers to you as bxgirl, I'll assume you are from Downtown Brooklyn. I, too, have lived here 26 years and I love Brooklyn to death. Not an outsider.

Brownstoner began this discussion referring to City Point, Willoughby Square Park, and Willoughby West. This area was truly a wasteland before this redevelopment began. I ask you again to go to google and type in 150 Myrtle and check it out.

I love the Fulton Mall and I truly believe that there is a tremendous market for many of the goods that are sold at that location. Of course, there is a possibility that market conditions will dictate higher rents for that area thereby pricing out certain businesses. If that happens, it is because the area has improved and landlords feel their investment can gardner further gains. That is capitalism.

The owners that are priced out will find locations that have cheaper rents and then that community will start to thrive. That is what a dynamic economic environment is all about.

If you have a product that people want then it will find a location to sell.

There was mention of 4 stores that were dispossessed? What did we get in return for these stores? A park the size of Bryant Park right in the middle of this redevelopment. If I lived in the Ingersoll Housing, I would welcome a park as opposed to the blight that was there previously. Again, go to google and see what it looked like. City Point will be a tremendous engine for economic growth in Brooklyn. Any reasonable person doing a cost benefit analysis would clearly see that redevelopment is beneficial to Brooklyn as a whole.

People need jobs and this development will create tons of jobs in Brooklyn that didn't exist before.

I appreciate your sentiments but unfortunately, money makes the world go round and Brooklyn needs to get in the game so we can get our share.

Posted by: Junkman at August 1, 2008 1:45 PM

Denton - I think A&S's building is owned by the daughter of the original owner, but the guys who currently own the business aren't related to her. They bought the biz from the original owner, who then died and left the building to the daughter. Or at least that's what the Daily News article said.

My point about A&S is that it's a small, family-operated business that is unique and provides a valued product to people in the neighborhood. The same is true of many of the stores in downtown Brooklyn. And yes, I do advocate creating subsidies as well as incentives to keep such places in business, since they contribute to vibrant street life and sense of community. Whether it's talking over the counter in A&S about how to best cook their sausages, or chatting with the woman who's been making your wigs for the last 10 years, these kinds of personal interactions will soon be vestiges of a time gone by when shop owners knew their customers and weren't just bland corporate suits. And I'll repeat - the city gives HUGE subsidies in the form of tax breaks to major corporations to entice them here and make them stay, and they should do the same for smaller businesses, which also have a role to play in our city.

Posted by: hangonsloopy2 at August 1, 2008 1:52 PM

One more thing about small businesses being crowded out. Read the attached article about my favorite eatery during lunch time. They have an excellent product, which I can attest to personally, and have now found a new and better home with the help of MetroTech BID.

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=6&id=21230

Giselle, makes excellent sense. For thriving businesses, the city should help them relocate if staying in the same location is impossible. Heaven knows, my life would be severely impacted without Tio Pio's delicious latin food.

A win/win situation is best for the storeowners and best for Brooklyn.

Posted by: Junkman at August 1, 2008 2:00 PM

DITTOBURG: Among some people, but I think there is a growing realization that financial institutions have the responsibility to only lend to people who can afford to pay the loans back, and at rates that are fair. Not everybody has the expertise to navigate language in a mortgage or to make the best financial decision, just like not everybody has the expertise to fix the engine in their car, perform a heart transplant, or defend themselves in a divorce. We should be able to trust these people, at least to some extent, which is why more regulation is being put into place on lending practices and the types of financial practices that are legal. Unfortunately, under the Bush Administration, such industries that could be considered commodities (financial, oil, healthcare, insurance ... i.e. essential things that everybody needs to have, not blue jeans or saltine crackers) have been less regulated, and they have enjoyed runaway profits since people have no choice but to pay the price (can only charge so much for blue jeans before most people stop buying them, but the price ceiling can go a lot higher for things like gasoline and mortgages). Since such a huge chunck of our GDP has gone to these industries at the expense of other industries vital to a diversified economy, which provides the greatest number of jobs, the whole economy is suffering based on these poor decisions. If a lower percentage of our income, or the income of corporations, were spent on various types of insurance, energy, and financial interest and fees, then we would have more money to support other sectors of the economy, and fewer companies would jump ship in search of cheaper operating costs overseas.

Recent press reports have also found that financial employees from the top down knew that what they were doing would cause disasterous affects in the long run, yet continued making irresponsible transactions to get the immediate profit. That's what I was saying about money having a crazy (craven) effect on people. In terms of development, these people on the board of the BIDs and the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership stand to make loads of money from the decisions they are making. Are they going to give that up to help out a wig shop? But their decisions are enabled by public policy and public funds, so from a policy perspective, we have the responsibility to consider what is going to be best for the city's economy in the long run and what is going to benefit the greatest number of taxpayers. The answer is not always as simple as ask the person wearing the nicest suit because obviously they are the most financially successful and know best, as we have so unfortunately discovered in other economic realms. Sometimes the best approach is to ask everybody who holds a society together, and then to weigh the answers in an effort to please the most people and maximize the revenue coming into the city.

Also, we need to question the prudence of tearing down a vital sector of the economy in the hopes of keeping one that is trying its hardest to leave. Oftentimes, as is the case with former MetroTech tenants, they leave after a few years anyway, naturally, when they are offered a better bribe from a place like New Jersey, and then sublease their space to a company that was already going to stay or has to stay, like government agencies. Shouldn't we at least try to keep the vital economy here in the meantime? It's kind of like quitting a job before you get a new one, what's being done in Downtown Brooklyn. Huge gamble.

Posted by: giselle_123 at August 1, 2008 2:02 PM

giselle - First you say I debased FUREE and then you said I am trying to "suppress their voice"

Frankly it seems your own biases prevent you from seeing things accurately - since I have said/done neither.

Since when is pointing the flaws in a published study = defamation or suppression -
most educated people believe that such commentary is actually called intellectual discourse and a process by which you get to the (real) truth (I believe thats why people value speech)

I know full well Fulton Mall is wildly successful as a retail strip - and I fail to see why that shouldnt continue - in fact the displacement due to the upzoning and subsequent rebuilding is taking place OFF Fulton Mall - which was far from successful (as was the always underutilized Albee Sq Mall). Therefore isnt replacing a crappy mall and few underutilized buildings (albeit to the detriment of a few merchants), with a ton of new residences, offices and stores which will benefit many more people a worthy goal?

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 2:38 PM

giselle - do you even allow facts to enter the discussion - can you please cite a single privte sector company that decamped Metrotech for NJ (or anywhere else) to be replaced by a Govt Agency?

Didnt think so

Posted by: fsrg at August 1, 2008 2:40 PM

JUNKMAN, regarding the four projects that Brownstoner mentioned in the post: For most of that property, it's the landlord's fault that it looked like such a wasteland because they didn't maintain their property, and a lot of those landlords are on the board of the BID and the Partnership. They are profiting handsomely, and have been this whole time because they've been charging among the highest retail rents in Brooklyn while doing nothing to maintain their property.

Tenants in the Fulton Mall pay at least as much and often more than tenants on Montague Street, Bedford Avenue, Smith Street, and Seventh Avenue, yet they do nothing to repair or maintain their property. Landlords can do this and still charge crazy rent because of all the foot traffic on Fulton Mall (there is some dollar amount attached to the number of pedestrians), and that foot traffic is drawn to the products their tenants are selling.

And now these landlords that have saved so much money by doing nothing to maintain their buildings are making tons of money by selling them, and presiding over or advocating the transactions in an official capacity. Meanwhile, the tenants who helped them make their millions while getting little in return are left to fend for themselves, and many are struggling. So while I agree with you that much of what is in Downtown Brooklyn needs either rebuilding or repair, I think there are other places for blame, and in the process of accurately placing blame, maybe we can come up with policies that create a better society, avoiding some of this blight and broken lives in the future.

Posted by: giselle_123 at August 1, 2008 2:40 PM

First of all, it's not like the City is undertaking a program of kicking out mom and pop shops and replacing them with chains. It's happening organically here because the chains can afford to pay more rent and the chains only start showing up once they feel that the surrounding neighborhood has enough income to support a store. I just feel that a bunch of the comments here are reacting against what they think is plan (or conspiracy) the City has to change the face of the neighborhood. There is no organized movement going on here, just the collective results of hundreds of individuals acting in their own financial interests. Like it or loathe it, that's capitalism. These buildings are private property and except for some minor restrictions (zoning, etc) the owners can do what they want with them. You wouldn't like it if someone mandated to you that you had to earn less money on your investments, I don't see how you can expect that from the owners here.

Second - I find it interesting that at the same time that this street is being described as "thriving" we're also talking about vacant upper floors and boarded up windows. TO me, a thriving neighborhood is not one that is characterized by vacant windows and boarded up windows. I agree with whoever said that the landlords are being penny wise and pound foolish. while they may make more money in the short term by clearing out the stairs so that there's more frontage for selling cell phones, in the long run the whole district would generate higher income if the buildings didn't give off a creepy bombed out vibe and there were office workers or lofts in the upper floors that further contributed to the streets vitality.

Besides, all this neighborhood really needs is some Toto toilets and it'll be fine.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 1, 2008 2:54 PM

Make My Heights the P Heights -- do you really think there is no city plan for downtown? Some background reading for you:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/dwnbklyn2/dwnbklynintro1.shtml

Posted by: bklynite at August 1, 2008 3:01 PM

Born and raised in the Bronx, came to Brooklyn after I married. I moved to the heights when it was considered a little sketchy. Boerum/ Schermerhorn was downright scary but I always shopped in downtown.

"If that happens, it is because the area has improved and landlords feel their investment can gardner further gains. That is capitalism." Indeed it is but saying the area has improved begs the question, to who? I don't object to change- I just object to the thinking that Fulton Street is somehow, and despite all the money it makes, no matter how successful it is, it's not good enough for newcomers to the area. that bothers me. they're not actually looking to improve the district- that's just their euphemism for "remake" the area into something more palatable to them.

We're not talking about the demands of the marketplace- as giselle 123 says, downtown is taking a gamble. Those in the financial and real estate markets haven't given us a lot of reason to trust their judgment lately so who is to say that the changes to downtown will be for the better? I have a problem swallowing the words, make Brooklyn "world class." In my book it already is, by its great rich mix of cultures and diversity. I'm not going to apologize for feeling that those of us who have lived, worked and persevered here through good times and bad have a greater stake in Brooklyn's present and future than the slew of new condo owners who will move here and demand to be catered to. How many trendy restaurants can one area sustain? How many fancy clothing and cosmetic stores? I drove down Smith St. a few saturdays ago- it was far from crowded and a lot of places are shuttered. Yet viable businesses are being displaced on Fulton st. How is this smart?

If we can afford to subsidize AY and big corporations, we can certainly afford to subsidize small business. Who didn't need it on Fulton st. until the big muckety mucks started screwing around with it. People have said that FUREE's report can't be taken seriously. I think it should. Because it's not based solely on facts, figures, maps and speculation- it's based on how real people and businesses are impacted.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 3:06 PM

Thriving refers to the volume of business, not the beauty of the upper floors. And that is a landlord issue- agreed, penny wise and pound foolish. But they made that choice many years ago- still didn't stop Fulton from becoming "one of the highest pedestrian-trafficked shopping locations" in NYC (FMIA). That translates into big money. And it happened without the big condos and the fancy stores and restaurants and hotels.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 3:22 PM

FSRG, there are a lot of government and social service agencies in MetroTech that by nature already need to be based in New York, a lot of vacant space, and a lot of it is for sublease from the financial institutions that were originally offered incentives to sign the leases. Here is MetroTech's tenant list:

http://www.metrotechbid.org/map.php.

I hope they find tenants for the vacant space as it is for the greater good of the city. I am not anti MetroTech.

I'm not going to repeat what I've been saying the whole time to respond to your critique because it is too nuanced, and you are just trying to pick at straws to debase my whole perspective, just like you are with FUREE. You gave two reasons why we should ignore FUREE's report: "it is being conducted by an organization with an obvious agenda, they based their findings soley on the anecdotes of 61 people." And I said why I think it is still valid for discussion. I also asked you to point out something in their report that is incorrect, and you didn't.

Also, FUREE didn't just base its findings on anecdotes, their findings were backed by years of research and experience working with business owners in the area.

I support figuring out a way to increase the success of as many types of businesses as possible in Downtown. I don't think I'm biased because I don't have a direct financial stake in Downtown Brooklyn. The BIDs, FUREE, developers, probably you, they are biased because they have something tangible to lose or gain based on what happens there, I just have an opinion.

With that said, I have to go to work, so when I don't respond to your attempts to debase my arguments, it's because I'm not at a computer, not because I don't have an answer.

Posted by: giselle_123 at August 1, 2008 3:22 PM

bklynite - I'm aware of the downtown brooklyn plan. Maybe you should actually read it though. Or perhaps you should read my post again. What I said was that the replacement of mom and pop stores on Fulton Mall is not being mandated in any way by the City. The downtown Brooklyn plan calls for rezonings and the buildings of parks. It doesn't say that we've got to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M.

The socio-economic characteristic traits of every neighborhood change over time, and when they do, the neighborhood retail that serves them changes as well. That's why there are currently no kosher butchers in Harlem (once a thriving Jewish Neighborhood) and why there are russian nightclubs in Brighton Beach. Downtown Brooklyn is not the only neighborhood in which this is happening, and just because this is one case where downmarket stores catering to a mostly poor black population is being replaced by upscale stores catering to a mostly affluent white population, I don't see why it's any cause for alarm. This is the nature of life in the big City. If there is a market for these type of stores (and I believe there obviously is) then they will find another place to go with rents they can afford, most likely at a location that is convenient for their target customers. Just like the kosher butchers followed the jewish population to the upper west side, and flatbush, and Great Neck...

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 1, 2008 3:27 PM

Very true the socio-economic characteristics of neighborhoods change over time, but it normally is a cyclic change, with change normally occurring as neighborhoods become less affluent and begin to struggle. Residents move on and out.

But what's happening downtown is not quite the same. The neighborhood became more affluent over time, Fulton St. kept improving and has been successful over the years. downtown Brooklyn caters to a huge mix of people, and that includes both residents and area workers. the uptick in the downtown area is relatively recent and quite dramatic but this isn't a case of gentrifyers moving into a poor or blighted area (it may not be pretty but blighted it ain't). This is a highly successful business district that is being forcibly changed to cater to a different clientele. "Poor and Black" is only one group Fulton St. services. Working and middle class is a much bigger demographic and more inclusive.

I get the feeling the many people think that the working or middle class isn't very important. Not very exciting, not very trendy, not "sexy." Fulton St. disproves that notion once and for all because that demographic is what generates a huge amount of money there. And they weren't moving out so much as being forced out and into areas that aren't considered "prime." At least for now. the mistake is thinking this will have no effect on the quality of life for the affluent and as I've said, when the waiters, and office cleaners and nannies and clerks can't afford to make the 3 hour, 4 train and bus ride to work, everyone will feel the effects. A huge part of the workforce is not well paid, no matter that they are necessary to the running of large corporations.

And as they get pushed out further and further, more will need cars because public transportation sucks. That's only a small part of how things are so inter-related.

I am not saying that NYC will collapse because small businesses are forced out of Fulton Mall. I am saying the idea that the amount of money you have entitles you to the right to trample over others is not a policy for a viable economy or society.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 5:06 PM

A 24/7 community is only possible with a diverse base. Look at MetroTech. Ratner owns it all so keeps out potential competitors to the lousy food/retial that is there -- so it is horrible lunch places, nothing but a candy/store/lotto outlet, card store -- and closes at 5pm. I was told that it is to keep out the people from the projects (heaven forbid!). It could be a great place with resturants that stay open evenings (with people sitting on the commons) and shops where someone might actually want to spend money during the weekend. And that, my friends, would have been the fate of Atlantic yards -- thanks goodness it looks like we may have been saved from that disaster.

Posted by: BH76 at August 1, 2008 5:08 PM

Giselle, don't take that tenant's list seriously. There are quite a few firms in Metrotech that don't want their presence advertised. For example, may I call your attention to the map you show. Look at 2 Metrotech. There are no tenants listed. Yet the building is full. And it's half a million sft. And I can assure you the tenant is not a government agency, but a bonafide back office tenant.

I do wonder what's gonna happen with Bear Stearns' space at 1 Metro.

Posted by: denton at August 1, 2008 5:18 PM

If the landlords and store owners along the Fulton Mall are such low-class, bottom-feeding, greedy jerks that they knock out their stairwells for more selling space and let their upper floors rot, what on earth makes anyone think they'd be motivated to offer reasonable retail or office space to displaced "little guys"?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at August 1, 2008 5:30 PM

Maybe they are business people who can't get the funding to renovate and upgrade? Doesn't it seem an odd business decision to shut down part of your property rather than get tenants for the upper floors and make the most money you can?

It's not like banks and financial institutions cared about putting money into Fulton St. For years for the same reason banks redlined neighborhoods like Bed-Stuy. Fulton St. was successful in spite of the obstacles and the neglect. It wasn't until someone noticed just how successful it was, that bigger businesses began to take notice. Maybe if years ago, instead of doing a trashy half-assed renovation, they had put real funding into supporting the area, it would be different today, with apartments and office space instead of boarded upper floor windows.

I don't say I agree with what they did, I'm just curious why they felt they had to make that decision to close off upper floors, and not that they are necessarily "low-class, bottom-feeding, greedy jerks. "

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 5:47 PM

Redevelopment, or change of any kind, is usually “not so good” for someone.

Fulton used to be called the Fifth Avenue of Brooklyn … that was not a reference to Park Slope’s nor Bay Ridge’s Fifth, but Manhattan’s.

It was “anchored” by several department stores, serving down-, mid- and up-market clienteles, including:

Loeser’s, which closed in 1952 (opened in 1860; tradename purchased by neighboring Namm’s),
Namm’s (Fulton & Hoyt) closed late ’50s,
Martin’s closed 1979 after 70 years on Fulton,
Korvette’s closed early ’80s,
Mays closed 1988,
… and, the last of them all, A&S which became (a very understaffed) Macy’s in 1995.

Keep in mind each of these closings meant the loss of hundreds of jobs, not replaced by today’s ground-floor cell-phone operations.

In 1979, when the Albee Square Mall was being built on the site of a movie theater, the NYTimes report noted the nearby “seven blocks along Fulton Street where Abraham & Strauss, Mays, Korvette’s and 60 smaller stores do about $420 million of business a year.” Compare that to today’s $100 million in sales.

Posted by: 16Street at August 1, 2008 6:34 PM

can you send a link to that? I'm really surprised at that figure, especially knowing downtown in the 80's.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 1, 2008 7:28 PM

Great discussion, so nice to see this instead of the typical trashing of Fulton Street Mall.

I don't know much about the issue, but if you want to see a good example of how badly downtown development can go, visit downtown Jersey City sometime.

Posted by: Heather at August 1, 2008 8:34 PM

Re: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 1, 2008 3:27 PM

"The downtown Brooklyn plan calls for rezonings and the buildings of parks. It doesn't say that we've got to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M."

Actually, it does say that. Part of the plan is to use eminent domain to destroy various successful businesses and homes, and replace them with buildings in tune with the Bloomberg vision. The irony of some of these is shocking- such as demolishing TrackData, a minority-owned high-tech firm with over a hundred employee. In another instance, they wanted to destroy a newly built cultural hot-spot and replace it with... another cultural hot-spot, but one probably more in line with BAM. The City also wants to destroy a book store and replace it with Willoughby Square, which will in turn be rented out to the highest bidder- the City is turning parks into private event spaces for American Express and, conceivably H&M.

So, yes, the plan pretty much says that we (the taxpayers) are paying to kick out wig shops and replace them with H&M.

If the Downtown Brooklyn plan doesn't explicitly say that they want to destroy the existing businesses, it's because these enterprises are invisible to the EDC.

Posted by: harriet at August 2, 2008 1:58 PM

harriet- do you have a link to that?

Posted by: bxgrl at August 2, 2008 7:47 PM

Twenty years from now when this area is absolutely gorgeous and generating more revenues than most urban downtown areas in the US, everyone will suddenly have been a champion of the redevelopment.

Not too many stop Metrotech hand raisers anymore ...

The current economic success of the area is actually a fact that supports increased investment in redevelopment here. This report is an engaging read but is couched in an unrealistic world of economic stagnancy that only exists in neighborhoods entirely controlled by the mob.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 3, 2008 8:11 AM

It's a little futile to have stop metrotech hand raisers since its already been built. As for your last comment- it's totally ridiculous, and couched in a statement that can only be attributed to someone who really does not read carefully enough.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2008 12:00 PM

bxgrl - rhetoric is not impressive. i make my living reading carefully. and thinking carefully. give that a try with my post and maybe you'll understand why your response entirely misses the point.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 3, 2008 12:53 PM

I don't think I missed anything. Your comment was rather smug and flip and offered no insight other than a vaguely sinister "neighborhoods controlled entirely by the mob." If anything this thread had far more substantive information from both sides of the issue that you neither recognized, nor offered any real critique of.

If as you say, in 20 years when the "area is absolutely gorgeous and generating more revenues than most urban downtown areas in the US" , then yes,of course it will become it's own self-fulfilling prophecy, but for one demographic. On the other hand, forcing out the businesses and people who have made Fulton st. successful up to now will effectively undercut them, and contribute to the problems of minorities and those who are in lower income brackets. Neither does your post address the point of the thread- forcing change on a business district that is successful, but not "gentrified" enough for some.

So perhaps you'd like to explain more precisely?

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2008 2:36 PM

yes - you're missing everything. we live in a capitalist economy - if assets are being underutilized (in this case - real estate and customer base), market forces will result in more efficient utilization. unless there is an artificial barrier in place (e.g. mob control). your rhetoric regarding minorities and small business is inspiring but unrealistic. this is why politicians on the far left can never make anything happen. all they do is rant but can never offer any realistic solutions to their concerns.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 3, 2008 5:05 PM

Frankly I think the idea that the market forces in a capitalist economy will always result in a more efficient utilization is a great thought in an ideal world but a look at the socio-economic problems we face in this country points out how erroneous it can be. the idea profits are everything gets precedence over quality of life- except for the corporate few- and the power of corporate greed is not about efficiency or utilization- its about profit at any cost. If you think this translates into a sustainable society you are very much mistaken. What it has done is create greater division, degraded the environment, and undermined our economy because of its failure to understand the integrated, organic nature of a healthy economy and society. Sorry but there it is.

I am by no means a pinko, or even far to the left in my politics. I do believe in practical, commmonsensical solutions to problems and I don't subscribe to the idea that capitalism only creates "benevolent" market forces translating into the most efficient or beneficial utilization of resources. The way capitalism works in this country today is more an extolling of a dog eat dog mentality where we give lip service to the real forces that made this country great- the Constitution and the Bill of Rights- all the while doing everything we can to undermine them. The far left balances the greed and selfishness of the right. After all, someone has to care.

Strangely enough, I do think capitalism is the best answer for a free society- but not this extreme form of overreaching greed.

So you may think my comments about minorities and small business are unrealistic (or I'm clueless, or have squirrels), in fact they aren't. My viewpoint comes from a background in sociology and anthropology, not finance. And the one thing I absolutely do believe is we either stand together, or we hang together.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2008 6:13 PM

i'm not advocating that we live in an vacuum of capitalism but i have little patience for those arguing that development not come at the cost of displacement, while failing to offer any realistic sustainable alternative. i'm a realist, not an idealist.

Posted by: BrooklynLove at August 3, 2008 7:09 PM

me too, actually. I guess we just think of different realities. But I read something a few weeks ago (I wish I had saved it, but I think it was one of the Admiral's Row threads) about transit driving development as opposed to development driven by transit. the gist of it (and I can't guarantee I remember totally accurately) was that the mistake we've made is putting new development (while changing the demographics) at accessible transit hubs since that creates added pressure on already stretched resources, and force added costs into maintaining and reinforcing overburdened stations, but if transit was built first, that would guide the course of development into areas that need the development, and extend and build more transit. Putting the horse before the cart as it were, instead of the cart on top of the horse.

There are realistic, sustainable alternatives but most people just want the easiest and fastest solution of the moment and haven't seemed that willing to consider anything else. AY is a case in point.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2008 8:52 PM

« Draining the Pool of its Party Shell of Its Former Self, 925 Fulton Street For Sale »

August 1, 2008

DoBro Redevelopment Not So Great for Everyone

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions