« Weekend Events Open Thread »

July 10, 2009

Navy Yard Kicks Off Supermarket RFP Process

With the fate of Admirals Row all but set in stone, the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. moved ahead yesterday with its plans to find a developer to build a 40,000-square-foot supermarket and an additional 60,000 square feet of additional retail and light industrial space on the six-acre plot of land at the southwest corner of the Navy Yard that is still controlled by the Federal Government but is expected to come under the BNYDC's control in the near future. "We think this is a very unique opportunity for a developer to secure a long-term lease on a site where you can put a large supermarket,” said Navy Yard chief Andrew Kimball. The winning developer would have to also finance and perform the rehabilitation of the Timber Shed and one of the Admirals Row houses, a task that could cost $25 million or more. The deadline for responses to the RFP is October 19. A complete press release is included on the jump.
Grocer to Edge Out Admirals in Navy Yard [Crain's]
Proposals requested for Brooklyn Navy Yard [TRD]

RARE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP SUPERMARKET
& RETAIL CENTER AT BROOKLYN NAVY YARD

Proposals sought to transform six-acre site in underserved community

Brooklyn, NY (July 9, 2009) – A rare opportunity to develop a neighborhood retail center anchored by a large format supermarket is now available at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation (BNYDC) is seeking proposals to develop a six-acre site, known as Admiral’s Row, on the western edge of the Yard, in the midst of a densely populated part of the city that is underserved by large format supermarkets.

The request for proposals (RFP) seeks developers interested in building the retail center that will include a large format supermarket of no less than 40,000 square feet, as well as an additional 20,000 square feet of neighborhood retail space. According to the RFP, optimal development of the site also will include a minimum of 40,000 square feet on an upper floor to accommodate light industrial uses and could include additional upper floor commercial uses. The site is easily accessible by subway and bus, as well as by bridges and highways and will include significant on-site parking. The project requires the renovation of two historic structures on the site. A pre-submittal meeting and site visit will be held for interested developers on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 and responses are due by October 19, 2009. The RFP is available online at www.brooklynnavyyard.com.

“In addition to the rapidly growing surrounding communities, nearly 40,000 residents live within a ten-minute walk of the site and 5,000 people work at the Navy Yard everyday providing a built in consumer base for the retail center,” said Andrew Kimball, president and CEO of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, which manages the 300-acre industrial park on behalf of the City. “Our goal is to put this property back to productive use by providing a unique opportunity for developers with the capacity and track record of establishing supermarkets and community-oriented retail that will serve the community and create local jobs.”

The development of Admiral’s Row will continue the expansion underway at the Brooklyn Navy Yard -- its largest growth since WWII adding over 1.5 million square feet of new space and 2,000 jobs over the next two years. BNYDC’s commitment to sustainable infrastructure investments and new green buildings has made it a national model for sustainable industrial parks. The development of Admiral’s Row will build on this track record of sustainability and success.

The Administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has made a significant commitment to improving and modernizing the Yard’s infrastructure by allocating $200 million in City capital funding. The Yard’s existing four million square feet of space -- currently consisting of 40 rentable buildings with more than 240 tenants -- is 99 percent occupied

About the Brooklyn Navy Yard
The Brooklyn Navy Yard is owned by the City of New York and managed by the not-for-profit Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation. BNYDC leases space in the Yard, promotes local economic development, develops underutilized areas and oversees modernization of the Yard's infrastructure. The corporation's board of directors is comprised of leaders of Brooklyn's economic development community. Established in 1801, the Brooklyn Navy Yard served as one of America's preeminent military facilities for more than 150 years. Closed by the federal government in 1966, the City of New York subsequently assumed ownership and re-opened the Yard as an industrial park.

# # #

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10537

Comments

I think you mean that the site is still controlled by the Feds, not the state.

Posted by: bkre at July 10, 2009 9:49 AM

I have not really followed this terribly closely, just knowing what has been written in the papers but it seems to me that the Navy Yard or the Army or whoever controls the site should at least have the decency to clean it out a little and stabilize the wrecks before they submit an RFP basically asking the private sector to clean up the mess left behind by the Navy, the Army, and the Yard.
This is a typically lazy approach by the public sector. Why would I, as a private developer, with my pick of all kinds of fallow sites around town, pick an overgrown jungle site where one can barely see the structures or the topography? Why would I take on that liability when the government clearly refuses to even set foot on the property?

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 10, 2009 9:57 AM

the City has owned the Yard since 1966 according to the post above. If that is the case, the mess is really the City's neglect. In any case, the site is a great location with little to no area competition for a grocer so its prime. And why shouldn't they give something back to the public for this? Private developers have gotten free passes too often (Ratner and Ward's Bakery come to mind). They get all kinds of abatements and tax breaks- at the public expense. So why shouldn't they be required to do something for the commmunity at large? We are losing a group of historic houses that are part of our military history (which we crow so loudly about when we feel like waving the flag). Those buildings ha ve been allowed to fall apart (yes, yes- I know- no one had the money. And that in itself is a crock considering how much money our local, state and federal politicians waste ever day).

Posted by: bxgrl at July 10, 2009 10:33 AM

The city doesn't own the Admiral(officers) row's housing site. That is still owned by the Federal Government- assigned to the National Guard Bureau. When the Navy(US Government) turned over the balance of the Navy yard site, they withheld this portion for its own use. It still hasn't been officially turned over but it will be shortly. The feds sold the old Admiral's house directly at an auction.

NY City regs limit large box stores and there is a demand for good large box store sites.

Posted by: smeyer418 at July 10, 2009 10:43 AM

smeyer418- I thought that was incorrect but figured Mr. B must know better than I (ha!). But the rest of my comment still stands regarding private developers. Thanks for the correction.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 10, 2009 10:49 AM

I don't think the mistake is Brownstoner's. Its in the RFP or the release. I think its just the standard language the Navy yard Devlopment Corp uses. I also don't think all the site was turned over at once either. Its been turned over in Parcels. The Navy maintained a small part for a while and I don't think that the Hospital and other historic areas(including the cemetery) was turned over until much later. The Navy Yard Development people have been paying and maintaining the hospital etc and they are very expensive to do. They only get so much money and have a commercial operation to run. There is only so much money....

Posted by: smeyer418 at July 10, 2009 11:10 AM

I think the confusion here, bxgirl, is that the City owns the rest of the yard, but not Admiral's Row. SO it's accurate to say that the City owns the yard, but for the purposes of that statement, "the Yard" does not include Admirals Row, which is still owned by the Feds, for now.

I agree with you though that Minard kind of misses the point. The reason the private sector would come in and clean up this mess that was created by the Feds, is that the private sector thinks it will be able to turn a profit doing so. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: bkre at July 10, 2009 11:28 AM

bkre- thanks for clarifying. Of course now it's obvious the situation is even more confusing, but at least it's not my confusion :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at July 10, 2009 11:46 AM

The neglect of the Row, even in terms of controlling vegetation, was just part of a pattern of abandonment that led to the present situation. Everyone concerned - the Feds, National Guard, Navy Yard, city, whomever, just kept passing the buck around and around, everyone claiming it wasn't their responsibility to maintain or even protect the site. If someone had spent just a couple thousand dollars to buy and affix tarps on the roofs 10 years ago, or had boarded up the windows, the houses would not be in the state that they are now. The whole sordid mess is just disgusting, more so because it was preventable.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 10, 2009 12:01 PM

From the Navy Yard press release above - "The site is easily accessible by subway and bus, as well as by bridges and highways and will include significant on-site parking."

Isn't the supposed inaccessibility of the Row one of the reasons given by some of the opposition here to developing the Row as a tourist destination? I distinctly recall being called some kind of pollyanna-esque dreamer by more than one person for suggesting the development of a historic site museum complex could bring tourists to the Yard. "Oh no, it's too far off the beaten track. There's no transportation, blah, blah." Gee, the Navy Yard doesn't seen to think so......now.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 10, 2009 12:19 PM

The admirals row parcel is definitely owned by the Federal Government. The Army National Guard has been made the agency in charge (lucky stiffs). They are very interested in unloading it, er, selling it, at market rate, to the City of NY, who will then, in turn, lease it or in someway convey it to the Navy Yard Corporation. Got that? Now, in order to "dispose" of this excess piece of Federal Property, there is a whole complicated bureaucratic process that needs to be undertaken including an environmental study. Part of that study identifies "historic resources". The historic resources part of the study has its own process called the "Section 106 Review". The whole thing is endless as is always the case with the Feds.
The City has first dibs on the property but is not sure it wants it after all if it has to pay to restore two of the buildings on the site identified by the Section 106 study as "significant". It really just wants to get someone to build a supermarkets and extra leasable manufacturing space. So........before the city commits to buying the land it is putting out an RFP to see if there are any developers out there, awash with money and financing, that would be willing to clear the jungle, restore the two houses, build the new buildings, and still make a profit.
I somehow doubt it. My guess is that five years from now, the site will look much the same with the exception that the vegetation will be just that much denser and the old buildings will be even more engulfed by vines and trees.

Posted by: sam at July 10, 2009 12:24 PM

This area definitely needs a supermarket.

Posted by: East New York at July 10, 2009 12:27 PM

It does now since Catasiminidis (sp?) tore down the only one in the area. One he promised to rebuild.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 10, 2009 12:33 PM

MM - I find it somewhat puzzling that you, who are often one of the more reasonable commenters on this site, are so often completely off base when it comes to this subject.

First, it's unfair to claim that the Navy Yard should have fixed the site but instead, passed the buck. It was never their property, nor was it their responsibility. Should you be blamed if your neighbor's roof leaks? The guilty party in this case is pretty clear - it was the feds. No sense in blaming the inncoent bystanders.

Second, are you seriously using this RFP as proof positive that the site is easily accesible? Anyone who knows anything about this part of brooklyn knows that, while the site has many positive attributes, easy access to transit is not one of them. This RFP is basically a marketing document meant to attract potential developers. Of course it's gonna say that it's got great transit. Do you also believe that Miller Light tastes great and is less filling?

Posted by: bkre at July 10, 2009 1:10 PM

This site has everyting any developer could dream of. proximity to low-income housing projects, vacant factories, empty lots, collapsing buildings deemed historically significant, Federal and city red tape, and lots and lots of poison ivy.

Posted by: sam at July 10, 2009 1:48 PM

and squatters, sam - your forgot about the squatters. And the wild dogs.

Posted by: bkre at July 10, 2009 1:55 PM

I think the wild dogs ate the squatters.

Posted by: sam at July 10, 2009 3:11 PM

It isn't poison ivy, it's basil.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 10, 2009 3:24 PM

bkre, I was merely quoting the Navy Yard, there. Are you suggesting that their sales pitch could be less than 100% accurate, and stttrreecccchhhhhesssss the truth a tad? For shame, as they are SO above board in everything else, regarding this issue!

I really don't care who dropped the ball over there, the Feds, the City, the Military, the Yard. It got dropped, big time. Personally, no agency or organization has done the Row any good since the Navy stopped using it for housing and office facilities in what - the '70's?, so there is plenty of blame to go around, and plenty of time has passed to give everyone a nice chunk of it.

I go nuts over this because I see it as a colossal waste of a site that most other cities, and/or countries who value their historic sites, would be overjoyed to have a chance to rehabilitate and repurpose to the common good. Even emerging countries like Jamaica are joining in with projects that preserve their history and their historic buildings, and also convert them into money making ventures, with shops, restaurants, and small businesses utilizing out buildings on estates, etc. I am well aware of our city's and our country's money woes, but no effort was made, higher up, to do anything until the costs became so prohibitive, due to advanced deterioration and neglect, that destruction was always a foregone conclusion.

It continues to be a profound shame, and a lost opportunity.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 10, 2009 3:26 PM

"I go nuts over this...." That is probably why you are making illogical statements. As bkre asked, "Should you be blamed if your neighbor's roof leaks?"

Posted by: g man at July 10, 2009 3:46 PM

I don't know if it is so far off. I think they are going for an IKEA red hook kinda thing. They do after all want a parking lot which will attract people with cars. And they have all those condos buildings (toren, avalon(ugh!), catsimadis building) going up on flatbush with nowhere to shop. Dumbo people also complain there is nowhere to shop. The problem for the 10 minute thing from Fort gReene is that the BQE makes crossing over to flushing highly unattractive, it is a mental block walking i think i would rather go to the myrtle ave associated. But considering that the BQE is right there and there is an exit right there I assume they are trying to attract drivers... I hope they get that bikeway set up quickly because right now traffic there is calm, but it could get very busy...either way I will miss all those trees. To have a parking lot there and all those beautiful trees gone will be sad. They are a pocket of freshness. I hope it is a decent supermarket like a Whole Foods instead of Gristedes? Maybe they can ditch Gowanus and go Navy Yard?

Posted by: Dora Chica at July 10, 2009 4:34 PM

This is a bureaucratic black hole. People are so optimistic about how a supermarket will spring up there and the private sector should get involved because there is so much money to be made. 'fraid not. Nothing is happening there any time soon, ie: ten years.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at July 10, 2009 6:15 PM

The Costco in Sunset park, in an industrial area, near no housing, by an exit to the same highway is the single largest volume producer in the chain(or was a couple of years ago)....so all of you who don't think that there will be demand by a similar store really haven't a clue.

Posted by: smeyer418 at July 10, 2009 7:33 PM

Sorry, g-man, but I see nothing illogical in any of my statements. It is nit picking to say it wasn't the Yard, it was the Feds, or the Navy, or the City who caused the decay. The decay was allowed to happen no matter whose watch it happened under, and that's the point. You may disagree with my conclusions, but there is absolutely nothing illogical about them.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 10, 2009 7:56 PM

Sorry, MM, but it is indeed completely illogical to expect someone to take care of their neighbor's property. (I have some work that needs to be done at my place; are you coming over? Bring your own tools and materials.) Heck, let's blame the city parks department--they've got some land across the street. The National Guard, and its parent organizations, the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense, are responsible. Well, them and all of the preservationists who did not scream louder twenty years ago, myself included.

Posted by: g man at July 10, 2009 11:46 PM

you're up late, g-man. I wonder if screaming louder would have made a difference 20 years ago in any case? Preservation in the Navy Yard wasn't a priority then, or now to them. For whatever reasons- although the military certainly does have an interest in preserving historical artifacts and documents, I wonder why that interest didn't seem to extend to the Navy Yard.

Still, I think you and BKRE are being a bit unfair to MM- she pretty much says everyone passed the buck, not just the Navy Yard. Actually I know when I use the words "Navy Yard" I'm not really referring to the business entity, but more to the Navy Yard as a generalized place if that makes any sense to you. (I'm going to admit I'm not sure I make sense to myself at this point, but it's late :-) In other words, I am guilty of saying "Navy Yard" meaning a general place and historical entity.

The situation seems so complicated as to who is responsible for what that I think I have to agree with sam. We won't see anything there for 10 years, even though those concerned seem to agree on a supermarket. I think what upsets Montrose, and myself is that the Navy Yard is such an important part of this nation's history, and so fascinating that one would have hoped all concerned would have taken a greater interest. I admit that's rather unrealistic on my part. Have a good weekend, g man.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 11, 2009 12:48 AM

A significant portion of the Navy yard is historic and required to be retained(the hospital the medical directors house other buildings and the cemetery) I wish they had maintained the Admirals house and not sold it to a private person. We can disagree about the historic value of the "Admirals" row. They are a bunch of wood frame houses similar to literally thousands built throughout the country- some similar houses are being maintained on Governors Island(Robert E Lee lived in one of them). The exception was the sail loft which now is vestige of the sail era. The original graving dry dock still in use, is historic and must be maintained. The Navy Yard development people are opening a museum in a reused Marine Commandants building. So not every 2 bit building is being maintained. Yes it would have been nice if the Army National Guard either turned over the buildings 30 years ago or maintained them. It didn't happen.

As for the 10 year time line given how long it has taken just to get ready to turn them over, its probably within the realm of reason but personally, I would expect something to be open in about 5....

Posted by: smeyer418 at July 11, 2009 7:45 AM

« Weekend Events Open Thread »

July 10, 2009

Navy Yard Kicks Off Supermarket RFP Process

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions