« Walkabout with Montrose: The Road to Prospect Heights Last Week's Biggest Sales »

October 20, 2009

What Could Have Been on Flatbush

The music stopped too soon for this retail complex at the corner of Flatbush and Schermerhorn (62-64 Flatbush Avenue, to be exact) to become a reality, but it's still fun to look at. And if you've got $15 million burning a hole in your pocket, the site could still be yours. Actually, the rendering was put together as part of a larger development that W Hotels was thinking of doing on this lot and several other adjacent ones to the west on Schermerhorn. The entire package of properties, which includes about 500,000 buildable square feet, is currently on the market with CPEX for a cool $50 million. A drop in the bucket, right?
62-64 Flatbush Avenue [CPEX] GMAP
350 Livingston et al. [CPEX]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11767

Comments

Th etrue test of a Brooklynite: say Schermerhorn (it should sound like Skima-horn, if it sounds like shermerhorn OT YUPPIE Alert!)

Posted by: Joe from Brooklyn at October 20, 2009 11:10 AM

Level 2: Now say the following: Luquer DeKalb Throop.

Posted by: jeffrey at October 20, 2009 11:23 AM

Don't forget Classon.

Am I the only one grateful this mini Times Square didn't happen? Talk about product placement. What's next? The floating ads from Blade Runner?

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 20, 2009 11:30 AM

Yeah, bring on the singing jumbotron dirigibles!

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 11:39 AM

Yeah, I'm OK this didn't come off.

Posted by: East New York at October 20, 2009 11:43 AM

maybe this could be the new, downsized AY?

Posted by: bxgrl at October 20, 2009 11:46 AM

Very similar to the new Flatbush Junction down by Brooklyn College. I'm shedding no tears over this not happenning

Posted by: WTbound at October 20, 2009 12:17 PM

not pretty but it would've generated jobs and tax receipts. the massive state & city budget gaps are pounding in my head and I don't want to "assume the position" as gov plugs gap via jacking up stuff on me.

Posted by: more4less at October 20, 2009 12:28 PM

> it would've generated jobs and tax receipts.

*IF* anybody rented the spaces and set up successful businesses, that is...

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 12:31 PM

Snark, if it's built, it will be occupied. developer, banks, initial tenants, might get screwed but subsequent owner, tenants,... will be enjoying lower entry prices where things can be more sustainable

Posted by: more4less at October 20, 2009 12:45 PM

I've always sort of liked the floating ads from blade runner.

Posted by: Polemicist at October 20, 2009 12:51 PM

I'm with Snark. There is already an over-abundance of retail and office space sitting empty. And all these new buildings get so many tax exemptions/deferrals that they cost (in this econmy) the city and state rather than add to any revenues.

Posted by: BH76 at October 20, 2009 1:33 PM

I think the crossroads location is ideal. (And it so beats the current configuration as a parking lot with not my cup of tea retail tenant. As a borough, Brooklyn is still understored and underscreened. Would love, love, love to see some retail like Ann Taylor, real shoe store, diner a la Johnny Rockets or Chiptole in this location. After all there is a difference between downtown Brooklyn and Brooklyn Heights.

Posted by: BrooklynIsHome at October 20, 2009 2:37 PM

> Snark, if it's built, it will be occupied.

Hogwash.

With that logic there would be no empty storefronts in this town.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 4:33 PM

With that logic there would be no empty storefronts in this town.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 4:33 PM

Snark, you're missing a key angle here cause you're coming apples to oranges. if a ppty like this is foreclosed on now, it will be at super distressed prices therefore it'll be alot lower rent needed to yield profits. Plus that new owner has great reality chk of current econ conditions vs some current owners might still be delusional with rent expectations hence those empty store fronts you're referencing. empty store fronts doesnt necessarily mean no demand and rather it could be unrealistic rent demands.

Posted by: more4less at October 20, 2009 5:33 PM

Yuck. We dodged the bullet on that one.

Posted by: grand army at October 20, 2009 6:35 PM

Problem is, why would anybody build a new retail building right now?

Sure, they'll pay less for the property, so they can offer lower rents.

But will they offer low rents? Not given the long term nature of commercial leases, or so I would venture a guess.

This will probably have to wait for the next upswing, whenever that happens.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 6:38 PM

Posted by: more4less at October 20, 2009 12:45 PM

look at my whole post vs. selectively copy & pasting just the 1st line. my point was if it's built (we agree that it would be stupid for developer to do so), it will be developer, banker and any initial tenants will be killed - cost basis too high to work. BUT subsequent owner, tenants.... will enjoy super hair cut cost hence sustainable for landlord and tenant.

Posted by: more4less at October 20, 2009 6:50 PM

Okeydokey.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at October 20, 2009 8:53 PM

Somebody explain to me how constructing a new building creates jobs. Do new businesses sprout from the air? Isn't it just old businesses moving to new locations, and people are hired to replace now unemployed workers who decided/could not move to the business' new location?

Posted by: FiredUpReadyToGo at October 21, 2009 9:43 AM

« Walkabout with Montrose: The Road to Prospect Heights Last Week's Biggest Sales »

October 20, 2009

What Could Have Been on Flatbush

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions