Snark;

Hmmmm - you've got a point there.
However, may I make a statement before you give me my sentence?

I have nothing against 99 cent stores per se. My point above was that the landlords in this area, in their panic to rent out these storefronts, did not exercise "portfolio management", with the result being an over-concentration of these stores - to the neighborhood's detriment.

OK, your honorable snark, I am ready to receive my sentence.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 11:48 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Orestes;

Of course the decline in the neighborhood was not solely due to the 99 cents store. I also agree that vacant storefronts are deliterious to a neighborhood, BUT, there is one big difference.

Those 99 cent stores were locked in for a 10 year lease, and hence remained an obstacle to the neighborhood's improvement for that amount of time. On the other hand, vacant storefronts can be a short-term problem and then, a catalyst for the neighborhood's improvement. How so? After one year of no rent coming in, the LL may wise up and lower his rents, allowing a variety of quality places (like dry cleaners, cafes, etc) to come in at rates with which they can make a good living.

Sorry, but I think your tax idea is harmful.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 7:37 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Montrose;

I have been in this discussion from this morning, with lots of back-and-forth. Please see my recent counter-point to Orestes.

This is the mud-slinging to which I was referring (from Bxgrl):

"Mean-spirited, ignorant, shortsighted- you name it, you expressed it with this tidbit of unintelligence. Congratulations."

If you call this an "interesting discussion" from which I should not have retreated, so be it. I'll take the rap.

Sayonara!

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 4:36 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Hmmmm;

Mud-slinging has arrived!

Activate shut-down mode!!!

Good-bye!

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 4:07 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

"As pointed out above, empty store fronts can increase blight and they also deny the community added amenities. "

Hi Orestes;

I would argue that for some landlords, in some circumstances, leaving the stores vacant is precisely the right thing to do.

I'll give you an example with which I'm familiar: the Kings Highway stretch of Western Gravesend (this is where I grew up, and my folks still live there). During the last big real estate recession (early 90's) alot of the old-time businesses in this stetch went under. The owners of these properties were alot of old-timers who weren't that sophisticated. They all panicked because they didn't want their income stream interrupted, and many of them rented to cheap 99 cents stores. The effect on the neighborhood of having so many stores filled with these cheap 99 cents stores was pretty bad. The neighborhood went through a downturn. It would have been better if they had held out for better quality tenants.

Fortunately, this situation is now finally being improved. Bloomberg allowed Kings Highway to be upzoned, and alot of condos are being built there, with much better retail space on their ground floor.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 4:04 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Bxgrl;

I'm sorry, but what you are saying just proves my point.

If the owners of these businesses idid not understand that:

-they were in a slow-growing business;

-they were located blocks from a growing commercial office market district that commanded much higher rents, and made no plans to create a new "district" somewhere else;

they deserved to go out of business for lack of savvy.

The Fultion Fish Market moved to the Bronx and they're still doing well. Also, the food warehousing business moved years ago from the Navy Yard area to Canarsie, for the same reasons.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 3:42 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

"One old time very famous bridal business, a successful one, had to close up when the landlord decided to raise their rent from 5000 to 30,000"

Bxgrl;

Not for nothing, but this story doesn't hang together.

If the proprietor was any type of savvy business person, he or she would have been preparing for the lease renewal negotiation. Part of that preparation would have included scouting for alternative lcations, in case the current landlord asked for the moon. If they were indeed a successful enterprise, they could have moved without damaging their business. For example, Kleinfeld's was able to move, and their business is better than ever.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 3:21 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

I heard that the new owner is installing track lighting.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 3:03 PM in response to Co-op of the Day: 160 Henry Street, #1B

Wasder;

One more thing to consider. In a well-run condo (already established, competent baord in place) your total cost of ownership is pretty much priced into either the purchase price and the common charges. A competent board will make sure part of the cc's are set aside for repair and replacement reserves.

When you are purchasing a home, the down-stream costs may or may not be factored into the price.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 1:08 PM in response to Forte Reboot Priced to Sell

Dibs;

You call that a loophole?? I think not. It gives a right of first refusal to the current tenant, based upon CURRENT market offers. If I'm reading it right, therefore, it takes away the landlord's ability to just not rent the place at all, and wait for market conditions to improve.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 1:02 PM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

11217;

That "landlords would rather keep the stores vacant to reap some tax benefit" is an old canard promulgated by the rent control crowd. I know this because my wife has an aunt and uncle who are heavily-involved in the rent control cause, and they constantly spout this line, no matter how much you try to show them it is false.

The idea they're trying to promote is that commercial andlords are "greedy" both coming and going. If the store is occupied, they're gouging on the rents. If it is empty, they're still making lots of money, due to the tax benefits. In summation (according to this crowd): landlords are inherently greedy bastards, and commercial rent control is the only answer.

Unlike FSRG, I'm not polite, so I'll say that my wife's aunt and uncle are economic morons (otherwise, they are really nice people).

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 11:45 AM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Kens;

JTB is right on target. In a new building, there will always be "start-up" issues, and usually it is the developer/sponsor's responsibility to address them. Now that they are out of the picture, you should really find out how this issue is being handled. It may come down to the condo association itself, in which case there will be pressure on their budget.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 11:03 AM in response to Forte Reboot Priced to Sell

"I set the rental rate at an amount that just covers my costs and allows for a modest profit (+/- 10%)"

Bessie;

Now you may claim that this margin is "modest", but have you checked with the rocket scientists at the Daily News??? I dunno, this may qualify as "greedy" in their book ;-)

Seriously, your post is right on point. Well-said.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 10:59 AM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

Ah, I can relax today. It's my buddy FSRG's day to rant.

Go get 'em!

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 10:45 AM in response to Greedy Landlords Causing Storefronts to Sit Empty?

"Brownstoners like modern and contemporary. We just don't like cheap, ugly crap. Is that what you're objecting to?"

Mopar;

I'm objecting to the "we" in your statement.

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 10:05 AM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

When I read this story, I actually wondered to myself "Is the NYT colluding with Mr.B?" This story has many of the necessary elements for a huge number of posts on Brownstoner:

-moving from old-school Dyker Heights to hip Billyburg;

-parents helping out;

-buying Billyburg condo;

-baby arrives - now what to do?

Perfect!

I still maintain, however, that the ultimate story for Brownsotner would be "Sarah Palin purchases a modern condo for her daughter. Chooses Park Slope over Williamsburg".

Mr. B. would have to increase his server's capacity on that day!!!

Posted by: benson at November 23, 2009 9:51 AM in response to Moving From Dyker Hts to a Williamsburg Condo

Oh, now I know what you mean. I remember the series, but never saw it. I don't get HBO. I have very, very basic cable.

Posted by: benson at November 22, 2009 10:32 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Nomi;

Who or what is Deadwood? I'm not familiar with it.

Posted by: benson at November 22, 2009 8:47 AM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Nomi;

OK, let me flesh out my point a little further, and make the lunch more enticing ;-).

I didn't say that contemporary architecture is bankrupt. What I think is bankrupt is the preservationist mindset that holds sway on this site (and I catch ALOT of heat for saying it).

You're absolutely right that there is nothing wrong with one building being restored to its original condition. What I object to is that this is held out as the ONLY paradigm for what to do with such a building. I don't know how long you've been on this site, but I'll ask you: have you ever seen a post on a run-down building in one of the brownstone neighborhoods that is renovated in a contemporary idiom (and the post gives it accolades for doing so?). I can't recall ever seeing such a post. Almost every new development is put down too.

Is this what we want for these neighborhoods: frozen in time with just one style of architecture? How is that different than a Disneyland recreation of a town in a certain time period?

For a brief time in college, I studied urban planning. I'll never forget how my professor made us study St. Mark's square in Venice. In particular, he pointed out that almost every building in that square is from a different time period, spanning almost 500 years. Each is in a different architectural style. Yet, it comes together as a gorgeous whole. He pointed out that we have lost the ability to think like that - and the mindset on this site is evidence of that (at least to me).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Agree or disagree, I appreciate that you are able to discuss this with me without going personal or vitriolic, which seems to be the norm nowadays.

Now how about lunch ?

Posted by: benson at November 21, 2009 4:03 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Nomi;

No problem. You seem like a nice person. Yes, let's have lunch at the cafe. I'll treat!

Posted by: benson at November 21, 2009 12:50 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Nomi;

Oh for Pete's sake, lighten up. I didn't put down this place at all. I made an offhanded remark that was directed at Mr. B. and his aesthetic sensisibility. My point was that he would call anything cute as long as it had some type of 19th century patina.

I'm glad you liked the place, and I wish the owners all the best.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 9:46 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Did someone just fart?

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 3:44 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Minard;

If this blog were solely about preservation, you would be spot on. However, please note that Mr. B. fashions this blog to be about Brooklyn (see the tagline above "Brooklyn Inside and Out"). He talks about new developments, Brooklyn politics, crime and even the restaurant scene.

I like Brooklyn, in all its aspects. Hence I read this blog, and comment where I will.

In sum, your post is not relevant, except to show that there are a good number of people on this site who want to turn it into an amen corner. Rob's point above about diversity is dead on.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 3:20 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Jackal;

Point well taken.

Actually, if you click on my profile, you will see that my frequency of posting is waaaaayyyyy down. Might be down even further in the future.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 2:45 PM in response to Open Thread

Cobblehiller;

I admitted in the thread that the "fart" comment was grumpy. Other then that, I did not go personal on anyone. BTW: thanks for the characterization of me.

THL;

That church comment was not meant for BRG. There were many subsequent threads on that church and there MANY posts by MANY people to the same effect.

Once again I say: I did not go personal on this issue.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 2:36 PM in response to Open Thread

Hi folks;

I admitted above that my "fart" comment was grumpy. Beyond that, I fail to see why folks chose to go personal on this. I won't respond to it, however.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 2:30 PM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Hi folks;

Back from a meeting.

Here is a question for THL, Bxgrl, Snappy (since you said you agree with THL's post) and MM. Let me use THL's characterization of me:

"Oh yeah, Benson has a point alright.

Unfortunately it's mired with his usual tired condescension, personal digs and a loathing for those who would aspire to preserve the historical architecture of a great city.

Bully for him and his lofty open mindedness.

LOL!!!"

May I ask someone to point out where I made a personal dig today? Other than being snarky in my "fart" comment in the cafe thread, I think I kept this above-board.

I appreciate 11217 and Denton's post, though I disagree with them.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 2:24 PM in response to Open Thread

THL;

Oh so clever. I am no match for such wit.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 12:54 PM in response to Open Thread

Montrose;

Mr. B. has expanded this website way beyond the coverage of old brownstones and their restoration. He covers new development work, social issues, heck even crime stories. As a person who has a deep interest in Brooklyn, I therefore read his site, and comment. I might add that I comment at Mr. B.'s pleasure. If he doesn't want my commentary in this site, he can ban me, as he has done with others.

I don't begrudge him his love for brownstones and their restoration. What I dislike is his making it a virtue, and disparaging those who think differently.

IJ has my perspective summarized nicely.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 12:46 PM in response to Open Thread

One more point:

-Instead of sneering at these renovations and venacular material, why don't the people on this site who have some artistic talent create some new, PRACTICAL materials that have a higher aesthetic standard? Why not be creative, instead of being elitist?

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 12:30 PM in response to Open Thread

That Waverly thread yesterday encapsulated exactly why I dislike Mr. B and his mindset. Allow me to explain:

-If I had to give an award between the two owners (the fiberama guy and the "restorer"), I'd give it to the former. Why so? Because his renovation is more authentic and practical. Obviously, he or she was a person of more modest means and as such, worked with venacular materials at hand (read: Home Depot). Like it or not, the venacular materials of our day are those one sees in the suburbs: fake stone fronts, acrylic awanings, etc. In case you don't realize it, the vast majority of wealth in this country is in the suburbs, and THAT is where the manufacturers of commerical building materials will aim their product offerings. What is a guy like this supposed to do? As I see it, he did exactly what a guy in his situation was supposed to do, and bravo for him. Would you rather he just live with decrepit doors and windows, so that he not offend your aesthetic sensibilities?

-On the other hand, the person who is upgrading this building obviously has means. What does he do? Recreates a 19th-century facade, even though it had been completely obliterated. Talk about intellectual and artistic bankruptcy. I get it: 19th century brownstone Brooklyn was nirvana, and all that we in the 21st century can do is to fabricate adult Disneylands where we recreate this lost aesthetic paradise. I guess that we no longer need architects to create new idioms. Please.

-I also resent the sneering that goes on towards the "fiberama" renovations (to put a name on it). Again I ask: if you were in these people's shoes, and had modest means, and other more pressing concerns in life, what would you do?? What venacular material would you advise that they use?? I guess this guy should consider himself lucky though, in that he was only branded a philistine. If we were talking about a developer or a pastor of a 30-person church, then we roll out words like "greedy" or "corrupt".

-Finally, I tire of the mis-use of the word "historic". Old private homes are largely not "historic". They may be fine old homes, but there is nothing "historic" about them, except perhaps in the architectural sense. History is the study of past public affairs, not private quarters.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 12:23 PM in response to Open Thread

Nomi;

Varied??? Really??? Could have fooled me on the Waverly thread.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 11:57 AM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

"Dave, Beoch went there after DH's recommendations and loved it. You should ask her for the review."

Are we allowed to mention this person on the OT????

;-)

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 11:31 AM in response to Open Thread

Minard;

Well, I am a bit grumpy today. Kinda fed up with the Brownstoner mindset. If I have time today, I'll write a rant about it in the OT. That post yesterday about the "restoration" on Waverly Ave. made my blood pressure go up.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 10:51 AM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

Guess who I saw last night? Al Gore! He is the keynote speaker at the conference I am attending (SuperComputing 09 in Portland, Oregon).

Allow me to summarize Al's speech: "Repent your evil carbon ways, for the end is near!!!"

DIBS: thanks for the recommendation about Jake's. Excellent!!

I have a huge rant to write, but no time now. Maybe later. Stay tuned.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 10:32 AM in response to Open Thread

Cute = looks like the walls have accumulated 100 years of farts on them, even though the place is brand new.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 10:18 AM in response to New Cafe for The Heights

"It's possible their analysis of the marketplace and the potential for success surpasses even Mr. Brownstoner's. "

What?!?!?! Impossible!!!! Mr. B. and his amen corner have a lock on good taste.

Posted by: benson at November 20, 2009 10:13 AM in response to Huh? Benetton for Bed Stuy Stretch of Bedford Avenue

"After all, it is the corps that contribute all the money to pols and lobbyists. "

Pete, that is so not true. The top contributors to Albany politicians are the teacher's union and local 1199, BY FAR. Every year the papers document the top lobbyists.

DIBS,

Thanks for the recommendation.

Posted by: benson at November 18, 2009 9:24 AM in response to Wednesday Links

First??

Greetings from Portland, Oregon!

Posted by: benson at November 18, 2009 9:19 AM in response to Open Thread

DIBS;

Greetings from Portland, Oregon.

I see that you're holding down the fort while I'm on the road!

Posted by: benson at November 18, 2009 9:17 AM in response to Wednesday Links

Snappy's e-mail is the only one that makes sense here. If you read the article carefully, you will see that the couple is going after the sponsor to fix the leaks, which is as it should be. Corcoran was hit just for not turning over e-mails.

As to the armchair generals who claim that this couple should have spotted the problems before they bought (via an engineer's report) or that these leaks are proof of shoddy construction, all I can say is that they have obviously never dealt with new construction.

Virtually all new construction, irrespective of quality, will have start-up problems. A new house is not like an automobile that is built in a factory. It must interact with the ground conditions, the sewer system system, etc.

Just as an example: after my condo was built, it was discovered that the basement spaces were experiencing back-up due to the undersized sewer system in the area. The Sponsor had to come back and install back-up prevention systems.

Finally, it is customary for a new condo and coop to hire an engineer to look at the common areas after they move in, for the reasons just discussed. Home inspectors are not engineers, and are not qualified to inspect these items. They only inspect the interior.

Posted by: benson at November 17, 2009 10:50 AM in response to Corcoran Found Negligent in Park Slope Condo Sale

Ya think you might want to wait until the facade is built, before you render a final judgement?

Posted by: benson at November 16, 2009 6:55 PM in response to Development Watch: S#!tbox on Underhill

Hey folks;

I'm on a gruelling road trip right now. Yesterday, Wisconsin, today Denver, tomorrow San Jose and so on. Won't be around for a couple of weeks. Happy posting!

Posted by: benson at November 12, 2009 9:46 AM in response to Open Thread

"Rob is gonna lump you with all the other
wimp husbands in ParkSLope"

LOL!!! Remember when Rob told FSRG that, and he responded that he'd meet him in any bar in Park Slope and kick his a#s?

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 3:05 PM in response to Open Thread

I do the dusting, swiffering and window cleaning in my house. I clean the kitchen cabinets with Murphy's oil twice a year, and I do a complete cleaning of the refrigerator twice a year. I also load and unload the dishwasher every day, in addition to taking out the trash. Finally, I do all of my own painting. My wife is pleased with me - it's worth putting up with my blowhard tendencies.

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 2:59 PM in response to Open Thread

"antiques become less appealing the more you become one."

Pete,

Succinct, and to the point.

By the way, is it just me, or do any of you have the same reaction when you read those "Habitats" profiles in the Sunday NYT real estate section. Invariably they show you the ubiquitous "creative professional" couple (straight or gay)who have the following characteristics:

-rich;

-they have enormous collections of MANY different items, which they just happened to pick up on their world-wide travel (as they were being "creative professionals");

-they did all the extensive renovations by themselves.

Who are these people???????

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 2:35 PM in response to Open Thread

I think we are seeing divine intervention in action here.

Here is what Rob wrote this morning:

"so i had an intervention last night :-( my roommate and his boyfriend invited me out for a drink and pizza and said they are concerned that i spend too much time in my room alone and that i need to go out more. i guess that's like telling someone they need to get a life hahah. soooo how does one go about getting one of those btw?"

Well Rob, here is your new friend/fan/life on that Ratner thread. Remember what the Romans used to say: "Carpe Diem" (Seize the day!).

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 2:25 PM in response to Open Thread

CGAR;

Actually, what you said above is another part of it for us too. After a while, you realize that having alot of "stuff" weighs you down. You need a place to put it, you've got to keep it clean, etc.

My wife used to be a HUGE collector - I never was. Finally, she has come to the same realization, and now she just has a small collection of old tins.

Moving into the condo was such a break. Not only does it require less maintenance in areas like outside snow removal, but it requires minimal interior maintenance too.

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 2:15 PM in response to Open Thread

When we were younger, my wife and I loved to go antiquing. We used to vacation in Vermont alot, and spent half the time poking around in antique stores. At that time we had an older house and I suppose that was part of it.

When we moved to our condo 4.5 years again, we sold almost all of our furniture and stuff, and went to a more contemporary look. Now neither my wife or I have the slighest interest in antiques. I think it is a combination of our condo's look, and just getting tired of all the shopping that is necessary to score a good find. As we walked though the Flea yesterday, we both said to each other something like "Remember when we used to be interested in this stuff?".

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 1:59 PM in response to Open Thread

Snappy;

Actually, to tell you the truth, it smelled like a combination of moth balls and urine!! Not only did I sense that, but my wife, sister and brother-in-law said the same thing.

Posted by: benson at November 9, 2009 1:45 PM in response to Open Thread