Albee Square Deal Closes, Fewer Apartments Planned
When the deal was announced back in February, the consortium of investors purchasing the groundlease for the Gallery at Fulton Mall from Thor Equities had big plans: 475,000 square feet of retail space, 125,000 square feet of Class A office space, and 1,000 rental apartments (with 20 percent set aside for tenants of moderate income)….
When the deal was announced back in February, the consortium of investors purchasing the groundlease for the Gallery at Fulton Mall from Thor Equities had big plans: 475,000 square feet of retail space, 125,000 square feet of Class A office space, and 1,000 rental apartments (with 20 percent set aside for tenants of moderate income). Since the deal closed last week for a reported $120 million, it’s come out that the housing component has been scaled back by about 35 percent. The 1.6-million-square-foot tower (which will be anywhere from 40 to 60 stories) will still have 650 apartments, but the switcheroo is expected to result in a loss of about 70 affordable housing units, something that has community groups pissed off. The new owners haven’t announced what they’re going to do with the extra square footage from the 350 axed apartments yet.
Developers Pare Housing Plan for Albee Square [NY Observer] GMAP
Expansion, Skyscraper Planned for Albee Square Mall [Brownstoner]
Albee Square [Acadia Realty]
1:57 I don’t understand – isn’t that “rich” person who “can’t afford Manhattan” any longer who then moves to Downtown Brooklyn in EXACTLY the same boat as you who cant afford downtown Brooklyn anymore and then is the (relatively)”rich” person who moves to Windsor Terrace?
Bravo, Fez – well said.
Bren/Sterling Silver and Neighborhood, thanks again for so eloquently stating the reality and what’s going on here. People wonder why crime is going up. Yeah it’s concentrated in some neighborhoods but sooner or later it’s gonna touch everyone. Those kids realize that they don’t give a fuck about them, they’re not gonna give a fuck about you and all hell will break lose.
Another thing, NYC is one of the few large cities in the world where rich people can so freely walk around most areas in the city, without worrying about getting kidnapped and having to travel in armored vehicles with security and stuff. We got crime, but nothing like other big cities. After working in Mexico City, it really hit me how good we have it here. It’s such a thin line to maintain that balance. These folks need to wake up.
Sterling Silver
I agree that there are pockets where developers create those 100k silos and the overall vitality of the borough specifically and the city generally. However, I’ve lived in Brooklyn for 15 years before moving to Queens and then back to Brooklyn.
While I was here for the first 15 years we lived where it was affordable, Flatbush. When I graduated college i lived where my salary could afford me Queens and when my earnings power climbed i was able to live in the nicer neighborhoods (P. Slope and B. Heights). I guess the point I’m making is the culture of entitlement is so pervasive that the people who are getting displaced by the people making 100k should focus on the things that allow you to earn 100k… education and focusing on social and economic mobility.
Everyone complains that teachers, firemen and policemen can’t afford to live in the areas where they work, but i counter that they’re the ones choosing the career path that doesn’t pay. If new teachers became scare and budding police/firemen decided the money wasn’t there it would force the City/State to make adjustments. But the changes right now (i.e. luxury condos) are a sign of the times and progress necessarily leads to displacement.
People aren’t moving to Brooklyn because of the abundance of great schools, or the low occurrence of fires. Low crime has driven some of it, but low interest rates and the deserve to be a home owner were the fuel for the fire.
Hopefully the new more affluent residents and the subsequent kids will help populate the schools and raise overall standards of learning – there are benefits to gentrification.
“The complaint appears to have been directed against a government that entitles developers to redefine an area’s economic base with luxury versus affordable housing.”
How is replacing a (failing) mall with a mixed use retail-office-hotel-and apartments(20% of which will be affordable) = redefining an area’s economic base with luxury vs. affordable housing – Fulton Mall has virtually NO housing now.
The problem is that so many people think that ‘affordability’ is something that the government creates – when in reality it is created by market forces, if in fact this is all one big bubble (and it might be), then all of you people bemoning the current trend toward luxury housing should be happy – since it is the formerly ‘luxury’ housing built in past bubbles that provide the affordable housing today (i.e. Brownstones in Eastern Brooklyn, Large sections of the Bronx and upper Manhattan to name a few) and surely the quickest way to pop this bubble and return this housing to affordability is to encourage as much building as possible. BTW – this is how the market works and it is funny to me how so many people fail to see how their desire for (and success at obtaining) restrictions on supply under the banner of affordability – help to make this one of the least affordable cities.
what people are failing to understand is that many teachers can’t afford to buy in brooklyn. teachers with MAs. these are hard working educated people doing good work in the community and they can’t afford to buy. how is this not a problem?
america’s middle class is what separates it from the third world. to the wealthy on this board–trust me, you WANT a middle class buffer in your commnities.
“If they want to live in downtown they should earn their way like everyone else: through education, professional motivation, hard work and drive to succeed.”
What an arrogant idiotic thing to say. We’re not talking about high school dropouts here, we’re talking college educated hard working people. Not everyone aspires to only make money, but take jobs that amongst other things help others, create the art and culture etc etc.
Why should they (I) be forced out of where I’ve lived for almost two decades because rich people can’t afford Manhattan anymore and took over my neighborhood?
RE: Sterling Silver 11:06
You’re way off base –
1) This is a ‘as of right development’ and no special NYC government permits are required.
2) The amount of affordable housing is pegged to tax-exempt bond requirements set by the IRS. It does not make economic sense to include more affordable housing above the required threshold.
RE: 11:30am
1) The development is not forcing anyone out of their homes. This is being built on a retail site. Instead of dislocation, there will be a net increase in housing units if built. That means more people will have homes.
RE: 11:45
1) How is the Albee Square development damaging downtown brooklyn? This isn’t a residential neighborhood.
2) You refer to people with money as having an ‘entitlement’. The same arguement can be made for those who demand to live in a certain neighborhood regardles of their means. Should New York create a special system to allow the poor to occupy prime high cost real estate? Who will pay for this? Should we increase taxes and force developers to build luxury high rise building with stainless steel to accomodate the poor?
RE: 12:02
1) This development is including a lower income component to address your concern. Providing 20% affordable units to families making 42k or less is a way of ensuring poorer residents remain downtown.
2) “Build your elite enclaves in the Hamptons” – bad suggestion. Not only are you promoting income segregation but also suburban sprawl. No great city operate well by segregating the classes.
3) Additionally, this development is NOT an exclusive enclave – if that were the case there wouldn’t be any affordable housing.
RE 12:21
1) It’s unlikely that a significant minority of residents would drive. Where are you getting your information? Are you seriously suggesting that because they can afford the new apartment they’d rather sit in traffic for an hour versus getting to Lower MN in 15 minutes on the subway…. Probably not.
RE: 12:43
1) How is this developer acting “sleazy”? The City upzoned downtown brooklyn to facilitate new residential development helping to increase unit supply. Downtown Brooklyn was a natural corridor for growth, helping to channel pent-up market demand away from more establised neighborhoods. Describe the insidious activity occuring here.
12:49 Silver-
1) Again, the ratio of affordability has remained to same, as required by law. The overall project has been reduced in size. The Developer did not “lop-off” the affordable housing component.
2) Describe the loss of culture occuring in New York. If you’re relating culture to income – that’s unfortunate. FYI: The level of poverty in the city has remained fairly constant over the last five years. So, using your reasoning, we should have the same amount of culture.
RE: 1:06
1) Not everyone agrees that high-rise development downtown constitutes a problem. Many see it as both an economic and quality of life improvement.
wow, we actually managed to stay on topic for about an hour and then we veered of into a meta-discussion. a proportion is a proportion, and 20 percent affordable is just that. like david and 11:16 (the first), i am very much in favor of increasing the amount of office space at albee square. wasn’t that what the downtown brooklyn plan was all about? keeping businesses from moving to jersey?