Condos, Not Hotel, at Ashland and Fulton
August 13, 2005, Brooklyn Papers — A developer that paid $12 million for four lots next to the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater in Fort Greene plans to build a large-scale luxury condominium complex, a spokeswoman for the developer said. The representative of Manhattan-based The Clarett Group contacted The Brooklyn Papers after the newspaper…
August 13, 2005, Brooklyn Papers — A developer that paid $12 million for four lots next to the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater in Fort Greene plans to build a large-scale luxury condominium complex, a spokeswoman for the developer said. The representative of Manhattan-based The Clarett Group contacted The Brooklyn Papers after the newspaper reported last week that the company had quietly bought up and cleared of tenants the properties next to the performance space on Fulton Street at Ashland Place.
Despite rumors that Clarett would seek to build a hotel on the site, a use allowed under the current commercial zoning, the source said the developer would instead build condominiums there, which they can do as-of-right by including ground-floor commercial space. The site could support a 30-story residential tower. Fort Greene Councilwoman Letitia James, who dealt with Clarett on behalf of some of the evicted tenants who lived and worked in the low-rise buildings at 655 through 671 Fulton St., called the company’s plans underhanded.
Harvey’s Neighbors: Condos [Brooklyn Papers]
It’s amazing to me that Tish James is supposedly “fighting the fight” for the impoverished, yet she continues to raise my rent to exhorbitant levels, 10% one year and then 7% the next…talk about full scale hypocrisy, not to mention her eviction threats to me due to the fact that I have my homeless and destitute brother residing with us. Isn’t this a violation of Real Property Law 235f? Upholder of the law, protector of the destitute, she is not.
Only in New York do we have such outrageous cost for housing and rent. All housing should be affordable. I agree with Letitia James looking out for poor people.
I just hope whatever that gets built, tall or not, isn’t so darn ugly. Simple tenements from the 19th century look better than some of the new buildings going up.
Actually, I’m for the development, too. However; it’d be really nice if at least a fraction of said development was allotted to low or moderate income folks. I’d originally responded to the person who thought that affordable housing shouldn’t be everywhere. My response essentialy was/is: why not everywhere? I’m not saying it should be ALL affordable – but I also don’t see the need to push all affordable housing to the far reaches of the city.
Calm down escap, it wasn’t directed at everyone, just MC who was starting the same tired argument we’ve seen a million times on this site.
It looks like everybody except one poster thought this development was good news (count me on that as well). So I’m not sure why you’re taking the attitude that all the posters are opposed. You’re basically just agreeing with what everyone else said, while simultaneously calling them “stupid”.
Here we go again on a stupid thread. The property owners sold their property to a developer. No laws have been broken. Too bad if some people had cheap rents and now will have to move. That is the plight of ALL renters, rich and poor. That block sorely needs to be developed. The fact that it will be is great as just five or ten years ago it would be almost unthinkable that someone would put up luxury condos, or anything as useful and good for the area.
I read the comment by Anon 10:47am that a mixed income area is better than an exclusively poverty-striken one, not that the poor should be excluded from the area next to BAM.
“And I’m all for affordable housing, but it shouldnt be EVERYWHERE…”
Because God forbid those poor or moderate-income folks live everywhere the well-off live. We can’t have THAT.