Goldman Sachs Buying Up Fulton Street
In My Brooklyn Report’s series on urban blight along Fulton Street, Michael Corley notices that Goldman Sachs’ real estate investment arm has taken keen interest in a certain stretch of Fulton Street in Bedford Stuyvesant, buying up at least six neighboring properties in the vicinity of Marcus Garvey Boulevard, including at least one vacant lot….
In My Brooklyn Report‘s series on urban blight along Fulton Street, Michael Corley notices that Goldman Sachs’ real estate investment arm has taken keen interest in a certain stretch of Fulton Street in Bedford Stuyvesant, buying up at least six neighboring properties in the vicinity of Marcus Garvey Boulevard, including at least one vacant lot. In his piece, he raises questions about the possible motives of Goldman Sachs, namely whether the financial behemoth plans to oust locals in favor for higher-paying suburbanite baby-boomers moving back to the city. Mr. Corley’s piece is the second in a three-part series, so we are curious to see if he finds evidence of sketchy political dealings or whether this is, simply, a savvy investment maneuver by Sachs. Update: Looks like this really isn’t such big news. As a commenter points out, we wrote about this a year and a half ago! See the post here. GMAP
Goldman Sachs Finds Opportunity in Bedford Stuyvesant [My Brooklyn Report]
Whose [sic] Responsible for the Urban Blight at 1576 Fulton Street [My Brooklyn Report]
Photo by Jonathan Scheff/Brownstoner
The plan was to tear all those buildings down and build a condo building with retail, not to renovate the existing structures – see my post above. Additionally, all of the storefronts there are vacant – they were pushed out in anticipation of the project (which may have been delayed by the economy). As I stated above, I have seen renderings of the proposed building.
Habitat did an apartment complex over on Halsey, not far from there. The buildings are modern, yet complement the rest of the neighborhood in scale and size. They work really well. Most of the local developers should be required to take notes. They even had the good sense to mount the utility meters on decorative looking brick walls perpendicular to the buildings. They hold the meters, and have vegetation and flowers growing around them which totally hides the functionality. A bit of nothing to the total picture, but shows some sensibility towards the overall environment.
Montrose How active is habitat in that area? I am surprised they are there
would assume there has to be commercial development before they can make pitch to get people to move there. good retail (along with safety, good schools,…) is key to draw people in. Am thinking a barnes & noble, movie theater, bowling alley, super market,… would be attractive to existing and future residents in that area. Net is something is better NOTHING
I don’t see moneyed baby boomers moving to that part of Fulton St. Also, those buildings look totally vacant except for the shops. Renovation to that part of Fulton St. would be most welcome. What the hell are they waiting for?
Montrose they are prob. waiting until the day after the gov finds out why oil went to 150.
So, back to the original topic, Goldman Sachs has been sitting on most of these properties for a year and a half? If their altruistic goal had been “revitalizing the community” or some such pr-speak, are they waiting until they need the defibrillizer and the crash cart, before starting something? Many of these buildings were abandoned when I moved to Bed Stuy in ’83. Do something, already. If not, donate them to someone who can, and will. If it’s housing, Habitat for Humanity has done some nice work in the area. Sitting on them, waiting for the tide to turn looks mighty suspicious.
Antidope, I was just responding to your post saying I’m, along with other bears (technically, I belong on team realistic), are not REAL buyers. Anyhow, I’m willing to call a truce and debate without the name calling.
Yes, but DIBS, last weeks biggest sales were encouraging to me. That house on 8th st that went from 2.4 to 1.8 was approaching affordability for me – so that’s the direction I’m talking about.