Fort Greene Co-Housing Deal Falls Apart
Only a couple of weeks after its big profile in The Times, the Brooklyn Cohousing group has had a big set-back: According to a tip we received this morning, the group pulled out of its contract to build its communal development on the site of the now-dead Carlton Mews project behind St. Michael’s Church in…
Only a couple of weeks after its big profile in The Times, the Brooklyn Cohousing group has had a big set-back: According to a tip we received this morning, the group pulled out of its contract to build its communal development on the site of the now-dead Carlton Mews project behind St. Michael’s Church in Fort Greene. Details are thin right now and we haven’t gotten a response to the voicemail and email we put out to Brooklyn Cohousing a couple of hours ago. Anyone got the skinny? Update: According to a representative of Brooklyn Cohousing, the costs of the Carlton Mews projects were “just too high” and the group is now actively looking at a number of other alternatives, ranging from ground-up projects to almost-complete developments.
Utopia in the City [Brownstoner] GMAP
Brooklyn Cohousing Selects a Site [Brownstoner]
This is not a case of financial hardship per se. Just because someone’s house might get foreclosed on in a landmark district does not give them a right to have it demolished. There may be investors in the property/church who have deeper pockets than we might know and will not be able to prove financial hardship despite an LLC or somesuch.
I have a feeling the church can be renovated for something less cash-intensive. Unfortunately, from everything I’ve been able to glean from this, a not insignificant part of the final cost of the project to the cohousing group would have been the initial cost of the property…basically bailing out the people who bought the property for “too much.”
Frankly, the church should have been kept as a church the way I remember it without all that pointless (mostly) interior demolition that basically wrecked it. The whole plot of land could have remained a church with public community garden, pocket park, or a semi-public space in the Brooklyn-Queens Land Trust.
When the developers bought the property initially, there was a lot of loose money flying around. It’s too bad prior to this one of the those “Bette Midler Saves the Day” things couldn’t have been worked out…
Oh, well…
I cannot imagine where else they could get this kind of location with this size land parcel. Maybe the combination was just beyond their means. There are lots of smaller and cheaper non-landmarked parcels in less desirable locations in the Boros. But that is comparing apples to oranges. I feel badly for everyone involved. I believe that the mews project was a project designed for boom times. now that we are poor again, maybe we will need more down to earth projects. I do think this spells the doom of the old church on the site. The developers have a perfect opportunity now to apply to landmarks for demolition under financial hardship standards. I think it would not be hard to prove here.
That is my free advise to the owners.
Yeah, I was being serious about the convent, not snarky. However, if it really needs 20 million in repairs…
CMU,
This cannot be one of those cheap “Fedders Buildings” because the plans had to pass muster with Landmarks and the Community Board. The final plan was not the developers’ first try. The cohousing group was going to use the existing filed plans in large part because it would be so time-consuming and expensive to redo what has already been approved.
Yes, this is a good time for the group to reorient its thinking. It is a hard, often wrenching, process but because of the consensus model of “governance”/group decision making, they were able to pull off a big change in direction. Their being able to do this is highly commendable! It speaks to the integrity and flexibility of the cohousing group and its individuals.
Well done!
And yes, there are many options open to them. Absolutely. When I heard of the estimated cost of the Carlton Muse project, I did, in fact, assume the group would eventually need to reassess the situation and look at their options, possibly take over an almost finished project elsewhere, etc. Who knows? Time will tell.
Regarding the convent, it is awfully far afield from any subway station unfortunately AND it would likely be much too costly for the Brooklyn Cohousing group considering. But it is, in fact, a lovely idea. It could be a wonderful thing if it happened.
Good luck to the group!!!
I may go to the orientation to see how it stands.
I realize you guys are TRYING to be funny, but ain’t cutting it. Cohousing is nothing like a cult and the people involved are a hell of a lot more community-oriented than most of us. Thus would’ve been a great use of that space…now it’s another Fedders building to come.
Changing market conditions and recent publicity have opened up new sites and possibilities for realizing our vision in a more cost-effective way. Much as we love the former St. Michaels church property, and the prospect of being part of the wider Fort Greene community, it doesn’t make sense to develop at that site under current conditions. It is a buyer’s market now, and we’re discovering just how attractive a buyer we are to developers who are motivated to sell.
–member of Brooklyn Cohousing
Rob, I have the exact opposite impression of NY. If you don’t want to see people and have a relationship with your neighbors, you move to the suburbs where they put up enormous shrubbery or fences so they can’t even SEE their neighbors. When friends from out of town visit here, they can’t get over how neighborly it is. New York City, and especially Brooklyn, is really a bunch of interconnected small towns.
Too bad about the demise of this co-housing project. Co-housing is kind of co-op-y, but it’s not culty. I hope they find a better space soon.
Great, this will preclude the inevitable murders/hostage situation/botched FBI raid in 2013 or so.
Smart move in my book. It’s a buyer’s market and there are tons of projects they can get for cheap. They seem uniquely positioned as a buyer that can deliver both cash and presales. The Times article made it sound like the seller was looking to get more than they paid at the height of the market. Good luck to them if they can find that…