Whole Foods: Not the Best of Neighbors
About a month ago, we posed the following question: Is Whole Foods to blame for the sorry state of the city landmark on the grocer’s property at 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue? The answer, according to a story in today’s Daily News, is yes. The property’s owner entered into an agreement in 2005 with Whole…
About a month ago, we posed the following question: Is Whole Foods to blame for the sorry state of the city landmark on the grocer’s property at 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue? The answer, according to a story in today’s Daily News, is yes. The property’s owner entered into an agreement in 2005 with Whole Foods wherein the grocer was supposed to repair the structure, but the landmark Coignet Stone Company building has been abandoned to the elements for years as Whole Foods fails to make progress on its Gowanus supermarket. “The whole thing is a disaster,” says Richard Kowalski, the building’s owner. Kowalski planned to open an art gallery and gift store in the rehabilitated property. A Whole Foods spokesman is evasive about the supermarket’s pledge to repair the landmark. “We have not been contacted in over a year by … the owner of the building … and we have no information whatsoever regarding the owner’s plans for the building,” spokesman Fred Shank told the Daily News. Our take: Whatever benefits this Whole Foods would bring to the neighborhood and Brooklyn have been greatly overshadowed in the past year or so by the store’s lack of action in Gowanus. The fence at the abandoned toxic site has been destroyed again and again, giving the general public open-access to a potentially harmful property. At the same time, we now learn the grocer has reneged on its agreement to preserve a city landmark. Whole Foods, it’s time to s*&t or get off the Gowanus pot.
Gowanus Landmark Building Caught in Repair Dispute [NY Daily News]
3rd St. Landmark Crumbling; Is Whole Foods to Blame? [Brownstoner]
Obstacles Remain for Whole Foods [Brownstoner]
Whole Foods Fence Saga Continues [Brownstoner]
or maybe they’re trying to sell b/c they can’t afford to remediate.
I’ve know a little, not a lot, about the requirements to clean up a toxic waste site like this. The state has probably required quite extensive testing done by boring into the ground into multiple locations. You then send them the results what was done there and then they may take years to get back to you on what they will require to be done. It’s not easy to just clean up a site like this and you cannot forget that there are at least two if not multiple parties involved that need to coordinate and agree upon a plan of action. Often, it’s not obvious what the best course of action is and you can have honest disagreements between the private party and the state.
If you don’t know all the facts it’s very easy to blame WF. Maybe they’re dragging the feet or maybe they are simply waiting for the state to give them a decision on what it will require for them to move forward.
a more prudent effort would be taking steps to see that whoever whole foods flips this site to commits to rehabbing the building in a timely fashion.
Has WF removed the contaminated soil?
Have they actually done anything on the site?
Looks pretty much abandoned.
“Did any of you read the NY Daily News article before posting.” Mr. Joist, what else would you expect of Gabby. She has yet again shown how her posts bring down the quality of this site. I don’t know what Stoner pays her, and I doubt it’s much, but it’s still clearly way too much. According to the article that she posts to, the owner has had the building since 92 (and has done nothing to it) he enters into a non-binding verbal agreement with WF, and he then fails to even contact them for the past year. Her conclusion upon reading or maybe not reading the article, is:
“the grocer has reneged on its agreement (reneged on a non-binding verbal agreement?) to preserve a city landmark. Whole Foods, it’s time to s*&t or get off the Gowanus pot.”
I think it’s time Gabby for Gabby to go.
This building is utterly insignificant architecturally (its proportions and detail suck) and the neighborhood would be better served by removing it. However if WF made a committment they should honor it, after they get their permit.
Regarding the pollution, its not really that complicated. I believe they’ve already removed much of the contaminated soil and are ready to cap over (within permissible guidlines) the rest.
More the fool he. So is going to the papers a way of putting pressure on them? And why would he depend on a non-binding verbal agreement in the first place?
Did any of you read the NY Daily News article before posting? Atlantic Frantic said: “abrogation of duty” .. WTF?!
[“They were supposed to finish in two years,” added Kowalski, who noted that a timeline he agreed to with Whole Foods was a nonbinding verbal agreement.]
This is real estate people … “nonbinding verbal agreement” … hahahhahah.
Feel bad for the guy but please get a clue.
I just went ahead,googled and found this article from 2006: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/29/50/29_50benzene.html
According to this the benzene pollution is spreading out, and going toward Park Slope in an ever widening circle. So if they can’t get their permits, they will have lost a ton of money to do a massive failed clean up. If the pollution is spreading, the city really doesn’t have much choice but to do a clean up- I have no doubt the residents of Park Slope will make certain they do.