The Tea Lounge Bids Adieu
Signs have been posted for weeks that the 7th Avenue location of Tea Lounge is closing due to a hefty rent increase, but latte sippers got a shock yesterday morning when a new sign went up: Thursday, July 24 was the cafe’s last day of business—not even a ceramic mug was left on the shelves….
Signs have been posted for weeks that the 7th Avenue location of Tea Lounge is closing due to a hefty rent increase, but latte sippers got a shock yesterday morning when a new sign went up: Thursday, July 24 was the cafe’s last day of business—not even a ceramic mug was left on the shelves. A rumor circulated that a Vietnamese sandwich shop might be taking root there, though Tea Lounge workers intimated the deal fell through. Anybody know what’ll go in the space next?
Two Down in Park Slope [Brownstoner]
Background photo by kansasliberal
So Hanco’s on Bergen beats Nicky’s on Atlantic any day. Never went to the Tea Lounge on Court street nor the PS locations. So no comment on that – but something like Hancos would be a nice additions any day – Hancos for some reason never gets the press that Nickys does.
But to the one comment about Lee Lee’s Valise in carroll gardens on court – and please understand that I mean no harm and no offense – I really think that store isnt going to last – we live around the corner – and I by no means would categorize the shop for women of normal size. Women of normal size are medium and large. Women who would shop there must be much, much larger and it just doesnt seem to fit into a hood where people do so much walking. That store is always empty. I dont think it would last in PS either.
landlord, wish everyone thought that way and we could avoid streets dotted with long-empty properties.
Your approach definitely makes for much more useful, varied, welcoming and neighborly streets.
I don’t know what tax break the other landlord is talking about. Any tax benefit would be much less then the rent he could get.
I own a commercial property in park slope and its to my best interest that the buisness is successful, even if it means asking below market value rent. This is especially true if its a unique buisness that draws foot traffic to the area.
If too many stores remain closed it will greatly decrease the foot traffic to the area. In return it would be much harder to rent the store when you finaly decide to rent it out.
…and by 70s-80s I mean streets, not years. Although if we are to discuss years, there have been examples of this during extended periods during each of the last 3 decades, when landlords overshot boom cycles by deliberately raising rents so high their clients could not afford renewal, at which point they let properties sit a year or two (or more) and reaped benefits of lower RE taxes.
All one needed to do was walk down the street during any of those down cycles to see the proof.
It’ll probably be a Bank of America. It’s pathetic. I’ve lived in the nabe for 24 years and so many great local small business are being forced out by greedy landlords. In a few years, 5th and 7th Avenues will look like a big old mall. Applewares is closing too. The South Slope had so many cool places and they are turning over so quickly. I know the economny is bad, but if the rents were manageable, they might have been able to hold on. The only comment I will make is that some of the shops that open don’t have a chance because they aren’t unique and are overpriced. What Park Slope needs are a great Greek and Indian restaurant, a really good deli and clothing for normal sized women (Lee Lee’s Valise on Court Street – come to Park Slope!!!)
Even Madison Avenue in the 70s-80s goes through periods when legions of storefronts are left idle.
Not sure what you mean.
Well then Nicholas Kotsonis is a moron and knows nothing about finance/economics. Just b/c you are a LL and you think you are making an economically rational decision doesnt mean you are.
Please explain why this tax ‘loophole’ doesn’t apply in other high rent retail districts – like Manhattan?
Hell in alot of retail leases – the TENANT pays their share of the RE taxes anyway……
“Except no rational landlord is going to keep a vacancy in order to lower his taxes.” – fsrq
Not at all the case.
One of the biggest landlords of 7th Avenue, Nicholas Kotsonis, freely admits and explains this as commonplace in various brooklynian.com forums posts here:
http://shurl.org/xnKve
Your post is mistaken as follows:
1) It IS about a tax reduction incentive loophole
2) There are PLENTY of well-managed businesses that are seeking these spaces, it has nothing to do with questionable management of 100% of interested parties.
Except no rational landlord is going to keep a vacancy in order to lower his taxes. It makes no sense and if you thought about it for more than a sec you’d realize that too.
It is true however that the LL doesnt eat the whole loss, since it can offset other income, but that is no different then a LL doesnt reap all the profit either – b/c of taxes.
Any rational LL wants to rent his/her property. As for why dont LL simply take all these people with “great ideas for stores” and offer them a lower rent to avoid vacancy (and not be greedy). Thats easy….
Because 1. For the most part they arent ‘great ideas’ they are lousy or marginal stores to start and the vast majority of people who think they can operate a store, have no experience and can’t.
So the LL learns very quickly that it isnt in his best interest to give up months of rent for a new merchant to get opened and then quickly fail b/c they have no idea how to run a store, or the store itself stinks. Better to hold out for a professional merchant (which yes may be a chain) because a professional merchant will quickly realize that $1 or $2 Gs more or less of mo rent is irrelevant when you have a good concept well executed and virtually free rent is irrelevant to keep a lousy merchant and/or a marginal idea in business.
The demographics of Park Slope can EASILY support these rents, the problem is that there arent merchants who have the concept and/or the management to make it work.