Karma Is a Bitch: 185 Ocean Developer Sucking Wind
One of the galling chapters in the now-waning development boom of this decade was when a developer paid 33% over asking price for the turn-of-the-century brick house (above left) at 185 Ocean Avenue and proceeded to waste little time in tearing it down in order to put up an eight-story apartment building. (Dollar signs in…
One of the galling chapters in the now-waning development boom of this decade was when a developer paid 33% over asking price for the turn-of-the-century brick house (above left) at 185 Ocean Avenue and proceeded to waste little time in tearing it down in order to put up an eight-story apartment building. (Dollar signs in their eyes, the greedy neighbors tried to cash in but were too late to the party.) After paying $1,200,000 for a 30-by-150-foot property with a beautiful house on it, the developer now is trying to get $2,500,000 for the same piece of land with a big hole in the ground (above right). Where do we sign up! While the developer may lose some money on this deal, the real losers are the community and appreciators of Brooklyn’s architectural history.
185 Ocean Avenue [Corcoran] GMAP
PLG House Razed, 8-Story Building Planned [Brownstoner]
Ocean’s 13: Landmarking Against a Ticking Time Bomb [Brownstoner]
PLG Shocker! 185 Ocean Closes 33% Above Ask [Brownstoner]
links should be fixed now
I had signed the contract to buy the house before the other side pulled out and went with the developer. I was in contract for $930,000.00. I was so excited to preserve it and live in it with my family. Too bad for me! I still think about it but instead bought this house in carroll gardens.
http://bstoner.wpengine.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/08/green_on_browns.php
PLG house on Prospect Park or beautiful 2nd St. house 1 block from amazing PS 58?? Both are great.
Benson,
“If you think the LPC made an improper decision, [I do] I’ll respect your opinion and your efforts, even though I disagree [thank you–that’s mutual]. As you suggest, take this up with LPC again and maybe you’ll have better luck with the remaining row of homes [I hope]. Maybe those who fought this preservation fight should rethink the way they made their case”[Indeed!].
BTW, you’re right that the link doesn’t work–I hope Mr. b can fix it.
ontheparkway,
There are undoubtedly [at least] two sides. The developer being unable to proceed is a function of the economic downturn [about which no one is happy] plus his own apparent lack of preparation and general ineptness, rather than the efforts of preservationists who, judging by the LPC’s inaction, have little power here.
Polemicist writes
“Part of this area [PLG], just across the street from Flatbush Avenue, has already been rezoned to a density more typical of suburban communities with populations a fraction of just this neighborhood. That is quite a concession, so I suggest you be happy with you have gotten and appreciate the fact poor slobs stuck in apartment buildings can live side by side peacefully with the exclusionary rich with their mansions”.
Actually that zoning [hardly “re” zoning, since it was done over 45 years ago, when NYC residential zoning was basically established] was merely a reflection of the way Lefferts Manor was developed, starting in 1893. The existence of Lefferts Manor as a single-family neighborhood has demonstrably NOT prevented the development of PLG into a neighborhood where people of all income levels can live side by side.
It was a nice house and it’s a shame there’s a hole there now.
That being said, it would be nice to have more housing options in the nabe. . .and if the condos are built I’m sure folks will be happy to live there.
Plus, it would give a boost to new biz in the area that need new people moving in to prosper.
Unfortunately, not everybody can buy a house in PLG and there aren’t too many coops either.
YOu don’t have to be a tear-down supporter to see there are two sides to this argumnent.
Bob;
For some reason, when I try to click on that link, nothing comes up.
I think you are missing my point. I don’t doubt that efforts were made to preserve this house. My point is where you and others should direct your feelings about the end-point of this process. I repeat: as far as we know, this developer acted within the law, so I don’t understand why this schadenfreude is being directed at him. If you think the LPC made an improper decision, I’ll respect your opinion and your efforts, even though I disagree. As you suggest, take this up with LPC again and maybe you’ll have better luck with the remaining row of homes. Maybe those who fought this preservation fight should rethink the way they made their case.
What is the point, however, in being a sore loser in a legal proceeding and wishing ill on a developer? Moreover, I wonder who the loser really is in this deal. You might have some schadenfreude, but because of this developer’s misfortune, you also have a hole in the ground that you’ll be staring at for some time.
BRG, when dealing with your limit, just be careful when you withdraw the shaft or at least make sure you have sufficient room later to re-insert it if you need to. Otherwise, things can get very sticky.
JIPS:
So, again – the grocer is greedy because he doesn’t give you food for free or at a discount? No one who has a family to feed is going to service you for free. Get a grip
Babs:
Right and right
This site is completely geographically separated from the historically protected area. It is also across the street from a park.
I’ve said before – I completely respect historical preservation. It MUST however be balanced with access to public amenities and the overall needs of the people. We do not pay taxes to support a subway system and 500+ acre park so a few rich folks can have a mansion nearby. Part of this area, just across the street from Flatbush Avenue, has already been rezoned to a density more typical of suburban communities with populations a fraction of just this neighborhood. That is quite a concession, so I suggest you be happy with you have gotten and appreciate the fact poor slobs stuck in apartment buildings can live side by side peacefully with the exclusionary rich with their mansions.
My sincerest apologies for saying dozens instead of dozen. A 15,000 square foot building would still house a number of people. A dozen families is probably quite accurate. My use of the term “great” applied to the living standards of the future residents. The building would certainly be modest, but they would have spacious modern homes, views of a beautiful park, and a quick walk to an express subway station. To most people in this city, that’s pretty great. I’m sorry you don’t see that.
Benson:
Thank you for mentioning the green aspect. That ALWAYS gets swept under the rug here. A typical NIMBY behavioral attribute though.