475-kent-avenue-brooklyn-0108.jpg
Most of the dailies have stories this morning about the sad, curious evacuation of 475 Kent Avenue in Williamsburg. The FDNY designated the building a fire hazard on Sunday, forcing hundreds of tenants out of their apartments on one of the coldest days of the year. The FDNY said the building needed to be evacuated because its owner, Nachman Brach, was storing flammable materials in the basement that he used to power a matzo bakery. More than 200 tenants lived and worked in 475 Kent despite the fact that the building doesn’t have a C of O for residential use, and now many of them are suddenly homeless. The Times describes the former pasta factory as a commune of creative types, and quotes residents who are confused and angry about the evacuation. One of those residents, Betsy Kelleher, said the timing of the evacuation was suspicious because there’s a pending court decision that might result in all the units being rent-controlled. They want to clean everyone out and then convert them into expensive condos, said Kelleher. The building had been lived in for a decade. According to Am New York, the first artists who leased spaces at 475 Kent had been evicted from illegal loft conversions in Dumbo.
For Evacuated Building’s Tenants, an Uncertain Future [NY Times]
475 Kent Avenue Evacuated, Due to Numerous Violations [Gothamist]
Residents of B’klyn Loft Evicted for Fire Code Violations [AM New York]
475 Kent Update: Holdout Says It’s “Creepy as Hell” [Gowanus Lounge]
A Holdout Stays in Brooklyn Loft [Metro]
Photo by i’m just sayin’.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. “way to blame the victims. have any of you actually been in this building? how many of you have ever rented an apartment and made sure before moving in that the building is all up to code? i doubt anybody who lived in this building ever thought anything was amiss.”

    Come on. New Yorkers are generally smart, and I’m most relatively intelligent people would know the difference between a building that was generally “up to code” an illegal conversion. If it wasn’t clear right away, it would certainly become obvious over time. I’d be willing to wager most of those tenants knew what they were getting into. And as 10:59 points out, I bet they represent a diverse group (this is NYC, people). I’m sure most didn’t think they would get kicked out on Jan. 21, but they took that risk by living there. It’s a cruel world, but life is all about calculated risks. They lost this round.

  2. way to blame the victims. have any of you actually been in this building? how many of you have ever rented an apartment and made sure before moving in that the building is all up to code? i doubt anybody who lived in this building ever thought anything was amiss. the landlords are probably rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the luxury condos in their future.

    and 11:09, when you get thrown out of your building with no warning, let’s see how civil you are when somebody shoves a camera in your face and basically asks if you have any friends.

  3. It is a real pain in the neck to follow the rules and to live in a building legally and to make sure the building is well-managed and that all work is done with the proper permits etc etc. And the reason most people put up with that, is not that they are stupid, it is to protect themselves from a nightmare like this.

  4. “The most reassuring thing is that 90% of these people won’t -really- become homeless. Mommy and Daddy will pay for their next apartment, too. At worst, it was a cold train ride back to the suburbs.”

    This is absolutely right. The night of the fire, I was watching the coverage on NY1. They interviewed a young “creative type” woman who lived there and asked her if she was ok and if she had someplace to go. Her response: she scowled and barked at the reporter, “OF COURSE.” It was so disgusting. It really made any viewer have zero sympathy.

  5. “Do you enjoy living in a hip neighborhood, but like your creature comforts? Thank an artist.”

    Actually you can thank the gays first. Then the artists.

    Gays are almost always the first to “discover” a neighborhood.

  6. Yep, the standard scenario is that the building owners court live/work renters like artists. They know it is illegal but they do so when the neighborhood or economy is in a downturn and they either can’t fill the building with commercial tenants or can charge more as illegal residential. They can get away with violations and dangerous conditions because the tenants don’t want to draw attention to themselves. (Although in this case, it seems like it was an “open secret” for about ten years that this was a residential building. When the neighborhood/economy is booming, all of a sudden the city agencies start to care about violations. (Tipped off? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It is harder to ignore these buildings when the area is popular and there is lots of development and legal conversion going on.) And then the landlord decides to go legit, which often means emptying those “illegal tenants” and turning condo.

    It seems to me that the landlord makes out fine throughout this timeline.

    And I actually do agree that is you rent an illegal space you can’t expect to have a right to it forever. But having to leave eventually when your (shady) lease runs out is different from being put out on the street in the middle of winter with no warning.

    And you artist haters really don’t know what you are talking about. I’m sure you could find some bratty trust fund kids in any building like this, but also plenty of people with full-time jobs who work hard and pay taxes. Or those who do more-than-fulltime work as freelancers who are not lazy at all but are simply trying to make ends meet while…oh yes, horrors, dong something creative.

1 3 4 5 6