566-Hancock-Street-0209.jpg
This is a sad one. By last fall, the nine-unit building at 560 Hancock Street at Stuyvesant Avenue had been allowed to deteriorate to such a point that the Department of Buildings ordered that the building be vacated. Judging from a photo on Property Shark (which you can see on the jump), a handful of apartments were still occupied as recently as 2006, though the top floor appears gutted and windowless. What a shame—it’s a beautiful building. It looks like HPD has stepped in to put up the scaffolding but shouldn’t the landlord lose the building? This is a disgrace. GMAP P*Shark DOB

566-Hancock-2006.jpg


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. While individual row houses in Bed Stuy have been generally prized, especially in this part of town, multi-unit apartment buildings haven’t fared as well, unfortunately. This is a fine, well appointed building, with a beautiful entryway, and what look like nice large spaces. These apartment buildings were built in the late 1900’s to accomodate the rise in young families and single gentlemen who could commute to jobs in Brooklyn and Manhattan via what is now the Long Island Railroad, and later, other forms of public transportation. Unfortunately, as Bed Stuy’s fortunes diminished, these types of buildings, more so than rowhouses, ended up as absentee landlord rentals, and some have gone way downhill, while others have remained in better condition.

    Personally, I think if you’ve milked the building dry, deferred maintainance to the point of no return, and reached the point where it’s uninhabitable and dangerous, you should be forced to sell to the city or an appropriate non-profit, and the building should be immediately sold or developed into affordable housing. I know that’s how the city ended up becoming the largest landlord forty years ago, but that’s because they decided to hold onto and manage the properties. A better solution would be to sell or cede to a non-profit, a religious entity, a tenant association, or a private owner. The sooner a building like this is renovated, and full of rent paying tenants, or owners, the better for the city’s tax coffers and for the neighborhood.

  2. “It looks like HPD has stepped in to put up the scaffolding but shouldn’t the landlord lose the building? This is a disgrace.”

    Then buy it Brownstoner. Put your money up or maybe Dave sucks in Bed Stuy can be a partner.

    “The closure of the bodega drove a lot of the riff raff further north.”

    What do you mean buy “Riff Raft” Dave? The Riff Raft that was there before you move to Bed Stuy Asshead???

    The funny thing is the “Gentrification” movement is on “Life Support” and needs infusion of money! Dave I wonder if you are going to “Ride Out” the Depression or go back to Phllly??

    BTW: Dave what happen to that “Buttermilk” thang Asshead????

    Buh bye Retards….

    The What (Obama please may I have some skittles)

    Someday this war is gonna end..

  3. It might be the same architect SnarkSlope.. Both area had the same developers during the 1880s and early 1890s. I walk pass the building often and it truly hurts me to see it in this condition. I think there was a fire that is why there is no one there now.. I would really would hate to see this building go. Landmarking more of Stuyvesant Heights is so important to save buildings like this. I would love to see this building restored correctly and not some cheap renovation job.

  4. There was a large fir about a month or so ago that forced everyone out, including cornerbodega. The scaffolding is progress. There was a renovation of a large building across the street or at most a block away that really came out great.

    Hopefully there will be some attention paid as to what becomes of this location architecturally. The Community Board is all over this one. The closure of the bodega drove a lot of the riff raff further north.

1 5 6 7