February 26th, 2006 by LarrySicular
Dear Mr. Sicular:
Ms. Kersavage appears to have wanted to close her piece with a call to action. The action she suggests, however, is that the City Planning Commission should start turning developers’ projects down.
To my knowledge–and I would like to be corrected–City Planning has never turned any developer’s proposal down. CPC sometimes tweaks proposals, but it does not , as Ms. Kersavage suggests it should, reject them.
If even the New York City Historic Preservation Commission no longer holds hearings on endangered buildings of arguable importance like 2 Columbus Circle, then surely Ms. Kersavage is unrealistic to suggest that the Planning Commission, with no special preservationist mandate, will start rejecting developers’ projects on preservationist grounds.
Contrary to Ms. Kersavage’s suggestion, there is no effective legal remedy if the Planning Commission allows travesties like the destruction of the Red Hook graving dock, so long as it has followed the right procedures.
Ikea-Red Hook is in fact one of the worst projects in New York City in many years. For other reasons why, in addition to preservationist reasons, see the left-hand column of my blog, Big Cities Big Boxes, at http://www.BigCitiesBigBoxes.com
Thank you for writing to me. I appreciate your having done so.
All the best,
Mary Campbell Gallagher, J.D. , Ph.D
New York, NY
Posted in Uncategorized, Historic Preservation, New York City | No Comments »
February 26th, 2006 by LarrySicular
FROM:
Stamford Review, an annual publication dedicated to issues in real estate, land use, architecture, and urban affairs. New York, NY.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Dave Platter, Principal, Publitas, LLC, 212-757-7506, dave.platter@publitas.net
Dianna Tingg, Account Executive, Publitas, LLC, 212-302-8868
New York City May Face Total Build-Out Crisis In 7 To 10 Years
New Issue of Scholarly STAMFORD REVIEW
Notes Crisis In City Planning And Land-Use
(New York, NY) – From its elegant type setting to the dignified tone taken by its authors, the scholarly annual Stamford Review could be mistaken for a sedate publication on real estate, land use, architecture, and urban affairs. That makes the well-documented conclusion that New York City may face a total build-out crisis in seven to 10 years, reported in its most recent issue, all the more alarming. The bullets below summarize many of the conclusions drawn by the nine authors whose studies appear in the latest, Spring/Summer 2006, issue:
• Only seven percent of the developable land of the city is currently listed as vacant, meaning New York City faces a crisis in the near future when every last scrap of land has been developed. (Braconi, Citizens Housing and Planning
Council)
. Given current growth rates and zoning laws, the city may be unable to accept further population growth within seven to ten years. (Braconi)
. Speeding the city towards that crisis is the fact that the city completed the most housing starts in 2005 of any year since 1972. (Miller, Municipal Art Society & Alexander)
• During the 1990s the least-dense third of city’s community board districts saw their aggregate population increase by 13.1 percent, compared to only 3.4 percent in the nineteen densest districts. (Braconi)
• Already, parts of the city considered “suburban” are very dense: Flushing is more dense than San Francisco, and Staten Island is as dense as Seattle. (Braconi)
• Beyond that, population growth will be difficult without a “radical redevelopment” of some neighborhoods at significantly higher residential densities. (Braconi)
• To meet its need for affordable housing, the city would have to take selectively remove market rate housing from the market, rededicating it as “affordable.” (Braconi)
• “Upzonings,” in Manhattan’s Hudson Yards and West Chelsea, Brooklyn’s Downtown and the East River waterfront neighborhoods of Greenpoint and Williamsburg enable only about 30,000 more housing units. (Miller & Alexander)
• Of all the boroughs, the Bronx has the most room. It will accept new development but is sufficiently undesirable that new market rate construction is too expensive in most of the Bronx and all of the South Bronx today – except when subsidized. (Vitullo-Martin, Manhattan Institute)
• Current city subsidies of affordable housing in Manhattan and the Brooklyn waterfront waste money that could create more, less expensive units of housing in the Bronx. Every unit subsidized at top dollar on the Brooklyn waterfront could buy at least 2.5 units in the Bronx. (Vitullo-Martin)
• On a per-square-foot-basis, development in Hudson Yards ($550/square foot) will cost 117% more to build than in the outer boroughs ($254/square foot). Development on the Brooklyn Waterfront ($430/square foot) costs 69.3% more than in the outer boroughs. (Beck, Forsyth Street Advisors)
• The city is losing historic structures on the Brooklyn waterfront in its rush to green-light new projects, such as the Ikea in Red Hook. (Kersavage, Municipal Art Society)
• Forgetting new initiatives for Governors Island, just the repairs and improvements to its more than one million square feet of historic buildings and infrastructure will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. (Pirani, Regional Plan Association )
• As Manhattan has gentrified, pricing differentials among neighborhoods like Tribeca and the Upper West side have dramatically slimmed down, by 35% since 1989. (Miller, Miller Samuel Inc.)
• High land prices are forcing developers to create bigger, more profitable units, but demand has shifted to mid-sized units. A growing supply of unsold, large, pricey units is the result. (Miller)
• New developments in emerging New York City neighborhoods now cost almost as much for homebuyers as those in established markets. (Miller)
• In 2005, the media were so determined to find bad news about a housing bubble that they oversimplified and drew misleading conclusions about market statistics. (Miller)
• Now, after two consecutive quarters of quiet markets, the media has adjusted its terminology from a “bubble ready to burst” to a “soft landing” or a more “normalized” market. (Miller)
“The city depends on housing construction to help support its economy, but by the time a child born here today reaches the fourth grade there may not be any vacant land left for development,” said Larry Sicular, publisher/editor of The Stamford Review. “Focused on following the strengthening or weakening real estate market, few people have stopped long enough to look forward to the very difficult planning decisions facing us.”
To purchase the latest issue of the report or to download a PDF version for no charge, visit http://www.stamfordreview.com.
ABOUT THE STAMFORD REVIEW
Larry Sicular, publisher/editor, keeps The Stamford Review tightly focused on the issues of real estate, land use, architecture, and urban affairs. This publication is for those who believe that the built environment can be improved—that it is not effectively managed, not beautiful or respectful enough, and not sufficiently meaningful.
The authors whose work is included in the current issue are Frank Braconi, Kimberly Miller, Mark Alexander, Julia Vitullo-Martin, Peter T. Beck, Lisa Kersavage, Pamela Hannigan, Robert Pirani and Jonathan J. Miller. They are affiliated with various organizations including New York University, the Regional Plan Association, the Municipal Art Society, Citizens Housing and Planning Council, Forsyth Street Advisors, Miller Samuel Inc. and Urban Builders Collaborative.
Sicular publishes and edits the advertising-supported annual and its related weblog is in New York City and Stamford, New York. Visit http://www.stamfordreview.com.
(end)
Posted in Uncategorized, Manhattan Housing, Historic Preservation, New York City | No Comments »
February 20th, 2006 by LarrySicular
February 19, 2006
Concerned about the prospect of a mall-type Rite Aid store in Stamford, I scheduled an interview with the deputy mayor Anne Slatin.
According to Anne, Rite Aid has been interested in a Stamford location for a number of years. There was a proposal, six-to-eight years ago to build their store on an empty parcel next to the former Episcopal Church. It was not approved. A year or a year-and-a-half ago, there were rumors that Rite Aid wanted to acquire parcel(s) on Main Street (Route 23) from West End Avenue to Route 10, but construction on that site would have required demolition of two Victorian houses.
The Red Carpet is not a historic property. Rumors that Rite Aid is interested in the Red Carpet parcel were first heard two or three months ago. However, Rite Aid does not now own the property. The purpose of the meeting was to get a read on the level of support in the Village for a project of this type.
Questions at the meeting addressed various concerns related to the impact of a Rite Aid on the historic fabric of the village and on existing businesses in town. There were also concerns about the proposed signage.
Drawings of the proposed development are displayed at the Village hall.
I asked Anne about the Village’s existing zoning ordinances, in order to understand the context in which Rite Aid seeks approval. Anne indicated that the village’s Comprehensive Plan was revised last year, and it is available in draft form, although it has not yet been finalized.
The direction of the Plan, in terms of its impact on retail development, is to encourage niche businesses on Main Street through restoration and historic lighting. The strategy is not to hold on to the hope that Stamford’s hotel era can be recreated. Rather the intent of the Plan is to encourage streetscape changes that will make Stamford an interesting destination. Since the revised Plan is relatively new, its regulations have not yet had any physical impact on Main Street.
I observed that the Rite Aid proposal does not match the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Anne agrees that it has been difficult for niche of business businesses to survive. The recent closing of the Fabric Patch, Nancy Lanni’s quilt and fabric shop and the loss, over a decade ago, of the Mirror Recorder, a 100 year-old newspaper are examples. On the other hand, she points out that most of the available retail space in the village is now occupied. The exceptions, in addition to the Fabric Patch, are two store fronts next door to John’s Tavern and the old bowling alley at the corner of South Street and Harper. And three abandoned buildings, at or near the corners of North and South Delaware Streets, are slated to receive grants or loans from Western Catskills Revitalization.
Here the editor notes that the occupancy hides a lack of clients to many businesses. The Greenbriar Farm store on Main Street was renovated only a year or two ago and is already for sale. The variety of restaurants is limited, some buildings are not attractively maintained, and the available traffic does not offer sufficient income to encourage redevelopment of historic buildings such as the Delaware Inn.
On the other hand there does seem to be some demand for residential apartments. There are a number of houses on Main Street and elsewhere that have been successfully converted to apartments. Tony Dianich is presently converting an abandoned house at Main and South Delaware Streets into four or five apartments and a retail space.
Posted in Uncategorized, Stamford and Delaware County, Village and Rural | No Comments »
February 20th, 2006 by LarrySicular
February 19, 2006
By Larry Sicular
While in Stamford, New York, this weekend, I picked up a copy of The Mountain Eagle a weekly newspaper that is published in Stamford but covers the entire Catskill region. There appear to be separate editions for different counties; my copy covered Delaware and Schoharie counties.
The February 16th issue has two front page articles that address very important issues for Stamford Village and for the county. The first “Stamford Village Planning Board Hears Rite Aid Plans”, discusses possible development of a Rite Aid store at routes 10 and 23. The second, “Delaware County to Host Info Forum on Wind Power” relates to the wind mills, a source of electrical power, and a source of controversy as there are at least two proposals to develop wind mill “farms” in the county.
On the topic of wind-generated power, I know very little, but the forum is scheduled for February 25 at 3:00 at the alumni hall at Delhi College. This is an informational forum, designed to inform the public about wind project, and to assist public officials in establishing regulations relating to wind projects in their townships.
Regarding Stamford, the paper reports that developers representing Rite Aid met with the village planning board over a week ago to present proposals for a new store at the intersection of Routes 10 and 23, on the site of the existing Red Carpet Motor Inn.
Although at the western edge of the village, this has become its most traveled intersection, as is evidenced by the constant traffic at the existing Stewart’s convenience store and gasoline station. The Red Carpet Inn likely dates from the 1960’s or 70’s and sits uphill and behind the Stewarts. It is visible from both Routes 10 and 23. I am told that in earlier years the Red Carpet had an excellent restaurant and was very busy on weekends. But this is clearly no longer the case. I booked some guests into the motel a couple of years ago, and their review of the rooms was not positive. I declined one room for guests because of the smell of mold.
According to The Mountain Eagle, the Red Carpet would be leveled to make way for an 11,000+ square foot Rite Aid, with parking and landscaping. The store would include a pharmacy, with drive-through service, a convenience store, a GNC vitamin center, a photo-processing center, and a food mart.
Members of the planning board, present at the meeting, expressed concerns about the aesthetics of the building and the impact of the store on the two existing pharmacies in the village, both of which are located on the village’s historic main street.
Indeed without a growing population, the Rite Aid can only filter business away from the existing locally owned pharmacies. Rite Aid may offer lower prices on certain prescriptions and other products, and may have to do so to compete with the existing pharmacies. Clearly has the purchasing power, the capitalization and the staying power to offer interesting prices. However, its need to do so will be lessened if the existing pharmacies close. Both pharmacies have been in business, in the same or related families, for two generations. Local residents have personal relationships with their owners and employees and benefit, furthermore, from a level of service that is infrequent in chain stores.
According to the developer, Rite Aid would offer part-time employment to 25-30 people and there will be an additional 4 to 5 full-time jobs.
The proposal, however, does not conform to the village’s zoning ordinance and would require variances that must be approved by the Stamford Zoning Board of Appeals. The article in The Mountain Eagle indicates that there are four variances that will be required, including one for the size of the building and another for the width of the lot. The requested signage will also require a variance, and comments at the meeting indicate that there will be objections to the signage requested.
Posted in Uncategorized, Stamford and Delaware County, Village and Rural | No Comments »
February 16th, 2006 by LarrySicular
February 14, 2006
One of the hardest things to determine is the state of the market in the present moment. Statistical studies, such as Jonathan Miller’s (MillerSamuel.com), are extremely useful, but they can only approach the relatively recent past.
The present is typically defined by the limited exposure of your source. In other words every broker knows his or her deals, but that does not necessarily reflect the market.
If you are looking at a particular piece of property, it is somewhat easier to get a handle on what is applicable. What are the relevant recent sale prices? How much property is available, and are the available listings selling? But this approach is only applicable to a particular market segment.
In order to get the clearest idea possible on this year’s market activity, I have contacted four owners and managers at major brokerage firms. There is considerable breadth in what they see—as they are on top of deals for entire companies, although even brokerage companies vary in their market focus.
The following is based on e-mail conversations with Frederick Peters at Warburg Realty Partners, Kirk Henckels at Stribling Private Brokerage, Kurt Weyrauch at Brown Harris Stevens, and Steven James at Douglas Elliman.
Despite last year’s reporting that Manhattan’s residential market was slowing or leveling, this year’s consensus is that the market remains, or has become, quite active.
One broker indicated that early and mid January were slower than usual, by about 5% or 6% in dollar volume, but that volume picked up after the latter part of the month, and is now on par with what it has been over the past six or seven months.
This opinion was seconded by a colleague who indicated that the market was slow until the 15th or 20th of January, but that activity has picked up throughout the market with multiple bids for many properties.
Steven James states that he is “hearing of more bidding wars this last week…” “Bonus money is having an effect on the marketplace.”
The increased market activity does not mean that prices are rising. Frederick Peters indicates that “… prices have been flat for some time, and many sellers have had to revise expectations so that their prices are more in line with the ongoing reality of a flat market. Once that happens, buyers are out there and ready to act. So we are making deals at a steady pace, but it is a marketplace without great urgency.”
Kurt Weyrauch states that the market is stable but “more selective.” Buyers are “still willing to pay for location, value, quality, but also are willing to be more discerning in seeking and finding those attributes.” “There is no shortage of money; it is simply being spent more thoughtfully.”
There also seems to be agreement that the top end of the market is the strongest. Kurt Weyrauch indicates that “trophy properties are still hot.” And Frederick Peters says that “The upper end market (over $3 million) has been extremely active.”
Kirk Henckels has just released a report on the $5 million-plus market, which should be on the Stribling Web site at stribling.com.
He writes that a luxury market rally began in December and that the rally is led, in particular, by the trophy market, of properties over $20,000,000. “Meanwhile, the rest of the market [over $5 million] has indeed been bolstered by recent bonuses and, as a result, is predictably stronger than in the third or fourth quarters of 2005. However, this market does not seem to have the momentum of those in the last few years, and is not likely to attain another new peak.”
Posted in Manhattan Housing | No Comments »
February 14th, 2006 by LarrySicular
COMMENTS TO THE MATRIMONIAL SECTION OF THE NEW YORK BAR ASSOCIATION
Larry Sicular
February 13, 2006.
Paul has asked that Jonathan Miller and I speak with you about the process by which we value property. Fundamentally, appraising involves collecting relevant information and communicating that information to you. All appraisals include:
1) visiting and describing the property, and the neighborhood that surrounds it,
2) collecting and reporting relevant market information, primarily information on market trends, comparable sales and competitive listings, and
3) analyzing and reconciling this information into a reasonable conclusion.
However every market and property type requires its own approach to collecting and evaluating information, and every appraiser has a slightly different style to his or her work. How we do our work affects how you evaluate it. Since my two-person office specializes in the narrative report, I am going to discuss appraising with you by following this narrative format.
The narrative or self-contained appraisal report
Narrative is the older term for what is now called the self-contained report. What is a self-contained report? Is it the only way of reporting an appraisal? Absolutely not. It is the detailed and explanatory version of appraisal reporting. Short of turning each appraisal into a dissertation on the market, we try, in these reports to communicate almost everything we find relevant to value.
Does this make any difference in the actual valuation process? Yes, it does, because it requires us to both record and consider what we see and the information we collect at the level of detail indicated.
The report that I have passed around is an old 2003 self-contained report. Names and addresses have been deleted. Most of you have seen appraisals in this format. The sections, indicated in the table of contents, follow the formatting requirements of this market, or of the Appraisal Institute, for this type of report.
I am not going to walk you through every section of the report. so let focus on the important ones.
The letter of transmittal summarizes the nature of the appraisal assignment, and most importantly, states the value estimate. Occasionally, however, we note special exceptions or issues that came up during the course of our research. For example critical information from a managing agent may not have been available, and this information might have affected the estimate.
You will see various definitions of market value in appraisal reports. Most of these assume closing at a specified date, and all-cash payment to the seller. While the Manhattan housing market is almost exclusively a cash-to-seller market, a market value defined at a current closing date may not be useful to you. Since closings follow negotiations and transactions by several months, a value based on a current closing is dated, if your desire is to know what kinds of offers the property might fetch if it were on the market today.
Information on current negotiations is very difficult to obtain. Very few brokers will tell us what offers their listings have obtained, or what prices they are actually negotiating until they have a signed contract. However, many will disclose or approximately disclose contract prices, particularly once they have been approved by the cooperative board.
In order to provide you with a value estimate that is a current as possible, we have defined market value as a signed contract at the appraisal report date, because this allows us to rely on more current market information.
Market Analysis
The various descriptions are designed to inform the reader who has not seen the property, and who may be very familiar with our neighborhoods and our buildings. Looking at the pictures shows you much of what is written in the text, and we include a fair number of pictures. But photographs tend to be attractive and often soften all but the most glaring deficiencies. Read the details on the quality of views and on the condition of kitchens and bathrooms. These have enormous impact on what buyers are willing to pay. Read these descriptions carefully, or have your clients do so. Inaccuracies may reflect differences of opinion, or something that we missed.
Look most closely perhaps at the comments we put at the end each section. Typically these tell you how we view what we see. And how we view it, will affect how we value it.
The financial status of the Cooperative Corporation, or Condominium Association covers the basics, like monthly maintenance, pending maintenance increases, and special assessments or flip taxes, which may require an adjustment between your clients. Otherwise, all of the remaining information may not appear to directly relevant, but it may be. What we are looking for here is anything that might result in a significant maintenance increase or a large special assessment. Either could affect our value estimate or your negotiations. Indeed we review both the financial statement and forward a questionnaire to the managing agent. Some of the most important questions we ask are regarding current or pending capital improvements, special assessments or maintenance increases. Expiring land leases or retail leases are also questioned and disclosed in the report.
Collecting this particular set of information is often the most difficult part of our research. Most managing agents have pre-prepared questionnaires designed to satisfy lenders and which do not answer some of our most important questions. A signficiant minority of account executives are not responsive, or have these questionnaires completed by inexperienced staff. Frequently we follow-up two, three and four times before we get a response. Sometimes we ask you to follow up for us. I am sure that much of the information we receive is imperfect, perhaps false; nevertheless a serious attempt to understand the finances of a cooperative is extremely important. Very rarely does it make a difference, particularly in the more expensive buildings, but it can make a difference. And you will see that in a weaker market, buyers pay much more attention to cooperative corporation finances than they have over the past several years.
Valuation
This is the heart of the report. The most important steps in the appraisal process are reported here. These include:
- selection of the comparables
- obtaining and transmitting further information on the comparables
- evaluating the comparables and reporting a value conclusion
Selection of Comparables–
How do we select comparables? This depends so much on what we are appraising, but some explanation is typically given in the Scope of Research section or in the analysis of the comparables. A common error is to compare an apartment with differently-sized apartments, particularly if they are in the same building. But the market does not shop so much for buildings, as it does for apartments of a certain size in a certain market-ie in buildings of similar quality, and larger apartments sell at square foot premiums. In this report, we are appraising an apartment with three bedrooms and a library. Consequently this apartment should be compared to recent sales and current listings of apartments with three bedrooms and a library, or alternatively, four bedrooms. Of course these apartments should also be in pre-war buildings, and, given the quantity of data available, should be exclusively or predominantly on Park Avenue. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, such as in the valuation of penthouses, where limited data requires more flexibility in the selection of relevant data.
So when you are looking at these reports, consider not only similarity of address, but also similarity of room count.
Why do we consider listings? A knowledge of what is happening with competitive properties can be critical to a value estimate. In the first place, simply the quantity of listings can tell us something about supply and demand in a submarket. Some of the listings may have offers or be in contract. In a declining market, asking prices can indicate lower values than last year’s sales.
Further Information on the Comparables
Where do we get this comparable data? Sales within the building come from the managing agent. But much of the relevant data is not in the building and, except for the apartment numbers and the prices, this source give us no detail about the apartments. Some of us have arrangements with brokerage firms who allow us access to their listing databases in return for other services that we provide them. The listing systems have search functions that allow us to pick the relevant data by date, location, building type and room count. Old listings become sales comparables, and brokers comments include a full sales history and clarify issues like condition and price.
Is this sufficient? Absolutely not. The listing information may be very incomplete. Often it does not include the sale price; it never discloses an actual contract price, and its information on condition may be misleading or incomplete. But the name and telephone number of the exclusive broker is indicated, and we telephone and interview each broker.
Note the comparable sales and listings table. Why do present the data this way? The table allows a simple presentation of each apartment, along with its sale price and date, room count, maintenance charges, estimated square footage and estimated price per square foot. We do not adjust each comparable for individual characteristics such as floor height, condition or view, simply because these mathematical adjustments are very difficult to support and justify. Buyers look at a basket of characteristics in comparing apartments and an understanding of how and a sold or listed apartment compares to a subject, as a whole, is the critical base of our evaluation.
We do consider the various details which affect the sales price of each comparable, including maintenance charges, floor height and views, condition, size, location and building quality. But we describe these details narratively in the pages that follow this table. This is important to you because you can read it. You can also comprehend, if you choose, the level of detail, or lack thereof for each comparable and listing that we consider. So at times it may be worth the effort to study these pages, more than any others in the report.
Evaluating the comparables and concluding. How do we do this? Above all, we bracket the data. The relevant question is not so much whether the comparables are identical to the subject, although should be similar, but whether they are inferior or superior. So the array of data, when considered, should allow you to understand the range in which the value should fall, and a reasonable conclusion.
Posted in Manhattan Housing | No Comments »
February 9th, 2006 by LarrySicular
by Larry Sicular
I have just received a hard copy mailing of available Manhattan investment properties from Meyrick Ferguson and Karen Shulman of Massey Knakal, the investment property brokerage firm in New York City.
The envelope had set-ups for 10 buildings on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, including 19th century townhouses, and 19th and 20th century apartment buildings. The asking prices range from $2,550,000 to $52,000,000.
The asking prices are at capitalization rates that range from 2.14% to 7.10%. (The capitalization rates are ratios of net operating income to asking price.) The variation roughly corresponds to the quality of the buildings.
At $18,000,000, a building at 130 West 93rd Street generates estimated net operating income of only 2.54%. A pre-war, 54-unit, pre-war building, with 19 free market apartments, it is presumably a candidate for conversion to cooperatives or condominiums. Thus the profit is in the eventual sale of individual apartments, rather than in the very low annual return.
Two other desirable apartment buildings are available at $36,000,000 and $52,000,000, with projected returns at 2.14% and 2.97%. Both are at asking prices of about $800/SF, reflecting both their apparent desirability and free-market occupancy exceeding 50%.
The upside potential appears to be somewhat more limited for two available walk-up buildings at 119-121 West 104th Street, between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues. At $3,250,000, the buildings’ 25 apartments generated an estimated net income of $122,050, after expenses, and a return of only 3.76%. Many of the regulated rents are low, yet neither the location nor the structure merit the low return.
Three townhouse-sized buildings are on the market at $2,550,000, $2,700,000 and $3,200,000. None of them appear to have owner-user potential. Projected returns are at 3.81%, 4.81% and 4.89%.
The highest projected return, at 7.10% is offered for an SRO, a 19th century walk-up building that includes 34 single room occupancy units, with shared toilet, shower, and kitchen on each floor. The more limited appeal of this type of investment dictates the return.
disclosure: Massey Knakal is an advertiser in spring issue of The Stamford Review.
Posted in Investments | No Comments »
February 8th, 2006 by LarrySicular
From the desk Simon K.
It’s Wednesday. That means that at some point Larry and I walk up Broadway to have lunch. He nodded toward a recent addition to the storefront streetscape.
“We haven’t gone to Subway yet. I like their tuna; but it has too much white bread.”
While the idea of a quick sandwich appealed to me, the idea of a Subway®-brand sandwich did not.
If you have recently walked down Bedford Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, you would have undoubtedly noticed protests to the new Subway chain there, pasted onto every free standing structure available. And it seems to be working. Galvanized against the chain sandwich shop’s incursion, the place is perpetually empty, save for a forlorn man bored behind the cold-cuts counter.
However, here on Broadway, the Subway enjoys a brisk business fueled by school children and employees from the next block; which reminds me…
On the next block up Broadway, across from the new Subway, another new retail neighbor looms: Commerce Bank. At the corner, a vaulted glass pyramid covers the entrance, and then the awkward and angular Dryvit (exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS)), polished steel, and black granite structure spreads out like a one-story cream cheese chunk. Conveniently, it abuts its architectural predecessor, RiteAid. This chain also prefers a one-story building, but of gray concrete and gray granite, which helps to accentuate its large, red logo.
What is most striking about this single block front, on Broadway between West 109th and 110th Streets, is its complete lack of contextual design. While this lament is not new, one realizes that these types of structures were built for a situation far different than the hyper-urban setting of Manhattan: the strip mall or toll plaza. Large white, buff, or gray buildings with oversized logos on every side were simply made for quick viewing from a road. Regrettably, standardized corporate identities, from logo treatments to edifices, do not account for their surroundings.
The RiteAids and Commerce Banks are reliable, retail anchor tenants. However, their nature is far more problematic than a mere eyesore. These anchors, rather than buoying a block, tend to drag it down, allowing for the flood of other lesser (or at least more tenuous) retail chains to populate any and all unoccupied spaces.
We ended up eating at Tom’s Restaurant… You know, the one from “Seinfeld.”
Posted in Streetscapes | No Comments »
