More development coming to WB/Bushwick/Bed Stuy border area (J/M) — Brooklynian

More development coming to WB/Bushwick/Bed Stuy border area (J/M)

The area, while currently still a little blighted-looking with the hospital and the industrial /commercial zoning all around, is less than salubrious at the moment but there are a few projects in the works.    This one will bring new commercial and residental tenants and will be finished in about a year.  http://newyorkyimby.com/2015/07/new-look-810-flushing-avenue-bushwick.html  

In addition to the very controversial Rheingold development, and lesser rental projects in the works in the streets around, the area around the J/M will start to change even more dramatically in the next year or so.  

There are already new restaurants that have opened recently a few blocks east on Flushing.

Is the change good or bad?  

It's bad for some of the commercial tenants.  They're probably the most vulnerable.

It's hard to argue that taking unused buildings/land and turning it into new housing is bad.

And if the corridors along Flushing and Broadway become safer at night (I can tell you from personal experience there are a lot of shady characters hanging around there, still), then even better.

The area will bring more diversity because currently there are a lot of housing projects surrounding that specific intersection:  Sumner, Bushwick Houses, etc.  Bringing wealthier tenants will help bring some money into the neighborhood, and no housing was torn down to make that happen.




Comments

  • Why did no one thinking of developing around here before?
  • It didn't make financial sense.

    Developing here would not have given them a better ROI than other available development sites.

    Now it does. ...the gov may have provided help via the zoning code.

  • I think it wasn't targeted for development because of the proximity to the projects (not one but several), and the distance from interesting (to people not in the projects) entertainment and retail. With the opening of even more places in East Williamsburg, the opening of places in Bushwick along Wilson, Central and Flushing in that WB/Bushwick border, the area is ripe for big changes. There's more for everyone.

    I think that plays into the ROI discussion that whynot mentions.

    I don't know the first thing about the zoning history of the area, though. Outside of the Broadway Triangle, that is. That's a nasty politics there, that one.

    In any case, the commute to Manhattan, with the M taking you to midtown in 20 minutes, is a pretty big deal. Personally, I think it beats the L train which is both packed and only takes most people to another hub (usually Union Square), it beats the 45 which is crowded and starts downtown, and it beats the C (no need to comment). On the other hand, the M doesn't hit midtown on the weekends and likes to stop at Essex.


  • so where would you like the shady characters to go?  what makes a character shady?  it seems odd that many of these "shady" characters likely lived in the neighborhood for years but are now wished away.  so i guess the development is bad for them, and all of the other long term low income residents who will soon only be able to afford living in the neighborhood by living in the projects, which likely won't be around much longer.  hard to imagine the new "diversity" coming to the neighborhood benefits any of the "indigenous" residents.  well they may benefit from better city services given the new "diversity" coming to the neighborhood.  but its sad to think they didn't deserve decent city services before the change.  there's no way to mask the reality that too much of Brooklyn's development is bad because it does not benefit the long term residents who called it home.
  • Dear resistant2chg,

    Well, if you're that resistant to change, then for one thing there's no convincing you that change can be a mixed blessing. You're already on the resistant side. You've made your mind up.

    For another, New York has been changing since the 17th century, and then it changed very hard and very quickly in the late 1800's and throughout the 20th century. So if you're resistant to change, then New York is a hard place to live. It's about to get a little bit harder in the area being mentioned in this thread.

    That said, and I'm not wading into this debate past the following points... Projects are here to stay - there is no reason to get rid of them - but the people living in them should feel relatively grateful to be able to pay such low rent when most of us pay high rent (or high mortgages). There will always be retail that caters to everyone. Will some of it change? Yes. In the 'gentrifying' parts of Bushwick there is plenty of retail and restaurants left for the, as you call them, 'indigenous' residents, which is a politically loaded term. The majority of retail and restaurants cater to them. Still.

    That's a function of the market. People who open restaurants or stores, do them based on business decision and business planning. As they did 10 years ago, 50 years ago, and 150 years ago. If you are resistant to this change, too, then you're blowing against the wind.

    The shady characters, you asked about. Must you ask? How about the dealers hanging out in front of some of delis (do I need to name the delis on Broadway), the junkies sleeping sprawled out on the sidewalk, the folks who make it their life mission to bother random people on the street (the women bear the brunt of this). The aggressive types.

    The sooner they leave the better. Will new development get rid of them? Probably not. But new development means more pairs of eyes on the situation, it means better lighting on the streets, it means more non-violent people walking around at all hours.

    Does it mean better city services? yes, and I agree with you that that's unfair. That sucks. City services shouldn't be biased towards the wealthy neighborhoods. On the other hands, those in rent stabilized apartments, in section 8 and in the NYCHA system DO have something to look forward to!

    That's all I'll say. Respond what you will and I'll probably read it, but I won't reply to anyone who's overly resistant to change.
  • edited July 2015
    @brickstoner, you may lose people when you say this: 
    "Projects are here to
    stay - there is no reason to get rid of them - but the people living in them
    should feel relatively grateful to be able to pay such low rent
    when most of us
    pay high rent (or high mortgages)."

     

    It's condescending and insulting to those who live in the projects.
  • edited July 2015
    Condescension isn't the goal here. 

    @mugofmead111, it's tricky to reply completely calmly and troll-lessly to the gentrification / displacement debate.

    I support strong tenants' rights, and I think the vicious landlords and developers need to be regulated and punished. But I take objection to the idea that anyone has any given right to any land or neighborhood.  

    There are a lot of hard-working people who pay market rate rent. The idea that they (and the amenities that serve them) is bad, I find a little bothersome.  In some circles, it cannot be imagined that people make sacrifices of their time and health in order to pay this market rate rent. 
      
    A lot of people make all types of sacrifices to be where they are. That includes the 'displacers' that seem to be the target of the ire. 

    This city has been in constant change for centuries. The idea that there is something unique about the year 2015 and the decade prior to it, is I believe a bit myopic.

    Let's support strong tenants' rights, support affordable housing, and ensure the less fortunate are treated fairly.

    But that doesn't mean we need to oppose and demonize change when it happens fairly and squarely. 
This discussion has been closed.