Backing up for a minute. We first noted the building was for sale back in May for $4.65 million. The listing is no longer active at the Living Real Estate Group. Someone removed the listing at Streeteasy on July 16. Nothing in the city property records indicates that a sale was made... or is in the works.
So, we can assume the current owner is now trying to lease the space again. A rep for Coldwell Banker Commercial said that she was hired by the owner to lease the current retail, and said she knew nothing about the building sale. (So much for the rumor via a commenter that there was a lease on the table for a Subway sandwich shop here.) The rental listing wasn't online as of last evening at the Coldwell site.
Meanwhile, as you probably know, CB3 has rejected all the recent plans for a bar-restaurant-performance space here.
At this point, it's clear that the CB3 won't approve any nightlife-related operation here. How about a shoe store then?
11 comments:
I think a more accurate statement might be that CB3 is not in favor of a nightlife related operation that involves a full liquor license and is open until 4am. A music/performance venue with a cafe, a beer and wine license and closes earlier- who knows?
CB3 will only approve businesses that can't afford the rent for this space...
Maybe we can get another bank or a Subway, YAY.
Maybe we have to keep pushing CB3 to reject the late-night bar applications until the local owners realize that they'll have to lower their rents, and then maybe we'll get a new shoe store.
Why are people always clamoring for shoe stores? There's a shoe store on 1st ave and more shoe stores than you can shake a stick at on Broadway.
Sorry, I thought that "shoe store" was a metaphor.
Yeah, I was only using shoe store as an example.
Ah. sorry. Shoe store as metaphor. That went right over my head because I've read so many people lament the lack of cobblers and shoes store on this site I started thinking I should go back and reread The Shoemaker and the Elves.
@ Bowery Boy
While, I agree theoretically with you, the sad reality is, it will NEVER happen. It benefits property owners more to leave the space vacant, then to reduce rent and sign a lease.
(I could be off, but this is my last recollection of tax law):
Property owners can write up a loss of 50% of the rent on un-rented property of the market. This brings down their net income for the year, reduces their taxes, and they have no liability (b/c no one is in the space) so in a sense, it's less risky.
Let's look at the math of 2 scenarios over a 5 year period:
1. Lists rent as $15,000. For 4 years, no one rents (writing off $360,000 over a 4 year period). Someone rents the space for 1 year (makes $180,000 in yearly rent). Essentially, this is a $540,000 value for the property owner.
2. Lists rent as $15,000. For 2 years no one rents (writing off $180,000). Owner reduces rent to $10,000 (lets be real - a shoe store couldn't afford that either). For 3 years, the place is rented at $10,000 bringing in $300,000 in rent. This is in total a $480,000 value for the property owner, and he has liability, may have to make improvements, chase rent, etc.
Guess which scenario people choose again and again and again?
See why NYC storefronts, condos, apartments stay vacant as opposed to lowering rents?
well, who knows, a shoe store might open up there; marc jacobs may be expanding his empire all the way in the ev from the greenwich village.
I'm not opposed to anon's well-explained logic, but for the record, this article seems to suggest the contrary - that if the community keeps bars out, owners will eventually lower their asking price cuz they want a deal done:
http://www.dnainfo.com/20110805/lower-east-side-east-village/controversial-avenue-bar-space-for-rent
I'm happy there is no 4am bar there simply because when there was, I was woken up *every* Saturday night at 3am by yelling drunken yahoos from Long Island or wherever.
Post a Comment