Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Report: Canadian investor buys 62-64 3rd Ave.



Investor Ari Zagdanski’s Kinsmen Property Group is the new owner of 62 and 64 Third Ave.

As the Commercial Observer reported yesterday, Zagdanski paid $23 million for the two four-floor buildings, which were owned by Jakobson Properties.

Per the Observer:

Zagdanski doesn’t have any immediate plans to redevelop the residential buildings, but said he was drawn to the neighborhood because of its new developments including the nearby Moxy Hotel.

“It’s a long-term play. Eventually, it will probably be developed into something,” [broker Itan] Rahmani said. “This is a corner that never really trades.”

No. 62 is currently vacant. There hasn't been much activity (except for the Brunch Theatre Company pop up) at the former home of the New York Central Art Supply, which closed in September 2016.

The Steinberg family, who operated the art supply store for three generations, cited "poor business conditions" as the primary reason behind the closure.

According to public records, the building sold for $9.3 million to an LLC in 2016 with an address of 62 Third Ave. However, a work permit from last year for a sidewalk bridge listed Jakobson Properties as the owner.

No. 64 on the southwest corner is a residential building with the Ainsworth as the retail tenant.

No. 64 was, a few years ago, prime ad space for the aspiring blockbusters of the day...

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Carolina Rivera's vote to pass the Tech Hub without height restrictions has just about put of the red carpet for international developers to develop here. Culturally the EV has been replaced by chain stores, chain restaurants and sports bars. Part 2 is to actually demolish the neighborhood and hotels and towers. Mid-town south here we are.

Anonymous said...

No developer pays that amount of money for TWO 4-story walk ups without planning *something* significant there. Without even being finished, the Moxy is already changing the neighborhood, and not for the better.

And to think that Marriott, a corporation owned by Mormons, is promoting a brand like Moxy where the appeal is essentially "booze-up, 24/7/365". A bit cynical of them, if not outright hypocritical, IMO.

cmarrtyy said...

Right, it's the Moxy affect, and this is just the beginning. WHERE ARE OUR POLITICIANS?! I know. IN BED WITH THE MAYOR! IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPERS! CARLINA RIVERA... TRAITOR! TRAITOR!! TRAITOR!!! RECALL! RECALL! RECALL!

Anonymous said...

The force is strong with the gripers today.

Anonymous said...

Canadian investor will care even LESS than a local one about how much misery is inflicted on this area.

@1:03pm: Are YOU a developer? Or do you think it's a great idea that a foreign entity has just vastly overpaid for 2 low-rise buildings that the entity clearly expects to make a ton of $$$$$ on, depending on how much they can get away with, FAR-wise? They'll just need to grease the palms of the right officials, and anything they want will be theirs.

blue glass said...

to see what is happening to our city and who votes for its demise, all one has to do is turn to channel #74 where the city council and city planning commission meetings and hearings are televised. the number of rezoning and increased FAR applications seem to appear one on top of the other. almost all are opposed by residents and supported by developers and the building workers union lured by the promise of so-called affordable housing and living wage jobs, and sometimes also include job training.
the residents see what has already happened to their neighborhoods over the years, only now the land grab is like the gold rush, and when the fix is in it no longer takes years for developers to get approvals to tear down and replace the still sturdy but low rise buildings with market rate glass towers that overwhelm the neighborhoods and increase commercial and residential rents.
we pay the tax benefits, cash incentives, grants, subsidies, and air rights on top of the increased tax costs. in fact we pay tax on our taxes.
the hearings also show how little our city government respects these community members - limited to 2 minutes each to share their impressive research and the heartfelt logic of their experience in their attempt to protect their housing and their jobs. that they take unpaid time off from work to wait, sometimes for hours, most times cut-off before they are finished is rarely acknowledged.
why on earth do we have to give developers massive tax breaks and up zoning along with air rights and actual money to guarantee "sufficient” profits when the city should be developing affordable housing and good jobs without the extra and expensive tax breaks and built in profits.
so much has happened so rapidly that it is probably too late to save any of what is left.

Unknown said...

I am amazed by the disgruntled comments. Do readers believe that the seller should not have been allowed to sell his property? Or that a “foreigner” should be prohibited from owning real estate?

Anonymous said...

To those defending developers and hyper gentrification you either don't live in this neighborhood or are someone who stands to profit from these changes. If you are like most people in the EV you would see this as a threat to our way of life, a threat to the places we call our homes, a threat to the local culture and small businesses.

I don't appreciate the suggestion that anyone opposed to stopping the bulldozers as subscribing to Marxist beliefs. Quite the opposite we believe our elected officials should represent the interest of the people who voted them into office.

Anonymous said...

@7:24am: The owner was certainly allowed to sell the property, and I doubt there was only one interested buyer - I'm sure they had their pick of buyers.

And YES, I object to someone foreign buying it - b/c that buyer will NOT in any way suffer (as WE definitely will) as a result of what they end up building in place of these 2 small buildings. The owner/developer should be required to LIVE in this area. BTW, I do actually think every developer should be required to LIVE where they develop, so if it's a shit-show, they get to partake of the "fun" they bring to the area.

Maybe I should be looking at some nice low-rise area in Canada and buy some small building, tear it down & put up a huge glass monstrosity - b/c, hey, I won't be looking at it, and I won't be dealing with the damage it does to the area it's built in.

Anonymous said...

I also oppose developers from outside NYC and certainly from foreign countries from buying up our neighborhoods. Their only investment is monetary and only with an eye for profits. My investment in this neighborhood for the past 35 years goes way beyond money, same as the other residents in the community, and it matters that Canadians and other outsiders are buying up our real estate and our community. They do not care about residents. They care about tourists.

JQ LLC said...

I thought this guy sounded familiar.

https://www.boweryboogie.com/2017/06/trio-bowery-lighting-district-buildings-sells-24m/

JQ LLC said...

Hey there's the dilletante candidate for governor!

Unknown said...

3:47pm - so the owner can sell his property but just not to a foreigner or anyone who won’t live in the building....... seriously?

Does your policy hold beyond the EV? What about elsewhere in NYC? The state? Or through out the entire country?

Not a very realistic policy.

Rather than complain and threaten to buy up and poorly develop a piece of Canadian property. Why don’t you buy and preserve a piece of the East Village?