Published in the Star Ledger, Thursday, February 21, 2008
In a hat tip to past, city sells factory
Old Stetson site will become housing
BY KEVIN C. DILWORTH
Star-Ledger Staff
A proposal to transform one of the old Stetson hat factory buildings into artists' residence cleared a major hurdle after the Orange City Council approved the sale of the structure to a consortium of developers.
The council voted 4-3 Tuesday night to sell 540 Mitchell St. for $300,000. Those opposed to the sale argued the price was too low.
"My issue is, and has been, the price," said Councilman Edward Marable. "I'm not convinced that the price is fair and equitable."
But supporters said the sale would lead to a transformation of what is being called the Valley Arts district.
"We will restore this historic landmark building, and make it a destination, with artists living and working in the renovated struc ture," said Patrick Morrissy, direc tor of the nonprofit Housing and Neighborhood Development Services (HANDS) Inc. organization, a partner with a consortium of developers known as Harvard Development Associates, said yesterday.
"We're going to buy the property next door, demolish it, and then build a new building, with 14 artist live-work lofts, and it will be connected to the historic struc ture," Morrissy said.
A century ago, the building partly comprised the Stetson family's "No Name Hat Factory" complex. It is just one of several properties that the city of Orange, as part of a Aug. 2, 2006 contract, is obli gated to sell to the consortium. It is all part of the city's Central Val ley Redevelopment Plan.
That plan calls for breathing new residential and business life into that section of the city, where 33 hat manufacturing firms were part of a renowned hat manufacturing capital, between the late 1800s and early 1920s.
Today, the area today is dubbed the future Valley Arts District, and the consortium, that also includes Alpert Group LLC of Fort Lee, and Ironstate Holdings LLC, a division of the Applied Development Co. of Hoboken, is responsible for transforming a five-block area, along Jef ferson Street, into a community for artists.
The sale of the building was approved by council members Has san Abdul-Rasheed, Tency Eason, Vivian Gaunt and Lisa Perkins. In addition to Marble, council members Donald Page and Coram Rimes voted against the sale.
During the meeting Tuesday, questions were raised about the appraised value of the building, and why the city should not renege on its contractual obligation, risk a lawsuit, and accept a $400,000 bid and sell the building to someone else.
Marable, along with Janice Mor rell, chairwoman of the Orange Zoning Board of Adjustment, chastised city officials for getting just one appraised value on the building, and for using that single figure to seal a deal, without any negotiation.
The Rev. G. Wiggins, who iden tified himself as the pastor of the Memorial West Presbyterian Church in Newark, said the city was making a big mistake by not accepting his counteroffer to buy the building for $100,000 more.
A contract is a contract and such a suggestion is unethical and illegal, Jewel Thompson-Chin, the city's business administrator, told the religious leader, city council and the public.
"Why backstab our partners?" Thompson-Chin asked rhetorically. "That is not how we do business in the city."
Orange, as part of an approved redevelopment agreement with the consortium of developers, is obli gated to "convey parcels out, as part of that redevelopment plan," to the developers associated with Harvard Development Associates, Thompson-Chin said. "We cannot consider his (Higgins) offer."
Marable agreed, and cited how the council has a fiduciary responsibility and "good faith" obligation" to live up to its agreement with the developers.
Higgins disagreed.
"This is a bad decision," said Higgins, who suggested Orange break its contract with the developers and risk the unethical backlash that might result.
"A black eye is better than selling (Orange's) future down the tubes," Higgins reasoned.
Councilwoman Tency Eason said she was baffled by Higgins stance.
Up until last month, "I never heard of him or his church," Eason said. "He came out of nowhere."
Now that the boarded up 540 Mitchell Street is in the hands of the approved developers, the city is better off, Eason said.
"It's a great opportunity for the city," Eason said. "It'll be a great project. It's going to revitalize the Valley (neighborhood). It's been so long, and now, to see some life come back to it. Everybody should be happy."
Higgins could not be reached for comment yesterday.
Kevin C. Dilworth may be reached at kdilworth@starled ger.com or (973) 392-4143.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Showing posts with label Condos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Condos. Show all posts
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Condo Conversions - Ledger - Stetson Factory In Orange
Published in the Star Ledger, Friday, January 25, 2008
Hearing set on sale of factory
Residential, work lofts planned in Orange
BY KEVIN C. DILWORTH
Star-Ledger Staff
Orange has scheduled a public hearing on the planned sale of one of the old boarded up factory buildings, where John B. Stetson and his family built a thriving hat manufacturing business in the 1800s and early 1900s.
The hearing and final vote on selling 540 Mitchell St., a three-story brick building that was part of the famed Stetson family's No Name Hat Factory complex, is scheduled for Feb. 19.
The city is planning to sell the building to a partnership proposing to create residential/work lofts.
The final vote on the sale had been originally scheduled for Jan. 15, but was postponed after the last minute discovery of a sales price typographical error.
"It was a mistake within my department and I take full responsibility for it," Marty Mayes, the city's director of planning and development said.
Some 40 supporters of the planned affordable housing community showed up at the meeting to support the proposal offered by Harvard Development Associates LLC, a co-developer along with Housing and Neighborhood Development Services Inc. (HANDS) nonprofit agency in Orange.
The sale's figure was supposed to be $300,000, not $330,000, and that correction must be the subject of a new public hearing, along with a second and final city council vote, Mayes said.
If the measure is approved, the co-developers plan to spend more than $1.4 million to gut the structure and transform it into affordable residences. The developers also plan to construct another building on an adjacent lot. In all the development would have 20-30 artists live-work lofts, according to Patrick Morrissy, the housing agency's executive director.
"We're very excited about it," Morrissy said of the No Name Hat Factory building's plans.
The boarded up hat factory, next to NJ Transit's rail line and its Highland Avenue rail station, has been an unoccupied eyesore for more than 20 years.
The factory complex originally was built by Stephen Stetson, along with his sons, including John B. Stetson. The Stetson family collectively created what became Orange's third largest hat manufacturing business, the No Name Hat Factory.
John B. Stetson trademarked the Stetson name and built his own hat manufacturing empire under his world-renowned name, in Philadelphia. Yet, neither he nor any of his other family members in Orange could ever come up with a name for the factory there, other than, No Name.
Morrissy said he remains cautiously optimistic about the rebirth of the No Name Hat Factory struc ture.
"What you'll have is this old turn-of-the-century factory building, which is three stories, plus a full basement, that will be completely rehabilitated," Morrissy said. "And then we're going to build a new building, south of it, facing Jefferson Street. It will be a two-year-long project."
Kevin C. Dilworth may be reached at kdilworth@starled ger.com or (973) 392-4143.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Hearing set on sale of factory
Residential, work lofts planned in Orange
BY KEVIN C. DILWORTH
Star-Ledger Staff
Orange has scheduled a public hearing on the planned sale of one of the old boarded up factory buildings, where John B. Stetson and his family built a thriving hat manufacturing business in the 1800s and early 1900s.
The hearing and final vote on selling 540 Mitchell St., a three-story brick building that was part of the famed Stetson family's No Name Hat Factory complex, is scheduled for Feb. 19.
The city is planning to sell the building to a partnership proposing to create residential/work lofts.
The final vote on the sale had been originally scheduled for Jan. 15, but was postponed after the last minute discovery of a sales price typographical error.
"It was a mistake within my department and I take full responsibility for it," Marty Mayes, the city's director of planning and development said.
Some 40 supporters of the planned affordable housing community showed up at the meeting to support the proposal offered by Harvard Development Associates LLC, a co-developer along with Housing and Neighborhood Development Services Inc. (HANDS) nonprofit agency in Orange.
The sale's figure was supposed to be $300,000, not $330,000, and that correction must be the subject of a new public hearing, along with a second and final city council vote, Mayes said.
If the measure is approved, the co-developers plan to spend more than $1.4 million to gut the structure and transform it into affordable residences. The developers also plan to construct another building on an adjacent lot. In all the development would have 20-30 artists live-work lofts, according to Patrick Morrissy, the housing agency's executive director.
"We're very excited about it," Morrissy said of the No Name Hat Factory building's plans.
The boarded up hat factory, next to NJ Transit's rail line and its Highland Avenue rail station, has been an unoccupied eyesore for more than 20 years.
The factory complex originally was built by Stephen Stetson, along with his sons, including John B. Stetson. The Stetson family collectively created what became Orange's third largest hat manufacturing business, the No Name Hat Factory.
John B. Stetson trademarked the Stetson name and built his own hat manufacturing empire under his world-renowned name, in Philadelphia. Yet, neither he nor any of his other family members in Orange could ever come up with a name for the factory there, other than, No Name.
Morrissy said he remains cautiously optimistic about the rebirth of the No Name Hat Factory struc ture.
"What you'll have is this old turn-of-the-century factory building, which is three stories, plus a full basement, that will be completely rehabilitated," Morrissy said. "And then we're going to build a new building, south of it, facing Jefferson Street. It will be a two-year-long project."
Kevin C. Dilworth may be reached at kdilworth@starled ger.com or (973) 392-4143.
Online story here. Archived here.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Real Estate - NY Times - Condo buyers scarce in DC
Published in the New York Times, Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Buyers Scarce, Many Condos Are for Rent
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — David Franco’s illuminated model of a proposed 10-story condominium tower dominates a sales center that, in spite of the “Now Selling” banner still fluttering outside, is conspicuously closed for business.
“We could have waited it out and kept pushing and pushing,” Mr. Franco said about the decision to abandon plans to sell 180 luxury condominiums with floor-to-ceiling windows offering views of the Washington Monument and Capitol Hill. “But it would have taken significantly longer.”
(Chart, NY Times)
After six weeks of failing to lure more than a couple of dozen buyers, Mr. Franco and his partner, Jeff Blum, joined the builders of nearly 6,000 condominium units in the Washington metropolitan area who have decided in the last three months to recast their projects as rental apartment buildings.
Since the middle of 2006, the frenzied condominium market here and in several other big cities like Las Vegas, Miami and Boston has collapsed. Once roaring sales have slowed to a trickle, sparse inventory has mushroomed into a glut and soaring prices have flattened out and started falling.
In many cities, banks have significantly scaled back loans to condominium builders. Some have demanded that developers sell half or more of the units in a building before even beginning construction.
In hopes of salvaging something from their costly plans, hundreds of developers like Mr. Franco are looking to the strong market for apartments, planning to rent their units for at least a couple of years while waiting for today’s condo surplus to shrink. Mr. Franco and Mr. Blum hope to break ground on what will be a somewhat less expensive building this spring.
In some cases, developers are even turning older buildings back to rentals after a brief or aborted attempt at condo conversion. Meanwhile, another 2,500 proposed condominiums in the Washington area have been scrapped altogether, according to Delta Associates, a real estate research firm.
The latest salvage operation on the part of condo developers is far from a sure bet, however. Condominium buildings generally cost more to build and operate than those built for apartments from scratch. And while rents are high and rising in most cities, in many cases they still are not sufficient to turn a profit.
Industry analysts also point out that rents may start sagging if too many condos are converted into apartments too quickly. While rents were rising at a robust 6.1 percent annual pace in the Washington area late last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, some buildings in the suburbs have recently started promoting move-in specials and other incentives to lure renters.
“You can do it, but it isn’t as attractive,” Tom Meagher, a Boston real estate consultant, said about converting condos into apartments. “You are not going to get enough rent to cover the cost. You might have to go back and redesign the floor plans.”
In the Boston area, Mr. Meagher is tracking 600 condo projects representing about 49,000 units in various stages, from applying for permits to active construction. While the recent slowdown is forcing developers to consider converting their projects to apartments and offices, he expects as many as a third of them will never be built at all.
Mr. Franco said that he and Mr. Blum were able to cut 10 percent from the costs of their planned building, on land in the trendy U Street corridor. That should be enough to make a profit, he said. Beyond switching to some less expensive materials, they also decided to subdivide some larger units into smaller apartments.
The partners are now going through a similar financial exercise on another proposed building across the street, which was to house 225 condominiums but now could be recast as a rental building as well.
Lenders started tightening the purse strings for the condominium market in early 2006 as sales weakened first in cities like Miami and Las Vegas.
“Did the lenders pull back soon enough?” asked Robert Brennan, managing director of real estate finance at Credit Suisse in New York. “I don’t think we know yet.”
Real estate experts say condos are more susceptible to booms and busts than single-family homes are because they attract more investors who do not intend to live in them and are easier to build than a new subdivision in many cities.
And while there are tentative signs that the worst of the overall housing slump may be easing as builders cut back and interest rates remain relatively modest, condo markets continue to suffer.
Take the owner trying to sell a spacious two-bedroom condo for $879,000 in the former Columbia Hospital for Women, which closed in 2002, in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington. In 2004, the investor was so confident that he would make a handsome resale profit that he told his agent, Thomas P. Murphy, he wanted to buy five condos. Mr. Murphy said he flatly told his client he would only assist him in purchasing one unit in any one building.
“He needs $890,000 to break even, but the offers are at $800,000 to $840,000,” Mr. Murphy said. “He does remember that I told him he was not getting five of them.”
Could he rent the condo? Yes, but that option is not appealing, either. Mr. Murphy estimates that the unit could rent for $4,000 a month, far short of the $6,800 a month the condo costs in mortgage interest, maintenance fees, insurance and taxes.
“They have a choice of how they want to lose it,” Mr. Murphy said of investors and condo developers. “Drip by drip or in one slap.”
Mr. Murphy said he believed condo sales had picked up somewhat lately and he even ran a four-way bidding contest on one well-priced condo in Foggy Bottom, near the State Department. But the supply of newly built condos is so large and so many of them are similar to each other that many sellers are having to sharply cut their asking price. Others have simply given up.
At the end of 2006, 24,200 units were on the market in the Washington area, up from 13,000 at the start of 2005. Sales have slowed to 663 in the fourth quarter of 2006 from 3,520 in the first quarter of 2005, according to Delta Associates. Recorded prices have been flat, which probably masks an effective decline since only the most attractive properties are selling and many owners throw in extra inducements that do not show up in official figures.
One of the few exceptions to the trend is in Manhattan, particularly at the high end. Condo and co-op sales increased to 2,441 in the fourth quarter, from 1,574 a year ago, and inventory was relatively flat at 5,900, said Jonathan J. Miller, an appraiser. Much of the increase can be attributed to a legal change in how sales of co-ops are recorded, but Mr. Miller said a 5.5 percent drop in prices from the third quarter also helped.
Nationally, condominium sales have fallen further than those of single-family properties, 13.6 percent from November 2005 to the same month in 2006; free-standing homes showed a 10.7 percent decline in the same period. Inventories have risen 38.1 percent for condos and 29.6 percent for individual homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. The national median price — half the condos sold for more and half for less — was $224,600 in November, unchanged from November 2005.
But there is no comprehensive, national source of data for new condominiums sales. The Realtors group only measures sales of existing units and the Commerce Department, which tracks sales of new single-family homes, does not collect data on condominiums.
In the recent housing boom, many cities welcomed condos, hoping the young, upper-income set they attract would help revitalize older neighborhoods. In some cities, condominium construction also gave municipal officials an opportunity to demand that developers set aside some units for affordable housing in exchange for zoning and building approvals.
In Washington, the area around 14th and U Streets was one of several formerly run-down neighborhoods to get a facelift largely from new condo projects. The area was once a hub of African-American civic and cultural life, but the neighborhood was ravaged by riots in 1968 after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination and fell into decades of neglect and disrepair.
The area has now become home to trendy cafes, a Whole Foods grocery and other stores. But signs of its hardscrabble past linger on in dilapidated apartment buildings and storefronts. The influx of transplants from nearby Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan has also raised the usual strains that accompany gentrification — rising rents, increased traffic and the displacement of local residents.
Mr. Franco, who lives in the neighborhood, said he was sensitive to those concerns. His company, Level 2 Development, contributed $1 million to help a group of tenants in low-income apartments buy their building as part of a deal with the local government for the approval of his condo project.
He had hoped to take up residence in a 3,200-square-foot corner unit with an expansive terrace, which will now be cut up into smaller rental apartments.
But as he drove around the neighborhood recently pointing out rows of redeveloped buildings, he acknowledged that the market might have reached its limit for now. As an example, he pointed to a used car lot that seemed to be a vestige of a bygone era.
“The reality is not everything can make way for condos,” Mr. Franco said. “This guy may be doing so much business that it has far more value than what a real estate sale can fetch.”
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
*
Buyers Scarce, Many Condos Are for Rent
By VIKAS BAJAJ
WASHINGTON — David Franco’s illuminated model of a proposed 10-story condominium tower dominates a sales center that, in spite of the “Now Selling” banner still fluttering outside, is conspicuously closed for business.
“We could have waited it out and kept pushing and pushing,” Mr. Franco said about the decision to abandon plans to sell 180 luxury condominiums with floor-to-ceiling windows offering views of the Washington Monument and Capitol Hill. “But it would have taken significantly longer.”
(Chart, NY Times)
After six weeks of failing to lure more than a couple of dozen buyers, Mr. Franco and his partner, Jeff Blum, joined the builders of nearly 6,000 condominium units in the Washington metropolitan area who have decided in the last three months to recast their projects as rental apartment buildings.
Since the middle of 2006, the frenzied condominium market here and in several other big cities like Las Vegas, Miami and Boston has collapsed. Once roaring sales have slowed to a trickle, sparse inventory has mushroomed into a glut and soaring prices have flattened out and started falling.
In many cities, banks have significantly scaled back loans to condominium builders. Some have demanded that developers sell half or more of the units in a building before even beginning construction.
In hopes of salvaging something from their costly plans, hundreds of developers like Mr. Franco are looking to the strong market for apartments, planning to rent their units for at least a couple of years while waiting for today’s condo surplus to shrink. Mr. Franco and Mr. Blum hope to break ground on what will be a somewhat less expensive building this spring.
In some cases, developers are even turning older buildings back to rentals after a brief or aborted attempt at condo conversion. Meanwhile, another 2,500 proposed condominiums in the Washington area have been scrapped altogether, according to Delta Associates, a real estate research firm.
The latest salvage operation on the part of condo developers is far from a sure bet, however. Condominium buildings generally cost more to build and operate than those built for apartments from scratch. And while rents are high and rising in most cities, in many cases they still are not sufficient to turn a profit.
Industry analysts also point out that rents may start sagging if too many condos are converted into apartments too quickly. While rents were rising at a robust 6.1 percent annual pace in the Washington area late last year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, some buildings in the suburbs have recently started promoting move-in specials and other incentives to lure renters.
“You can do it, but it isn’t as attractive,” Tom Meagher, a Boston real estate consultant, said about converting condos into apartments. “You are not going to get enough rent to cover the cost. You might have to go back and redesign the floor plans.”
In the Boston area, Mr. Meagher is tracking 600 condo projects representing about 49,000 units in various stages, from applying for permits to active construction. While the recent slowdown is forcing developers to consider converting their projects to apartments and offices, he expects as many as a third of them will never be built at all.
Mr. Franco said that he and Mr. Blum were able to cut 10 percent from the costs of their planned building, on land in the trendy U Street corridor. That should be enough to make a profit, he said. Beyond switching to some less expensive materials, they also decided to subdivide some larger units into smaller apartments.
The partners are now going through a similar financial exercise on another proposed building across the street, which was to house 225 condominiums but now could be recast as a rental building as well.
Lenders started tightening the purse strings for the condominium market in early 2006 as sales weakened first in cities like Miami and Las Vegas.
“Did the lenders pull back soon enough?” asked Robert Brennan, managing director of real estate finance at Credit Suisse in New York. “I don’t think we know yet.”
Real estate experts say condos are more susceptible to booms and busts than single-family homes are because they attract more investors who do not intend to live in them and are easier to build than a new subdivision in many cities.
And while there are tentative signs that the worst of the overall housing slump may be easing as builders cut back and interest rates remain relatively modest, condo markets continue to suffer.
Take the owner trying to sell a spacious two-bedroom condo for $879,000 in the former Columbia Hospital for Women, which closed in 2002, in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington. In 2004, the investor was so confident that he would make a handsome resale profit that he told his agent, Thomas P. Murphy, he wanted to buy five condos. Mr. Murphy said he flatly told his client he would only assist him in purchasing one unit in any one building.
“He needs $890,000 to break even, but the offers are at $800,000 to $840,000,” Mr. Murphy said. “He does remember that I told him he was not getting five of them.”
Could he rent the condo? Yes, but that option is not appealing, either. Mr. Murphy estimates that the unit could rent for $4,000 a month, far short of the $6,800 a month the condo costs in mortgage interest, maintenance fees, insurance and taxes.
“They have a choice of how they want to lose it,” Mr. Murphy said of investors and condo developers. “Drip by drip or in one slap.”
Mr. Murphy said he believed condo sales had picked up somewhat lately and he even ran a four-way bidding contest on one well-priced condo in Foggy Bottom, near the State Department. But the supply of newly built condos is so large and so many of them are similar to each other that many sellers are having to sharply cut their asking price. Others have simply given up.
At the end of 2006, 24,200 units were on the market in the Washington area, up from 13,000 at the start of 2005. Sales have slowed to 663 in the fourth quarter of 2006 from 3,520 in the first quarter of 2005, according to Delta Associates. Recorded prices have been flat, which probably masks an effective decline since only the most attractive properties are selling and many owners throw in extra inducements that do not show up in official figures.
One of the few exceptions to the trend is in Manhattan, particularly at the high end. Condo and co-op sales increased to 2,441 in the fourth quarter, from 1,574 a year ago, and inventory was relatively flat at 5,900, said Jonathan J. Miller, an appraiser. Much of the increase can be attributed to a legal change in how sales of co-ops are recorded, but Mr. Miller said a 5.5 percent drop in prices from the third quarter also helped.
Nationally, condominium sales have fallen further than those of single-family properties, 13.6 percent from November 2005 to the same month in 2006; free-standing homes showed a 10.7 percent decline in the same period. Inventories have risen 38.1 percent for condos and 29.6 percent for individual homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. The national median price — half the condos sold for more and half for less — was $224,600 in November, unchanged from November 2005.
But there is no comprehensive, national source of data for new condominiums sales. The Realtors group only measures sales of existing units and the Commerce Department, which tracks sales of new single-family homes, does not collect data on condominiums.
In the recent housing boom, many cities welcomed condos, hoping the young, upper-income set they attract would help revitalize older neighborhoods. In some cities, condominium construction also gave municipal officials an opportunity to demand that developers set aside some units for affordable housing in exchange for zoning and building approvals.
In Washington, the area around 14th and U Streets was one of several formerly run-down neighborhoods to get a facelift largely from new condo projects. The area was once a hub of African-American civic and cultural life, but the neighborhood was ravaged by riots in 1968 after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination and fell into decades of neglect and disrepair.
The area has now become home to trendy cafes, a Whole Foods grocery and other stores. But signs of its hardscrabble past linger on in dilapidated apartment buildings and storefronts. The influx of transplants from nearby Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan has also raised the usual strains that accompany gentrification — rising rents, increased traffic and the displacement of local residents.
Mr. Franco, who lives in the neighborhood, said he was sensitive to those concerns. His company, Level 2 Development, contributed $1 million to help a group of tenants in low-income apartments buy their building as part of a deal with the local government for the approval of his condo project.
He had hoped to take up residence in a 3,200-square-foot corner unit with an expansive terrace, which will now be cut up into smaller rental apartments.
But as he drove around the neighborhood recently pointing out rows of redeveloped buildings, he acknowledged that the market might have reached its limit for now. As an example, he pointed to a used car lot that seemed to be a vestige of a bygone era.
“The reality is not everything can make way for condos,” Mr. Franco said. “This guy may be doing so much business that it has far more value than what a real estate sale can fetch.”
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)