666 LaundromatSatan's Laundromat



Below, some of what will be destroyed if Bruce Ratner, who has a history of making attractive-looking plans into rather hideous buildings, succeeds in getting the city to condemn six blocks for his Gehry-designed arena development. The plans include about 7,000,000 square feet on 21 acres; for comparison, the World Trade Center towers had about 9,000,000 square feet on 16 acres. The buildings I'll miss most? The enigmatic Samuel Underberg Building on Atlantic Avenue (background) and the simply stunning Atlantic Art Building at 636 Pacific Street. And, of course, the HOT BIRD ads. The neighborhood is up in arms.

Samuel Underberg Building detail

Underberg building

Sober tag under Hot Bird ad

666 Pacific

Tall brick building

Apartment buzzers mounted on chain-link fence

American Express cards / Brooklyn Hispanic Business and Professional Association

Building with lots of arches

Large apartment building

Atlas Brake Service and Hot Bird ad

Bread Tank
"Bread Tank / Liquid [?]elose / Dextrose"

Building with espo tag

Atlantic Art Building

Don't Destroy Our Homes

Friends in High Places - anti-Ratner sign

1:20 PM | Comments (47) | TrackBack (1)


Gehry is ego unchecked, refusing to acknowledge the beauty and diversity of human scale building, replacing it with garish spectacle. He is ruining deco, italianate renaissance revival, and other syles that make New York wonderful.

He did that with the King Alfred Center in Bristol which ignored the idea of pavillion and carnival, the Disney concert hall in Los Angeles, which made a rich persons cathedral on top of immigrant poverty, and the EMP in Seattle, which hoggishly took up almost 3/4s of a central public park.

I do not know why he is lauded in the manner he is.

Posted by: Anthony at December 27, 2003 08:56 PM

That damned Gehry is also working here in Portugal, to rebuild Parque Mayer, which is Lisbon's theatre district. His project, for which he will recieve 15 million euros (a bit less in dollars) will modify one of the of the most beautiful and classic architectured areas of the city, including a marvellous (though ruined) art deco theater, into something like this:

Talk about hideous...

Posted by: Luis Duarte at December 27, 2003 08:56 PM

Oops, no HTML tags allowed. Here are the links:



Now, isn't it hideous?

Posted by: Luis Duarte at December 27, 2003 08:58 PM

Forgot to say: people here aren't happy with it too...

Posted by: Luis Duarte at December 27, 2003 09:01 PM


I love the shots of the Underberg building. The lettering looks about right. I wonder if that place has anything to do with http://www.underberg.com (a German, alcoholic after dinner drink). It comes in really small bottles and is suppose to sooth your stomach after a good meal. Maybe that place was a warehouse of theirs or something..

Posted by: Christopher Trott at December 28, 2003 06:26 PM

As far as I know, The Underberg building was the original location of a food store supply warehouse. It supplied pricing guns, "Sale" signs and other needs for many of Brooklyns bodegas and supermarkets. The company still exists but has moved to a new location.

The store is featured in a chapter of Fortress of Solitude by Jonathan Lethem, the first half of which is a fantastic atmosphere of Boerum Hill and its surroundings, though Underberg and its neighborhood lie on the periphery.

Posted by: Aaron Yowell at December 29, 2003 09:36 AM

thanks for the Hit Bird shots. i've always meant to go around and get photos of all the ads in the neighborhood (maybe somebody else has already done this?). hmph, if they want economic renewal, they should re-open the Hot Bird!

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at December 29, 2003 10:00 AM

Preservationist fanaticism chokes off vitality and turns places into themepark versions of themselves. Tear the buildings down. Brooklyn doesn't need to become San Francisco.

Posted by: Thomas Locke Hobbs at December 29, 2003 10:06 AM

Seriously, I can't believe anyone would mourn the passing of these ugly and decaying buildings. The Gehry building would add some much needed beauty to this area.

Posted by: oolah at December 29, 2003 10:55 AM

If current trends continue, those ugly and decaying buildings will inevitably be adaptively-renovated into beautiful, interesting and useful human-scale buildings that are relevant to the existing streetscape.

Ghery's crumpled tinfoil monstrosities are ego-driven cartoon architecture. Ratner's arena is out of place even at the fringe of a thriving historic residential community that's already well into an economic renaissance. His giant box and associated parking and traffic nightmare will NOT improve the quality of life.

Whoever equates this proposal with "beauty" has never seen the negative effects of big-box development in a residential neighborhood. Ratner's ill-conceived Atlantic Center and Atlantic Terminal Mall are "beauty" enough, thank you...

Posted by: streebs at December 29, 2003 11:17 AM

Your post inspired me to post an Underberg-related e-mail that's been sitting around for a while. Click below.

Posted by: David at December 29, 2003 11:52 AM

I live in the neighborhood near the area the proposed stadium would be built. And I enjoy taking pictures of interesting things/places around New York. I grew up in this city and enjoy enjoy old buildings and graffiti. But let's not be romantic about old buildings and run down areas. I'm officially sick of people romanticizing urban decay and speaking positively about the neighborhood's "character". It's enough already.

That said, I am against the stadium plan, not because I don't want a stadium. I do want a stadium. But because the "plan" when it was unveiled revealed itself to be a MASSIVE office-park with a stadium that takes up a relatively SMALL part of the plan. Seriously, go to http://www.bball.net/ and check out the real site plans. It seems if they would ditch the office buildings and simply build the stadium, it would be fine. But if they build the office buildings--which many people are not aware even exist--then that would destroy the neighborhood in many ways. Build the stadium. Ditch the office buildings.

But that said, I hold no romaniticized view for that area that currently exists. The old Samuel Underberg building is a rat-infested hulk of a building. It's got some nice pieces on it, but whatever. Graffiti is ephemeral. It never lasts forever. And the artists won't be as heartbroken as some might think. They're just find another blank wall and throw one up.

The area in and around the Long Island Railroad tracks is filled with garbage and abandoned/burned cars. Try crossing Atlantic Avenue at ANY time of the day and you're taking a chance on your life. I grew up in Brooklyn and now live in Brooklyn and many neighborhoods have "character". This area of Atlantic Avenue is simply a dump. Anyone who actually lives there knows it and something should be done to clean up the area.

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2003 02:09 PM

Jack is right -- the train yards are ugly and blighted. By all means, cover over the train yards with some reasonably sized buildings! But there are numerous solid multi-story historic buildings in the area that I wish they would just build around instead of condemning.

It seems like a really awful place to put an arena, though. As much we'd like to think fans will arrive by public transit, they mostly won't, and the traffic will be nightmarish (it already is, even without the arena).

Seven million square feet is ENORMOUS. MetroTech in northern downtown Brooklyn is something like 2.5 million. Seven million, plus the arena, is absurd.

Posted by: Mike at December 29, 2003 02:57 PM

Historic buildings? In what sense? Old and and dilapidated and ready to collapse like the Samuel Underberg building?

Let's face the facts. The proposed plan is obscenely huge. It needs to be scaled down. Many of the so-called "historic" buildings are anything but that. They are simply crumbling piles of bricks and steel. While there is a certain appeal to urban decay, enough is enough.

The only real concern should be people who are living in buildings now whose homes would be threatened by eminent domain if this plan comes through. Those people I have symapthy for. There is no reason that they should move and have their lives shattered for an unneeded office complex. But honestly, the neighborhood does indeed need development. And simply building the stadium would be great.

And a stadium would be great and welcome by all. The traffic won't be any worse and if anything would be sporadic; just look at Madison Square Garden. And people are conveniently forgetting that this is not a neighborhood that has one oddball Subway station. This is basically right next to Atlantic Avenue which is the biggest transit hub outside of midtown Manhattan. Virtually every major Subway line stops there. And if that's not good enough so does the L.I.R.R. and the C, E and G in Fort Greene. The reality is that it's a magnet for public transportation use.

Honestly, if they tore down the Atlantic Center, moved the tennants out of that and into the new Atlantic Terminal Mall and then build the stadium on that land AND part of the L.I.R.R. holding area everyone would be happy. The Atlantic Center is an unloved and badly designed mall on every level. The L.I.R.R. hoilding area is justr crud. Modify the plan and build it that way.

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2003 04:24 PM

Seven Million aq ft INCLUDES the arena, which will come in at 800K. Roughly 4.4M is residential, 2.1M commercial, and 300K retail. I live in Boerum Hill on Pacific Street and won't miss any of these buildings - it's an awful area. BTW, I doubt 636 Pacific (3rd photo from bottom) will get torn down. They just started the condo conversion spring 2002, and the whole building sold out before anyone moved in this year. One of the smaller midlevel units recently resold for $425K. Yeah, there will be other folks forced to relocate, but does anyone really believe that will include the 3 souls who paid $2M+ for the 3 penthouses? Take a look at these photos: http://www.condosinbrooklyn.com/aaphotos_1.htm

Posted by: Jo at December 29, 2003 04:27 PM

Historic buildings like the Atlantic Art Building (newly renovated, third picture from the end), and like the buildings in the 5th and 9th pictures. And there are a lot of other big buildings in very good shape that aren't pictured here. Look for yourself if you don't believe me.

I don't care THAT much about the Underberg building, but I'd miss it if they tore it down. And given how much Atlantic Center sucks (and how ugly the new building above the LIRR terminal is), I don't trust Ratner to build something non-hideous, Gehry or no Gehry.

The E train in Fort Greene?

Posted by: Mike at December 29, 2003 04:31 PM

Still, even if it's only 6.5 million square feet? That's two and a half MetroTechs!

636 Pacific is part of the area that Ratner is proposing to tear down, but the big condo conversion a block east isn't. Go figure.

Posted by: Mike at December 29, 2003 04:34 PM

Sorry, I mean "A" train. Not the "E". Mea Culpa.

Regarding Ratner's buildings, I do agree to an extent. Atlantic Center is an abominaton. But what's being built across the street is much better. Seriously, at least the mall area in that structure looks like a real mall. And the office space... While that skeleton was being built I had my doubts, but the building is really not that bad. And Ratner's decision to use a real architect such as Gehry shows a certain level of growth.

Regardless, the coop conversions that are around that area can hardly be called historic buildings in any sense. If histroy is what is being talked about, then a quick glance at what those buildings once were--and what they are now post-conversion--throws a wet towel on that argument. Any "histroric" context was washed away when the first renovations occurred.

Regarding other historic buildings... Believe me, I live and walk through that neighborhood a lot... I did mention I live near there, right? And I grew up in this city? The area in general needs to be cleaned up and needs to get something that bridges the rift between the different neighborhoods that borderline that area. The place is really one of the nastiest intersections in the whole city. And most anyone visting that part of Brooklyn will have to watch their step before stepping in a pile of "neighborhood character".

The project as it stands is too big. And that's what I can agree on with the detractors. But the idea put forth by many that the neighborhood as-is is filled with "character" that should be preserved is just insane.

There's no reason the neighborhood should be allowed to stagnate and become dillapidated just because a few urban armchair photographers find urban decay "quaint". And neighborhood activists had better wise-up and realize the tactic of declaring the neighborhood fine as-is is simply not going to work. Anyone with half a brain can see the neighborhood needs something there. And a stadium sans the office buildings is the way to go.

Posted by: Jack at December 29, 2003 06:45 PM

The A only stops in Fort Greene after 11pm.

I challenge you to walk by 636 Pacific and tell me that facade isn't worthy of preservation, no matter what's on the inside.

I support building something over the train yards, and I'm fine with building on the vacant lots and parking lots and such. But there are some real gems that it would be a shame to lose. You're fighting a straw man when you say that anyone is "declaring the neighborhood fine as-is," and that's not a fair fight.

Even an arena without the office buildings, as you suggest, wouldn't be so terrible -- but I don't think there's any way that would happen. In fact, I think that Ratner only wants the Nets because he thinks the only way he'll get the city to condemn the land for his pet office/residential towers is by promising a professional basketball team. The real goal isn't the Nets -- it's the high-rises. That's where the money is.

Posted by: Mike at December 29, 2003 07:12 PM

when i first heard about the plan i was all for it because they were only talking about using the space over the LIRR trainyard. but the revelations about just how much more space the plan requires changes the scheme from a way to enliven the neighborhood into another example of some rich guy not really caring about the little people who have to live with huge developments like this. but is there really any way it could be scaled back?

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at December 29, 2003 07:12 PM

Jimmy -- the site diagram is here. The block bounded by Pacific, Dean, Vanderbilt and Carlton could certainly be spared. And the building heights could be scaled down as well, of course.

Posted by: Mike at December 29, 2003 07:17 PM

Ratner will not win the right to buy the Nets . They will stay in Jersey . Nothing will be down in brooklyn w/out the arena . And Ratner is not getting the Nets , so dont worry .

Posted by: Jzak at December 29, 2003 08:59 PM

"The A only stops in Fort Greene after 11pm."

But the "A" does stop there, right? Technically speaking all of the train lines heading to Atlantic and Pacific--and the whole Subway system--change schedules/routing after 11pm. But whatever. If you want to chew on that bone, go ahead and chew.

"I challenge you to walk by 636 Pacific and tell me that facade isn't worthy of preservation, no matter what's on the inside."

Challenge taken, accepted and I don't agree. But I do want to say that your attitude of aesthetic over content really is a bit disturbing. If the real issue is architectural preservation in that neighborhood, few if any buildings there hold any real merit to be spared for some larger aesthetic good. While I'm all for preservation in cases when it makes sense, saying a building should be spared simply because of a very non-unique facade is silly. We're not talking about the death of Penn Station. 636 Pacific's death began long ago when it was first being converted and renovated. The facade is a pale shadow of what the building once was. And even then, it wasn't worth much.

As bloated as Ratner's plan is, I can't say that any of the neighborhood activist groups have done a good job of convincing anyone that the neighborhood does not need help.

And while I know you're now in the comments to this piece claiming that the area does need help, the general tone of your pictures and posts are a bit too wistfully nostaligic for this run-down area for most people to understand that you're not for simply for leaving everything as-is.

Posted by: Jack at December 30, 2003 01:31 AM

It's time Brooklyn got some development. Bring on the Nets. For once, Brooklyn will be a place a professional team comes to instead of flees.

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at December 31, 2003 07:56 PM

Actually, I AM horrified about the prospect of Walmart coming to Coney Island.


Posted by: Kevin Walsh at December 31, 2003 08:14 PM

Can't verify all the words on the sign, but the "ose" word looks like 'sucralose' to me...

Posted by: Frank at January 4, 2004 09:17 PM

I think that sign predates the existence of sucralose, and I'm pretty sure it's "elose", not "alose". The rest of it was quite legible in person, except for those few letters. Good guess, though.

Posted by: Mike at January 4, 2004 09:40 PM

There is no concern for the people and businesses that are downtown. They may be coming for our homes and businesses now, but your neighborhood,whether it be Bay Ridge, Park Slope, Caroll Gardens, Bensonhurst or Borough Park! Would you want to be forced to sell your land for a Walmark, Barnes and Noble or Ikea?

I don't think so - support the people in Brooklyn!!!

Posted by: Downtown Residents at January 11, 2004 11:49 AM

This plan is ridiculous. The obvious choice to put a stadium is in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. It is the best location for the following reasons: close proximity to BQE towards Queens and Staten Island, 5 min access to Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridegs. Plenty of space for onsite parking at Navy Yard. Development would link area north west of BQE tied to closely to Fort Greene and Clinto Hill neighborhoods. Development would + for that section of downtown Brooklyn and Faragut Housing projects. The public would have access to the stadium via A and C trains at the High Street Station and the F train from the York Street Station. These two lines are accessible from the two major hubs at Fulton Street in Lower Manhattan and the 34th Street and Times Square Stations, making it very easily accessible to fans in the other boroughs and most importantly New Jersey. Additionally, the stadium would also be easily accessible by water taxi or ferry if located at the Navy Yard.

Current properties along Park Ave and Flushing are typically warehousing and mostly lots that can be easily consolidated for future development. The current area designated as the site would diplace approximately 5 Condo/Coop Development completed within the past 5 years. The cost to condemn these and provide fair compensation would be approx. $250Million that the city opr state would have to pay. These have contributed positively to the ongoing progression of the Park Slope, Propect Heights, Fort Greene and Clinton Hill neighbirhoods. Locatin the stadium at the Navy Yard would also increase its visiblity and linkage to the Olympics.

Locating the property at it current proposed location would destroy the existing density of 4-6 story townhouses that make the neighborhoods what they are. The traffic at Flatbush and Atlantic has recently been attempting to get back to normalcy since the massive reconstruction of the Atlantic Avenue station. The masive buidlings in the Gerry Plans are totally non-contextual. I would ask everyone involved to think of what a stadium would look like in the middle of Brooklyn Height, or on the Gold Coast on 5th and Madison.

Although a good idea for Brooklyn I think the site totally is self promoting prospect for Forest City Ratner. The Navy Yard site and the even the site in Mill Basin are better suited. My first choice would be the Navy Yard site the varying modes available to access the site.

Posted by: Donald at January 15, 2004 09:09 PM

Once the stadium is built, the next step is to run an exit off the BQE through the brownstones of Fort Green.

Posted by: Mert at January 23, 2004 09:55 AM

Kevin's right about WalMart ... it's like White Sands being obliterated for Home Depot ... while anyone can say that nothing is special enough to be preserved if it doesn't meet some certain criteria of aesthetic, a quaint neighborhood like white sands being lost to a box store like Home Depot is a travesty. Losing any part of Brooklyn to a mass market chain store is a travesty ... I know I'm one of those wistful people that sees something fascinating in urban decay, but I find history, no matter how rat infested or perceived to be useless, to be worth more than buying a lawnmower, a toilet and lumber under one roof...

The underberg building is merely a quaint object of interest for those piqued by the strata of urban history. It's abandoned, true, it serves no purpose but to take up space, but it's interesting ... albeit only to a certain demographic, and it's not like I'd lobby for it to be saved at the expense of something more useful.

But I think the whole office tower complex with the area is an atrocity. The arena might do some good, sure, but like Mike says, it's the office space that's the real issue behind the plan.

I know I'm just nostalgic without cause in the eyes of some people, but I don't think Brooklyn needs to become like Manhattan. It's a different place with a different character and skyscraping office towers don't have any aesthetic merit. It's been said already and I agree, build over the railroad yards, but there's no need to demolish viable buildings that people have made into their homes. Demolish the moribund Atlantic Center first.

Posted by: Steve at January 30, 2004 03:36 PM

i lived at 15 hanson place in 2001 and 2002 and i think the neighborhood has come up slowly but surely in the past two years with the renovations/re-use along pacific and the new rowhouses along atlantic. the whole area could redevelop nicely on its own if ratner didn't tear it all down before it had a chance. the whole issue with the project is scale.

Posted by: james at March 27, 2004 11:52 AM

i'm not sure what leaving out the office buildings will do. according to the plan , the commercial buildings (in yellow on the map) appear to only be about a third of the area. the "residential" buildings knock out much of what is already residential buildings. naturally, there's been many claims that ratner will include some affordable housing; but one must ask, affordable to whom? i don't know if the navy yards are the "obvious choice," but it seems to me that there are plenty of vacant, abandoned areas in brooklyn that could use new development more than this particular area.

Posted by: andrea at April 27, 2004 08:55 AM

I don't see the real problem here...Brooklyn need to be significantly revitalized. As one can see by the photos Brooklyn has been left out of the '90's and the New Millinneum's economic boom. Within the last 3 years China has built several shinning new cities the size of NYC. We see the emergence of third World countries flex their economic power by the outsourcing of many call center jobs. Everyone has left Brooklyn including the Nets and the Dodgers and it is time someone brought this city back as the great place to live become that once more.

Business thrives in new communities w/shinny new buildings, clean new streets and a energized workforce. that means better housing, new schools, safer streets, and a better place to live.

Come on Ratner...knock this delipated crap down!!!

Posted by: Wil D W at June 11, 2004 03:02 AM

While I often find Gehry's designs interesting, even outlandishly beautiful in their alien like ecentricies. I think this is the wrong place, wrong neighborhood, wrong everything. Show me one instance in which a large stadium was built that a communtiy was able to economically benefit from its perks....waiting...waiting...waiting.... exactly. This is a mess, these buildings are beautiful, and once gone, will be lost forever. There are plenty of other less architectually interesting places in New York City in which this stadium might be more appropriate, As is, this is a mess, and shame on Ratner, and Gehry,

Posted by: Kevin Wilen at September 25, 2004 10:38 PM


Great for china and other countries, build a new city somewhere else in America. Its not a pissing contest. These buildings are beautiful in their own right. You can't conserve what you knock down.

Awsome photography. I hope ya'll in NYC can save these buildings.

Posted by: P Ly The Man at November 15, 2004 06:03 PM

Why doesn't anyone talk to real people who need jobs, housing, and don't need to live in a run down horrid wretched neighborhood? It's always the people who go home to their nice gentrified little homes who cry the most about this sort of crap, when in reality it is THEM driving people out of their homes, creaping further and further away from Manhattan, pushing the working class out of their neighborhoods, because they are 'quaint'.

Soon I'll have to live on a houseboat because of these yuppie bastards pushing people further and further out in Brooklyn.

Give me a chance at a job, (and yes there is a need for jobs other than more damn bankers), maybe some housing, maybe some shopping other than some overpriced bullshit boutique on 7th avenue, and I'll be happy.

Take your pretentious 'save the building' attitude and find another neighborhood to eat up alive. Are you guys sure you're done with Williamsburg yet? I think it needs more vegan food, coffeehouses, and bars, with snot faced jerks in lofts.

Let us poor brooklyn born and bred people have the brooklyn we want, instead of you over paid out of towners, for once.

Posted by: Maria at November 16, 2004 09:50 AM


Posted by: Jane at March 2, 2005 08:31 AM

Have any of you people in favor of Ratners proposed expansion tried to drive down Atlantic Avenue recently? Without the stadium, it is a nightmare. Imagine all the L.I residents, New Jersians, and Connecticutians who feel the need to drive 1 person per car coming into the neighborhood via the BQE and LIE to see a Nets game, and then try to get around the neighborhood. It will be impossible.

Posted by: Jay at June 7, 2005 08:56 AM

great pics, love the buzzers on the fence, that is truely amazing. Their landlord must really suck. Never the less the Ratner plan is not good.

Posted by: Will at December 16, 2005 09:23 AM

Thanks for all these fab photos. The names change but the policies of ripping out the heart of a city landscape and replacing it with 'pile 'em high and sell it higher' is the same in London too. The strange thing is that there is always a residual guilt. Have you noticed that when an area is reconstructed new 'objects d'art appear made up of salvaged items from previous occupiers. In London an area called the Isle of Dogs, previously made up of docks and warehouses and now a new 'financial area' has refurbished anchors and cranes, and nautically-themed architecture.

Any resonances in NYC or do they prefer to 'sweep-kleen'?



Posted by: Jamie Gregory at January 27, 2006 08:16 AM

WE live in a City of widespread demolition New Orleans so sad

Posted by: Karen at September 19, 2006 01:54 AM

demolition happens all day here now

Posted by: Karen at September 19, 2006 01:56 AM

My homie five hold'n it down with the fire escape...at leats 5 or 6 years old. get money

Posted by: younicks kfd at January 12, 2007 08:44 AM

Though I'm also upset about the upcoming traffic nightmare and loss of the beautiful old structures, my BIG disappointment with this whole thing is the shameful use of eminent domain to evict people from their homes for anything other than a highway, schools or NECESSARY public areas. Land for a stadium and office buildings, purchased by one guy for his PERSONAL PROFIT is not what eminent domain was meant to do. I can't believe Ratner is getting away with this. And for all those people outside of Brooklyn that think this is a great thing, I can't wait for it to happen to YOU in YOUR neighborhood - what goes around, comes around! I like Brooklyn just like it is and I hate that our government officials could so short sighted and so easily and cheaply be bought off.

Posted by: MissieLin at April 5, 2007 10:06 PM

Though I'm also upset about the upcoming traffic nightmare and loss of the beautiful old structures, my BIG disappointment with this whole thing is the shameful use of eminent domain to evict people from their homes for anything other than a highway, schools or NECESSARY public areas. Land for a stadium and office buildings, purchased by one guy for his PERSONAL PROFIT is not what eminent domain was meant to do. I can't believe Ratner is getting away with this. And for all those people outside of Brooklyn that think this is a great thing, I can't wait for it to happen to YOU in YOUR neighborhood - what goes around, comes around! I like Brooklyn just like it is and I hate that our government officials could so short sighted and so easily and cheaply be bought off.

Posted by: MissieLin at April 5, 2007 10:07 PM

What's sad is that many of these buildings are dumps purely because they have not been given a fair chance to survive. Many of the buildings in this area have been listed under eminent domain for OVER 20 YEARS! No business is going to move in and do major renovations on a building that is already slated for demolition. These building owners have struggled with getting established tenants to move in for years. I know of one in particular who had so many big businesses interested. Everytime they would open up negotiations, it would be revealed that the building is listed under eminent domain and the deal would fall through. So they sit and decay while the government takes their time to decide whether or not they want kick the property owners out and use the land for anything or not. That is just not fair.

Posted by: Jess at April 14, 2008 04:54 PM

Post a comment

Save your info?