« Thursday Events The New 421-a Legislation in Graphic Form »

June 28, 2007

Coney Island: How Much Do You Give a Sitt?

sitt062607.jpgAs most readers are probably aware by now, developer Joseph Sitt's company Thor Equities has spent in the neighborhood of $120 million amassing a large swath of property along the Coney Island waterfront, including the land upon which Astroland currently sits. In addition to a complete makeover of the amusement park, the company's original plan called for a number of large, presumably pricey condos along the boardwalk. In the face of a broad pushback from community (and city residents in general), Sitt sent his designers back to the drawing board and unveiled a new proposal last week that substituted hotels and time-shares for condos and sought to reduce the density of the project. Thor's Coney Plan 2.0 did not seem to appease the critics, though, including the city's Economic Development Corporation. Community Board 13's Chuck Reichenthal summed it up when he said that, “The community and the Coney Island Development Corporation have all indicated that residential and amusements don’t go together." On Tuesday night, Sitt showed up for a local community meeting to try to rally support for his plan, saying that he didn't want to build it unless residents were in favor. (He also noted that he wanted the support of the press and the blogs.) When we wrote about the new plan last week, we wondered aloud, "If you're already going to turn it into Disney World, what's the big deal is about having some condos in the mix?" An editorial this week in The Brooklyn Paper titled "Let Joe Sitt Build" asked essentially the same question. Anyway, given Sitt's interest in gauging public opinion, we thought we'd run one of our polls below.

Thor Backs Away from Coney Condo Plan [Brownstoner] GMAP
CI Plan Is Scaled Back, but Critics Are Skeptical [NY Times]
Sitt Speaks in Coney Island [Gowanus Lounge]
Let Joe Sitt Build [Brooklyn Paper]




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:57 AM | Comments (41)
Categories: Coney Island Area, Development

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1483

Comments

This is pretty interesting so far...

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 28, 2007 9:52 AM

WTF do people care what Joey builds over there, since when did they give a #$& about the financial viability thereof, and by what $DEITY-given right do they get to decide for him?

I say if he wants to build a residential component and mix it into his amusement district, go ahead. If they don't mix well as people say they don't, then the condos won't sell well and he alone stands to lose his time and money. And if he's right, and the naysayers wrong, so much the better for everyone.

But hey, it's easier and popular to shoot your mouth off at any developer, even the one who resides in the same community and "eats where he Sitts" since the cost of slander is marginal.

Posted by: iceberg at June 28, 2007 10:01 AM

Amusements & dwellings don't go together? Remember "Annie Hall"-where the rollercoaster owners lived in a house DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the ride? This fictional account was based on the real life situation of the Thunderbolt-which had a house beneath it, with the (get this) girders forming the support for the home's bookcases! So, if it worked in this (extreme) example, a few yards apart will seem like miles in comparison! Actually, Sitt should explore the idea of replicating the Thunderbolt scenario. I think some people would actually go for it!!!!!

Posted by: Sy Klone at June 28, 2007 10:12 AM

I say don't mess with Astroland, but CI is already over with in my book. They took away my flea markets! When I lived there in the 80's, I used to buy vintage clothing from 40's, 50's and 60's for $2 and albums (Is anyone here old enough to remember those vinyl things?) for 50 cents. And the furniture and salvage! It was like Eddies x 10.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 10:13 AM

Residential and amusement do not mix. Look, people buy across the street from schoolyards, next door to bars, in Greenwich Village, but what do they inevitably do? Complain. Piss and moan. You get some folks paying big bucks for condos and the noise, loitering, etc complaints will never end. And one guess who the majority of complaints will be directed against? People will attempt to upscale and privatize what has been a democratic and very public beach and amusement area for well over 100 years. Look at that idiot in Manhattan Beach and his "thugs" e-mail. I am not opposed to gussying up Coney Island but, at the end of the day, it is and should remain and amusement area. It is a tremendous asset for the people of New York that has been neglected for too long. And I mean all the people of New York, not just rich Johnny come latelies.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 10:23 AM

mr. b needs to take some classes (or at least do some reading) on how to form an unbiased survey. he let us know his opinion in the lead paragraph and then puts four choices that fall closer to the realm of his own thoughts on the issue using words and expressions like #1, "fine", #2, "support", #3, "i don't mind", #4, "i don't mind". Finally, choice #5 offers some room for dissent but there is no space to flesh out that argument with varying opinions.

Posted by: the chime at June 28, 2007 10:34 AM

If there is one place in this city that was built for and enjoyed by the average common Joes and Janes of this city, it is Coney Island. More so than Central Park, Prospect Park, which were really both designed for the urban swells. If you pick up any book on Brooklyn, you'd think Coney Island was the entire history of Brooklyn, along with Ebbetts Field.

Anon 10:23 is absolutely correct in all respects. Restore the amusement park, and develop nearby. Some hotels/time shares, some residential. But have the good sense to put the residential far enough away from the amusement park so that the park and beach can do what they are supposed to - provide a great source of fun and enjoyment to the families of all of Brooklyn and beyond.

Ideally, I'd like to see much of the old park restored - keep the iconic rides, and add new attractions. I wouldn't want to see a completely shiny new Great Adventure like park.

Posted by: Preservationista at June 28, 2007 10:47 AM

Anon at 10:23 makes the most important point about Coney Island -- keeping it a place for public amusements and recreation. There's a long history of struggle over the beach which you can learn about if you visit the Coney Island museum, but of course attempts to privatize go way back. The danger of condo development is precisely that it threatens to turn Coney into Manhattan Beach.

And in spite of the loud segment of readers of this blog who decry every zoning of every kind and would like to see NYC developers yet more unleashed, about half of the poll-takers come down clearly on the side of strictly limiting condo/hotel development.

Posted by: SPer at June 28, 2007 10:50 AM

Anon at 10:23 makes the most important point about Coney Island -- keeping it a place for public amusements and recreation. There's a long history of struggle over the beach which you can learn about if you visit the Coney Island museum, but of course attempts to privatize go way back. The danger of condo development is precisely that it threatens to turn Coney into Manhattan Beach.

And in spite of the loud segment of readers of this blog who decry zoning of every kind and would like to see NYC developers yet more unleashed, about half of the poll-takers come down clearly on the side of strictly limiting condo/hotel development.

Posted by: SPer at June 28, 2007 10:50 AM

I totally agree with 10:47.

Posted by: coney fan at June 28, 2007 10:53 AM

What do we care what Joey (i guess you know him personally) builds. Because if he turns out to be wrong about the condo development then the rest of us have to live with the ensuing urban blight (his screw up) for the next 50+ years.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 11:19 AM

I was at that meeting. Joe answered every single question the community had like a gentleman. If you look at his track record you'll notice that he is a successful developer who has a proven track record on improving decaying areas. I live in Coney Island (Luna Park) and i welcome his plan. The area is desolate in the winter. Those of you who don’t live their have to much opinion on things you don’t know about.
Redevelopment would be the greatest opportunity for the entire area (Coney Island, Brighton Beach, etc). It plugs in a major economic hole that has plagued the Coney Island area. There are only 3 rides left worth saving (Cyclone, Wonder Wheel, and Parachute Jump). He is actually planning to build more allot more rides. He hired one of the most prestigious firms in the world to design it. They did the indoor ski park in Dubai. Do research before you start bashing the guy or the plans! And Brownstoner- you’re obviously bias on your NIMBY hell bent ideas. Leave New York because this city was born on development!

Posted by: Alexander at June 28, 2007 12:02 PM

The only way Coney Island gets off the ground is if NYCHA turns all that public housing into tenant owned limited equity co ops. Yes many folks will sell out or miss their nirtgage payments but this will (1) improve the neighborhood (2) truly empower PHA residents giving them the rights and responsibilities of all homeowners

Posted by: RVP at June 28, 2007 12:34 PM

The only way Coney Island gets off the ground is if NYCHA turns all that public housing into tenant owned limited equity co ops. Yes many folks will sell out or miss their nirtgage payments but this will (1) improve the neighborhood (2) truly empower PHA residents giving them the rights and responsibilities of all homeowners

Posted by: RVP at June 28, 2007 12:34 PM

The only way Coney Island gets off the ground is if NYCHA turns all that public housing into tenant owned limited equity co ops. Yes many folks will sell out or miss their nirtgage payments but this will (1) improve the neighborhood (2) truly empower PHA residents giving them the rights and responsibilities of all homeowners

Posted by: RVP at June 28, 2007 12:34 PM

Your poll is too sporadic, and jumps to conclusions that group individual and possibly contradictory concerns together in the same statement.

The proposal is massive, and dynamic, and will have lasting effects. The poll you set up only allows for one narrow opinion.

Do this over Brownstoner - if you're really trying to gauge public opinion, you need to make this more veratile. Otherwise, it only gauges following for your own opinions.

Posted by: Dan Compitello at June 28, 2007 1:11 PM

Anon @ 11:19 AM,

In fact I do, and he's a close friend of my family. I can personally attest that he is a man of distinguished character, who I admire for his fine manners, tastes and competency when it comes to real estate related matters.

As for your complaint, its hilarious that you think that the government can assure a better development than a private, self-interested party, who stands to either profit or fail by his own hand. Obviously you disagree with my sentiment, but I still fail to understand how your laughable concern becomes a normative prescription to coercive intervention.

Curiously, do you advocate for or against other forms of eminent domain?

If you oppose ED, even for "blighted" nabes, what is your justification here for your postulate of potential "urban blight"?

Posted by: iceberg at June 28, 2007 1:22 PM

I really don't get what the objections to his plans are.
Sounds to me like real chance to redevelop and energize place that outlived its time.
Make it a destination again.
So what if some residential bldgs in the mix. If doesn't appeal to you, nobody is asking you to live there.
As with so many projects/proposals in NYC, I think there exists small group of complainers that are able to get ear of media and some politicians, whereas most people are happy to see progress happen.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 2:06 PM

If someone cleaned up Coney Island I might actually enjoy going there. It's a sh*t hole right now, really a total war zone. Chaos of wayyy too many people and filth, crummy everything.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 2:26 PM

Whoa Iceberg,
Who said anything about trusting the government? Or about eminent domain. Get that bee out of your bonnet. You asked why I care, and I was telling you. Because if he screws up, the consequences will be long term and large. I'm not saying that he is the wrong man for the job (I find him kind of interesting) but I think that anybody who could be impacted by this development has a right to express his concerns.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 2:39 PM

"If they don't mix well as people say they don't, then the condos won't sell well and he alone stands to lose his time and money."

No, everyone will pay for this.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 2:55 PM

You really can't be serious that you think if he builds condos that won't sell and fall into disrepair and cause blight?
Where or where has that happened in last 2 decades in this city?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 2:59 PM

You can't be serious that you look no further than the last two decades for guidance in real estate development. That is exactly why so many people do not trust developers.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 3:08 PM

Sasha, are you looking for a new job?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 3:11 PM

Anon @ 3:08 PM,

People who are anti-property rights will trip over themselves to make any excuse to invade them, including fictitious arguments about possible forthcoming blight, as though that remote possibility exceeds a normative whim of significance. (Urban blight being a subjective term, determing what constitutes blight even ex facto is still only a personal opinion, and should have no influence in policy discourse).

Anon @ 2:39 PM,

You did-- if you think a private developer cannot determine the highest and best use of his property, you are thus infering that this decision lays with some other body, in this case the government.

FYI, "Eminent domain" is more than just a catchphrase describing the process by which property is forceably extracted from one party and given to others; it more precisely describes the government as the ultimate owner of all property, and our narrow individual role as fuedal serfs paying quitrent for our small plot of land while eeking out our substinence level existence.

Posted by: iceberg at June 28, 2007 3:31 PM

Iceberg,
"it more precisely describes the government as the
ultimate owner of all property, and our narrow individual role as fuedal serfs paying quitrent for our small plot of land while eeking out our substinence level existence."

I think that is a rather dramatic interpretation of eminent domain, particularly when you are talking about it in the context of a devoper who is worth $750 million and is hardly a fuedal serf.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 4:33 PM

Anon @ 4:33 PM,

Just try not paying your 'voluntary' income taxes, or property taxes and see how fast you realize your sad little fuedal role in this world ($750m not withstanding).

Posted by: iceberg at June 28, 2007 4:56 PM

Iceberg,
Yes, I understand the consequences of not paying my property tax but I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 28, 2007 5:09 PM

NYC again doesn't realize when it has something special, and instead of renovating and restoring something historic that a lot of (non-wealthy) people enjoy, it will instead "improve" it by tearing it down and replacing it with a generic "upscale" project.

There's already been an incredible amount of damage done to CI over the years, but people still go to what's left of it in droves. However, a lot of the posts here show nothing but a sort of classist disdain for the people who still come here and pack the place every summer weekend. It seems that NYC cannot stand to have even one place anymore for working-class people to enjoy themselves (which is what Coney has always been).

And they certainly couldn't fund preservation and renovating of the existing honky-tonk atmosphere of C.I., no matter how historic it is as the original amusement areas in the country, and one of the last of the great ocean-front amusement areas on the east coast. No, that would show NYC as a forward-thinking place that respects its history and all of its people, but instead we have to aspire to be Orlando or Vegas or some other white bread-y generic modern American crap. Since the majority of people who go there now are of a different color and/or ethnicity than the folks with the money feel comfortable with (which leads to all the talk of "nobody goes there anymore" - despite the packed subway trains in the summer) it has to be "improved" by putting the final nail in the coffin of the Coney Island so many non-wealthy New Yorkers knew and loved.

It's interesting to me that all of the people here who decry the encroachment of bland Fedders buildings on their precious historic neighborhoods are so ready to back the Feddersization of one of NYC's real historic places - especially one that is still so alive and kicking. So goodbye glorious jumble of affordable fun. Hello sanitized upscale safe suburban "fun".

Posted by: big al at June 28, 2007 6:36 PM

I lived in Brighton for 12 years, went to the beach every night, even the hurricanes. At the time there was a dissused beach club, the Brighton Beach Baths that had passed its prime. The Muss Corporation bought up the rights and began development. The neighbors fought them tooth and nail for maybe eight years. Ultimately Muss prevailed and built high rise condos overlooking the beach on the site of the baths. The area today is vibrant, fed by lots of legal and illegal dollars and rubles.

Coney Island has the most undreutilized urban beachfront real estate in the world. Even with the projects there are many residential developments that could and would work. Sea Gate sits on the end with their little gated enclave and does pretty well. The Russians are packing tightly into Brighton and will spread out to CI as soon as the development does. Brighton is quickly dumping the (historic?) beach cottages for more upscale and upzoned higher density condo developments. While the rest of Brooklyn thinks downzoning saves the neighborhood Brighton in thriving by packing in more and more people, European style at the end of the Subway lines.
Amusement parks, amusing and nostalgic as they are, belong to another time. A time before air conditioning and video games. Abe Stark arena and the Ball Park were supposed to provide a center for a more modern recreational CI. Little development has been associated with either unless you consider parking lots development.
I'm glad someone is putting some proposals out there instead of just sitting on their property and waiting for it to appreciate. Saving the amusement park as some sort of outdoor museum to the 1940s and 1950s may be a worthy endeavor, after all the Village Vanguard itself needed public and charitable support to make it in the NYC of the Gentry. But that nostalgia shouldn't keep the owners of that property from providing lots of homes near mass transit and the ocean. It is not the Jersey shore. Trump and Warbasse have been the home to hundreds of thousands of working class new yorkers. They are big buildings walking distance from the beach. But market rate condos work too. Don't let the NIMBY's stop development on Coney Island.
Long live Totonnos!

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli at June 28, 2007 8:23 PM

Well, here's my 2 cents worth, prefaced by a few facts: No I don't live there. No I don't want to live there. Yes, I love Coney Island.I have a deep respect and appreciation for it's historic importance and would very much like to see as much of that as possible preserved.

The residents of Coney Island pay the taxes. The residents, for many generations in many cases, know and love their beach and Astroland. Is it not their right to question the efforts of anyone, including city hall, who wishes to trample on what they have known and loved as "home" for so many years? I say it is. Change to Coney Island is inevitable and so the question now is "how much change" and at what cost? Granted, Sitts stands to lose if his ultimate plan fails in some way, but let's remember that he also stands to gain tremendously if it is even marginally successful. What will the existing residents gain? What will they lose? If the residents overwhelmingly want something, they will overwhelmingly fight to preserve it. Works every time. Otherwise, Mr. Sitts will have it entirely his way and that will be that, win lose or draw.
I personally love Coney Island. Always have. I would like to see it "brightened" but not dramatically changed. Let's all keep in mind that many meanings dwell within the term: Revitalization. Maybe our world today is over-filled with those who seek only the new and shiney with no regard for the "old" places which can dwell in a persons heart for a lifetime...places which can continue to dwell in the hearts of their offspring even. Well, call me "old fashioned" if you must but I think such places count for something. My hope is that ultimately, the residents will push to preserve as much as possible, that the beach will remain free to enjoy for many generations to come and that the development will move forward, realizing both the goals of Mr. Sitts, while respecting whatever wishes the residents hold as important enough to fight for.
Good Vibes and best wishes...

Posted by: NewJerseyDevil at July 24, 2007 4:36 PM

Come on, what's this unfounded NIMBY attitude? Coney Island was written off for years and now developers want to build? It's a gift! Let them build anything,even condos, cause it's better than blight and honky tonk or nothing at all, something Coney is use to...

Posted by: Bruin at August 6, 2007 5:10 PM

Bruin, Niccolo Machiavelli & Alexander are all the same person. An OCD troll that goes by the name of MUSCLEMONSTER13 on the Coney Island USA message boards and constantly harasses people who disagree with him. He's been banned from that site dozens of times.

Posted by: Jack at August 6, 2007 5:18 PM

No Jack, many people are just sick & tired of Coney Island being sick & tired. Coney Island is seedy & needs a facelift, bad. Forget the amusement pipe dreams. Coney needs more year round opportunities and jobs. Condos & hotels & retail are inevitable. Change is coming & it's long overdue.

Posted by: Reality Checkers at August 6, 2007 9:06 PM

I am a fan of Condos, but Coney Island??? Why on earth would I spend a million dollars on a condo that is right next to new york city's busiest beach? Why would I want to live next to the noisy rides that sitt wants to build? Why would I want to spend july fourth trapped indoors because they are having a hot dog eating contest? Why would I want to live in the same neighborhood with nyc's most dangerous gangs? This guy sitt is nuts. No one is going to buy his condos. I am not. If I was going to move to Coney Island then I would move to the sea gate community where I would be safe. The city did him a favor by putting the kabosh on his plans. He would have spent billions on buildings that no one moves into.

Posted by: Giant_Monster at August 6, 2007 10:53 PM

Year round opportunities and jobs do not mean tearing down a magical place. I think people are so bitter about Coney they fail to realize how amazing a functional amusement zone is in a major city and just a Subway ride away. The biggest problem it's had has to do with it's infrastructure. Clean it up and build a few more buildings appropriate for housing of amusements and the place will be great. No need to bulldoze the past to put up a condo that few would buy or invest in.

FYI, there are condos/co-ops that were built on Stillwell that were being offered for sale. But when that failed, they are now rentals. Don't kid yourself into thinking building condos/co-ops will just magically bring investors.

Don't lose decades of history just so one group can flip it to turn a profit.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2007 12:43 PM

Nostalgia is great and it is a "magical place" but the magic has faded and the area needs a lift. Needs more than seasonal amusements on concrete surrounded by chain link.

btw: Rentals is better than empty lots.

Posted by: Reality Checkers at August 8, 2007 11:31 AM

Build new amusements. Build new rides. Build new entertainment. Don't build housing of any type in the amusement zone.

In other countries, a place with a history like Coney Island's would not be treated this way.

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2007 1:01 PM

Coney Island has been the "safety valve" of a high-pressure city for more than a century. Don't underestimate the importance of having an affordable amusement area accessible by subway from any point in the city.

Take that away, and turn it into another residential neighborhood, and you're just driving another nail into the coffin of New York City. The things that make New York unique are being killed off by the day; must Coney be yet another casualty in the quest for a quick buck?

Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 11:39 AM

They are taking too long to make the fabulous Parachute Jump operational again.
I hope Mr. Marty Markowitz and Mayor Bloomberg are really delivering this time. All that money to light it up is nice, but people really want to see it operational again. Coney Island is really losing out on this one. Why, thousands would pay to ride it. This ride alone would attract throngs of people to the area and jumpstart the revitalization.

Why can't they just hurry up and get it started. It truly is an amazing wonder of the past. I am afraid it may be too late for many people who are hoping to see it operate again. For them, it is a dream that may not come true!!!!! Tired of all the hoop a-la!!! Get those parachutes going!!!!!

Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 3:47 PM

They are taking too long to make the fabulous Parachute Jump operational again.
I hope Mr. Marty Markowitz and Mayor Bloomberg are really delivering this time. All that money to light it up is nice, but people really want to see it operational again. Coney Island is really losing out on this one. Why, thousands would pay to ride it. This ride alone would attract throngs of people to the area and jumpstart the revitalization.

Why can't they just hurry up and get it started. It truly is an amazing wonder of the past. I am afraid it may be too late for many people who are hoping to see it operate again. For them, it is a dream that may not come true!!!!! Tired of all the hoop a-la!!! Get those parachutes going!!!!!

Posted by: guest at April 2, 2008 3:50 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions