Good Bye downtown Coney Island

[Cats Cats Cats]

Say I already own a parking lot/garage downtown. Would I not be psyched about this? I mean, keeping the supply down only guarantees a steady income to those that already have spaces to rent. Or does more supply not effect prices that much?

Purely an economic question.

You would have a higher probability in getting people to park there.  You would also have the ability in the future to charge more as traffick increases.  Currently, the lots aren't priced with supply vs demand.  The best evidence of this is the massive $5 empty parking lot in blue dome.

[jacobi]

Ah the old rights of the individual vs rights of the state question.  To my mind, it is the basic question of political science.  One's rights extend only so far as they do dont hurt others or the public good in general.  This is the js mill anwser to this question and one that i am a fan of.  IMO, the demolition of a building downtown when so much public effort and seed money has been spent to enourage new development and higher density constitutes an act that damages the public good.  By that, the state should be able to step in and put a stop to this activity.  

 There were many people who said that the mayo was a run down heap and an eyesore.  What's more of an eyesore a building that is run down or a surface parking lot?  IMO a lot is worse.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Now we get into the area where the city can go condemning your business because, while it's been there for 100 years in the same place and you keep it up, it doesn't generate enough revenue like a new Applebee's.

If you want it to be something else BUY IT.

[Conan71]

Ah the old rights of the individual vs rights of the state question.  To my mind, it is the basic question of political science.  One's rights extend only so far as they do dont hurt others or the public good in general.  This is the js mill anwser to this question and one that i am a fan of.  IMO, the demolition of a building downtown when so much public effort and seed money has been spent to enourage new development and higher density constitutes an act that damages the public good.  By that, the state should be able to step in and put a stop to this activity.  

 There were many people who said that the mayo was a run down heap and an eyesore.  What's more of an eyesore a building that is run down or a surface parking lot?  IMO a lot is worse.

Let's look at this with a different lens if you were the owner or developer of a bold new development in the area.  Do you want to be surrounded with neglected and run-down buildings which are an eyesore or a vacant, paved lot which is less of an eyesore?  Neither would be my preference but if those were the only choices, I'd pick the lot.  The other side of the coin is the demo work is already done if someone wanted to step up and put a new building on the lot where this motel once stood. 

Being the fan of Mid-Century Modern that I am, I'm still deeply disappointed this building was wrecked, but it's not like it could have been made into quite the tourist destination it could be in a place like Palm Springs, Austin, Dallas or some other place where their appreciation for their MCM heritage is much more mature than it is here.  It's only been 15-20 years ago when that style of design was considered "dated".  I used to drive past Lortondale, see the deplorable condition of so many of the homes and wonder how long it would be before someone finally came in, leveled the neighborhood and started over.  The gentrification there is nothing short of amazing.  Most of the renters and squatters have left and people who choose to buy a home there aren't doing it for the relative cheap price, it's for the design and heritage.

[jacobi]

Now we get into the area where the city can go condemning your business because, while it's been there for 100 years in the same place and you keep it up, it doesn't generate enough revenue like a new Applebee's.

If you want it to be something else BUY IT.

Businesses aren't condemmed; buildings are.  I would love to haave bought that buidling for redevelopement and repurposing.  I have not the fundage.

Let's look at this with a different lens if you were the owner or developer of a bold new development in the area.  Do you want to be surrounded with neglected and run-down buildings which are an eyesore or a vacant, paved lot which is less of an eyesore?  Neither would be my preference but if those were the only choices, I'd pick the lot.  The other side of the coin is the demo work is already done if someone wanted to step up and put a new building on the lot where this motel once stood. 

How much impetus is there to convert a parking lot into a building?  Almost none.  I mean, you can make a decent amount of money with much lower taxes.  Why spend the money on a new building when you can make money without having to spend anything else?  Why sell it to someone else, when it's a golden goose?  Someone would have to offer more money that a property is worth OVER THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME to motivate the owner to sell now.  I won't hold my breath for some visionary to come along and develop that lot.  I think it's perma-flatened.

[Conan71]

Businesses aren't condemmed; buildings are.  I would love to haave bought that buidling for redevelopement and repurposing.  I have not the fundage.

How much impetus is there to convert a parking lot into a building?  Almost none.  I mean, you can make a decent amount of money with much lower taxes.  Why spend the money on a new building when you can make money without having to spend anything else?  Why sell it to someone else, when it's a golden goose?  Someone would have to offer more money that a property is worth OVER THEIR ENTIRE LIFETIME to motivate the owner to sell now.  I won't hold my breath for some visionary to come along and develop that lot.  I think it's perma-flatened.

I get your point and agree it's going to take big bucks to interest someone in taking this out of the surface parking inventory.

The alternative was to allow that building to sit fallow, encase it in fence and make it look like a Soviet-era prison.  Though I hate surface parking lots, they are a lesser evil than run-down buildings on the cityscape.  Believe me, I hate choosing between two evils.

I would hope at some point a downtown master plan would dictate an end to a sea of surface parking in favor of multi-story parkades to make room for more commercial and residential development.  Even if it meant a subsidy of some sort to the property owners to make it happen.

[DTowner]

My two cents: we're letting the people who designed the ballpark assessment off WAY too easily.  These buildings are getting torn down because city officials and ballpark "stakeholders" did the politically easy thing, which was to put in the downtown assessment instead of a citywide tax or, preferably, paying for it themselves.  Let's not act sad, or high and mighty, because the entirely foreseeable and predicted outcome of a surcharge on downtown square footage came to pass.  Every tax creates economic incentives, and it's obvious what happened here.  You either get profitable or you tear down. 

I agree that the ballpark assessment has had unitended consequences by incentivizing owners to knock down empty buildings that do not have sufficient revenue to pay the assessment (not that those consequences shouldn't have been anticipated).  I think focusing solely on sq. footage and ignoring the use of the property was a mistake.  The moratorium Councilman Ewing is talking about, however, is for a limited duration to give the city time to enact some zoning requirements on this issue and to prevent pre-emptive demos during that time.  It may or may not be a good idea, but it is worth discussing.

Ultimately, zoning laws, just like building codes for that matter, rub up against the freedom of a land owner to do as she pleases with her property.  Balancing the needs/interest of both the land owners and th public at large is no easy task and we all draw the line in a slightly different location.  I believe Councilman Ewing appreciates that balancing act and has shown in his short time in office that he will ask the difficult questions in search of the best answer and outcomes.

It does make me wonder though, why did the owner of this old motor inn buy the buidling in the first place?  Did he have a plan for it, or was he simply hoping to sit on it for years in hopes that land owners around him would develop their properties and this property's value would go up allowing the owner to cash in for doing nothing but letting the property deteriorate into an eye sore?

[custosnox]

From Tulsa Deco Districts FB page

Tulsa Deco District The opening was scheduled for today but there were unforeseen delays, expected to open on Monday.,

[Cats Cats Cats]

Businesses aren't condemmed; buildings are.  I would love to haave bought that buidling for redevelopement and repurposing.  I have not the fundage.

So buildings/locations don't matter and it doesn't matter that the downtown Coney is no longer in that building.  Ok..  Yes, you condemn a building.  But you basically have to start a new business in a new location with the same name.  Sure, you MIGHT be able to take your equipment with you if it isn't cost prohibitive for you to do that.  You take a business out of its location it doesn't do the same business.

[carltonplace]

I think blaming the assessment is a cop out (there has been a downtown fee for a long time before the ball park assessment: DTU). These owners look to the west and they see an entire block of BOK parking gone and they own a lot nearby that can fill what they perceive is a niche. But, The structure on the lot in its former state of disrepair was not an inviting place to park...so the solution is to get this building out of the way...they had no plans or vision to fix the structure any way.

I'll bet Monthly parking spots will be $80+ per month and they will ask $10 for event parking.  

[DTowner]

I think blaming the assessment is a cop out (there has been a downtown fee for a long time before the ball park assessment: DTU). These owners look to the west and they see an entire block of BOK parking gone and they own a lot nearby that can fill what they perceive is a niche. But, The structure on the lot in its former state of disrepair was not an inviting place to park...so the solution is to get this building out of the way...they had no plans or vision to fix the structure any way.   

I think that is part of it, although a large chunck of this particular property was used for parking even with the motor inn rusting away above it.

While there was an assessment before, the new assessment is much higher.

[jacobi]

So buildings/locations don't matter and it doesn't matter that the downtown Coney is no longer in that building.  Ok..  Yes, you condemn a building.  But you basically have to start a new business in a new location with the same name.  Sure, you MIGHT be able to take your equipment with you if it isn't cost prohibitive for you to do that.  You take a business out of its location it doesn't do the same business.

I see what you meant.  I misinterpreted.  The god news is that I think alot of the original equipment is still in their new location across the street.  GO figure.

[swake]

I see what you meant.  I misinterpreted.  The god news is that I think alot of the original equipment is still in their new location across the street.  GO figure.

It's actually an old location that they moved back too. it's not the original, but they previously spent 50 years in this "new" location.

[DolfanBob]

This is cool. I hope that I am not double posting. Wes Studi at Coney Island.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRpUFqSdv5I&feature=player_embedded

[godboko71]

As sad as it was to see go, how most businesses run these days with short term outlooks there was no way to justify the expense to renovate, even with mid term outlooks I am sure it might have been hard to justify with its size. Would have taken 10+ years to recoup costs and make a pretty penny. The assessment was a good excuse to do what has been planned for a looong time, nothing better then a scapegoat.