Blk FG arts center will get bulldozed for a paler version

eberri

Village Voice
by Chloe A. Hilliard
October 9th, 2007

Todd Triplett and his two partners, Shaun Jenkins and Philip McKenzie, wanted to create a sort of modern-day Cotton Club right in the middle of downtown Brooklyn. And the three African-American businessmen were so in love with the idea of a do-it-yourself cultural revival, they put themselves in serious debt to make it happen.

Triplett was the idea guy. McKenzie the businessman. And Jenkins brought the charisma. They were three guys in their thirties who found a derelict building on the corner of Ashland Place and Fulton Street, which once housed a liquor store, and saw in it a place where black nightlife could get a local revival. They would lease the building, refurbish it out of their own pockets, and call it Amber Arts and Music Space, a place that would host music acts as well as the installations of local artists. They wanted it to be the kind of place that would bring names like Veto, Sure Fact, Earl Greyhound, and Brandon Hines. John Legend even took a tour of the building as the three began reconstruction after signing a 10-year lease in 2005 with the building's owner, Juan Lopez.

The three men showed Legend where the band-shell stage was going to be, the mezzanine overlooking the stage, and the third-floor art gallery with working fireplaces and a rooftop terrace. They boasted about the state-of-the-art sound system that would record each show. They had already secured more than $1 million in corporate sponsorships, but just putting the building into inhabitable condition had cost the men about $1.2 million, which they had scrounged mostly by taking loans on their houses and bringing in a private investor.

Then, less than a month before the scheduled opening, a letter from the city arrived. Signed by a man named, ironically enough, Jack Hammer, director of Brooklyn planning, the letter informed them that the city was taking the building in an eminent-domain action.

Why? So Brooklyn could turn the building into condos and . . . a cultural center.

Triplett, Jenkins, and McKenzie's dream of a DIY African-American arts center is being bulldozed so the city can build its own vision of a cultural comeback for the neighborhood, which will feature not Brooklyn arts and music, but a Manhattan-based dance troupe.

The eminent-domain action is part of the city's new push to develop the BAM Cultural District. The district was first envisioned in 2000 as a way to bring cultural development to the area around the Brooklyn Academy of Music, but after it languished for several years, the city took the project away from a nonprofit organization and created a new umbrella organization, the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, to move things along.

But Triplett and his partners say they had no idea, when they signed their 10-year lease, that the city was eyeing their building for a takeover. Construction halted as it became clear that the building they had spent so much money on would be torn down. The expensive sound system and furniture are collecting dust in storage. All they have to show for the $1.2 million they invested in the building are new exposed steel beams and electrical wires hanging from overhead.

"We were thrown into a tailspin, which will be hard to recover from if someone doesn't help us," Triplett says. The three may be able to recover some relocation costs, but probably nowhere near the money they invested. "We're destitute. This was our way to contribute something positive and urban to this neighborhood," Triplett says.

The Downtown Brooklyn Partnership intends to build a 25- to 30-story condo building with 50 percent affordable housing and a 40,000-square-foot dance studio, which will be used by Danspace Project, which is currently housed at St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery.

Calls to the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership were referred to the city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development. The city says it did everything that was legally required to inform the owner, Lopez, about the city's plans. But Triplett and his partners say Lopez and the real-estate agent who showed them the building said nothing about the project. (Lopez didn't return calls from the Voice.) The city itself, they point out, also told them nothing when they applied for and received liquor-license and building permits.

"We just want to know why no one ever came and knocked on our door," Triplett says. In a meeting with city officials, Triplett says they admitted they were aware of construction going on at the building, but claimed that they thought it was demolition work.

At a recent Community Board 2 meeting, Joe Chan, the president of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership and a former member of the mayor's office, gave a PowerPoint presentation on what the site would look like after a developer is chosen and the construction is completed.

"This area is underserved," he said, while Triplett and his partners looked on with sarcastic smirks. It was hard not to notice that in the city's renderings of the BAM Cultural District, all of the people pictured were white.

Despite their ordeal, Triplett and the others have remained surprisingly positive. They still hold out hope that the new project will take them in as a tenant. But they're also looking for jobs. Asked how he's doing, Triplett responds with a laugh: "I'm still broke."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0741,hillard,78032,2.html[/url]

anonymous

Wow...

eberri

Really not suprising, par for the course with the direction that the neighborhood is heading in. And people wonder why "gentrification" is such a sensitive topic and not always well received...

anonymous

eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.

bknest

Anonymous wrote: eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.

I missed where eberri made it racial. Can you please show me?

carnivore

bknest wrote: [quote=Anonymous]eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.

I missed where eberri made it racial. Can you please show me?
I think the poster was referring to the title of the thread "Blk FG arts center will get bulldozed for a paler version" (my bold). Assuming the "paler" was intended to refer to race and not just to mean "lesser", I still think eberri has a valid point. It's hard not to read racial overtones into a decision to displace a black-owned neighborhood music-based business for a cultural center that will feature Manhattan-based artists, especially when the promotional materials for said center only depicts white people.

eberri

Of course it's not racial, nothing is EVER racial right?

Not in our ever evolving progressive liberal everyone is equal hood. Especially when there is money involved. It's all for the betterment of the neighborhood...

Gentrification tension in Fort Greene? Complete folly!!! Some people are really too sensitive and just make more of this stuff than is warranted...

bknest

Carnivore wrote: [quote=bknest][quote=Anonymous]eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.

I missed where eberri made it racial. Can you please show me?
I think the poster was referring to the title of the thread "Blk FG arts center will get bulldozed for a paler version" (my bold). Assuming the "paler" was intended to refer to race and not just to mean "lesser", I still think eberri has a valid point. It's hard not to read racial overtones into a decision to displace a black-owned neighborhood music-based business for a cultural center that will feature Manhattan-based artists, especially when the promotional materials for said center only depicts white people.

I hear what you're saying but eberri did not MAKE it racial. As the saying goes...'It just is what is..".

eberri

BTW, the title is straight from the Village Voice headline, I just added in the "Fort Greene" and copied the article as printed, not trying to make anything racial, though you were quicker to accuse me of doing so even faster than I expected.....

carnivore

eberri wrote: BTW, the title is straight from the Village Voice headline, I just added in the "Fort Greene" and copied the article as printed, not trying to make anything racial, though you were quicker to accuse me of doing so even faster than I expected.....

For the record, everyone except Guest 3:41pm was agreeing with you.

j.b.

Subject: wait...

eberri wrote: Of course it's not racial, nothing is EVER racial right?

Not in our ever evolving progressive liberal everyone is equal hood. Especially when there is money involved. It's all for the betterment of the neighborhood...

Gentrification tension in Fort Greene? Complete folly!!! Some people are really too sensitive and just make more of this stuff than is warranted...

Doesn't the above confirm eberri's comment -did- have a racial component? Hrmn, perhaps not.

I, for one, appreciate this rare opportunity to witness someone pass judgment on the validity of others' feelings - and on a message board, no less.

arlette

This situation was discussed weeks back in the Brooklyn Papers as well as on Curbed if I am not mistaken. It is pretty evident to me that the previous landlord as well as the broker knew of the city's intentions but didnt inform these gentlemen for want of sale and commission. It is unfair that after putting all that time and effort into this project to be suddenly hit with this news. The only thing I can say is for them to stay positive because when one door closes, God has a way of opening many more,and better things result from it.

eberri

Subject: Re: wait...

j.b. wrote: [quote=eberri]Of course it's not racial, nothing is EVER racial right?

Not in our ever evolving progressive liberal everyone is equal hood. Especially when there is money involved. It's all for the betterment of the neighborhood...

Gentrification tension in Fort Greene? Complete folly!!! Some people are really too sensitive and just make more of this stuff than is warranted...

Doesn't the above confirm eberri's comment -did- have a racial component? Hrmn, perhaps not.

I, for one, appreciate this rare opportunity to witness someone pass judgment on the validity of others' feelings - and on a message board, no less.

Hate to state the obvious, but in case there was confusion, I was being sarcastic....

It seems that sometimes when black people post or respond to items we are accused of making things racial, but guess what? SOMETIMES (not all the time, not once in a blue moon) things are racial, probably more often than non-blacks realize....

Not to say there is anything any of us can always say or do about it, except be aware and pay attention to WHAT happens to WHO. I just really dislike when people dismiss that RACE is EVER an issue....

This is not the South in the '50s, many things aren't as blatant as they were then, but it doesn't mean that discrimination or even just preferential treatment doesn't occur, we are NOT all treated equally... And in some ways GENTRIFICATION and a shift in the ethnic make up of a community brings that to light.

Call it a legal issue, call it economics, call it a power struggle, I'm calling it ALL of that plus a dose of good old fashion preferential treatment against minorities, I may be wrong, but for you idealists out there, know that discrimination STILL exists.... even in FG, CH and BS.... especially with the way that real estate values have risen, some people are greedy and will do what they can (even discriminate) to get more money.... :roll: [shock!]

I am NOT saying that any one group is at fault, I'm also NOT saying that race is ALWAYS an issue. Some have posted that they are sick of everthing turning to race/gentrification, but guess what, those issues are a part of the world all of us live in (whether it affects all of us directly or not) and some of us have to deal with discrimination/preferential treatment every day of our lives.... And since a large part of the neighborhoods are black, seems these concerns would be seen as somewhat valid instead of so easily dismissed...

guvna

They probably wouldve been shafted even if they were white and all other things remained the same.

The property sharks and vultures are circling FG/CH/BS with incredible appetites, and that includes city officials because private enterprise has influence on them. What I find inexcusable is that all of the faces in the promo material were reportedly white. Oversight? Possibly. Deliberate? Possibly. At a minimum it is insensitive and just plain stupid.

carnivore

Guvna wrote: What I find inexcusable is that all of the faces in the promo material were reportedly white. Oversight? Possibly. Deliberate? Possibly. At a minimum it is insensitive and just plain stupid.

Absolutely.

queencallipygos

Subject: Re: wait...

eberri wrote: It seems that sometimes when black people post or respond to items we are accused of making things racial, but guess what? SOMETIMES (not all the time, not once in a blue moon) things are racial, probably more often than non-blacks realize....

For the record, I thought the "paler version" reference was more about being insipid and boring than it being about any race reference. ...Anyway.

carnivore

Subject: Re: wait...

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=eberri] It seems that sometimes when black people post or respond to items we are accused of making things racial, but guess what? SOMETIMES (not all the time, not once in a blue moon) things are racial, probably more often than non-blacks realize....

For the record, I thought the "paler version" reference was more about being insipid and boring than it being about any race reference. ...Anyway.
I think both meanings were intended. It was pretty clever, actually.

anonymous

eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.


Guest, where was race mentioned? Gentrification has nothing to do with race if that is your connection.

anonymous

I agree with you guru, people of any race can be gentrifiers, as you see here were the black business owners who were, imo, deceived when signing the 10 year lease are gentrifiers.

I, however, unlike eberri in his post above, do not think that their being deceived by the owner and broker about the future BAM cultural district plans for the building had to do with the tenants' race. I hope they find another space or are allowed to keep the space they have under the lease they signed.

Clearly, from what eberri wrote above, I was correct in thinking that the sections of the article eberri chose to highlight in bold, and his references to gentrification, were meant to highlight his/her opinion that in this case, racism has something to do with the wrongs that are being visited upon these business owners.

I however, think that anyone who transacted business with the owner and broker would be in the same boat, regardless of their race. The owner and broker, if they did know of the plans for the building with respect to the BAM cultural district, arguably perpetrated fraud resulting in the business owners outlaying substantial amounts of cash. The owner sounds like he/she would have screwed whoever came along...

guvna

guru wrote: eberri, this is not a racial issue, it is a legal one. The tenants may have a case against the landlord if the landlord knew of the pending seizure by the City. If anything, the current tenants, if they stay, are contributing to the gentrification of downtown Brooklyn.


Guest, where was race mentioned? Gentrification has nothing to do with race if that is your connection.

Hang on a minute. I agree that the case between the owner and the tenants is a legal one. However, the BAM project is at a minimum racially/etnically insensitive. What are they thinking when they promote the project as being one that only white people will patronize? :shock: Seriously, how do they put that all together by mistake? Makes me wonder.