Signs Awnings on Vanderbilt

??

Get a life, guys.

I think you are right that some of the awnings on Vanderbilt are ugly.

I am less sure of your assertion that ugly awnings are scaring away home buyers. Are there a lot of homes in the neighborhood that are unowned and/or unoccupied that I don't know about? And would they be bought/occupied if we beautified the awnings along Vanderbilt?

I am also unsure that the ugly awnings are keeping away commercial tenants. My reasoning is that in the last year or two we have seen these commercial tenants move onto Vanderbilt Ave: Milk Bar, Unnameable Books, Pequena, Maya Taqueria, Eton, Woodwork, Branded Saloon, Polish Bar, and The Vanderbilt. I might be missing a few too, and there is supposed to be a bagel place and an ice cream shop on the way. In short, from a commercial perspective, Vanderbilt Ave seems to be doing pretty good to my eyes.

Still, I do agree to your initial observation that Vanderbilt Avenue has some unattractive signs/awnings. Were you pointing this out to just get it off your chest? Or are you formulating a plan to address the problem?

PH is landmarked, you have to get approval for awnings and signs. I'm sure it's a costly and red tape nightmare.

In that case you should post pictures of the worst offenders.

I agree that some of the older places are in need of an aesthetic tune up...the block's bodegas are pretty awful looking. I disagree with Tacamahac - no one is saying that these places shouldn't be there, just that they need to take a little better care of themselves. I love having longtime spots on the block, but just because they are old doesn't mean they have to look tattered. It's a bit about pride...when your storefront looks like crap it makes me think that the store owners don't care much about the hood they are in.

T

Does Vanderbilt have a Merchants' Association or is there a Prospect Heights BID? That, I think, would be the place to start for encouraging important but aesthetic improvements.

If the owners of the Met and the bodega's knew how much money they are missing out on, I bet they would up their game and completely take a page from Smith Street.

....but Vandy gets nicer every year.

Those that don't adapt to the neighborhood's changes are closing up and moving on.

I'm not a big fan of a laws and regulations that could lead to subjective enforcement.

As people demand that the stores improve their services and appearance improve, they will.

...perhaps the bodegas continue to be "ugly" because they continue to serve populations that are not accustomed to good service, and hesitate to to demand it?

....perhaps the populations served are also "pretty captive" in that they do not tend to travel to buy their goods?

....Perhaps they not that savvy, or perhaps they are willing to pay for convenience? Who knows.

As I mention above, when the neighborhood no longer wants them, they will slowly disappear.

Some bodegas have found ways to keep up with neighborhood changes and meet the ever changing desires of their customers. Here is one:

http://brooklynian.com/forum/prospect-heights/gentrification-photo-exhibit-2

....what I would to happen would be for the Small Business Association (or a similar entity) to be powerful enough to help these businesses obtain loans based on the future income they are likely to earn as a result of investments in their business.

Bodegas in areas with increasing incomes could buy new awnings and refrigerator cases.

Bodega in areas with decreasing incomes could buy cameras and plexiglass.

onandon wrote:

This is just a question of curiosity - it doesn't really bother me one way or the other but why does that oil and heating place have a storefront? (Vandy between Park Place and Prospect Place, by Aliseo) I've never seen a human in there...

Seriously.

I'd put the office to my Oil Heat place somewhere really cheap and near where I parked my collection of smelly oil trucks. Foster Avenue comes to mind....

Anyway, in my imagination, I assume the guy who owns the oil company also owns the building and lives upstairs. I don't know why anyone would put such a store front on pretty high rent Vandy.

....I bet it will be filled with business that is more "location based" eventually.

Mac1 wrote:

Are you kidding me? Have you seen what that place looks like now? It looks like a bombed out building. I'm not saying they should leave. I'm sure they do important work. Unfortunately whatever good work they do is being severely undercut by the way they are presenting themselves to the community.

The Beacon of Hope House is a private, non-profit mental health service sponsored by the Catholic Charaties of the Archdiocese of New York and operated under a contract from the New York State Office of Mental Health. The Beacon of Hope House provides rehabililtation and residential services to mentally ill adults in New York City. Facilities are located in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. All together the Beacon of Hope House has accommodations for almost 350 people.

The facilities cover the range of care offered under the New York State Community Residence Program System. There are supervised residences in both Staten Island and the Bronx, intensive supportive as well as supportive apartment programs in both Brooklyn and Staten Island. In the Fordham section of the Bronx, there is a special, supervised facility devoted to the deaf mentally ill.

Somehow, I don't think their customers are that concerned about how the building looks.

friscopete wrote:

PH is landmarked, you have to get approval for awnings and signs. I'm sure it's a costly and red tape nightmare.

^^^This. Any attempt to repair or replace an awning that hasn't been vetted by Landmarks will garner a violation against the building. Typically a standard bodega awning is no where near the elitists' idea of these neighborhoods Victorian past. It's not uncommon for awnings to completely disappear or become raggedy ass on bodegas that have been there from day one.

ah, the trifecta!

1. zoning/landmarking,

2. customers don't demand it

3. expense.

I ain't got no permission to fix it

I ain't got no need to fix it

I ain't got not money to fix.

modsquad2.0 wrote:

Also problematic once approval is begged for just for the awning are the over the door AC units that "penetrate" and/or "protrude" beyond the property line and everything else going against the whimsy of the 19th century. All this comes into play when the lowly bodega owner tries to gentrify up.

yup. They may also be coming toward the end of their lease, and believe a big rent increase is on the way.

If I was in such a situation, and I was making less money than ever as a result of the neighborhood's change, I would try to gentrify up and make the money needed to stay.

....but I didn't feel I would ever have the resources and permission to compete, I would put no additional money or time into my business. I would simply let it decay until I had to leave.

Landlords are often aware of these tactics, and tolerate them because they believe the new tenants will likely want to gut rehab the property to meet their needs.

Beacon's situation is a little different, in that it may have a relatively secure source of funding that isn't dependent upon the neighborhoods desires. [but like the bodegas, they may also have a lease is about to expire and become more expensive]

I bet if someone approached the Beacon Hope House place, they could convince them (or their landlord) that no awning would look better than their present shredded one.

....someone could then pay a metal worker to take what is left of the awning down.

It looks like maybe a $250 job. Local merchants might even be willing to come up with the $.

hmmm.

You may be surprised to learn how little the Archdiocese and OMH passes out these days.

But that aside, I don't call you a narcissist. You are allowed to want Vandy to be a good looking street, and I even encourage you take steps to make it so.

Why not politely ask someone at Beacon whether they plan to replace or remove their awning?

....perhaps their landlord would be spurned into having it taken down if s/he became convinced that the thing prevented him from getting as much rent from his tenants than s/he otherwise would.