Rising rents force out another Hyde Square business
By adamg - 5/26/11 - 2:04 pm
The Jamaica Plain Gazette reports the Jamaica Plain Laundry Centre, across from where the Hi-Lo used to be, is shutting down this weekend rather than pay a rent increase that could be as much as 200%.
Comments
Ugh
It's probably going to be replaced by some corporate laundromat that only washes whites.
Here come the
"It is all Whole Food's fault" crazies in, 1, 2, 3...
Don't you mean
The "Whose Clothes" people--a wholly owned subsidiary of Whose Foods
Well, I was gonna say
blame the dirty hipsters and their perpetually soiled unmentionables...
next thing you know they'll
next thing you know they'll be blaming the sun for the warm weather!
rents have been going up
Commercial rents in Hyde Square have been going up over the past couple of years. With a low storefront vacancy rate (the main streets study said 5% which is slightly lower than the city average) they are going to continue to go up. I don't blame Whole Foods but you can't deny the fact that commercial and residential (see ads publicizing proximity to WF)landlords are excited about them coming. As a business the commercial landlords want to make money. Its too bad the main streets didn't try to help the laundromat business owner.
Main Streets can only help
if the owner of the laundromat asks for help. If the owner wants to stay in Hyde Square, there are many vacant retail spaces on Centre between Hyde and Jackson Squares.
when was that study
when was that study conducted? It is way over 5%, whether by units or square footage. The new building at the church is completely vacant, and the milky way, june bug, bella luna, velouria, and Fat Ram spaces are all vacant.
Study was conducted in the past year
http://www.jamaicaplaingazette.com/node/4788
so its Hyde Square all the
so its Hyde Square all the way to and including Jackson Square..... ok i'm more likely to buy that number now.
But still in the last year two huge buildings with tons of storefront space have come online with nary a soul-- i can't image that 5% is valid.
Unless of course it includes Stop and Shop and is calculated by square footage, in which case I'd say the study is not so valuable
Why report this as "another"?
What other businesses are you thinking of? If it's Bella Luna and the Milky Way, that was years ago now. Most of the recent closings happened long before news broke about Whole Foods' arrival.
I'm surprised it lasted this
I'm surprised it lasted this long. Laundry machines are cheap enough to pay for themselves within a year now and most apartment buildings now offer coin-op in the basement.
this comment actually reminds
this comment actually reminds me of the people who said Hi-Lo was "dirty"
so many people living so far removed from poverty that they're in completely different universe.
so many people living so far
That is a GOOD thing.
NOT a GOOD thing
This is NOT a GOOD thing if, in being so far removed from other people's reality (including lack of political agency) one thinks their own world is &*the* standard to be epitomized. Hello, disconnected privilege.
Good or bad, all interpretation
It's a good thing that many people are not impoverished, wouldn't you agree? Whereas it's a bad thing, that so many with good fortune fail to understand the lot of those without.
It's not one or the other, it's both.
I'm as anti hipster as you
I'm as anti hipster as you can get, but Hi-Lo was dirty and smelly.
Huh?
Hi-Lo was dirty. If you didn't think so I would hate to see how you keep house. How does poverty have anything to do with sweeping and mopping the floors in a grocery store? Sounds to me like they had so little respect for their customers, they didn't care that the place was a dump.
Smelly and dirty
It has nothing to do with the people who go there.
Before renovations, the Foodmasters in Medford/Malden and Somerville were smelly and dirty. They are not smelly or dirty now, despite having the same people shop there as before.
The old Waltham Supermarket, in end times, was smelly and dirty.
The Somerville Market Basket and the Lowell Acre Market Basket and the Chelsea Market Basket have NEVER been smelly and dirty. (but we all know what tony upscale wealthy neighborhoods those are ... LOL)
I biked to Hi Lo a couple of times when I was working on Huntington Ave. It was smelly and dirty in 2003. Unless there were renovations since, it was likely STILL smelly and dirty.
Comment confusion
I think the intent of the comment was to point out that even though the cost of coin-op washing machines and dryers have come down, not everyone lives in a building with coin-ops due to poverty (the commenter's assertion not mine). They were implying that the person who made the coin-op comment is a bit removed from the reality of poor folks who have to rely on laundromats. I don't know why it reminded her/him of the "Hi-Lo is dirty theme" but I don't think s/he was saying that poor people go to dirty supermarkets.
In regards to the general theme, slow-burn gentrification does not usually have Snydely Whiplashes walking around twiddling their 'staches and dreaming up ways to drive out the brown or poor folk (with the notable exceptions of cases like Grove Hall and the West End - or most any BRA-run project). I don't blame Whole Foods or the owners of these businesses that are cashing out. That's how the system is set up. It's not a good thing, but there's no point in creating "bad guys" in the story when it's actually the way the system is set up that drives things in these situations like JP. Provided the economy doesn't tank again, there will be less poor people in JP over time but poverty rates will most likely remain the same in the region (assuming the very visible hand of the gov'mnt doesn't intercede via housing programs, vouchers and the like).
Laundromats aren't just for poor people
I've seen at least one in Lexington.
You sayin poor people can't live in Lexington?
heh?
Poor folk were driven out of
Poor folk were driven out of Grove Hall by Snidley Whiplash? Funny - I thought the riots and the arson had something to do with it.
get edjumacated
Pick it up, read it. You can even get it used.
Death of an American Jewish Community
It was the threat of "the black people moving in and raping your daughters" that got many in the Grove Hall community to sell out and get out. It was intentional, premeditated and nasty. Granted we're talking realtors here, but even for them, that's nasty...
Don't know about the Chelsea or Lowell Acre Mkt bskts,
but I do know, from personal experience, that the aisles at the Somerville Market Basket are extremely narrow, which, on weekends, when it's even more crowded, is even more of an annoyance and an inconvenience.
Have you ever lived in a three-decker?
Most of them don't have coin-op machines in the basement.
Losing the neighborhood laundromat can result in a serious decrease in everyday quality of life.
Eh
A lot of them do have machines (coin-op or free) in the basement. Or machines in each unit.
But yeah, I know a lot of people don't have laundry in the building.
Varies quite a bit
I lived in a triple decker that had free laundry in the basement. But I agree with the general principle that laundromats are a crucial community resource. Even people who own a washer and dryer may still have occasion to hit the laundromat.
Laundromats are expensive
Friends of mine operate several laundromats. Its a narrow margin of profit kind of business when you just rely on the machines alone. Your operating costs are solely depending on gas and electrical service. If the rates go up and you don't raise prices, you're screwed. And if you do, you run the chance of losing customers because you become so expensive.
And if a machine breaks down (and can't be repaired).. $$$$$$$$$ which is why most laundromats are so slow to 'upgrade' to newer equipment. Although my friend says they are starting to realize its more cost effective to upgrade to new, energy efficient equipment than it is to keep repairing older stuff.
My friend says the real $ maker is the wash, dry, and fold. Thats where laundrys make their money. And if its attached to a dry cleaner.. $$$$$.
So yeah I'd close up shop too if my rent would go up 200% bucks. Plus this guy also said his lease was up, and yes its typical, the article doesnt say how long its been there nor the length of the old lease. (typically biz leases are 5+ years, particularly for an established biz like a laundromat) So who knows he could have been paying well below market rate for a very long time..
And yeah if I was paying 1500/mo since 2000 and now market says I can get 2500-3k for the same space, yeah I'd up the rent too when the lease expired.. Hey landlording IS a business too.
Whole Foods must rectify this
Whole Foods must rectify this and agree to do everyone's laundry for free or to build another laundromat.
This isn't funny
WHERE THE F*CK AM I GOING TO DO MY LAUNDRY THIS WEEKEND?
I seriously have laundry to do
!!!!!
yeah I doubt I'll be able to afford to live in Hyde Square much longer.
You're going to do your
You're going to do your laundry at Clean Getaway on Robinwood/Centre or the laundromat on Heath.
And or
The huge laundromat on Washington down by Forest Hills.
If there's a need for a laundromat--ie, unless local landlords are actually forced to put in laundry facilities in order to rent their apartments--then someone will open one. A mixed-use laundromat with wash-fold, dry cleaning etc. would probably be a good fit in any case considering the neighborhood demographics.
You guys are assuming Melissa has a car.
Forest Hills from Hyde Square is a long walk to carry a few loads of laundry.
We're assuming...
she knows what the 39 looks like.
So then ...
You would come hear yelling about that crazy beatch who thought it was OKAY TO TAKE A F'N HUGEANTIC BAG OF LAUNDRY on the bus.
Right.
Next.
its a bit more of a hike but
its a bit more of a hike but Clean Getaway on Centre Street next to Robinwood Cafe isn't too bad
Chicken and Egg
This seems like a good example of the tipping point phenomenon in gentrification. The commercial landlords in Hyde Square have been increasing their rents over the past 2-3 years to the point where, in some cases, they are leaving properties vacant (e.g. Milkyway) because, due to the long-term nature of commercial leases, they see it as a better bet to hold on for a few years in anticipation of being able to get the much higher rent (like 200%) than to take a lower rent now and lock themselves into it for 3-5 years. Basically, they see the tipping point comming and are hoping to cash in. At the same time, their closure of businesses has the power to change the tipping point in one direction or the other. If they leave too much vacant, the desireability of the neighborhood may diminish, slowing gentrification. At the same time, if they remove businesses that cater mostly to comparatively low-income renters (e.g. laundrymats) the people who use those services may move away, allowing the residential landlords to replace them with potentially higher-income renters, thus speeding up gentrification. On the other hand, the commercial landlords' willingness to allow vacant spaces to sit en mass may be a tell-tale that the tipping point has been surpassed so far the landlords see it as inevitable that they will be able to reap higher rents regardless of vacancies.
Perhaps a vacancy tax, or a
Perhaps a vacancy tax, or a "blight tax" could help. I'm just speculating, I don't know if it is a good idea. The vacant storefronts incur a real cost to the city. They should recover that cost from the landlords who are causing the problem by trying to hold out for a premium business. The negative effect is potential market distortion -- but it is in a very limited sense, because the government isn't dictating which business goes in, just that something does. The positive effect could be an increase in commercial diversity -- since it is now worthwhile to take on many more kinds of businesses, and not just the most profitable kind.
P.S. with a title like that, I have to respond!
Appealing but problematic
As pointed out above, landlords deciding to leave a store front vacant are making a rational business choice. Much like a farmer who leaves a field fallow, they forgo profitability today for greater profitability tomorrow. I'm not sure why we should apply a special tax to certain business decisions when the tax acts as a disincentive toward maximizing profit. The city is better off if the landlords make more money from higher value tenants because there will be higher valued tax assessments, along with sales tax generated by greater economic activity.
A vacancy tax forces the landlord to favor a status quo rather than seeking higher value tenants. That negates economic growth. I should add, that I am by no means anti-tax, and I don't for one second buy the standard Congressional Republican prescription for economic growth. But this particular tax idea seems like it would do more harm than good.
Vacant Buildings and Costs
Vacant buildings drive up the security costs paid by taxpayers - specifically, fire and police costs. For this reason alone, they should be expected to pay additional taxes for vacant property.
Any data to support this?
Any data to support this?
Ask the insurers
The insurers probably have the best statistical data of anyone, and they charge a whopping premium to insure a vacant property. It's a reasonable assumption that this premium correlates in some way with risk, which would tend to support Swirrly's argument.
Swirly, I'm Not Saying You're Wrong...
... but I'm not willing to outright buy your argument without corroboration, either.
In what way does an empty building lead to higher costs? Are more police personnel being put on the payroll to guard a vacant building? Are there more firefighters being paid? That seems counter-intuitive, to me. I expect there isn't an increase in paid personnel when businesses desert an area, and it is probably the exact opposite. It also seems more likely that a functioning business would be robbed or broken into more often than would an empty storefront - or, at least, that the damages associated with such would be higher - and that there are more fire hazards, in the form of electrical equipment/lighting/appliances and/or cooking equipment, etc., in a going concern.
I can see the argument that vandalism, arson, and other crimes usually associated with vacant spaces are less likely if a building is occupied, but to the extent that those things outweigh the other possible hazards associated with occupied buildings? I'd appreciate figures, if you can cite some. Thanks!
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Vacant buildings and fires.
I am sure there are some stats out there which show that vacant buildings can result in more fires which in turn would lead to more expenses for the fire department (injuries, health care, equipment, overtime from those injuries, etc)
But this laundrymat in JP? Probably not so much. Hey, maybe the local appliance stores might see some new washer/dryer sales and actually help the local economy?
I'd agree with you normally
I'd agree with you normally but I think that the behavior of the landlords is having a negative effect on our communities, and one of the least intrusive ways to address that is with a tax. Maximizing profit is all well and good, but to do that at the expense of the city?
Also there is another element to this I was trying to work in: keep in mind that landlords looking to maximize profit are going to largely gravitate towards whichever few businesses are most profitable in that part of town. Sounds okay at first, but there is a big dilemma: if every landlord chooses to have the same kind of commercial tenant, then everyone suffers. For example, if "shoe stores" are the big cash cow in your neighborhood, then every landlord is going to want to have a shoe store as a tenant. But if every store is in the business of selling shoes, then the neighborhood as a whole declines. That's an extreme example to illustrate the point. It's important to find ways of encouraging diversity in commerce in order to keep the area healthy.
So, you don't really understand business then?
This sounds like something you'd read about happening in Venezuela.
The only 'suffering' that happens if there are too many shoe stores (to use your example) is a false opportunity cost in that now there can't be a candle shop or cobbler or whatever other dream non shoe store business in theory could go in that space. This assumes that some other business would thrive in that spot, if only given a chance. If you are suggesting that instead of the free market deciding this, some decidedly more partisan and backroom type governing body should get involved in deciding just who can rent a private commercial property, that's lunacy. This is EXACTLY why the anti-Whole Foods + Chang-Diaz types want - that elected or appointed officials, including various semi-accountable organizations like Hyde Square Task Force, etc... can decide who should be in business and where. Even though they don't really know what the economics of opening and running any particular business might be. More business fail than succeed as it is- why should we trust people with nothing on the line to make better choices than people risking their own money?
Alternate approach- how about naming one business which wants to open in JP but is being held out due to excessive other type of businesses hogging up all the commercial spaces? The big shoe store closed, so that example is DOA.
You have a strawman argument
Nobody is suggesting central planning at all, here, except you (presumably you are trolling). I totally agree that I do not want a central body deciding what should and should not go into a space. However, there is a dilemma caused by the simplistic operation of the free market that is one way of causing neighborhoods to decline. It's a paradox caused by domination of a particular type of business in an area: it literally chokes itself to death with success. It's a really difficult problem to deal with while avoiding unintended consequences like some that you name. Again, I'm not saying that the blight tax is the way to go, I'm just speculating.
P.S. Everyone missed the Hitchhiker's reference. I'm disappointed.
Law of Unintended Consequences
Although I am not one of those people who oppose the use of taxes to curb undesirable behavior in general, I think this is a case in which imposing such a tax would be likely to have undesirable consequences. For example, if all you need to do is "occupy" the space to avoid the tax, landlords are going to "occupy" their space with whatever they can, like those temporary holiday stores that pop up at christmas, or any business that can be kicked out in a hurry. You are also going to discourage landlords from improving or upgrading their property because it is easier to stick with the status quo. In addition, there are some landlords who like to manage what goes into their spaces because they are concious of what the community wants and they foregoe the opportunity to put in, say, a check cashing place that would pay higher rent in order to raise the level of the area as a whole. In small business districts in particular, landlords tend to either be local or have some tie to the area and own multiple buildings that they want to manage as a collective investment so they won't take just any tenant if it is going to bring the area down. Overall, I think the best you can do is get community groups, like main streets etc., to promote the area and help encourage landlords to fill their spaces.
These are excellent points,
These are excellent points, BTW, I just wanted to say. Having proactive and interested landlords is one of the best ways of avoiding decline. However, it's hard to mandate that sort of behavior.
How about an empty storefront tax or fine...
OH, it seems mom beat me to it.
Jesus H. Christ
You guys want to level a tax on vacant commercial property?! WTF is wrong with you people. Do you really think anyone is going to want to own commercial property or do business in this town with this type of thinking? Why don't you just get it over with and ask the government to take ownership of all property since you think the government should be able to dictate everything about it anyway. Between this and Whose Foods, I've never seen so many busybodies trying to control what other people do with their private property. Why don't you guys go out and buy some commercial property and manage it like you want instead of asking the government to tell other people to do it your way.
Why don't you pay for the
Why don't you pay for the costs you incur on other people, freeloader?
Bawk Bawk Bawk!
Freeloader? Ha! You're beyond parody dude. Does your mom know your on the computer this late?