Real Shell Buildings

From today’s Recorder story here:
Northeast Home Industries opened a 71,000-square-foot showroom and distribution facility in February 2008 in the old Ward Products building in the Edson Street Industrial Park. The company has vacated the building at 61 Edson St., however, leaving only a pile of debris outside a loading dock.
Jeff Stewart, one of the company’s partners, said the slumping economy just made it impossible for the business to continue.
“Nobody’s out buying furniture at this juncture,” he said Tuesday. “It got to the point where we were sinking more and more into it and getting nothing back.”

I post this as context for my exchange with Mr. Going on AIDA and the strategy of economic growth through shell buildings.
I’m under some time constraints over the next few`days so I’ll be looping back to some open topics and the above thread as time permits.

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. I’m not sure what your point is. I had been pointing out that the old AIDA board, under Michael Chiara, had been prudent and successful in building the industrial park up one business at a time. The story in today’s paper is about a business that folded in a very old building, the former Ward Products, that had not been part of that project or part of the industrial park. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe it was ever owned by AIDA.
    It will be up to the Thane AIDA, which has done absolutely nothing in a year and a half, to see if they can do something about this. I don’t think this negates my point that using a Restore New York Grant on the old Mohasco site to make the entire parcel shovel ready, or moving in ready, is a better use than to give it all to a developer for the Esquire Building which is the least valuable and latest acquired (through a tax foreclosure I did) portion of the several acres of developable land.
    Had my proposal been approved, we would have an inviting industrial site right now. Instead we have a still worthless building and absolutely nothing going on.

    • flippinamsterdam says:

      I guess my point in the post is that relying on shell buildings and their attendant tenants in manufacturing/distribution given the economic climate per my prior comments is not a sound strategy moving forward over the next 2 to 5 years. I think this story confirms the risk of that approach and why shell buildings are speculative. Whether the strategy is pursued by AIDA or MCIDA, a new building or old building, et al I do not think matters as the strategy itself is flawed. You cannot fix a flawed strategy through better implementation.
      As far as AIDA vis-a-vis Chaira-AIDA versus Thane-AIDA, I find irrelevant to the strategic question moving forward which centers on how to bring economic growth to the city in the next 2 to 5 years. I’m not sure why Mr Chiara figures so prominently into a debate on strategy but maybe I’m missing your point.
      My take away right now is that you view AIDA as the driver for economic growth via developing shell buildings which suggests economic development via manufacturing and distribution as the growth engine. Maybe this is a mischaracterization but it is my take on your posts.
      I understand your point on RestoreNY grants– you would allocate the moneys differently. I think that is a fair point in that you would prioritize differently.
      I’ll have to loop back on other posts as I’m out of time for posting today.

  2. awish4Amsterdam says:

    and PS…a dump is not economic growth.
    Flippin’, I wish you would run for office but I understand why you do not.

Leave a Reply