Broker Gets (Really) Serious About Leasing 112 Montague Street

The previous locale of Starbucks at 112 Montague Street has now sat without a commercial tenant since May 2012—soon approaching a year. The coffee shop originally vacated the premises in May 2012 because of roof leaks and plumbing issues, and today, the interior appears in the same condition it was when ‘Bucks moved up the street to 134 Montague.

Broker Massey Knakal is giving the space another push, with a giant new banner that covers the entire second-floor window. The realtor’s webbie listing notes that the property offers 2,500sf on the ground floor and 2,000sf on both the second and basement levels, with “all uses considered.” No price is on the website.

Its listing describes the property as “prime retail space in the much sought after corridor of Montague Street, located in the heart of Brooklyn Heights. Located in an upscale and prominent neighborhood offering historic architecture, Montague Street provides for a short walk to the famous waterfront Promenade, where stunning panoramic views of the lower Manhattan skyline welcomes Brooklyn residents and tourists alike. Montague Street is filled with a rich mix of national and local retailers; providing great food, shopping and community connections.”

It remains hard to believe that there isn’t a suitable tenant for such a primo commercial space… unle$$ it’s truly that prohibitive. (CT)

Be Sociable, Share!

, , ,

  • JD

    This building has major issues

  • mlcraryville

    That eyesore should be rolled back.
    There are regulations about the size of a commercial sign. Aren’t there?

  • Wiley E.

    Maybe some people make money by losing money?

  • Topham Beauclerk

    Starbucks didn’t leave because of “roof leaks and plumbing issues.” It left because the property owner wanted to double the rent from $20,000 per month to $40,000. The place is vacant – and will likely remain so – because of the landlord’s greed.

  • craig

    Unrelated, but what is going on with the vacant apartments above Sleepy’s? The building has been finished for more than a year it seems.

  • Andrew Porter

    I’m sure there are, especially in a landmarked neighborhood.

  • stuart

    The building is teardown. Who would want to pay a premium to go in there? Better to start over.

  • MonroeOrange

    Probably cost that broker a decent amount of money to create that sign…so unless they he sells it quickly…that money is lost….and is it really that much more of an eye sore than a vacant building…at least with the sign it may actually move quicker…j

  • whodiditandran

    Well, one thing’s for sure. At $40K a month, it’s not going to be a nail salon.

  • AnnofOrange

    Thanks to concerned community leaders, Landmarks is aware and taking action. Owner has been notified that Landmarks approval is required for signage.

  • Wiley E.

    More money for the City.

  • Arch Stanton

    Yes the owner can write it off as a loss.

  • remyrat

    I called the landlord on behalf of a client who was interested in the space. Not only was the asking $40k, which was very high, but the landlord was a jerk on the phone. I advised my client that even if he was ok with the rent (which was higher than he had budgeted for), he should be very wary of entering into an important business relationship with a guy who was so difficult when purportedly in sales mode! My client agreed and took a pass.