Shake Shack Coming to Former Pete’s Location at Old Fulton & Water

According to the Daily News, Shake Shack will be moving into the spot previously occupied by Pete’s, One Old Fulton Street, at the corner of Old Fulton and Water streets, near the Pier 1 entrance to Brooklyn Bridge Park, in the Fulton Ferry Historic District. (The News piece quotes Shake Shack CEO Randy Garutti saying he’s moving into DUMBO; we have news for him.) This means Brooklyn Heights will now be bracketed by Shake Shacks: one in downtown Brooklyn and a new one near the foot of Squibb Hill, expected to open in mid-2014.

Share this Story:

, , , ,

  • Karl Junkersfeld

    Eat at your own risk. Not referring to the food but the building that it is residing. I assume that the building is structurally sound but it sure looks like the maintenance of the above floors is suspect. This building is an example of the classic argument of rent control vs open market pricing.

  • Heights Observer

    Not exactly sure what your comment about “rent control vs open market pricing” means.
    Can you explain?

  • Jorale-man

    Now I guess you can go eat your caloric burger and fries and then walk it off in Brooklyn Bridge Park afterwards.

  • Arch Stanton

    And more specifically, how would that affect the safety of Shake Shack customers?

  • Guest

    ShakeShack=upscale McDonald’s. Could we build a tourist tunnel from public transportation to this end point.
    Remember the uproar about the Burger King on Montague!!

  • Guest

    ShakeShack=upscale McDonald’s. Could we build a tourist tunnel from public transportation to this end point.

    Remember the uproar about the Burger King on Montague!! YikesLeave a message…

  • Karl Junkersfeld

    I apologize for the confusion. The apartments that are occupied in this building are all rent control apartments. After taxes the landlord is probably losing money. There is little incentive to upgrade when not compensated for the additional outlay. The north side of Old Fulton is about as derelict as it gets. If apartments were open market between Water and Front they would be very marketable and reflect it in their appearance. I was being facetious about the structural integrity of the building but with the naked eye it looks run down.

  • BrooklynBird

    Yum!!! One of my favorite places!

  • Claude Scales

    Or burn the calories off very quickly by running up Squibb Hill.

  • Rocky Raccoon

    If the landlord is losing money on the building for the rent regulated apartments in it – he can apply for a ‘rent hardship’ increase from the State Division of Housing and Community Renewal. But to do so, he would have to open his books for inspection. A lot of landlords would rather let the buildings get run down, then condemned by the City, and then build something new on the site.

    More money for the landlord that way. Sometimes the landlord doesn’t want to prove what he is doing with his money. So, they won’t apply for help to (legally) adjust residential rents upward.

    Profit = Revenue – Expenses. So, run the building down for a profit, condemn it to remove the tenants, and then sell the damaged property for a big vacancy increase. It happens all the time.

  • Karl Junkersfeld

    If I am not mistaken, hardship applications are rare and successful application of the hardship even rarer. Also, this building has a Landmark designation which also makes demolition almost impossible. Actually real estate is not my forte so I should limit my opinions on this matter. hehe

  • Rocky Raccoon

    Landlords won’t open their books, they are usually hiding something. That is why is a ‘hardship’, application is rarely made to the DHCR. Like any building, a landmark building can be condemned if it is structurally unsound. There maybe some City fines against letting a Landmark Building fall into disrepair, but they aren’t collected by the City.

    (Collecting: NY City Building Dept. fines – a whole separate story. Where are the journalists?) hint, hint.

  • David on Middagh

    The tourist-trapification continues…

  • ursulahahn

    If I’m not mistaken, the landlord of the Old Fulton/Water Street corner building is Two Trees Management. The building is in the Fulton Ferry Historic District and any improvement/change to the façade requires approval by the LPC. The adjoining buildings with scaffolding have changed ownership repeatedly. They have never had lights to illuminate the very uneven sidewalk after night fall, yet the NYC building department seems not to ever have inspected the site and slapped the owner(s) with summonses.

  • Heights Observer

    You are not fully correct. If you let a building get rundown in a landmark area, the city can force you to make repairs and/or force the owner to sell it. It’s known as “Demolition by Neglect” and it is illegal. The city can force repairs to be made. I believe that is exactly what happened to that frame house at 135 Joralemon St. near Garden Place. A landlord can’t simply do what you are saying in Fulton Ferry Landing since the area is landmarked and there are legal remedies and the landlord can’t just build something else on the site.

  • Kenji Takabayashi

    It’s going to be a madhouse. I wish an upscale place went in there, but Danny Meyer is making money hand over fist and with his strategic partnerships and the overall popularity of the place, it makes sense. Prepare for even more people on that block.