Brookfield Wants to Help the 99 Percent—at Stuy Town

92233713 Brookfield Wants to Help the 99 Percent—at Stuy Town

Occupy Stuy Town?

Ever since MetLife put Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village on the block five years ago, residents of the storied middle class enclave have been trying to buy it. They were beat out by Tishman Speyer, who eventually defaulted on their $5.4 billion purchase (the largest in real estate history). After their failure, Wily Bill Ackman swooped in and tried to arrange a deal, but that failed. The tenants also made a second, unsuccessful go of things. Now, that champion of the 1 percent and a lender on the original deal, Brookfield Properties is making a bid to help keep the long-time tenants in place.

According to The Journal, Brookfield is in talks with CW Capital, the overseer of the property, to work out a deal, the dimensions of which are still in the works.

“We are going to work with CW and probably in the form of making a bid to buy the loan or the property from them — and then to execute on the plan with the tenants,” Barry Blattman, a senior managing partner at Brookfield, said in an interview Tuesday. “I think we can deliver to them, for the benefit of the bondholders they represent, a very good exit.”

Should the deal go through, perhaps the Occupy Wall Street protestors could take up their encampment on the Stuy Town greens—assuming the ice skating rink doesn’t get in the way.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    Your story is rather limited.  Brookfield has to get 15% tenant buy-in for its deal to go through, and there are other proposals out there.  For the moment, that is the real story.

  2. Anonymous says:

    There is no clear reason why the Tenant Association Exec Board & Dan Garodnick formed a ‘partnership’ with Brookfield when Brookfield has not even presented a full plan.  There is no clear reason why this so-called partnership is even necessary.  Right now there are only 2 players left:  Guterman-Westwood & Brookfield.  Guterman is a very credible player.  Brookfield is a very credible player.  As possible partners at this point BOTH should be endorsed & considered by the tenants.  CW will decide which plan it will accept for review by New York State.  But it’s in the tenants’ best interests to know what each plan offers them.  The TA and Garodnick have not served us well by making this early endorsement and have not helped to communicate information about Guterman’s full plan.  In the case of Brookfield, we’ll have to wait as it hasn’t presented a full plan yet.  What possible sense could it make to have endorsed Brookfield when they have not yet presented a full plan?  What possible sense does it make for any tenant or tenant group to endorse a sponsor without having compared the both plans and have asked probing questions publicly?