• Food and Drink
• Forest Hills
• Retail

• Log in
• Register
• RSS for this post's comments

Comments

• i love that mini-mall, especially when compared with the garcias/piu bello mall. i’m feeling the ‘bombay’ vibe with the multi-level-cram-it-all-in-there space. i wish that garish shoe store on the bottom level would leave, to be replaced by the Queens outpost of A Salt & Battery.

  Posted by jellystone
  on January 27th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

• ps. i don’t think the venue is unattractive!

  Posted by jellystone
  on January 27th, 2008 at 11:29 pm

• I too am a big fan of that mini-mall although I was very disappointed to see the psychic move in.

  Posted by yellowstone
  on January 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm

• If someone came to the USA to visit, there is really no reason why anyone would want to come to Forest Hills. The area is so bland with nothing special that you cant find elsewhere.

  I think people are thinking too much about the rents in the area and obsessing about local retail.

  Posted by Why Forest Hills
  on January 28th, 2008 at 1:02 am

• No offense to Ricky of Ricky’s, but I honestly find it hard, if not flat-out impossible, to believe that Forest Hills rents are an issue. Ricky’s are peppered across trendy lower Manhattan and the upper East and West Sides. None of the neighborhoods are cheap. All at least twice the price of anywhere in Queens. In fact, Manhattan averages three times the Austin Street rents for retailo, as of a 2006 RealDeal article. I don’t imagine that they’ve suddenly become equal in the past year. The one Brooklyn spot is on ultra-pricey Montague Street in Brooklyn Heights. So no, Ricky’s isn’t avoiding Forest Hills because of the rent. Ricky’s is simply avoiding Forest Hills and being polite about it. WHEN Forest Hills is trendy and cool, THEN Ricky’s will follow, regardless of rent.

  Posted by Jon Parker
  on January 28th, 2008 at 1:06 am

• “Why Forest Hills,” just out of curiosity, besides a fun trolling adventure, exactly what is your point?

  Posted by Steve
  on January 28th, 2008 at 1:54 am

• Oh, I get it. I just checked your IP address. Didn’t I nail you for this once before? Try using an anonymous proxy server next time!

  Posted by Steve
  on January 28th, 2008 at 2:01 am

• I’d have to agree with Jon Parker, except that I don’t think Ricky was being at all polite about it!

  Posted by peterd
  on January 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am

• Is there any reason that Forest Hills has to be “trendy and cool?”

  Posted by ShaynaMadel
  on January 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm

• No, Forest Hills is not trendy and cool. Never has been and never will.

  Posted by No
  on January 28th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

• Shaynamadel,

  No, FH doesn’t HAVE to be trendy and cool, but many retailers won’t set up shop without it. Trendiness creates foot traffic. And customers of stores like Ricky’s come largely from feet attached to young people with no children or mortgages or major financial responsibility and thus, plenty of disposable income. Or at least enough disposable income. Meanwhile, most of the stores in FH cater either to the elderly (jewelers, salons, many of the boutiques on eastern Austin St.) or teens (Gap, Zoya, Austin Jeans, Gem Story, Ice). There’s a noticeable focus here on these two generations. Sure, there’s Gap and Victoria’s Secret and the new Laytner’s and a handful of others, but those stores are less about drawing people TO the neighborhood and creating a vibrancy, than they are about convincing people not to move FROM it. So while a Ricky’s is some place I’d never shop, I’d like it here because it would attract people who might otherwise choose to stay in Manhattan and live with three roommates. More people with disposable income means more shops I WOULD shop at and more restaurants (my main concern). Without trendiness, there’s a staleness that makes a neighborhood forgettable. And ultimately I would like Forest Hills to become a place that people go out of their way for, like Park Slope.

  And for the record, I do think that Ricky’s would do well here. But, again no disrespect to Ricky’s, it appears now that the store is very risk-averse and is less about leading the pack than following the herd.

  Posted by Jon Parker
  on January 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm

• Forest Hills has never had the reputation of “hip” or “trendy,” not now and not 45 years ago when my parents, who were looking for an apartment large enough for a family of five, were considering moving here (They didn’t, but that’s another story). I have no problem with that. Not every neighborhood needs to be “like Park Slope.” There is something to be said for stability and familiarity and it seems to have been working here for decades.

  “Sure, there’s Gap and Victoria’s Secret and the new Laytner’s and a handful of others, but those stores are less about drawing people TO the neighborhood and creating a vibrancy, than they are about convincing people not to move FROM it. ” What’s the problem in keeping people in the neighborhood? Must a neighborhood constantly be looking to reinvent itself? Look, I am not averse to new retailers, but not every neighborhood is going to be that “cool” place where people content with living with three other people in two bedrooms, with no sense of permanency are living. If they save their disposable income, some day they will have a place of their own. Until then, they can feel free to stay in Manhattan, sharing an overcrowded apartment with a succession of strangers.

  I am trying to think of even three boutiques on Austin Street that cater to the elderly. In point of fact, the brassiere store and the hosiery store disappeared years ago, as did two ladies’ large-size stores. There is not one clothing store, save perhaps for Jacklyn’s, that has a significant amount of merchandise that people over 35-40 might be interested in wearing. And looking in the windows of the salons on eastern Austin Street, they are far from catering to the “blue-hair” set.

  By the way, there are plenty of people in Forest Hills who have plenty of disposable income. Not all of us who have children have mortgages, not all of us who have mortgages have children. And some of us have neither. Trust me, I have seen enough Board packets for people in the building where I live to know that there are a lot of people living here who most definitely have disposable income.

  Posted by ShaynaMadel
  on January 28th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

• This is a much better discussion to have verbally, so bear with me.

  For starters, I don’t believe that just because a neighborhood has been uncool for 40 years means that it’s required to stay that way. Next, as far as disposable income goes, there’s a difference between having money to spend and actually spending it. If a wealthy person does not eat out in their nice neighborhood, then there won’t be any more restaurants there. But the middle class neighborhood where everyone eats out will have many. The wealthy neighborhood where everyone shops at Barney’s won’t have any clothing stores, but maybe the middle class one will luck out and get a 2 story H&M where a Mandee used to be. (hint hint people, send some emails.)

  And since most people seem to equate FH as Queens’ answer to Park Slope, I used it as my example. And it’s valid, I think. There’s a neighborhood that, in the past decade has seen an explosion of retail and restaurants, but no one could legitimately argue that it went downhill in the process. I’m not advocating turning FH into a Williamsburgesque hipster haven, but a few loungey cafes some independent bookstores and a place to buy music would be nice.

  Other than that, since you don’t disapprove of new retailers coming in, I guess we aren’t arguing. Except about the FH elderly population. But whatever. Maybe they’d end up shopping at Ricky’s anyway.

  Posted by Jon Parker
  on January 28th, 2008 at 6:14 pm

• Jon,

  Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. And I agree that just because a neighborhood has not been “cool” for 40 years doesn’t mean it must stay that way. But that said, perhaps the people who have had a stake in this area for a long time and who have invested their money in the neighborhood by buying their homes, are content with what they have or chose the neighborhood based on what’s here and did not move here with substantial change in mind.

  I fully understand that there is a difference between having disposable income and spending it, but your prior post made a point of young people with no obligations being the ones with disposable income, not that they are the ones with disposable income and are actually spending it.

  “If a wealthy person does not eat out in their nice neighborhood, then there won’t be any more restaurants there. But the middle class neighborhood where everyone eats out will have many. ” Agreed, but what makes you think that the monied people who live around here don’t eat in the local restaurants?

  “The wealthy neighborhood where everyone shops at Barney’s won’t have any clothing stores, but maybe the middle class one will luck out and get a 2 story H&M where a Mandee used to be.” Sure, but if you give the wealthy stores that they would be interested in shopping in, they will shop there as well.

  As I have said previously, I am not averse to change. I am always curious about the changes and cringe when it’s yet another shoe store or salon. I guess what’s irksome to me is the constant whining by some people who have chosen to live here and who often haven’t been here for very long, about what’s wrong around here and how it should change to be like some other neighborhood. Somehow, all of this ends up being the fault of those greedy b*stard commercial landlords who never think of the neighborhood when leasing out their property, are all just rolling in cash and who, of course should eek out just enough money to pay their taxes and mortgages, never mind earn profit.

  By the way, with an H & M at the Queens Center Mall, it is highly unlikely that they will put another large store so close by. And there used to be a record store on Austin Street, but (unfortunately) it closed.

  Posted by ShaynaMadel
  on January 28th, 2008 at 6:51 pm

• Hey Shaynamadel, me again. To respond:

  “people who have had a stake in this area for a long time and who have invested their money in the neighborhood by buying their homes, are content with what they have or chose the neighborhood based on what’s here and did not move here with substantial change in mind.” I’m sure that they did. However… too bad for them. I hate to put it that way, but until it becomes a crime for someone of a certain age/race/ethicity/religion/whatever to put down roots, living somewhere is and always will be a gamble. “I got here first” just ain’t enough.

  “your prior post made a point of young people with no obligations being the ones with disposable income, not that they are the ones with disposable income and are actually spending it.” Okay, but it makes no sense to be surrounding yourself with people who have a disposable income they don’t intend to dispose of from a marketing perspective. The young people are dolling out the dinero.

  “what makes you think that the monied people who live around here don’t eat in the local restaurants?” I didn’t say that they don’t. I was just making a generalized statement with regards to access to money not being the solitary concern. That it must be joined with the willingness to use it. That’s why I paired it with the lower income neighborhood that spends more having more dining options. Purely theoretical. I wasn’t saying anything about the wealthy people in FH specifically.

  See, we’re on different sides of the coin when it comes to complaints. I’ve been here for 5-ish years. I’m relatively new (I do remember Sam Goody though). So while I moved here because I liked the neighborhood, I look at it from a “yeah it’s nice, but how can we make it better” point of veiw (for example, last year there was a thought to change the unused dumpy train tracks into an elevated park a la the Highline. I supported it. It got shot down). Others want to go back to some other time when they envision that FH was at its peak. But the more things change, the farther from that fantasy day they get. It’s not that I want FH to be more like neighborhood X en totem. But I see elements from X and Y and Z and I say “these elements, selected from a long list, would make it better where I live.” That’s the change I’m talking about, rather than a cloning.

  Regarding H&M: You’re probably right. We’ll probably get a huge Bolton’s or Dress Barn or something. But many if not most of the chain stores on Austin and Atlas Park have a place at Queens Center. I’m just crossing my fingers. Alternatively, and I said this on FH72, I would also take a Williams Sonoma, West Elm, Pottery Barn, Pier One, or Crate & Barrel. Just thoughts to chew on.

  Posted by Jon Parker
  on January 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Post a Comment