A Queens bowling alley owner is ready to strike down the facility and put an apartment building in its place.
A rezoning application for 30-05 Farrington Street in Flushing, home to Whitestone Lanes, is in public review, the New York Daily News reported. Owner Marco Macaluso received a thumbs up from Queens Borough President Donovan Richards, who pins his hopes for easing the housing shortage on having units to spare.
Macaluso began the review process in June, seeking to raise a nine-floor building. Before Richards’ advisory opinion, the local community board provided its own — voting in favor of the project, but only if it provides less housing and more parking.
The City Planning Commission, controlled by the mayor, is the next stop for Macaluso’s application. The project reflects an increasing demand for housing and the opposite for bowling, an industry that’s been in the gutter for a while.
The owner of the bowling alley, which is still operating, proposed 415 units — 113 affordable — and 200 parking spaces. The community board instead called for 350 units, with 91 affordable, and at least 300 parking spots. Its opinion sparked a debate on X, formerly Twitter, when Richards posted a comment.
Read more
Commercial
New York
How Flushing became a hotbed for development
Commercial
New York
Flushing development site trades for $48 million
Commercial
New York
Brian Pun’s FSA Capital plans 173K sf project in Flushing
The borough president’s message was unclear, but seemed to say that replacing housing with parking would be going “backwards” — a growing sentiment in policy and civic circles. Public opinion on that is split in Queens, however.
Richards’ formal recommendation, citing the housing shortage, called for the developer to stick with the higher unit count.
A representative of the development team told the Daily News that it isn’t veering off the 415-unit lane.
Almost a decade ago, the bowling alley’s owners listed it for $60 million, according to the Commercial Observer. Cushman & Wakefield marketing materials claimed a zoning change at the time could have yielded a development of up to 386,000 square feet.
— Holden Walter-Warner