BROOKLYN SKATING RINK PUT ON ICE
DOT PLAN MEANS MAJOR DELAYS FOR PROJECT
By RICH CALDER

August 14, 2008

A much-anticipated ice-skating rink planned for under the Brooklyn Bridge is on hold indefinitely because the city Department of Transportation plans to use the prime real estate for storage, officials confirmed yesterday.

The 85-acre Brooklyn Bridge Park project now under construction calls for using this one acre of land under the bridge seasonally for an ice-skating rink in the winter and a public market or plaza during warmer weather.

But a DOT spokesman said the property can’t be turned over as parkland until at least five years of bridge rehabilitation work is done first. Besides needing the site for storage during the bridge job, he said there will be sandblasting and painting done under the span and that the public should be nowhere near the area during this time.

The former Purchase Building tract is DOT-owned, and was last used as a temporary home to the Office of Emergency Management, but DOT is supposed to give it up for the new waterfront park in DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights.

The old building, a 1930s-era Art Deco structure that local preservationists tried to save, was demolished last month to make way for the long-awaited park.

Sources said DOT and the city-state Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp. fought internally over the land, with DOT ultimately winning out.

This was described to us by a senior Parks Official as being the “money shot” of the Park.  We don’t think this was what was meant.  A more serious question is: why was there no coordination between the different city agencies about the disposition of this land? A fast search discovers this article from 2005 which talks about the need for maintenance of NYC’s bridges and even roughs out their proposed maintence schedules. It looks like a good and sensible plan - and one that should not have been a surprise to anyone paying attention (like, say,  people planning a park underneath the bridge).  As the saying goes, you reap what you sow….and the products of destruction shall be ashes (or sand-blasting, as the case may be).

Located within the Park Slope Historic District:

This 20th-century alteration by a well-known architect deserves the same protection the Commission regularly gives to similar historic alterations. There is no documentation (at least none provided) regarding the building’s appearance before the 1918 alterations took place, and it was not built as part of the row that neighbors it. The proposed dentilated cornice feels fussy and out of synch compared to the rest of the façade. The change in the division of the Palladian window cuts it in half, changing its proportions. Finally, no material samples were provided for either the cornice or the windows, an important consideration for any proposed work. We are lucky that 799 Carroll Street has retained Brooklyn architect George Chappell’s coherent design for a neo-Federal façade ninety years later – there is no need or reason to fuss with it. HDC urges the commission to reject this application.

An 1870 Romanesque Revival style church designed by William B. Ditmars at 143-149 Kent Street. Application was for a residential conversion:

HDC approves of much of the fine work proposed to allow for the adaptive reuse of these historic structures. Our only concern is the visibility of the solar panels. While we understand and appreciate the benefits of the solar panels, it seems that they would be visible. Applications for solar panels are something the Commission will hopefully be seeing more and more of in the years to come, and we urge you to think carefully about the issue of visibility, the different types of solar technology available, and their impact on the appearance and character of landmarks.

presented with only a slight bias for emphasis, but unedited.

Admiral’s Row: The Smackdown

From the Brooklyn Papers

Houses along the historic Admiral’s Row at the Brooklyn Navy Yard have been decaying for years. Navy Yard officials want to tear them down, but preservationists are rallying to save them.

The debate over whether to tear down a row of historic, but severely dilapidated, homes inside the Brooklyn Navy Yard along Flushing Avenue has pit residents of the nearby public housing projects, who want a long-promised supermarket on the site, against historic preservationists, who say the homes can be saved and reused.

Both camps rallied at Borough Hall last week at a public hearing over the fate of the so-called “Admirals Row” houses. To further that debate, The Brooklyn Paper presents this smackdown between a supporter of the Navy Yard’s supermarket plan and an opponent.

Pro

Downtown Brooklyn is undergoing one of the most significant development projects in the country if not the world. However, the Public Housing Developments of Ingersoll, Walt Whitman and Faragutt are being isolated and cut off from the opportunities now available in the community.

Our government has the duty to protect its people. We have not been protected or respected by anyone to date. This is an opportunity for the government step in and to rectify this wrong being inflicted on our residents by allowing the removal of the Admirals Row homes now and use its influence to speed up process of building the supermarket.

Ed Brown, president, Ingersoll Tenants Association

Con

The Admirals Row Houses allow us to imagine what Brooklyn was, and what it can become. When Congress voted to offer to sell the property to New York City in 1988, the houses, although already vacant for years, were an extraordinarily intact row of mid- to late-19th century residential architecture, including superb examples of Second Empire, Italianate and Queen Anne styles.

Constructed between 1850 and 1900 the buildings were a dignified ensemble of homes for the officers of the Navy and their families, a role they continued to serve from before the Civil War until after the Vietnam conflict. These were solid, handsome buildings that housed people with the important job of protecting our country.

Just like bank buildings of the era were advertisements of importance and solidity of their finances, these buildings symbolized the strength of our nation and the importance of Brooklyn to our country. The symbolism and promise of these buildings remains intact.

It is a profound failure of imagination to insist that this row must be demolished for a parking lot instead reusing them for needed community amenities. There is plenty of room on the six-acre property for a supermarket and industrial uses behind the buildings, especially if the necessary parking is incorporated into the new buildings.

With regard to financing the buildings’ reuse, this site has the potential to be enormously profitable for any supermarket developer; Home Depot, Lowe’s and Target all have their highest earning stores in New York. In return for what is sure to be a wildly successful venture, the developer should be required to give back to the local community and the city by making good on the promise of Admirals Row and returning these buildings back to Brooklyn.

Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

‘Green Church’ sent back to drawing board

The city shot down preliminary plans for a residential building at the site of Fourth Avenue’s soon-to-be-demolished “Green Church” — but the rejection didn’t deter church officials and builders from their controversial plan to level the 109-year-old house of worship to construct condos and a smaller church.

Last week, the Department of Buildings disapproved plans that included a seven-story, 72-unit residential building, an 8,196-square-foot church, and a 42-car parking lot that would replace the Bay Ridge United Methodist Church at the corner of Ovington Avenue.

But developer Abe Betesh said the disapproval is more about revision than rejection.

“They are reviewing it,” Betesh said. “When you submit a set of plans and they disapprove it, they give you certain comments or ask you further questions — it means they are working on it.”

It is not immediately clear why the city shot down the controversial plans for the “Green Church” site, but a Buildings Department official told The Brooklyn Paper that plans are typically disapproved if they don’t comply with building or zoning regulations, or if they are incomplete.

Despite the disapproval, the planned demolition and development will continue, Pastor Robert Emerick said.

(c) The Brooklyn Papers

From the Brooklyn Papers

Bridge “Park” Can Find No Purchase by Mike McLaughlin

Demolition teams have made short work of the iconic Purchase Building beneath the Brooklyn Bridge to clear space for a piazza that will be part of the controversial Brooklyn Bridge Park project.

The $300-plus-million parkland and condo project along the DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights waterfront has long included destruction of the two-story Modernist relic built as part of FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s - and that’s a good thing, say project boosters, who are excited by the current plan for a piazza-like open space under the Brooklyn Bridge where the Purchase Building stood.

The brick-and-concrete building could not even be torn down had it not, in 2006, lost the protection it enjoyed as part of the Fulton Ferry Historic District. At that time, city officials lobbied the Landmarks Preservation Commission to cut the building out of the district because the historic building would obstruct views from the new park.

The building had many lives during its years in city service, earning its name after being christened as a warehouse for the city’s “Department of Purchase.” It remained a warehouse for other city agencies for decades, and, for a time after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, became the home of the Office of Emergency Management.

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

This comes to us from one of our neighborhood constituents.  It seems that presumptive Republican presidential candidate Arizona Senator John McCain has a personal connection with Brooklyn; his parents lived there.

Margaret Skinner, 85, lives in the individually-landmarked Joseph Steele House on the southeast corner of Vanderbilt and Lafayette Avenues. Steele by the way was the founder of Brooklyn Union Gas and the house has its original boiler, the second boiler, etc. and all the interior and exterior detail.  Margaret was visiting recently with Senator John McCain’s 96 year old mother, Roberta at the Republican Club at the corner of Fifth Avenue and W. 44th Street. After Margaret expressed her concern for the fate of Admiral’s Row, Mrs. McCain exclaimed, “Oh, I know all about Admiral’s Row.  My husband and I lived there!.”

Hmm, while Sentor McCain has not, to our knowledge, been particularly active in preservation issues, over 9,000 people in Brooklyn did vote for him. If this isn’t a tall tale, perhaps he’ll feel the need to say something about this issue.

More to the point, this story - true or not (although we have no reason to doubt the person who told us this) - illustrates the rich history that these houses possess. Generations of military men and their families lived there from before the Civil War until after the Viet Nam conflict. They should not be demolished for a parking lot.

Brownstoner has photos of the Purchase Building being demolished http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/checking_in_on_11.php and frankly, it’s sickening.

HDC fought for this building for years, but in the end the building was doomed by the LPC, making a blatantly political decision which was frankly embarassing. See here for details: http://www.hdc.org/%20e-bulletin03_3.htm

We fight and try to put losses behind us, but recently we took a look at a copy of the LPC Binding Report which permitted the demolition and it re-opened all those wounds. Here’s the permit http://search.citylaw.org/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/doc/020803.pdf#xml=http://citylaw02/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/hilite/ and here are some quotes:

“In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the Fulton Ferry Historic District designation report describes 11-85 Water Street as an Art-Deco style storehouse built in 1936. The Commission also noted that the special architectural character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District is defined by the collection of mid-and late-19th century buildings which reflect the commercial development of the neighborhood when its center of activity was the Fulton Ferry. The designation report states that the “golden age” of the district’s architectural development “ended with the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge” in 1883.” - suddenly there are eras of significance in designation reports? Was 980 Madison Avenue from the “golden age” of the Upper East Side? or the O’Toole Building from the “golden age” of Greenwich Village? This is incredibly bad reasoning. And what about all the approved changes to buildings that LPC allows every week? Do they weaken the protections of designation?

“Finally, the report states that the historic district contains “the last bit of actual waterfront near Brooklyn Heights readily accessible to its residents…(t)he revival and restoration of this waterfront area would provide an important amenity for the people of Brooklyn Heights and Manhattan …” Staff also notes that the Purchase Building complex is located directly beneath the individually designated Brooklyn Bridge, and adjacent to the Brooklyn tower of the bridge” - well, there you go. The designation of the district always intended to protect the openness of the waterfront, regardless of all those pesky buildings in the way. Why not get rid of the River Cafe as well? I guess a fancy restaurant counts towards public access.

“With regard to this proposal, the Commission finds that this complex of buildings, which includes the Purchase Building, its boiler house, garage and brick wall, is not of the period of primary significance of the historic district, and does not relate in its design or detail to the buildings which establish the special architectural and historic character for which the Fulton Ferry Historic District was designated;” - here we go with “period of primary significance” again. This is really, really bad language.

“…that the location of the complex obscures the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower, and detracts from its special architectural and historic character;” - the same could be said of the Lehman Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - wait, the LPC allowed that to be built….

“that the presence of the Purchase Building complex between the anchorage and the tower diminishes the openness and visual clarity of the bridge’s eastern span; that removing these buildings will help establish a visual connection between the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores to the north, and the Old Fulton Street corridor to the south, which are the two groupings of significant buildings within the historic district;” - how does this jibe with the okay to build 122 Greenwich Street? Doesn’t that affect the “visual connection” of the buildings in Greenwich Village?

“that removing the buildings will reestablish the historic open character of the space beneath the bridge” - removing buildings always reestablishes open character - that’s why it’s called “removing”

“that the design of the entrance to the park will emphasize the importance of Old Fulton Street by creating a strong element at the intersection with Water Street; and will help to unite this new section of the park with the Fulton Ferry pier and Fireboat House; that the creation of the park area will make the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower both physically and visually accessible; that the design of the park beneath the bridge places emphasis on the bridge tower; that the park design establishes a strong relationship between the small park near the River Café and the Empire State Park to the north, which are identified as significant features of the historic district; that the presence of this new park will enhance the visual relationship between the significant buildings in the historic district and the waterfront, which was the catalyst for their construction; and that the ultimate effect of this proposal will be to enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District.” - I’d lay odds that if you suggested to the people (and the government) who developed the area that their purpose of the waterfront was for recreational usage rather than commerce, you’d be laughed out of the room and possibly flogged. But OK, changing times, who doesn’t love a park? at least the design will be good….

“The Commission requests that the applicants return to the Commission with final designs for the fixtures and finishes in the park, such as the fences, the fountain, benches, paving, lighting and signage, for the connection near the River Café; and for the paving at the River Café connection” - WHAT? There isn’t even a final design?

So, to sum up - in order to clear the way to build a park which isn’t even fully deisgned, the LPC rolled over for the Parks Department and the Brooklyn Bridge Park folks and not only countenanced the destruction of noted building in a designated historic district, but opened up some very scary doorways in doing so.

In a New York Times article about the LPC that came out around the time, Andrew S. Dolkart, Columbia University professor (and now Chairman) of historic preservation and author of the DUMBO Historic District designation report said, “This vote was the low point in the history of the landmarks commission. It’s disgraceful. I think the commissioners fell down on their duty, which is to preserve landmarks.”

Well, HDC went to the Public Meeting and the Press Conference this evening about the Admiral’s Row Section 106 process - and we were shocked at the misinformation that’s being propagated by the “Tear These Buildings Down!” crowd.  Here are a few real facts about the process and the site to counter the misinformation:

 - of the 11 historic buildings, 9 are structurally stable. The Beardsley Report (December 2007) states quite clearly that of all the buildings, buildings C and H have severe structural problems. The rest are in OK shape, the photos from the Beardsley Report support this, as evidence of historic floating staircases and the like are still standing and visibly stable.

 - restoration was estimated at $19 million for all 11 buildings. $19 million is a lot of money, but it is not hundreds of millions or billions as alleged at the press conference. That figure also assumes FULL restoration and of all 11 buildings, including the 2 with structural failure.

 - the supermarket is not going to be built “green”. The complex will include a 356 car surface parking lot. How is that “green”?  Let’s not talk about the century-old tree cover that will be lost because of this.

- it is against Federal Law to require that employees come from a certain Zip Code, to say nothing of assuring that all the jobs created will come from the nearby public housing projects.

- Asking the Federal Government to ignore national environmental laws is a foolish thing to do, so let’s  ascribe that to mere rhetoric and playing to the crowd. Still, it is inappropriate for lawyers and elected officials to do.

-  the Federal Government passed a law in 1988 to sell the propery to New York City, and then dropped the ball with regard to maintenance. The City sat on its hands for the last 20 years to take control of the property. There is plenty of blame to go around for the current condition of the buildings. Frankly, no one should be pointing fingers or throwing stones.

WHY CAN’T WE HAVE BOTH A SUPERMARKET AND THE ADMIRAL’S ROW BUILDINGS?

The Historic Districts Council, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Fort Greene Association, Historic Wallabout Association, and the Society for Clinton Hill are united in our desire to see both a Supermarket and the Admiral’s Row Houses in the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

WE AGREE that a new supermarket that sells fresh fruits and vegetables and more employment opportunities are critical for the neighborhood.  

WE DISAGREE that the Admiral’s Row buildings must be demolished to create an economically viable project on this site.

Facts:

-          The Admiral’s Row Buildings are too important - to the community and to the history of our country and Brooklyn - to allow their wholesale demolition. All our children deserve to know their history and to take pride in those who served our country.

-          The buildings are currently owned by the Federal Government and are located at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.  The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation (BNYDC) is responsible for leasing space in the Yard, for developing the underutilized areas of the Yard, and for overseeing the ongoing modernization of the Yard’s infrastructure. Through their efforts, hundreds of quality industrial jobs have been created.

-          The National Guard is currently carrying out a highly responsible and thoughtful effort to seek comments on the site’s redevelopment.  Part of the National Guard’s process, mandated by Federal law, involves finding alternatives that would prevent the demolition of the historic buildings.

-          Alternatives exist that could combine the reuse of existing buildings with new construction to achieve a plan which offers everything from fresh foods, to job training, cultural offerings as well as new recreational and healthy living opportunities.

-          The current supermarket proposal includes 356 parking spaces, which will bring increased traffic and pollution to the neighborhood. This proposed supermarket is 65,000 sf, the size of a “big box” store and 36% larger than the median supermarket in America.

-          Reducing the parking lot or building a parking structure could allow for enough room for a large supermarket, new industrial space, and the restored Admiral’s Row buildings on the site.

-          The preservation and rehabilitation of the Admiral’s Row buildings could be an opportunity for young adults in the neighborhood to be trained in preservation and construction trades with far more earning and career potential than working in a supermarket.

-          Professional engineers and architects have shown that it is possible to renovate/restore Admiral’s Row at costs comparable to the renovations which have occurred throughout downtown Brooklyn and have driven the area’s economic resurgence.

Brooklyn deserves better. We have the best talent in the world right here, let’s put it to work to show what we can achieve.

To learn more about what you can do to save these houses, email hdc@hdc.org.