May 23, 2007

The Lowest Point

Through a great deal of effort by our general contractor, Action Construction Corp., and Arthur himself, we have completed the removal of the top portion of Broken Angel. We removed the wooden portion down to the fifth floor sub-floor as per the court order, and kept pretty close to the schedule mandated. If all goes according to plan, the open top that currently can be seen from the street will soon be filled by a new top portion, and the current height will be a distant memory.

A small victory in all of this was had last week as the result of a conference call with the presiding judge on our case. We had asked for a clarification of what exactly needed to be removed to be in compliance with her order since we had already removed everything that wasn't fireproof above the fifth floor. The attorney for the DOB had wanted us to take Arthur's intricate masonry walls down, even though the DOB approved demolition drawings showed those walls intact, and referenced them specifically as "parapet walls". The judge thought this whole exercise was amusing, and stated that she believed the wording of her order was very clear - it was only the wood portion that was an issue. A small victory indeed, but a victory nonetheless.

Posted by broken angel at 10:58 AM | Comments (4) | | TrackBack (0)

May 9, 2007

The Hearing, The Verdict, The Decision

On Wednesday April 25th, Arthur and I attended the Supreme Court hearing for the unsafe building case against Broken Angel. Upon hearing arguments from each side (Arthur representing himself Pro Se, my counsel representing my company and the attorney for the DOB representing the City) the judge decided that there was sufficient evidence that the building had been stabilized to do a walk through herself (her decision to tour the building may also have been partially influenced by photographic evidence of staircases in the building where there once had been wooden ramps for egress - though Arthur had argued that the Guggenheim used ramps rather than stairs and they were perfectly legal). The judge decided that we would all meet the next morning at 11:00 at the building and walk through it.

The next day, an hour and a half past the scheduled meeting time, court transportation arrived with the judge and her entourage. We proceeded to have a full-blown hearing on the sidewalk across the street from the building with a court reporter, court security, counsel for both sides, and various other necessary functionaries. It was bizarre to say the least. One of the head structural engineers for the DOB testified that the top portion of the building was in imminent danger of collapse and that we were not adhering to safety rules because we had allowed a "civilian" (his words, I swear to god) documentary filmmaker on the site. Our structural engineer testified that although unusual, the top portion of the building was structurally sound, and had been made more so by the work we had done since January. Furthermore, he testified that the whole structure could be brought up to code if we were allowed to file plans to do so by the DOB. The DOB engineer replied that the top portion had not been designed by a structural engineer, and was too dangerous to legalize. Arthur countered that he had been an engineer in the Army many years ago, and that he had filed full structural drawings with the DOB in the late 90's and that they had rejected them because they were hand drawn.

We then took the whole menagerie up through the building to the top addition that Arthur built. While we were walking up, one of the workers told me that he had overheard the DOB engineer grumbling when he noticed that we had placed fire extinguishers every few feet in the upper structure, disgustedly saying that we should be forced to remove them before the judge saw them. It was hard to fathom that the vendetta of this mans superiors at the DOB against the building had so clouded his thinking that he was actually annoyed at our attempts to make sure the site was as safe as possible.

When we arrived at the top, the engineer for the DOB reasserted his belief that the top portion was dangerous and could fall down at any time. I asked him how he could possibly allow twenty-some people up into the dangerous part of a building if this were true. He said that it was necessary to show the judge how much of a danger it was in person. Since all of our conversation in the building was off the record and not being recorded by the court reporter, he didn't even both to respond to my next question,"Exactly how many buildings that are in imminent danger of collapse do you allow judges and their support staff to stand on top of?" I also asked him what his definition of "imminent danger" was in light of the fact that the court case against Broken Angel had been filed in October 2006, it was now seven months later, and the building hadn't bothered to fall over yet. He didn't answer either question directly, but insisted that the building was only still standing for legal reasons. I offered to take the judge to the highest point of the building to prove its stability, but she demurred.

We then went back downstairs and had a short coda for the hearing. Before stepping into the van to be whisked back to the courthouse, the judge informed us that a decision would be issued the next day. One day passed, and then two, and then enough days that we wondered how the judge could possibly justify the issuance of an order to demolish if the danger was so scant that she had the luxury of not only the many months since the original order was brought to trial, but also the number of days past the hearing.

On May 3rd the judges order arrived in the mail. The order read "it is ordered that the upper portion of the structure where the fire occurred by removed". This was odd for a number of reasons, the first being that the part of the building where the fire had actually occurred had been removed a few days prior to the hearing. It was also odd because the original DOB case referred to in this order "sought the stabilization or removal of the 2-4 story frame structure". The judge had also stood in this portion of the building with her own two feet, joined by around forty other feet and the building didn't budge. She ignored the testimony from our well regarded structural engineer whose license and reputation were on the line that the building was sound, and only believed the opposing testimony from a DOB engineer so intent on toeing the party line that he had actually suggested that we remove safety measures, while insisting with a straight face that the floor he stood on was a danger to the community.



What was absolutely clear to Arthur and I was that the DOB would interpret the judges order to mean that the entire top portion of the building would have to be removed in ten days, or their cranes would show up and take down whatever portion they wanted to. While we could appeal the judges order on a number of technicalities (the stipulation that was a part of the order could be vacated if the signer was under duress to sign, which Arthur could argue since he was dragged out of his house in handcuffs and faced with perceived financial ruin if he didn't agree to the stip; the stipulation made no reference to what specifically had to be removed, saying only, "The parties will discuss and determine the scope of the partial demolition", etc) we decided to make the difficult decision to take down the entire top of the building. It was our feeling that our ultimatel goal was to build a new Broken Angel rather than spend years fighting the city to preserve the current one. While the whole process has been a little disgusting, we hold out hope that we will be able to get something approved by the Department of Buildings that will be a beautiful addition to the Brooklyn skyline.

Posted by broken angel at 2:18 PM | Comments (23) | | TrackBack (0)

April 20, 2007

The Fight Portion Of The Good Fight

In early February Arthur and I came to a verbal agreement with the attorney for the Department of Buildings and the presiding judge on our Supreme Court case on a timeline for the structural stabilization of the building and the removal of parts of the top. In keeping with this agreement, we filed architectural plans with the DOB that detailed a small part of what was necessary to bring the building up to code, with the focus on replacement of interior joists and subflooring and removal of the wooden portion. In March we filed a new set of plans with the DOB that detailed how we would replace the top structure with fireproof materials, install new building systems and bring the building into full compliance with the building code. While the DOB was more than happy to approve plans that detailed the removal of the top structure, they have been in far less of a hurry to approve plans that map out a course for the full legalization of the building. As such, we informed them that we could no longer continue on our part of the agreement if they would not proceed in good faith. We now face off against the DOB on Wednesday April 25th in Brooklyn Supreme Court over the issue of whether we have complied with the judges order and whether the building is still unsafe and a danger to the community.

We believe we have shown a great deal of good faith by structurally reinforcing the building, addressing egress issues, and removing the fire burnt section in the rear. The DOB doesn't get to have it both ways. If the top portion the building was a hazard to the community and had to be removed to bring the building up to code than the entire edifice can't be left empty without electricity, plumbing, or windows and be considered safe.

The crux of the problem is this: The Department of Buildings is an enforcement agency and can only approve what the Department of City Planning dictates can be built on a particular zoning lot. Broken Angel is located at the corner of Downing and Quincy streets on an "L" corner that there are relatively few of in the city. As a result of this, there are no zoning laws that make any consideration for buildings that are built on "L" corners, even though technically the intersection of the two streets creates a wide dead area in front of buildings that is wider than each street individually and wider than the necessary 75 foot street width that would allow Broken Angel to be built to its current height. More importantly, buildings that are inside of an "L" corner intersection end up having street frontage that faces the length of a street rather than the width. In the case of Broken Angel, 28 of its 40 feet of horizontal street frontage directly face Quincy Street, which is unobstructed by anything for 462 feet until it crosses Classon Avenue, and thirteen city blocks until it crosses Broadway in Bushwick and actually faces a building on the opposite side of the street. The way current zoning provisions are written for street width, this would mean that Broken Angel is essentially on a 13,000 feet wide street. This is important because most newer zoning laws provide for buildings to be built to a maximum height that is equal to the width of the street that the building faces. Buildings built along the 4th Avenue coridoor in Park Slope can be built to a maximum height of 120 feet because 4th Avenue is 120 feet wide.

Since the DOB has rejected our plans and we believe that the structure is no longer an imminent danger, we feel that we should have a chance to present our case to the Board of Standards and Appeals, the only city agency that can overturn a DOB decision. Our BSA case will be two-fold; Firstly, that the unique location of Broken Angel on an "L" corner has no precedent in existing zoning codes that do not take into account its vertical frontage on Quincy Street, and Secondly, that the building is essentially grandfathered at its current height because the Department of Buildings didn't bother to make Arthur take the top off at any point in the 20 plus years that it's been soaring above Brooklyn. Clearly, Arthur built the top of Broken Angel without permits, and didn't make considerations for the fire code. But the Department of Buildings erred by letting him run wild for years before overreacting and arresting him after the October 2006 fire while trying to save face. If their real concern is public safety, they will let us sprinkler the entire top structure while we have our day in court with the BSA.

Posted by broken angel at 1:28 PM | Comments (6) | | TrackBack (0)

April 17, 2007

Approaching The Summit

We have now repaired or replaced most of the floors in the building, and are midway through the job of pointing the interior facing portions of the brick walls. Part of the flooring that was replaced was a fifth floor that Arthur had taken out many years ago to make a double height area directly beneath the octogonal solarium at the rear of the building. While our architect negotiates for the approval of a new upper structure with the Department of Buildings, we are starting to remove the fire burnt portion currently at the top. We will also begin pointing and replacing bricks on the exterior walls to ensure maximum structural stability. After the top structure is removed and the pointing is completed, we will start framing the interior walls of the building.

Posted by broken angel at 4:51 PM | Comments (5) | | TrackBack (0)

February 23, 2007

Moving Right Along

Before any work started at the site we hired Don Friedman of Old Structures Engineering to do a structural analysis of the foundation and floor joists of the building. This engineering report and the structural drawings that resulted were used in lieu of architects plans to obtain DOB permits so that we could begin working on the building. After each floor is cleared of debris, Don and our contractor, Greg Toledo of Action Construction Corp., will meet to reassess the stability of the floor and see how much of the existing wood is salvagable. A fire from 1975 and the ensuing water damage did weaken a lot of joists, but a surprising number of them are in good condition. There is a certain romanticism to the idea of keeping as much of the original building intact as possible, particularly wooden beams that have held the floor up for over a hundred and fifty years. Stability comes first, but we will leave any joist that can continue to do its job properly. When the joists are replaced and the floor is level, a new 3/4 inch plywood subfloor will placed on top.

With the debris cleared out and the first set of subfloor down, it's easy to see how a gracious apartment layout fit easily into each side the building. I've seen the floorplans for how the units were laid out before the fire gutted the building. The building is forty feet wide and sixty-five feet deep with approximately twenty-six hundred square feet per floor. Subracting the hallways and various light shafts, each side-by-side apartment was roughly 1100 square feet. On the first floor where we are working, each unit may be slightly smaller because of the entry hallway, but they are still quite large.

Posted by broken angel at 7:11 AM | Comments (0) | | TrackBack (0)

February 15, 2007

Rolling The Ball

After the fire last October, the Department of Buildings decided that they were done letting Arthur flout their regulations in the name of art, and came down on him with the full force of the law. While they may have acted a bit heavy-handedly when they had the police department drag him away in handcuffs, they acted well within their directives with the issuance of a number of unsafe building violations. The lack of fire stairs and the lack of egress on each floor due to large piles of debris were clearly violations of the building code.









Other parts of their mandate against Arthur were more puzzling. While the stop work order instructing him to cease all work on the distinctive wooden structure at the top of the building was understandable, he hadn't actually built anything new up there in a few years. Furthermore, the DOBs insistance that they would show up with cranes and raze as much of the building as they deemed necessary if the top structure wasn't removed right away was a strange reaction to the building not having fire stairs or egress. Their claim that the top structure was going to blow off and kill someone not only had little basis in fact, but they didn't even bother to issue an unsafe building violation for it. If New York's brutal winter gales hadn't destroyed the structure during the years it had been there, the odds of it blowing away without many more years of deterioration were pretty low.

Part of Arthur's argument when he was able to get the criminal case against him dismissed was that no engineer from the DOB had ever stepped foot inside the building, and two separate engineers that inspected the building pro bono declared that the structure was in no imminent danger of collapse. Regardless, what Arthur and I both learned from his arrest and subsequent exculpation was that the DOB can act first and admit they were wrong later (I had actually insisted that the DOB wouldn't physically remove him from the house after he received the vacate order). While their strategy of act first and shrug later might be the grounds for a lawsuit, they could have potentially leveled the entire building when they came to remove the top structure, particularly since the strongest ECBs were against issues on the lower floors.

In order to guarantee that this wouldn't happen, we had to convince the DOB that we were serious about removing the top structure ourselves. This would allow us to save as much of the building as possible. With the help of Tish James' office as a negotiator, we put together a timeline for the work to be done. The first few weeks of this timeline are compised of debris removal, shoring or replacement of floor joists, installation of a subfloor where it has been removed, and the construction of temporary internal stairs. When all of that is completed, we will build our scaffolding and begin removing the top structure the way it was built - from the inside.

On Thursday, February 8th, we attempted to have our first 30 yard container delivered into the lot next door to Broken Angel. The delivery truck tried for 45 minutes to angle his way into the lot, but with Downing street so narrow and cars parked on the opposite side of the street, there was no safe way in. We had to take most of our workers off of the site and come back the next day. Friday, the street scaffold went up, and the street cleaning rules made it much easier to get a container into the site. We were one day ahead of our proposed schedule with the DOB, and we were able to remove 30 cubic yards of debris. We ran into the same problem again on Monday the 12th. Cars blocked the driveway all morning, and we weren't able to get the container traded out or the two new ones delivered. With this experience in mind, it became apparent that we were going to have to take a different approach to the debris removal.

The economics of debris removal work out like this: A good price for the delivery and removal of a 30 cubic yard container is around $850. A crew of workers can fill roughly two 30 yard containers a day, depending on how packed the debris is that needs to be removed. With a daily payroll of $1,600 for the workers, it costs roughly $3,300 per 60 cubic yards of debris to be removed. If a clean-out company is hired, their price can range from $1,100 - $1,500 per 20 yard container removed by their workers. If a deal is made for a specific amount of debris removal work within a certain amount of time on a particular job, you can often cut a better deal. We have worked out a deal with a clean-out company that is roughly equivalent in price per 60 cubic yards of debris removed with our workers removing the debris and having to deal with container delivery. We also have the added layer of protection of the clean-out company's liability insurance on top of our own. As of 5:00 PM on Wednesday the 14th, we had removed a total of 150 cubic yards of mixed debris, and 20 cubic yards of metal for recycling. At the close of business on Thursday the 15th, we had removed an additional 40 cubic yards of mixed debris, 7 cubic yards of broken bricks, and 15 cubic yards of metal for recycling.

Posted by broken angel at 9:22 AM | Comments (7) | | TrackBack (0)

February 8, 2007

Arthur Fought The Law, And The Law Lost

Ever since the New York Times prematurely announced that Arthur and I had come to an agreement to develop Broken Angel, a number of people have questioned my sanity for taking on the project. Most of those people are business acquaintances of mine whose only knowledge of Arthur are photos they have seen of Broken Angel and anecdotes they have heard of something outlandish he said in a newspaper article or in a film. While I think being called eccentric is one of the highest compliments one could get, Arthur bristles at the suggestion that he is anything other than just more sane than the most people.

Arthur had a chance to prove his sanity in court yesterday. In October he was taken from his home in handcuffs and arrested for violating a vacate order from the Department of Buildings when they deemed his building to be unsafe and uninhabitable after a small fire. Arthur had chosen to represent himself in the criminal case, even though he faced a significant fine or jail time if found guilty of defying the order. I suggested that he get a public defender, or at the very least adjourn the case until he talked to an attorney about the best way to tackle it. Arthur insisted that he knew what he was doing. He attacked the charges against him on both a procedural and factual basis.

The vacate order stated on its front page that it was supposed to have an engineers report attached to it - it didn't. The arresting officers were supposed to have a warrant to arrest him - they didn't have one. They were also supposed to read him his miranda rights when he was being arrested - they didn't. One of the ECB violations used in the vacate order stated that the building was unsafe because it had no roof. Arthur refuted this with a printout from Google Earth showing the roof of the building, and presented photos of different parts of it taken by his son Chris.

I started calling Arthur's cell phone at 5:00 after I hadn't heard from him all day. Every time I dialed his number the phone just rang and rang. I was concerned. I had told him that even though the project could move forward if he did end up getting incarcerated for a short period of time, we could only get so far rebuilding his vision without him. Eventually, he picked up his house phone. "I didn't take my cell phone to court", he said, "And the judge threw out the case against me because they were wrong and I was right". Saner words could not be spoken.

-Shahn

Posted by broken angel at 12:34 PM | Comments (15) | | TrackBack (0)

February 7, 2007

Articles About Broken Angel

The following is a partial list of articles about Broken Angel for people who are not familiar with the building.

Brooklyn Downtown Star:
January 18th, 2007

The Brooklyn Paper:
January 6th, 2007
January 20th, 2007

New York Times:
October 18th, 2006
January 11th, 2007

New York One:
May 9th, 2007
April 26th, 2007

LA Times:
December 3, 2006

The Real Deal:
February 1st, 2007
June 4th, 2007

New York Magazine:
January 11th, 2007

January 15th, 2007

NY Daily News:
October 16th, 2006
October 19th, 2006
January 17th, 2007

Curbed:
October 16th, 2006

Posted by broken angel at 9:08 AM | Comments (0) | | TrackBack (0)