« The Fight Portion Of The Good Fight | Main | The Lowest Point »
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 May 9, 2007 2:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1132
Comments
you say that the order states you have to remove the part of the structure where the fire occurred and then you state that this portion was already removed. So aren't you in the clear now?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2007 4:56 PM
Interesting... I have practically begged DOB inspectors for help in protecting my property from harmful, unsafe foundation contractors for more than a year. They all seem to feel that harm to ones person or property is best settled in civil court. Getting in the way of a developer by issuing a stop work order never crosses their mind until after someone is burried in cement or crushed to death by some unsupported cinderblock wall. You must have found the needle in the hay stack... A NYC inspector fighting for the safety and well being of its citizens.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 9, 2007 10:48 PM
This DOB engineer isn't fighting for the safety and well being of ordinary citizens. He's trying to help the DOB save face for letting Arthur build the top part of this building and then letting it stand for 26 years. Why else would he feel so compelled to make such obvious lies under oath?
Posted by: Meryckawick at May 10, 2007 8:58 AM
Who was the judge?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 9:36 AM
Sorry, Shahn, but you haven't convinced me that the top portion of the building is safe. Just because it hasn't "fallen down," doesn't mean there isn't the possibility that it will. You know that as well as anybody.
Also, the DOB has every right to disagree with your structural engineer. That's why they have their own engineers, obviously.
Don't worry too much. You've got so much free publicity from Brownstoner, you can charge whatever you want for the completed units. It'll all be worth it in the end.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 9:54 AM
yo jerkface 9:54, not everything in life is about being a jerk. get a grip and try to lighten up.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:02 PM
Are you stupid Anon 9:54?
"Just because it hasn't "fallen down," doesn't mean there isn't the possibility that it will."
Every building will fall down eventually if it's not maintained. The building was never a danger to anyone, which is why it's such bullshit that the Buildings Department made them take it down.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 2:08 PM
i'm just glad Arthur will be able to build it back more or less the way he envisioned it originally and not have to fear being hauled out of his own house anymore. it's so true as a previous poster mentioned, the DOB is making BA its whipping building to cover for its own inadequacies.
how people could side with the DOB on this is beyond me.
Posted by: Jimmy Legs at May 10, 2007 4:08 PM
I don't understand why two people have attacked 9:54. While you may disagree, his comments seem reasonable to me. I have admired this building for many years, and hope that you are ultimately successful. I have been in many structurally unsound buildings, that may well stay standing for another 10 years, but I wouldn't let my kids go in them, because they COULD fall at anytime. Calling reasonable people 'stupid' makes you look bad.
Posted by: dev at May 10, 2007 4:11 PM
I talked to Arthur about this. Three independent engineers came inside the building and decided that the building was safe.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 4:18 PM
If the judge's order isn't clear, why doesn't your counsel make a motion for reconsideration/clarification? The appellate route will take ages.
Posted by: anon at May 10, 2007 4:47 PM
just a dumb question is this all he said she said engineer stuff or are there actual calculations, structural principles to back this stuff up. Im no rocket scinetest but there must be a better level of detail to why some argues stability versus instability.
More specifically there are very basic engineering software packages that allow structures designs to be tested, with code established load conditions even that would give an answer
Posted by: jp at May 10, 2007 4:56 PM
9:54's comments were offensive. I think being on brownstoner shows that he is willing to stand up to a level of transparency that would probably be refreshing to the condo sales market for a developer. I'm sure that brownstoner would welcome other developers to blog on here. My guess it that most developers don't have the time and/or don't want to subject themselves to such public scrutiny.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 10, 2007 9:43 PM
I've been living directly behind the broken angel for years, during high winds and massive snows and I've never seen the top budge. DOB is haters.
Posted by: kold kut at May 10, 2007 9:47 PM
This whole city is corrupt. Make that this whole state. Actually, this whole country.
Nothing is going to change.
Posted by: oiseau at May 11, 2007 11:43 AM
Shahn, sorry you had to go through this. But we should all know by now how the DOB works. A little 'green' via a seasoned 'expiditer' goes a long way. Talk about internal corruption. But that's just me, the hysterical, hyperbolist mouthing off again.
I'd say that it's better to save yourself the headache and follow 'form/code'. Best to take the high road and rebuild the damn thing to match a DOB approved specification. The whole process sucks but, without the political clout, it's best to play dumb and make them happy. In the end, Broken Angel will be a shining example of Brooklyn's enigmatic architecture and you and Arthur will be the ones deserving the accolade. Here's looking to many after-hours BAM cocktail parties at the Broken Angel. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: rooting_for_you_all at May 11, 2007 1:29 PM
My take is that the judge is playing it safe on the potential liability that could occur if the structure was not sound. There was a difference of opinion between the DOB engineer (who may have an axe to gring on this property) and BA's engineer(s) who've inspected the property.
In the end, I think Shahn and Arthur are being pragmatic here. Look at the larger picture and see if you can achieve your goals without wasting too much time and money fighting battles along the way. The larger battle will be getting DOB approval for the structure that they would like to have built on the top of the old trolley building. I think that is where time, money and energy will need to be spent, and from reading Shahn's post above, it sounds like that is what they will be doing. Good luck.
Posted by: lp at May 11, 2007 1:48 PM
Any engineer that works for the DOB or the city is obviously inferior. To take a city or state job means you are basically an "unhirable". In this day and age of an economic expansion going back 20 years with the enormous amount of construction in this city, an engineer with any degree of talent is busy as hell. The work is very abundant. So if the ONLY work you get is working for the city... well...its obvious who's opinion on structural soundness is the most inferior.
I speak from inside knowledge from my grandfather (who went to Pratt and became a Physical Engineer in NYC construction projects). He often had to fight stop work orders by the city and at that time the city engineer was a classmate of his that finished at the bottom of his class. So he took the city job since he was not competent enough to work in the real world
Posted by: Tom at May 14, 2007 4:26 PM
...so now we have supporters that are claiming (1) bribery goes a long way and (2) that any city employee is inferior and unhirable. Classy. It's all starting to sound a bit unprofesional, isn't it.
Posted by: dev at May 16, 2007 9:53 AM
It's only just starting to sound unprofessional to you Dev? We have multiple independent engineers contradicting what a city engineer says, and city employees wasting taxpayer money harassing an old man about his house, a place where no one has EVER been injured by the construction there. It seems pretty obvious to me that the employees of the City of New York are the ones acting unprofessional.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 11:02 AM
you're young and well-intentioned, so I'm gonna give you some unsolicited advice (always a dangerous thing)!
- an engineer on your payroll is not 'independent'. It is very common to have expert witnesses contradict one other. It doesn't mean either of them are necessarily 'right' or 'wrong'. Discerning the structural integrity of an old, unconventional building is not an exact science.
- when dealing with city institutions, allowing your supporters to publicly call them 'inferior' and accusing them of bribery, is at best, just plain stupid, and at worst, extremely counter-productive.
- Those of us who have been in the business many years, go into projects knowing that we may not get what we want. Whining about victimization is childlike. This is the real world. And btw, I have never paid, or been asked for a bribe in my life.
On the positive side, you are fighting the good fight, and certainly writing this blog is putting yourself out there for criticism from people like me, which takes guts.
Good luck.
Posted by: dev at May 16, 2007 2:39 PM
I agree dev. Heralding bribery as the way to get things done and accusing city employees of being inferior? The comments are slanderous and unprofessional.
Some of these postings implicitly suggest that if Arthur wants to build a firetrap and live in it, then he should be able to do so. That seems fine, but what about the safety of the neighbors? And the safety of the firefighters who would have to put out any fire that occured in the top of this building, had it not been taken down?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 16, 2007 11:52 PM
No one heralded bribery. It was just a comment on the state of affairs in some quarters. And fortunately, like Dev, Shahn has chosen not to take this route.
The possible inferiority complex of some engineers does make sense though.
Re: fire-trap.
The building has been up and functional for a few decades with no detriment to the neighbors. I think if you're worried about the safety of a neighborhood you really should be looking elsewhere (hint: the crossroads of subway lines).
Shahn, build as tall as you want baby. That's one fight you won't have to worry about.
Posted by: still_in_your_corner at May 17, 2007 1:10 PM