Finally, an article in the mainstream media about Admiral’s Row that considers the possibility that the decision over the future of the site isn’t an all-or-nothing one, something that the blogs have been saying for some time now. Per this morning’s Brooklyn Eagle:

The debate pits more well-off residents of Fort Greene and Clinton Hill, who support preserving the houses, against the 12,000 residents of nearby public housing, who want a place to buy fresh food as well as the jobs that a supermarket could provide. But the controversy is not so simple, and many preservationists believe that both sides can have what they want.

A team of architecture and city planning professors and students at Pratt have come up with alternative designs for the site (one of which, from Prof. Brent Porter is shown above) that include the preservation of the 10 navy officer mansions (complete with green bells and whistles like solar panels and the construction of big-box retail). At least one of the proposals involves using the dilapidated houses for small businesses like a daycare center and a bookstore. The Navy Yard Development Corporation, however, says that ideas to preserve the houses simply aren’t feasible, citing independent studies that show it would cost between $30 and $50 million. (A study released by the National Guard in January pegged preservation costs at $18 million.) It’s just not economically viable, period, said Andrew Kimball, president and CEO of the corporation. It would basically involve rebuilding them from the ground up. These things are soaked and rotted.
Pratt Profs Seek To Reconcile Competing Plans for ‘Admirals’ Row’ [Brooklyn Eagle]
FGA Pushes Preservation Plus Market for Admirals’ Row [Brownstoner]
Admirals’ Row: Debate Still Framed as Either/Or Decision [Brownstoner]
Officers’ Row Supermarket Not Happening Anytime Soon [Brownstoner]