« A Book Release and a Cover Story for Forgotten NY Salvager: Man With the Mirrors »
September 22, 2006
Strange Bedfellows In Southside Landmark Fight
The battle over the future of two old buildings in South Williamsburg is creating some strange alliances — all of which were on display on Monday at a curbside press conference in front of 118 and 120 South 8th Street (photo on the jump). Members of the Orthodox Jewish and Hispanic communities joined artists, activitists and councilmen to express their opposition to developer Michael Zazza tearing down two of the area's oldest buildings to construct a 20-story residential tower (which at this point he can do as-of-right). Hannah Bloch, who's been spearheading the movement for the past several months, seems to genuinely care about preserving the buildings — and to have grave reservations about the mid-block location of the tower from an urban planning perspective. As for the other other two groups, from where we sit, their sudden interest in preservation reeks of opportunism and is particularly ironic given their complete lack of concern about the borough's architectural heritage (and future) up to this point.
But what about the merit of the landmarking request? The buildings were striking enough that we thought to take this photo of them during a stroll back in the Spring of '05. Among the organizations who spend their days thinking about preservation issues, there's a lack of consensus about whether the buildings should be preserved based on their architectural merit (despite agreement about their meaningfulness in the borough's history). While the Four Borough Preservation Alliance has backed the landmarking effort, neither the Municipal Arts Society, Historic District Council or the more local Waterfront Preservation Alliance has deemed this to be a battle worth fighting. David Yassky, previously reported to be in favor of landmarking these buildings, now is reserving judgement until LPC makes an official comment. If the question is, Are these buildings worth preserving, we'd say "absolutely". But it sounds to us like the behind-the-scenes issue is whether, given the preservation movement's lack of resources, these two buildings are worth spending valuable time and political capital on. That's a trickier question, and one we are ill-equipped to answer.
Phoenix Rising? Maybe About 20 Stories [Greenpoint Star]
GMAP
Comments
Stop landmarking crappy buildings.
We need a lot more housing in this city pronto, and I'd hate to see everyone crammed into tenements so that we can look at obsolete buildings.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 10:08 AM
It's laughable that the Hasids would try to play the landmarks card with their track record. Gimme a break.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 10:13 AM
explain what's meaningful about these buildings "in the borough's history". i think this is another case of being in love with everything old and knee-jerkingly against all development. A gritty patina that photographs well is no reason to turn this into part of the museum of old brooklyn that you'd like the boro to become.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Although some developers that are hasidim surely have no taste and seem to break or get around the law to proceed with their horrid looking buildings,
does smack of bigotry,etc when you blame the whole religious group.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 10:25 AM
We think the "historical meaningfulness" refers to the fact that one of the buildings used to house Gabila's Knish factory, which holds an important place in the cultural heritage of the neighborhood.
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2006 10:43 AM
that sounds like quite a stretch. does anyplace where anyone ever did anything holds an important place in the cultural heritage of a neighborhood now? this is such provincial reasoning. anyone who holds this dilapidated former knish factory in such high esteem should pool their money and offer to buy the building from the developer for whatever the fair market value is and create the "museum of the utmost historical significance of knishes in the great history of brooklyn" instead.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 11:09 AM
These buildings look unremarkable. Is this really a battle about maintaining low density and scale?
Posted by: anon2 at September 22, 2006 11:14 AM
"As for the other other two groups, from where we sit, their sudden interest in preservation reeks of opportunism and is particularly ironic given their complete lack of concern about the borough's architectural heritage (and future) up to this point."
And like no one else reeks of opportunism in Brooklyn? There are lots of strange bedfellows in NYC -show me a politician who isn't an opportunist. In fact, show me a homeowner or renter or artist or activist or air-breather who isn't on some level or another. It's kind of offensive to pick these particular 2 groups out of the protestors and question their integrity, interests or needs.It's one thing to talk about the situation in factual terms, but this type of commentary seems aimed more at roiling the waters to get a discussion going. Seems a little opportunistic to me.
Posted by: jennyanne at September 22, 2006 11:20 AM
these are truly ugly buildings. those knish's better have been REALLY good to justify saving that building.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 11:24 AM
Let me first apologize for the unreadable drviel above, here it is in edited form. 'm a single finger typer.
I'm always suprised about the negative comments on this board about preserving buildings with character. I find it difficult to beleive that these are non-partisan, I'm sure most have a financial interest, whether as an employee or investor, in razing and replacing. We like our low-rise neighborhood. We like the history. The generic hotel-chain-like featureless replacments just homogenize the place into nothing. Can't you understand the premium buyers pay for preserved districts - they do that becuase of the value they confer. You're a bunch of businessmen, and thats no compliment. You have no interest in the neighborhood, its just a business to you. Bleurghhhh. Imagine if the docks and dock buildings had been preserved and/or restored down the waterfront on the East river - how much their value would be now. Instead you've got a bunch of cr$# Let me guess, your grandfather made a tidy profit knocking down Penn Station and replacing it with that concrete air-filter. Why don't you all move to LA, thats the architecture you deserve. Bleurghhhhh
Posted by: pachgong at September 22, 2006 12:09 PM
We are equal-opportunity critics, as regular readers know, so this isn't some rare instance of us unfairly picking on someone or some group. Just because one of the groups in this case happens to be a religious one is no reason to bite our tongue about what we perceive to be a hypocritical position--especially on a topic that we care passionately about. Has everyone in the Orthodox Jewish community in South Williamsburg actively exhibited disregard for the area's architectural past and future? Of course not. But the community as a whole has sat by silently while some of its more powerful members have been actively anti-preservation. That's their perogative--as it is ours to call them on it. It's called free speech, not bigotry.
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2006 12:20 PM
I am realistic enough to know you can't save everything, and that NYC can't be a preserved-in-amber kind of place like some small town gaslight district. On the other hand, if preservation and landmarking had not been initiated in this city, we would not recognize it today, and much of our architectural and historic heritage would be gone, replaced by glass and steel towers, and blocks and blocks of anonymously bland housing and office structures. So I say that it is good that these battles come up.
Are they worthy of saving, I really don't know. I like old buildings, I'm inclined to think so. But, we need lots of housing in this city, and these buildings, even if converted into apartments, would not provide very much relief to a housing shortage. What would they be replaced with? I think that's a legitimate concern for people in the neighborhood. If support for this cause brings together such disparate groups as the Hasidic, Hispanic and artistic communities, then for that reason alone, it's a fight worth having.
Just as all of the people in any grouping of people are not responsible for the actions of some of their members, then neither are all Hasidics responsible for the building practices in their communities. We all need to get to know the people around us, it enriches us all. If rallying around the protection of these buildings does that for even a small group of Wmsburgers, then the fight, whether successful or not, has been won. We are all opportunistic and self serving, let's face it - it's human nature. This is one of those times that it's a good thing and should be encouraged.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 12:36 PM
The above comment was from me. I thought I was signed in.
Posted by: Crown Heights Proud at September 22, 2006 12:39 PM
No- it's not bigotry, but why bother to make mention of Hasids and Hispanics as being opportunistic, and not, for instance, the artists? There's been much discussion of them as well. Surely they are just as self-interested. The whole thing just seems out of context because the result, saving the buildings, was the purpose of the report, and now the side issue is the discussion instead. The more important issue is the fact that a new hi-rise will, of course, be another expensive luxury tower. But the issue can bring these groups to work together, maybe some good will come out of it.
Posted by: jennyanne at September 22, 2006 12:52 PM
Fair point about the "artists", Jennyanne. Plenty of the "artists" have their own agendas (keeping cheap rents in lofts, for example) but there are many from this broad group, as long as we're generalizing, that are vocally involved in trying to preserve buildings in this neighborhood for the sake of preservation. We would love to hear of a counter-example of a preservationist movement within the Hasidic community, but we never have. That would be a GREAT way to build bridges across religious and cultural groups. If anyone is aware of such a group, please let us know.
Posted by: brownstoner at September 22, 2006 1:00 PM
If you stroll by 118, look above the door...looks like a bust of Abe Lincoln.
Developers are determined to wipe out the city's more eclectic and fanciful elements, and I'm not surprised this building isn't long for the world, either.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Posted by: Kevin Walsh at September 22, 2006 1:14 PM
The Lincoln bust was taken down months ago (maybe even last year). It would be interesting to know WHY there was a Lincoln bust there. perhaps that would tell us something about the significance of the building. The whole door surround looks relatively modern - it could be 19th century, but doesn't look it to me. It obviously replaced an older raised stoop entrance (one of many alterations to this building).
Posted by: Halden at September 22, 2006 1:32 PM
The height of the proposed towers, density, etc., is irrelevant to the decision to landmark. Period. It's not what Landmarks is for, or shouldn't be, if Landmarks wants to have any legitimacy.
By the way, Pachgong, I love Brooklyn *and* LA architecture.
Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 22, 2006 1:49 PM
Indeed the city is need of housing, no one questions that assertion. However it is certain that this building will be replaced with a 10-20 story unimaginative glass structure that will only house the well to do. On the other hand, if this building were to be replaced with a unique, well built structure, housing low to middle income tenents than maybe there wouldn't be such debate. THE LAST THING THIS CITY NEEDS IS MORE HOUSING FOR THE RICH! NEW YORK IS TURNING INTO THE YUPPY CAPITAL OF THE WORD AND IN TURN ONE VERY UGLY AND BORING CITY. WE MUST STOP RICH PEOPLE FROM RUINING THIS CITY. THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS MUST UNITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Sal at September 22, 2006 3:12 PM
Go, Sal!
BLOOD ALONE MOVES THE WHEELS OF HISTORY!!!!!
Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 22, 2006 3:24 PM
I think there is reasonable concern for maintaining low-density and owner-occupied rate of an area, and landmarks may be the only card to play. These buildings are not horrible at all. Once upon a time, a developer might have looked at these and cleaned them up, modernized them, expanded them a bit and been happy with a nice profit while benefitting the area and the residents and homeowners. Now, in the wild west of Brooklyn, people who couldn't give a crap swoop in, smash up not just buildings but the character of a neighborhood, take an enormous profit and skip out, leaving the resident taxpayers to live with the aesthetic and sometimes physical mess. Right now, even with the bubble deflating, people will pay anything to live anywhere in Brooklyn, but, when times get harder, the areas that will hold value are the ones that are consistent and attractive. Developers are making a fortune AT OUR EXPENSE IN EVERY WAY!!! And, FWIW, this Brownstoner guy has never struck me as anti-semetic in any way, so anyone who gets his or her panties in a twist when he calls the Hasidic development groups on their lack of interest in DOB rules, community boards or anything else is a phony. Don't sit by for any insidious racism, but, on the other hand, don't deny the evidence of experience. If this site was about South Brooklyn or Staten Island, Brownstoner could have said Italian or Russian developers. Get real.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 4:01 PM
>>>The Lincoln bust was taken down months ago (maybe even last year). It would be interesting to know WHY there was a Lincoln bust there. <<<
Interesting...I snapped it in either Dec. or Feb. Just in time, it seems.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Posted by: Kevin Walsh at September 22, 2006 4:21 PM
Ah, I see cut and paste isn't permitted. I was going to say that I shot the Lincoln in Dec. or Feb...just in time it seems.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Posted by: Kevin Walsh at September 22, 2006 4:22 PM
I read the linked article and thought it was ironic that former councilman Ken Fisher is now the developer's rep and referred to his former colleague, Tony Avella, as "some politician from Queens." If Fisher were still in office, I wonder where he'd stand on this development (is it in what was his district)? If Yassky loses the congressional seat - will he then be a developer's b***h?
Ugh.
Posted by: anon2 at September 22, 2006 5:33 PM
For the record, Fisher's exact reference was "a politician out in Queens." But it seems to me that Avella isn't just a random politico dropping in on Williamsburgh. I believe (having googled him) that he's head of the Zoning & Franchises Committee and that he's been in that position (and/or active on the committee) for a number of years now. My impression is that he's interested in the role of zoning in maintaining existing community character, and in zoning abuses and violations that destroy that character.
Posted by: anon2 at September 22, 2006 5:51 PM
Avella is also running for mayor!
OTOH, he has been a very strong supporter of preservation issues citywide for a long time. And he was one of a handful of councilmembers to support the designation of 184 Kent. And you're right about his active role in downzoning and other means of protecting neighborhood character and scale.
Posted by: AnonWB at September 22, 2006 6:42 PM
" Just because one of the groups in this case happens to be a religious one is no reason to bite our tongue about what we perceive to be a hypocritical position ..." - brownstoner
hear, hear! let me take a bit of an aside from the topic at hand to congratulate you, for your statement, and for you explanation.
the fahrenheit 451 aspect of politcal discourse or cultural commentary in this country has me BUGGIN' OUT. i thank you for your courage.
Posted by: suzy at September 22, 2006 7:25 PM
Fisher and Avella were never colleagues - Avella and Yassky came on the council at the same time, but the idea that Fisher doesn't know exactly who Avella is, is ridiculous, and his phrasing there was disingenous.
Yes, he's chair of zoning - he's also the only CM who shows up for these kinds of press conferences anywhere in any boro - every developer's lawyer knows who Tony Avella is - not just the ex-pols.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 8:32 PM
Suzy, obviously you miss the point. The article was about disparate groups uniting to fight a developer- the fact that all of these groups see an ever-increasing common threat and have united was the important point.(free speech it may be, courageous it's not). Sorry Mr. B- - no insult to you intended, and I don't think you are a bigot.
What has me bugged out about political and cultural discourse in this country is the fact that insult and innuendo are so often presented as legitimate discourse or honesty. The right of free speech is an enormous and precious responsibility. So for the life of me I do not understand why we insist in wasting it on rot.
Posted by: Anonymous at September 23, 2006 2:59 AM
A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I DISCOVERED THESE GEMS, THREE CIRCA 1840'S BUILDINGS, ON SOUTH EIGHT STREET, BETWEEN BEDFORD AVENUE AND BERRY STREET. THESE TWO BUILDINGS HAVE AN INCREDIBLY RICH HISTORY, BEFORE THE TIME OF GABILA'S KNISHES, THAT OWNED AND OPERATED THEIR FACTORY IN THIS LOCATION. FROM 85 YEARS AGO UNTIL APRIL 2006. IN THE 1800'S, 118 SOUTH EIGHT STREET WAS THE PHOENIX HALL. MANY IMPORTANT SOCIAL EVENTS TOOK PLACE THERE, IN A LARGE PART OF THE 18 CENTURY, FROM POLITICAL MEETINGS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, TO WOMENS SUFFRAGETTES MEETINGS, MANY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS MET THERE, TEMPERENCE MEETINGS, ETC. I HAVE A LONG LIST OF EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE THERE. JUST CHECK IT IN THE BROOKLYN EAGLE ARCHIVES OF THE 18 CENTURY. IT WAS ALSO USED AS A DANCE ACADEMY AND A DANCE HALL. THE FRONT FACADE LOOKS SMALL FOR SUCH EVENTS BUT THE BUILDINGS GO WAY BACK, THE HALL UPSTAIRS IS HUGE. WITH BEAUTIFUL CEILING DESIGN. DOWNSTAIRS WAS JOHN KELLY'S HORSESHOER IN THE 1800'S. I HAVE AN 1800'S ADVERTISEMENT FOR IT. THE 8 IRON RINGS THE HORSES WERE ATTATCHED TO ARE STILL ON THE WALL. THE WILLIAMSBURG CENSUS REPORT OF 1854 SHOWS, THAT HENRY A. BURR LIVED THERE. IN THE 1850'S THERE WAS THE BURR, WATERMAN & COMPANY TACKLE BLOCK FACTORY, AT THE FOOT OF SOUTH EIGHT STREET, AND FIRST STREET WHICH WAS LATER RENAMED KENT AVENUE, BY THE EAST RIVER. I HAVE A PHOTO OF THIS VERY LARGE FACTORY BUILDING. SEVERAL BURR'S LIVED ON SOUTH EIGHT STREET ADDRESSES. BEHIND 120 SOUTH EIGHT STREET IS ANOTHER SMALL THREE STORY BUILDING, THE STABLE BUILDING, HIDDEN FROM VIEW FROM THE STREET. AT ONE POINT IN THE 1800'S, A BEER COMPANY IN BROOKLYN, ROMMENEY & CO. LAGER BEER BREWERY, KEPT THEIR HORSES THAT MADE THE BEER DELIVERIES IN THAT STABLE. ONE OF THE DRIVERS, HENRY STAPLES OF 53 BREMEN STREET, UPON HEARING HE MIGHT LOSE HIS JOB, COMMITED SUICIDE IN THAT BUILDING, DROPPING HIMSELF THROUGH AN OPEN AREA FROM THE THIRD TO THE SECOND FLOOR WITH A ROPE AROUND HIS NECK. THIS STORY I FOUND IN THE BROOKLYN EAGLE. 120 SOUTH EIGHT STREET, THE HOUSE WITH THE HIGH PITCHED ROOF, WAS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE WERE SOCIALITES LIVED. AN 1854 CENSUS REPORT SHOWS THAT GEORGE FLEEMAN LIVED THERE. I HAVE NOT YET CHECKED EARLIER CENSUS REPORTS. LATER CENSUS REPORTS SHOW SEVERAL OTHERS FAMILIES LIVING THERE LATER ON. I FOUND THIS ADDRESS, 120 SOUTH EIGHT STREET IN THE BROOKLYN EAGLE 1800'S NEWS EVENTS, ONLINE.INCREDIBLY INTERESTING LIFE STORIES ABOUT THE SOCIALITES THAT LIVED THERE AT DIFFERENT TIMES. I HAVE THE NAMES OF THEM AND THE STORIES PRINTED OUT FROM THE INTERNET. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TYPE THESE ADDRESSES TO GET THIS IMFORMATION PRINTED OUT. IT IS AMAZING. THIS WAS A VERY HIGH CLASS NEIGHBORHOOD BACK THEN. IT WAS ONE OF THE EARLIEST STREETS IN SOUTH WILLIAMSBURGH THAT OPENED IN 1835...THERE WERE ONLY 2 OPENED STREETS AND VERY FEW BUILDINGS SOUTH OF GRAND STREET, THOSE BEING SOUTH SEVENTH STREET AND SOUTH EIGHTH STREET. A FERRY SERVICE RAN FROM THE FOOT OF SOUTH EIGHT STREET TO MANHATTAN. THIS FERRY TERMINAL WAS JUST TWO SHORT BLOCKS AWAY FROM THESE HISTORIC BUILDINGS, 118 AND 120. I HAVE AN OLD ENGRAVING FROM 1841, SHOWING WILLIAMSBURG FROM THE WATERFRONT, AND THERE WERE LOTS OF THESE HIGH PITCHED ROOF LITTLE HOUSES BACK THEN. THIS, THE LAST ONE I FOUND IN THIS AREA, A SURVIVOR. THESE BUILDINGS ARE THE LAST FROM THAT ERA, WHEN THEY HAD SALOONS, SHOPS, ETC. TO CATER TO THE BUSINESSMEN HEADING TOWARDS THE FERRY. THE LARGE CARLTON HOTEL WAS NEXT TO THE FERRY. I HAVE A PHOTO AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR IT. 143 SOUTH EIGHT STREET WAS THE LONG ISLAND BUSINESS COLLEGE. ON THE FOUR BLOCKS OF SOUTH EIGHT STREET STARTING FROM THE FOOT OF THE EAST RIVER, LIVED MANY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE OF WILLIAMSBURG. THE THREE BUILDING COMPLEX, WHICH CONSISTS OF 118 AND 120 SOUTH EIGHT STREET, AND THE SMALL STABLE BUILDING BEHIND THEM, SHOULD MOST DEFINITELY BE SAVED, LANDMARKED AND TURNED INTO A MUSEUM OF OLD WILLIAMSBURG, WITH EXHIBITS AND TOURING OF THE SITE. IT IS A THROW BACK IN TIME AND WOULD MAKE A MOST INTERESTING EDUCATIONAL, HISTORICAL VISIT. ANYONE WOULD BE ENRICHED BY THIS EXPERIENCE. THE BUILDINGS ARE PRETTY INTACT, OLD TILES ON CEILINGS, WROUGHT IRON GATES ON THE CELLER WINDOWS, WALLPAPER, HINGES, OLD WOODEN FLOOR, ETC., ETC.THE BUILDINGS ARE IN VERY GOOD CONDITION, JUST NEEDS A PAINT JOB TO BE RESTORED.THE PHOENIX HALL CAN ONCE AGAIN SERVE THE COMMUNITY FOR EVENTS TO BE HELD THERE. THE HIGH PITCHED ROOF HOUSE WITH THE DORMERS, 120 SOUTH EIGHT STREET SHOULD BECOME A MUSEUM WITH CHANGING EXHIBITS ABOUT WILLIAMSBURG DOWNSTAIRS, THE REST OF THE HOUSE USED FOR PEOPLE TO VIEW IT. THE LOWER EAST SIDE TENEMENT MUSEUM IS VERY SUCESSFULL, SO WOULD THIS BE. I AM A FORMER RESIDENT OF SOUTH WILLIAMSBURG. I AM AN ARTIST - ACTRESS - ACTIVIST, TRYING TO PRESERVE THESE PRICELESS HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, THE LAST SURVIVORS FROM THAT ERA. THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION TWICE REFUSED PARTITIONS TO LANDMARK THEM, AFTER JUST DAYS OF RECEIVING THE PARTITIONS. THE DEVELOPER WHO WANTS TO BUILD A 20 STORY TOWER, WITH LUXURY CONDOS, IS RIGHT NOW TRYING TO DEMOLISH THESE BUILDINGS. COULD ANYONE ASSIST ME WITH THIS IN ANY WAY? ANY IDEAS? THANKS SO MUCH. HANNAH BLOCH. HBARTS@AOL.COM
Posted by: HANNAH BLOCH at October 17, 2006 8:26 PM
I say, bring back the knishes (yummy!) and drive out the yuppie scumbags who are driving out the working class and killing the soul of the borough
Posted by: Ghost of Brooklyn at November 7, 2006 1:07 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.