« Fixed Rate Loans: 'Next Mini Refinancing Boom' City to Sell Firehouses in W'burg and Cobble Hill »

October 13, 2006

An Appeal From the Owners of the Broken Angel

fire
As many of us suspected, the fire at the Broken Angel has brought increased scrutiny by the Department of Buildings, prompting this appeal from the owners' son post on Brooklyn Record last night:

The New York City Building department is attempting to remove my parents from their home of 30 years, unless we immediatly get an architect or engineer to bring the building to NYC codes. We do not have the money to do this. If there is anyone out there who is qualified and willing to work Pro Bono we desperately need the help, contributions are also welcome. You can contact my father. Arthur Wood, 4 Downing St, Brooklyn, NY 11238. Also we appeal to David Chappelle and Michel Gondry.Our home became the backdrop for your wonderful concert film, please help us to save it now.

BREAKING: Broken Angel on Fire! [Brooklyn Record]

Comments

crap, we thought something like this might happen. but it's the DOB we're talking about, right? don't they have a long history of not following through? maybe it'll just get swept under the rug?

so has the name of the place been changed or something?

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at October 13, 2006 9:51 AM

To be honest, the building doesn't look that sturdy. If it collapsed then everybody would be after the NYC buildings department.

Maybe a professional arcitect or engineer is a good thing.

Posted by: Anon at October 13, 2006 9:51 AM

I'm very sorry for your loss. Broken Angel is beautiful art but poor housing. People could have been killed. The DOB is right to step in.

Posted by: anon at October 13, 2006 9:55 AM

I agree - I'm sorry they this is happening - but they don't deserve handouts for the work. Perhaps they want to turn the bulding into a non-profit and open it to the public - they perhaps it would be worthy of charity. Fixing up someone's private home does not deserve donations. If it did, I would be looking for hand outs for a new kitchen.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 10:10 AM

If everyone on Brownstoner/ Brooklyn Record sends in $10 or what they can afford, that might add up. I'll send mine to the above address. Broken Angel is an important and unique Brooklyn landmark and should be supported in its time of need.

Posted by: so portland at October 13, 2006 10:10 AM

I know we should all look out for our neighbors and help in a time of need, but I am finding it hard to open my wallet to help a private property owner who has blissfully ignored building regulations for as long as they have. Love the structure, but that is about as far as my charity goes.

Posted by: crouchback at October 13, 2006 10:14 AM

The building must be worth a great deal of money. The Wood family are artists, creative people who paid next to nothing for it 30 years ago. There must be resources here for them. If we are to fund an art project, perhaps it's time to see if they can get an NEA grant?

Posted by: anon at October 13, 2006 10:24 AM

Wow, that's lame. Broken Angel is much more than just a "private home," and I for one would be sad to see that building become another condo development. Just because they don't have non-profit status doesn't mean Arthur Wood and his family aren't providing a public service by bringing art to what had been an otherwise blighted area. Is there anyone else out there who appreciates this building and wants to help bring it to code? Brownstoner, will you post this on Brooklyn Record?

Posted by: so portland at October 13, 2006 10:25 AM

this makes no sense. when the building was on fire a lot of people reacted as though a precious landmark was on fire. we love it, we admire it, we adore it. Some people think it's an awful mess but a work of art nonetheless.
isn't this building an oddity that deserves to be preserved, even if it's with the pro-bono help of architects.
They probably should try to reach out the design and architecture students over at Pratt
This buildig leaves me speechless. I don't know whether I hate it or love it. But I think it represents the creative, resourceful and pioneering spirit of old brooklyn.
it's sad that they had to request public donations. but isn't the experience of gazing at the broken angel and wondering 'wtf' worth at least $5.
maybe they should convert the ground floor into a museum that chronicles the evolution of this structure and keep the upper floors residential.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 10:25 AM

yeah, folks, it's interesting how everybody goes hog wild over the house with the ugly 'backpack' addition, but here you turn around and say private residences have no bearing on the public. this is what they mean by 'community,' it's not just complaining to the cops about your neighbors.

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at October 13, 2006 10:42 AM

The thing is an abomination and an insult to all that is beautiful. Not only should the building be razed, but its owners should be deported.

This is not art. It isn't even architecture. It is nothing more than anti-culture defining itself in opposition to the 10,000 year march of civilization that has come before us.

This building DEFINES the decay of our modern world.

Posted by: Eryximachus at October 13, 2006 10:45 AM

as someone who has renovated in brooklyn without filing plans, etc., I offer the following advice: post hoc legalization, if eventually necessary, is easier if you build to code in the first place.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 10:47 AM

Well the Broken Angel has captured my imagination for almost 20 years now. I have a view of it from my 4th floor window and frequently bring friends up to show it to them. I love to look at it on a moonlit evening. I will definitely pledge support.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 10:49 AM

Dave Chapelle have moral obligation to help. He made $$$ using Broken Angel for his concert and movie.
Of course he does not have to but it would be a right thing for him to do.
I agree this structure is important landmark for CH.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 10:52 AM

Is this going to have a happy ending like in the movie "It's a wonderful life" ? I wonder? Should it? Or is that just a movie?

Posted by: anon at October 13, 2006 10:53 AM

how on earth would bring that mess up to "code"? did you not see the inside of the structure in the chappelle movie? it's a disaster.

that is not to say that from the outside it isn't an interesting landmark and a part of the fabric of the neighborhood.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 11:32 AM

as soon as i saw the fire coverage i knew that was the death knell. on one hand, it's too bad that DOB missed their chance(s) to stop any unapproved work and call for permits, and now are knee-jerking and requiring the owners to retroactively comply. on the other hand, i don't disagree that the work should have been filed for. but, well, it wasn't, and nobody said a word. what i do not find appropriate, however, is this emerging debate about the building's aesthetics, and latching onto the DOB's jurisdiction as a way to somehow justify it. if anyone had wanted to complain, they've had 30 years. it's a matter of safety - the DOB is a component of the NYFD (not the architecture police). it will be disappointing if the owners are left with no choice but to move, or the building has to be partially demolished, etc. it is also disappointing if this series of events is co-opted by new arrivals/gentrifiers/neighborhood "investors" as a means to "improve" their neighborhood and perhaps raise their property values.

Posted by: janelle at October 13, 2006 11:41 AM

Much like the work of Howard Finster, Broken Angel is folk art. I like looking at it as part of the landscape. However, it is a safty risk that became more real because of the fire. If one person got seriously hurt or killed, I would bet most of us would say sorry, but it should come down.

Posted by: anon at October 13, 2006 11:55 AM

When I saw the interior in the Chappelle movie I was very concerned for the safety of the Woods. I don't think this property was inhabitable in its former condition. Someone could easily die inside from a collapse.

Posted by: Sassy at October 13, 2006 11:57 AM

That building is not a dwelling. It is a factory and Wood is legally its caretaker. I doubt it has to meet housing code.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 12:13 PM

It makes sense to find out what it would take to bring it to code and then determine if that is a possibility. I don't think anyone has said that the building shouldn't be made more safe, so the focus should be on how to do that without losing a neighborhood treasure. It would be nice to see some more creativity and commitment to preserving what is unique and special about this area. I like to think of Broken Angel as the antithesis to the Ratnerification of Brooklyn.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 12:13 PM

sponsorship by the website 'burning angel,' anyone? it's a brooklyn based company...

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 12:43 PM

there are a lot of people here making opinions about the building's structural integrity, safety, etc. are these people engineers or architects? making such comments based on what they saw in a movie is ridiculous. i read a piece (can't remember where) about how, years ago, the city tried to close the building down due to suspected structural/safety issues. the plan completely backfired, as, the engineers doing the inspection found the structure sound, and even said it was 'overbuilt'.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 1:38 PM

My four year old calls it the "crazy house." I will now tell him to call it the "crazy factory." LOL. I think once you make public appeals for money you invite people to express their concerns with the safety/beauty/purpose of the structure. I don't see why any of those expressing concern are doing so to improve their property values. I can't see how this structure, as smile-inducing as it has always been to me, has any effect on property values. Again I think it is natural to be skeptical of the plea for money at a point when it is really unclear what the resources of the owners are, and where this is leading. Obviously the request for an architect or engineer makes sense (but again perhaps the owners have the resources to pay for it).

Posted by: putnam-denizen at October 13, 2006 2:12 PM

Anon 12:13 -- There are building codes for factories too, as well as regulations about living in a manufacturing building. I sure got the impression from the Chappelle film that the Woods resided there.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 2:20 PM

they should really bring the building up to code. if something happens again. fire fighters or people around the area could get hurt. if this was just another building half you guys would yell and scream about how it should be knock down and other crap.

Posted by: armchair_warrior at October 13, 2006 2:29 PM

In the chappelle movie you can see that there is debris everywhere, holes in the floors and walls, it's a total wreck inside.

Posted by: Sassy at October 13, 2006 3:05 PM

okay just a question... where'd they get the money to do all of this to the building? I've never seen the inside but if its as bad as people say why wasn't the money put into the restoring the structure of the building itself rather to add onto it? I wonder how much that building would sell for or at least how much its worth at this point.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 3:29 PM

the movie footage was up at the top near the roof (where the art is); they don't live up there. i don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with the structure of the building.

if you check the DOB site, there are dubious complaints such as "caller states building is in danger of collapsing." but when inspected, the complaint was dismissed with "building does not appear to be in danger of falling at this time."

Posted by: Jimmy Legs at October 13, 2006 4:01 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQOfRAg5C8

Posted by: ?uest love at October 13, 2006 5:58 PM

I live across from the building on Grand Ave. I don't know if it's still visible from that angle, but it appears that there was a fire at the base of the third floor--you could see the char when I moved in here in 1989. Maybe the top floors were opened up by the fire with the lower floors (where they live) intact.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 7:18 PM

This job seems perfect for a Pratt School of Architecture or Construction Management project. I think the owners should reach out to the school somehow and see if they can help. It would be a nice thing for Pratt to do and good for the neighborhood and would give the students a truly memorable experience I imagine. Maybe the owner should get in touch with the fabulous Tish James to see if she can help to reach out to Pratt about this? And then we can all follow up with phone calls to Tish's office asking her to help as well in order to show how much community support there is for this project. To me it is really great to have such a bold architectural statement on our neighborhood's horizon -- especially in light of the horrible architectural incursion that is trying to make its way to our horizon, aka, "Ratnerville!"

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2006 8:10 PM

The building is a fire hazard and it should be taken down. As an avid fan and collector of the former Howard Finster, I think it is insulting to lump that wreck in with his work. Howard would never risk anyone's life with his work. The "broken angel" is the work of packrats not artists.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2006 4:39 PM

Interesting. There has been so much mooing in the press about "green" consumerism, mostly applauding any fashionista or design whore who's used any old piece of crap more than once. I buy a couch from Craigslist instead of ABC and I am suddenly a "green" consumer because it's "recycled".

The folks at Broken Angel have been around a long time and mostly didn't USE money - they picked up junk from neighborhood houses which were abandoned and destroyed, salvage from dumpsters and wherever they could get stuff. So commenting "they are better spending the $$ on doing it right to begin with" kind of avoids the question. The point was they didn't spend ANY money on ANYTHING.

I've never been a big fan of that place, but I do like hippies. These folks are the real deal and about the last ones around - why not give em a hand?

And hey, get with the program - they're being green. That's the style now.

Posted by: Curmudgeonly at October 15, 2006 5:27 PM

Someone's trolling here! I know plenty of Architects who, not well paid compared to other NYC professionals, still donate their time and knowledge to different causes. What's wrong with asking for help? Doesn't Brownstoner have a Bedsty Reno Blog where his/her friends are helping out with the work? Donate or don't donate. Why do people (trolls) need to waste our time with their bitterness.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2006 1:21 AM

There's allways a home equity loan. I mean it may be a wreck but it's still an asset which can be leveraged. So, possibly, they do have wealth. They just need to risk some of it for their personal use and cash some of it in. Now if this option has already been exercised and they've found themselves in this state (like any overextended creature in an ecosystem) they'll have to scale back or find a new host ;-). Charity might work but this is a case that requires far more tangible assets than I think could be given.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2006 1:00 PM

I have loved that building for years. It is a true work of folk art and deserves to be preserved. Maybe it's just that this society no longer values art, or we are coming to believe that new is good, old is bad. Or maybe the real collapse is the failure of our imaginations, it's all been disneyfied- you don't have to work at imagination any more. Just google disney and they'll do it for you. Sad when we no longer appreciate people like the Woods who are individualistic and creative and living their art. I guess they didn't put out the slick brochure with the simpering photos that ratner did.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at October 16, 2006 3:40 PM

I still remember the first time I saw it, on one of my first walks around my new neighborhood...it took my breath away. I walked around it, block by block, trying to get a better view. I knew it was something special, much more than just a house (or factory). I can't believe how mean spirited some people are. Even if some can't appreciate a labor of love and work of art in their midst, you'd think there would at least be some compassion for two old people who've devoted their lives to this house/museum/sculpture and face becoming homeless victims of a hard hearted bureaucracy.

Posted by: carla at October 17, 2006 10:28 PM

i disagree. we (artists/people not interested in living conventional boring lives) deserve handouts because it's a lot harder to do something off the path than to play by the rules. everyone should have the same income regardless of what they do, or at least put an income cap of $200,000 so that we don't have these really rich people ruining the world and making life hard for those who are different. anyway, give them an architect, building materials, who cares if it's a private residence. at least they haven't caused rents to increase all over the city like so many lousy capitalists.

Posted by: joshua at October 18, 2006 9:39 AM

I wish you well with your house. It is after all your home and people seem to be missing that point. I've lived in housing like this though, and it's dangerous. I know why the DOB wants it up to code. They are not "Nazis" for wanting this. And quite honestly you calling them that doesn't help the situation.
This is a major conflagration waiting to happen. That's what happened where I lived!
Please get it up to code. I should think that lots of building artisians might like the chance to help if only for the experience of working on this treasure.
This is a reminider of the fact that Brooklyn is about all different kinds of people not just the yuppies buying condos.
Best of Luck,
Gitl

Posted by: Gitl at October 18, 2006 10:49 AM

Please forward this to the owners: I'm an artist and a licensed architect. I'd be happy to take a look at the building, and give you some help bringing it up to code. I live in queens, but fondly remember happening upon the Broken Angel this summer when I was looking for a place to live in Brooklyn.

Posted by: bryce at October 18, 2006 1:52 PM

I'm all for "bending" the rules to allow for creativity and to offset the cost of bringing something special to a community - but that structure is [i]literally[/i] in danger of imminent collapse, and they are asking for donations to a private individuals (they have not set up a non-profit corp to take care of the buildings maintainance) to fix their own house. By that logic, hoarders can claim to maintain their unsafe lifestyle by calling it "art" -

I don't think they should have to remove their additions, but I think its more than fair to ask them to insure the structural integrity of the building and to keep it from endangering the health, safety and welfare of the community.

Posted by: bob at October 18, 2006 2:08 PM

As a fellow artist, and a protagonist of green living, I wish the Woods well. Surely people who live in their area would be willing to help them out. They're seniors, for Pete's sake. The Broken Angel is their home.

Posted by: Robin at October 18, 2006 2:14 PM

Posted by: Robin at October 18, 2006 2:15 PM

How can we help? the building's got to be saved. email me at duffmorton@gmail.com

Posted by: duff at October 18, 2006 4:55 PM

My elderly parents were evicted today by police, and are now homeless.

Posted by: Christopher Wood at October 18, 2006 9:41 PM

The creative must create... but, they must sustain. What good is a work if some may not access it? What good is a work if some may get hurt? I know, I know... common sense, don't step on the burnt out beam, ya' ass... but still... isn't it all about seeing? Getting there? Being there and being safe in the physical sense?

Keep what you're doing, PLEASE but have the responsibility that comes with being a human animal and take care of your fellow humans to witness your ingenuity.

Posted by: erpe at October 19, 2006 1:10 AM

Christopher, I thought they were living with you? Homeless people live in the streets. Go to India, Guatemala, Sri Lanka, under the bridges here in Brooklyn, these people are homeless with no place to go.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 2:00 PM

We had a meeting on Friday with the Department of Buildings. We were told that they would begin demolition on the building in 3 weeks from now, if we do not submit plans by an architect/engineer to bring the building to code. The city would do the work and then place a lean on the property. To have the city do the work would zero out the value of the property and leave my parents with nothing. We understand that the Department of Buildings is in a difficult situation, as there are some safety concerns with the building. We are attempting to comply with the Department of Buildings, and would like to submit plans as soon as we can get an architect/ engineer on board. If any qualified individuals are willing to work with us in this short time frame we would very much appreciate it. I can be contacted at chriswood718@yahoo.com.

Posted by: christoher wood at October 21, 2006 4:23 PM

I would be willing to contribute if the Woods made a direct appeal and said more about their vision for the building. As a homeowner and resident of Clinton Hill, I value all kinds of diversity in the area and would love a place to gather, support local art, etc. However, I would definitely be more inclined if I were giving to a non-profit as opposed to private individuals. If the Woods are serious about creating a public community space, reach out to the those who live in the immediate neighborhood, partner with them, and organize. Tell us your plan.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 21, 2006 10:37 PM

Does your parents have equity in the building and how much? Have you considered HUD backed reverse mortgage. When presenting your plan you will need to explain how you are going to fund it. 1) Determine the cost of repairing the property. 2) Speak with a HUD approved lender regarding reverse mortgage or other available vehicle. 3) Will the liquidated equity cover the cost of repairs? You need to have an appraisal of the property performed. The appraisal should state current value and repaired value. You need to do this groundwork first.

Posted by: Claudette at October 23, 2006 10:37 AM

« Fixed Rate Loans: 'Next Mini Refinancing Boom' City to Sell Firehouses in W'burg and Cobble Hill »

October 13, 2006

An Appeal From the Owners of the Broken Angel

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions