« Wednesday Linkage Hope For Abandoned Beauties on Rogers »

November 1, 2006

Domino Decision Not "Either-Or"

factory
In response to a Daily News editorial a couple of weeks back that mocked the idea of landmarking the Domino Sugar Factory ("it might be considered a landmark, as in, 'Oh, yeah, there's that big useless place with the big worn-out sign that just sits there'"), the Municipal Art Society's Lisa Kersavage wrote a rebuttal that the paper ran the next day. According to Kersavage, opponents of preservation like to paint a black-and-white picture of the decision whether to save or raze a site like this by implying that a preservationist stance is necessarily anti-affordable housing.

Neighborhoods where manufacturing and industrial buildings are retained and reused, like in DUMBO and Soho, have an exciting character and some of the highest property values in the city. We've reused buildings effectively before and now is no time to turn back the clock. The city must take steps to protect our heritage. And when developers tell us that affordable housing and historic preservation can't coexist, preservationists and housing advocates must stand together and show them they are wrong.

You know where we stand on preserving the Domino Sugar Factory. Are there any readers who self-identify as being particularly concerned with affordable housing who think that the owners should make an effort to preserve the factory? Or does the need for more units of housing trump any concerns like these?
Oh, Sugar [NY Daily News]
Living in a Sugar Factory [MAS.org]
Photo by Jack Jeffries




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:57 AM | Comments (16)
Categories: Preservation

Comments

Without jobs with wages and benefits that can suport a family, no housing is affordable.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 9:44 AM

i think the issue is how much to preserve and reuse. if its the two main buildings on the right in the above picture - fine, i can see those being transformed into great apartments ala dumbo & soho. but we shouldn't let a pathetic nostalgia for a currently irrelevant industrial waterfront stop us from building on the other land.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 10:18 AM

Your hero is wrong.

I'm far from an opponent of preservation, and in fact I love it when beautiful buildings are preserved by their owners, even if they are adapted to a different usage than originally intended.

However, just because I find it pleasing to preserve some specific arrangement of earth and mortar, it does not automatically equate to advocating the usage of political means to control what is preserved and how.

The 'political means' is of course just euphemism for violence and coercion, couched in more noble terms, like democracy and tyranny of the majority.

I'm all for preservation; of private property rights that is. So-called "preservationists" are actually for the most part destroyers, as they advocate state-violence against recalcitrant property owners who don't see eye to eye with the "preservationists" aesthetic whims and dare to rearrange the specific arrangement of dirt particles.

Raising the issue of affordable housing is soooo besides the point, although it is certainly true that state-backed "preservation" is likely to retard or even reverse the market process of providing affordable housing.

Posted by: iceberg at November 1, 2006 10:25 AM

I don't see why preservation and affordable housing should be either/or propositions. The two meet everyday all over the country, to the benefit of everyone. New York, with its vast amount of 19th-early 20th century building stock (and a few older and newer, as well) should be a vangard of adaptive use. This involves some imagination, good architects, not cookie cutter shlockmeisters, and developers and city officials with a strong commitment to preserving the best of the past for use in the future. Yes, it might cost more to be creative, but it is certainly worth it, and often, depending on the project, some of the extra cost can be deferred or written off by preservation grants and special programs designed for this purpose.

As to the Sugar Factory, I have never been at the site, so I don't know the specifics of the buildings, other than the photos I've seen. As the previous poster stated, it would seem that the two buildings on the right would be prime locations for some creative re-use. As was also stated on the last discussion of these buildings, an absolutely wonderful NY example of creative re-use is the Nabisco Building In Chelsea.(Chelsea Market, 19th and 9th) There, the architects and design team reused elements of the building's industrial bakery past, mechanical salvage, exposed brick and beams in a very creative way to make up the retail spaces on the ground floor. Something like that could be done here, creating an inviting public space, perhaps for retail and museum/gallery spaces, with apartments above. Perhaps some could be loft spaces, or artist spaces, with affordable rents, and market rate and affordable housing above. There is plenty of room here, by the looks of it, so much could be done.

I also don't think it is feasible or even wise to save everything just because it is there. Again, I am not familiar with the site, but if some if it needs to be demolished for housing, I don't have a problem with that as long as that new housing is well integrated, design wise, into the site. I find it hard to believe that creative people can't be found to do this justice. I know they are out there, I know several architects and designers who would love to be involved in projects that are creative as well as preservationist in nature. There is no reason, other than short sighted, non imaginative greed, for opportunities to keep the best of the old while providing for the now, to not be explored.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at November 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Oh dear sugar, how sweet art thou!

Posted by: Jess at November 1, 2006 1:30 PM

It's important to realize that this has been painted black and white by the one and only Isaac Katan (The Developer). The same Isaac Katan who has raped and pillaged his way through this city by using and abusing every law in the books. When he can't break the law he will find a way to twist it or get it rewritten to suit his needs. A perfect example is the fact that this property is not zoned for housing and yet the ever altruistic (Pun intended) Mr. Katan has managed to pay off enough people to get the zoning changed. The only thing he cares about is maximizing his profits. He could very easily work with the community to build something that's not only profitable but also appealing, but he will have none of that because it is so much CHEAPER to tear it down and build another tower of shit.
Just ask the folks over in South Slope, were he bought 2 parcels of land and then proceeded, along with his Crony Henry Radufsky, to twist and turn the codes so as to maximize his FAR and profits. When the Community came to him with a proposal which would have spread the project out and given him almost exactly the same square footage as he was going to get by going straight up, he told them to shove it up there asses. He even threatened some of the residents.
The people who want to preserve this city are not fools they are Artists and Lawyers and Doctors, and Architects and Construction workers and Mothers and Fathers and Sisters and Brothers. They are people who want to build this city while preserving it's character. They have much in common with everyone else in this City. What they don't have in common with the likes of Katan, Radufsky, Boymelgreen, Gutmen and all the others who paint these issues as Black and White (For or Against) is GREED. These Vultures know that if you give people a choice of Housing (affordable or otherwise) or Blight that most, good, people will choose housing. Thus the Vultures (As always) are using the peoples inborn goodness to get what they (the Vultures) want.
Some one once told me that "The rich will always get the poor to fight their battles"
Case in point

Posted by: my2cents at November 1, 2006 4:09 PM

Crown Heights Proud: "I don't see why preservation and affordable housing should be either/or propositions. The two meet everyday all over the country, to the benefit of everyone."

Please give me examples of this, not just a blanket assertion.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 6:21 PM

6:21 pm You want examples? Mr. Walentas could give you a few tips, but he's too busy selling DUMBO's old crappy architecture for gazillions of dollars.

What part of the sickening real estate explosion in DUMBO/SOHO/TRIBECA don't you understand? Have you been to the city lately (like in the past 20 years)? Do you understand what people are willing to pay many millions of dollars EACH for?

And how that doesn't compare, even remotely, to the prefab condos of the Jersey Shore just accross the water?

It's easy to take something down. Takes a week. It's easy to put something up. A few months.

Problem is, once you replace history-earned character with greed-generated crap, you DIMINISH your property value exponentially, not raise it.

Only the greediest and dumbest developers would let short term financial profiteering undermine the potential for longterm growth.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 10:54 PM

There's a great article in the Times today about the Tate Modern, and how its conversion from a powerplant to a museum trumps even our own fancypants MoMA.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 10:56 PM

anon 10:54--did you not see the word "affordable" associated with my question? CHP said that preservation and affordable housing meet everyday and I wanted to know where. Apparently, so do you.

And, btw, I happen to live at the Jersey Shore in a very tiny house that was built in 1876. I have resisted advice to slap vinyl siding on the outside of it, rip the plaster walls out of the inside of it, or sell it to somebody who would be more than happy to tear it down and re-build to the full outlines of the lot.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 1, 2006 11:38 PM

My apologies. I should know better than to start spouting off at this late hour; I can barely read, let alone take in what I'm reading. I focused on the rest of the paragraph, which spoke about "adaptive housing," but CHP did begin that paragraph referring to "affordable housing", which is what you quoted and which is what you were obviously referring to. Sorry for ignoring that essential detail.

I applaud your choice of housing and your resistance to advice. I covet it, even. Sounds like an awesome place.

Your point is valid. Buildings have only been preserved because the wealthy have been the ones, thus far, who've had the luxury of preserving charm and character at the premium costs of conversion. (As everyone knows only too well who's done even the smallest renovation work, it's cheaper to build from scratch than to work with a preexisting building, and cheaper means affordable. This fact is probably inherent in your point; but it does bring up the issue -- for all new housing, adapted or turnkey -- where is the affordble housing quota?

I don't agree with CHP that it's as easy as getting a bunch of creative people to just get to work and adapt. Creativity has a very steep price tag. What he's talking about takes great wealth.

Unfortunately.

To answer your question, no, I can't think of any examples of adaptive affordable housing.


Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2006 1:36 AM

Is it just me, or would this be the perfect site for a contemporary arts museum that leverages the existing structure of this industrial building (think the Tate Modern in London.) Imagine what a world-class architect could do with this site for a museum!

1. It sits in the most dynamic arts district in Brooklyn.
2. It has incredible views of Manhattan.
3. It would be accessible by ferry from multiple places in Manhattan.
4. Plus, it seems like it would be (relatively) easy to add an additional JMZ train stop on the Williamsburg Bridge right on Kent Avenue.

The Guggenheim always wanted another site in the city, why not here?

I'm dreaming, right?

Posted by: Karl at November 2, 2006 2:56 AM

Thanks, anon 1:36. Just wanted to acknowledge that I read your apology, and I totally agree with you.

In my opinion, the last time old buildings were transformed into affordable housing was at the end of the 70s, when the city was going bankrupt and tenants started converting suddenly empty loft buildings.

ps: you'd be welcome at my house anytime. bring tools.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2006 9:57 AM

Karl, I'm the one who mentioned the Tate Modern above(10:56pm) -- great minds think alike!!!!

And just today, there's an article about the Whitney looking for more space and having an identity crisis. I completely agree with you -- we should start lobbying the whitney to use this building!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2006 12:50 PM

9:57 am -- I will certainly take you up on the offer, if you visit my project first (bring a crew). What I'm working on is kind of adaptive too, I guess, in more ways than one: I found a big old building and got my whole family -- parents, brother, business partner -- to invest together and live there together. Yeah I know, yikes. But you know what? So far -- through the ordeal of purchasing and designing and begining construction -- we've actually all been having a lot of fun, so I'm hoping we'll all get along when it's actually NICE.

Come by anytime -- it's really an interesting thing to see at this phase! izmonk@gmail.com

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2006 12:54 PM

Everyones comments are way out of scope. I've lived in williamsburg for many years now and been an advocate for the reuse and preservation of many great, mostly industrial buildings. It's tricky with Domino b/c it's unclear how much can actually be reused -> as it was used for heavy manufacturing for so many years it is yet to be determined how much will need to be refurbished/demonished before it is deemed "safe." In general, I think we are building too many residential units in brklyn and it does not seem sustainable to me. I like the idea of converting Domino to a museam. Great idea. Converting it to something that is will generate some jobs/revenue is a smart course of action.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2006 11:13 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions