« Two Steps Forward on Reining in Contractors Head-Scratching at 532 Clinton Avenue »

November 17, 2006

Water Street Showdown: Guttman to Gut Dumbo?

building
If you're wondering what the next preservation fight is gonna be, we've got a pretty good idea. Joshua Guttman, who has earned almost universal contempt for the lack of respect he has shown for both his tenants and the building code, is prepping to tear down 205 Water/188 Plymouth Street in Dumbo, we hear. The way things are shaking out, it's going to be a sprint to the finish line. Preservationists (including the DUMBO Neighborhood Association) are scrambling to save the 19th Century foundry, which was built by E.W. Bliss, a builder of the Brooklyn Bridge, just as Guttman is erecting a scaffolding. Landmarks may hold a hearing as soon as next month but it's not clear whether Guttman will have already received the green light to begin demolition before then. As an aside, it looks like Scarano was the architect of record on this project last Spring until he lost his self-certification rights. GMAP DOB




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:27 AM | Comments (29)
Categories: Preservation

Comments

POS. Tear it down and put something better up.

These preservationist are brick hugging irrationals. Save your fight to preserve something wonderful, not any building that is over a hundred years old. These same preservationists will be the ones opposed to tearing down the ugly projects of today in the future.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 10:25 AM

yeah! wonderful buildings are the ones that are only 10-20 years old, haven't you heard?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 10:58 AM

why do most of the commenters on this website act like children and only understand extremes. 10:58 you speak exactly to 10:25's point - the irrational attitude that all new construction sucks and all old buildings are wonderful. this building is unremarkable and uninteresting. who cares if some contractor used this building 100 years ago. should we save every old building as a monument to the past? that's pathetic. even though guttman sucks, and is certainly responsible for some fugly buildings that's no reason to stop him from developing his property. either landmark all of dumbo and turn it into yee olde time new york waterfront / south street seaport east or get over it.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 11:06 AM

11:06 makes a good point. however, until developers step it up and make new construction that is both creative and interesting but also ages well, i'm with the brick-huggers.

Posted by: janelle at November 17, 2006 11:11 AM

What would this structure be preserved for?

Regardless of its aesthetic value (which appears marginal), a small 19th century warehouse in a residential area isn't very useful.

I like the waterfront industrial buildings generally, but think there are only a small number of superior examples that are worthy of preservation efforts (the redhook warehouses come to mind).

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 11:25 AM

I don't live in DUMBO, and from the picture above it looks like this particular structure is in back knick and not remarkable looking, but part of the draw of Dumbo is the industrial feel of the neighborhood and adaptive reuse of warehouses. It is a bit like Tribeca in that sense. I imagine the concern is that if you tear down too many (not all are worth preservation imo), you lose that industrial feel and end up becoming a small neighborhood of towers, which isn't what really attracted people in the first place.

Posted by: lp at November 17, 2006 2:08 PM

well if we assume that short sighted developers are driven by greed then surely even they would realise that people still pay crazy premiums for 'loft' type warehouse conversions. this would mainain the feel of the area and provide good returns for investors. it works a treat in London even in deprived and dusty areas.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 2:55 PM

anyhow it will probably 'catch fire' mysteriously at any moment...

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 2:57 PM

I do live in DUMBO and came here because I love the industrial, old-timey, waterfront vibe. What I see happening is ugly apt buildings popping up like mushrooms, and I would like to see the context maintained. Spot demolitions like the ones we have witnessed in our 'hood recently have been replaced by non-contextual atrocities. I don't mind being called a brick-hugger. I like bricks, especially the ones that are here now.

Posted by: Joey at November 17, 2006 2:58 PM

Dumbo context?

How about a working shipyard, a garment shop or another power transformer?

This was a grubby crumbling light industrial area until recently.

Jacques Torres doesn't get to define context and neither do you.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 3:53 PM

Can we please remember that to be preserved it would be designated by the LANDMARKS Preservation Commission....the commission that was set up to preserve buildings like the original Penn Station. It is not in existence to stop all change and save everything that is old.

I'm sure Guttman will want to do something horribly ugly and badly built in that location, but that is not for the LPC to make a judgement on. This building does not warrant designation as a landmark. Let them focus on more important pieces of New York history and architecture.

Posted by: anon at November 17, 2006 4:00 PM

I live in Dumbo and I'm on the fence about this one. While I agree that being old is not in itself justification for reclamation, the fact is that Dumbo is very small area, and it would only take a handful of additional knock-downs and bad build-ups to fundamentally alter the style of neighborhood. Also, this particular building, though modest, has distinctly 19th Century characteristics; a lot of the old buildings in Dumbo are by contrast early 20th Century and have nowhere near the same "handmade" appeal...

Posted by: Rascal at November 17, 2006 4:37 PM

when people want to preserve buildings like this, I start to see why these buildings mysteriously catch fire.

Posted by: anon at November 17, 2006 4:49 PM

Hey - have any one you posters who have written snotty comments like "it should burn down" or that this building is a not extraordinairy or worth saving in anyway ACTUALLY SEEN IT??
Well if you had bothered to look and perhaps educate yourself before you expressed yourself, you would have seen that this building is a remarkable example of 19thC waterfront industrial architecture. It is actually large, goes all the way through the block from Water Street to Plymouth Street with beautiful brick detail covered up by a crappy ( and hazardously falling to the sidewalk) stucco job. It is one grand open space with huge celestory skylights - it would make a fantastic museum or studio or a light manufacturing space - THAT goes out to the snots who talked about Dumbo's context. Just so you know, there are plenty of people who wish to maintain Dumbo's mixed-use zoning and therefore preserve Dumbo's unique sense fo place - to keep the industrial /manufacturing / artisitic vibe real, while allowing for responsible CONVERSION of existing irreplaceable structures.
So - if you are a fan of tearing down and building up, then go move into those hideous apartments the Orthodox built in Williamsburg, or maybe Co-Op City. Why are you even reading this blog, which describes itself as "Writing about an unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define" ? This building helps to define a historic neighborhood, it is valuable, it is beautiful, and it is re-usable.

Posted by: shaggy at November 17, 2006 6:52 PM

PS - artist Tom Otterness was renting studio space in either this building or the building just next to it - but he has recently left. If buildings such as this were protected, the landlords might be less inclined to kick great atists like Otterness (or lesser known but just as valuable artists) to the curb hoping to tear down their low rise, expansive light filled spaces so that they may build tall, shoddy, cramped studios and make more money.

Posted by: shaggy at November 17, 2006 7:04 PM

Thank you shaggy, and well said!

I'm interested in context. DUMBO is being slowly dismantled, and with it goes the history. I'm not saying it is the most beautiful building around, but it does add to the brick aura of the area, and deserves to be included in the Historic District that the LPC will hopefully be designating soon.

Posted by: Joey the brick-hugger at November 17, 2006 7:10 PM

Burn it.
I go by there all the time.
NYC has a responsibility to allow owners the highest and best use of the real estate. Preserving a burned out warehouse that _not_ a piece of art hardly qualifies.
What I'm hearing is 'I moved to this fake gritty area but I live in an overpriced and overhyped condo'. If all the grittiness gets sanitized and too many condos get built, we'll just be another version of manhattan, but with terrible noise and no transporation. Then my property values will go down.

Quit whining. This isn't a 'landmark'; it is just old

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 7:37 PM

yo, four-pee-em: LPC was created to preserve buildings like Penn Station AND neighborhoods (e.g.: the first, Brooklyn Heights) where the sum is greater than the parts. i won't belabor the context issue; several earlier posts have it right.

and 7:37, NYC (and all governments) have a responsibilty to protect the health and welfare. courts have long established that this includes historic preservation. that's one way your proverbial 'highest and best use' gets defined.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2006 7:54 PM

AW shaggy-scooby dooby doo. live work be dumb in D-U_M-B_O

Posted by: anon at November 18, 2006 9:33 AM

must ... have .. . . glass ... . . uh ... front .. . . .. fronted . ... .. . uh .. uh .. . . glass fronted .. .. . buiding . . .. new .. . .. uh uh .. .. everything . .. . . everything new . .. .... only .. . . .. stainless . . .. appliance .... brand new glass front . .. . .. uh uh uh ... . buiding . . .. all else .. .... must be . .. .. uh . . .. . destroy . .. . .uh uh . .... . i .. cut .. off . my .. own .. broken .... leg and .. replace .. with . crappy ... metal .. copy . ... . . i win . . .. uh uh .. i win . . . again!

Posted by: the intelligence at November 18, 2006 3:08 PM

Another hi-rise in Dumbo is just redundant! There is already an over population of hi-rises in this very small neighborhood--and Units are not selling the way they used to. Both Clocktower apartments and Sweeney apartments are languishing for months in a static market, 70 Washington never sold out, J Condo may be half full (but is not sold out). The numerous projects in Williamsburg are failing to sell. It's time to stop putting up these ugly, unimaginative buildings and preserve some of the beauty and history of these neighborhoods. There needs to be more attention paid to city planning instead of just giving the developers their way. Based on his horrific record, Guttman should be banned from developing any more real estate in New York City. The fact that the city continues to give him permits is astonishing. He's going to end up killing someone.

Posted by: Clocktower at November 18, 2006 6:31 PM

IF Guttman was a responsible developer, then I wouldn't have a problem but chances are he will put up another shithole.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 19, 2006 4:33 PM

I am a small developer who is thinking about buying an old manufacturing warehouse near this site. My plans are to restore the brick and build relatively affordable loft style condos and commercial space. I see no profitable reason not to integrate the old, cobble stone, funky integrity of DUMBO into my project. That is why people want to live there in the first place, right?

So, I hope this developer is respectful and builds a structure people will appreciate. If it's not the original structure, it should be better than the original. That would mean respecting the integrity of the neighborhood and adding energy efficient, structurally sound and safety conscious amenities.

Let's all cross our fingers!

Posted by: Anonymous at November 19, 2006 11:58 PM

i have mixed feelings about this site but it does have a fantastic iron water-tower high above it. something you don't see everyday.
maybe if it were not g-man doing the project there would not be as much debate. but, if you walk to the next block, at Bridge & Water, you see g-man's work in progress and its not looking to good.
i vote un-decided on this one, but i will miss the water-tower.

Posted by: Jk at November 20, 2006 2:52 PM

you asses if you do your research you will see that guttman dosent even own the damn building why the hell do you pick on him

Posted by: no one u know at November 25, 2006 8:58 PM

Please don't leave everyone in suspense tough-guy. Tell everyone who actually owns this property.

Posted by: none at November 27, 2006 2:35 PM

look it up yourself on property shark. i don't have to do your research for you.

Posted by: no one you know at November 29, 2006 5:40 PM

205 water st llc duh!!!! what did guttman ever do to you that you have such a problem with

Posted by: anny at November 29, 2006 9:36 PM

So then you know who the partners are that formed 205 Water Street, LLC.
Please explain then how they have removed themselves from the other vested interests.

Posted by: none at November 30, 2006 5:12 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions