« Stuckey, We Hardly Knew Ye BAM Cultural District: Alive If Not Exactly Kicking »

June 14, 2007

Brooklyn's Waterfront Gets Boost from Nat'l Trust

In the wake of the destruction of some the Brooklyn waterfront's most historic structures, including the Revere Sugar factory, the Dutch Mustard building and the Greenpoint Terminal Market, the National Trust for Historic Preservation will today announce that it is adding the entire area from the Sunset Park through Greenpoint to its list of America's 11 most endangered historic places. “The buildings really represent an important part of Brooklyn’s heritage, and it would be a tragedy to lose it,” Richard Moe, president of the trust, said in an interview. “We’re very concerned that there’s such a rush on to demolish everything.” While presence on the list does not stop any of the buildings from death or disfigurement, it does give the issue a national profile and, hopefully, adds to political pressure for government to act on a local level to save an important part of the city's heritage. Timed with the release of this news, the Municipal Art Society launched a new website this morning called SaveIndustrialBrooklyn.org that details the architectural and historic context for many of the waterfront structures. It also has a very cool interactive map (shown above) with the 411 on over 50 buildings in the footprint of the National Trust's designation. As Mr. Moe puts it, “This is a problem that can be fixed — it’s not too late.” As we've said before, tearing down these buildings is not only short-sighted but potentially bad business. Their continued presence, whether converted in condominiums or turned into homes for arts institutions and other public uses, will only enhance the texture, and ultimately the dollar value, of the waterfront as a whole. Update: We've posted a few photos from this morning's press conference on the jump.
Brooklyn Waterfront Called Endangered Site [NY Times]

National Trust regional director Wendy Nicholas

MAS head Kent Barwick

Pratt Urban Planning Guru Ron Schiffman

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1381

Comments

The government should not only preserve the buildings, but give incentives to cultural institutions to move into them. I think Walentas' example of inviting Galapagos to Dumbo is the kind of long-term thinking that the government could implement, in order to not only freeze the area in time, but to give it a thriving future (a waterfront of condos and a park packed with strollers is not exactly an exciting future -- see upper west side riverfront).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 9:49 AM

developers get to do whatever they want in this city right now. this stuff truly does not matter.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 9:58 AM

Nice to see the Municipal Arts Society finally waking up. The tragedy of the arson of the Greenpoint Terminal may leave a legacy of some sensible preservation.

Posted by: GrandPa at June 14, 2007 10:05 AM

That's the spirit! Get demoralized and let them run rampant.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:05 AM

Interesting comment about what Walentas is doing with Galapagos. One could argue that government intervention is not needed as the private sector will offer these incentives if it increases the value to the area, Walentas is an example of that happening. He's doing this because he sees that it will increase the attractiveness of DUMBO where he owns a significant amount of land.

He did the same thing with non-cultural businesses as well, offering free or low cost rent to many of the shops that are located there. This helped to seed the retail market and speed up the rate at which new businesses opened.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:15 AM

Yes, but Walentas is a very very VERY unique developper. There is no one like him; he develops entire communites, not just buildings (and most people despise how he does it and the results he achieves, but that's a whole other thread).

You cant expect any other developper to show even an ounce of that guy's vision. They just see the bottom line from the immediate project at hand.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:24 AM

Brownstoner is smoking crack AGAIN! Preserve the Brooklyn waterfront? Preserve what? Are you $@%king kidding us? Please don't confuse old, decrepit and outdated with structures that are truly historic and worthy of prevservation. Do you think that your readers were born yesterday? Do you think the rest of us are from Mars and have never taken a boat cruise around Brooklyn before? What the heck are you trying to preserve? There is not a single (yes, I said single) beautiful structure on Brooklyn's entire waterfront worthy of preservation efforts. Give us a break!

The Brooklyn waterfront is a POS. Utterly pathetic. Everything on the waterfront should be completely demolished for the making of parks, marinas and stunning towers (both residential and commercial). In fact, the city would be smart to turn the entire Navy Yard into a massive office complex on the level of Jersey City (yes, relocate Steiner Studios and everything else in it). While you're at it, reclaim the waterfront from the housing projects too(Redhook and Farragut). There is a lot of positive momentum in Brooklyn right now and the goal should be to make our borough the premier destination in the US. Why are you guys so happy to settle for less and mediocrity?

Progressive, forward thinkers see Brooklyn's waterfront as the future model for not only the country but the world! TRUE BROOKLYNITES WANT THE MOST ATTRACTIVE AND APPEALING WATERFRONT IN THE WORLD! That's the problem with all of you stinking newbies. You lack the Brooklyn sense of pride, vision and drive for excellence. You come hear thinking that you're moving into a second class borough with second class citizens and thus you can easily impose your will upon us. That's why it's so important that the rest of the borough must prevent the crunchy granola newbies from taking over the public discourse on Brooklyn's future. If left to them, we would never have a spectacular waterfront, high density development, a thriving downtown, a Brooklyn Bridge Park, or a sports team and arena.

The Brooklyn waterfront can never realize its true potential if we are constrained by what's already there. No. It must be torn down and redone the right way with the goal of creating the most beautiful and functional waterfront in the world.

Lastly, Brownstoner, if you're so infatuated with urban blight and decay, move your ass to Detroit or Cleveland.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:26 AM

Exactly 10:26! These building looks like crap! I'm fine with keeping them but they need to be massively rehabilitated! They way they are now they are old decrepit buildings that anyone would be ashamed of having anywhere nearby!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:33 AM

This is just another ploy to focus attention on the Domino buildings, try to have them all landmarked which then would prevent any affordable housing from being built in Williamsburg on the site. The preservationist movement in Williamsburg is a scam run by racist white kids.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:34 AM

I kind of agree with the previous poster. The london thames docklands this isnt. Mostly, it is just a bunch of once-functional brick and iron warehouses sitting on land that has probably soaked up a toxic soup.

If a building can be re-used (like Fairway) then let it. Otherwise, knock the sucker down. Nobody is gonna cry. These places were never designed for people (they were designed for unloading goods and making money).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:36 AM

Do you see what people are putting up instead? Have you seen the Jersey waterfront? Are YOU on crack?

There's a reason the real estate market is booming in Brooklyn, and that's because it's brooklyn. Not jersey.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:44 AM

There are plenty of beautiful buildings on the Brooklyn waterfront, though of course not everything old is worth preserving. But here's the big gotcha of 10:26 AM's "progressive, forward thinking" — new development doesn't care about "stunning towers," it cares about maximum FAR and maximum returns. New construction — especially when speculative — is not built better than old construction: it can't be, because no one will spend the time and money to do it.

Here's my take: I would support pulling down the finest building on the waterfront in Brooklyn (or wherever, really) if it were replaced by a truly beautiful building. I would make this trade every time. But! this trade happens so seldomly we might as well call it a (European) fable.

10:26 reminds me a bit of Krushchev, who used to find groves of smokestacks beautiful since they were a symbol of power — just substitute 10:26 "stunning towers" or "sports teams" for smokestacks and you get the same mindset. But stunning architecture, by and large, is not built in this country and especially in this city. NYC is about making money, and making nice buildings isn't really cost-effective.

The exception is parks. There's great park design going on right now both here and abroad, and I'm glad the Brooklyn waterfront will be a part of that. And — in summation — developing parks and preserving some interesting old buildings are compatible desires.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:47 AM

10:26. The most beautiful parts of brooklyn were built and designed by people over a century ago. Anyone alive today that's building anything in brooklyn is adding the most hideous, ignorant bunch of buildings ever to have disgraced this borough. Take a look at some of the vomit piling up in red hook, South slope, actually ANY neighborhood with a new development or new building. Friggin T A C K Y. I don't want your old school crap. I want old crap.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:49 AM

while you're at it why don't you tear down soho and tribeca and hey perhaps you can knock down dumbo and build some cross-island super-expressways. one right through the villages would be nice for the jersey people to come to the nets games. you make bob moses super proud today 10:26

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:49 AM

I agree with 10:26. Have you ever seen a postcard of the Brooklyn waterfront that didn't have as it centerpiece the Brooklyn Bridge? Why? Because that's all we have. The Brooklyn sucks. It doesn't have one landmark on the waterfront that represents our borough (other than the bridge) that would make us proud.

Brownstoner, I typically agree with you on many issues but you got this one wrong. I think Brooklynites are looking for a multitude of attractions on the waterfront whether it's parks, marinas or high end architecture that's postcard picture perfect. Right now that doesn't exist.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:56 AM

"Brand new stinking newbies" are the people who made brooklyn what it is now, and CONTINUE to make brooklyn vital -- the thing you're so "proud" of.

People who've lived here for years are complacent and paranoid. Newbies do want change, but they want it with vision. It's so easy to destroy everything. We're trying to make something OUT OF what exists.

Your argument reminds me of the ones that patriotic americans make when they're feeling a tad xenophobic. We're more american because we've been here longer.

Oh shut up fool.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:57 AM

10:56 = there are many cities with "parks, marinas or high end architecture that's postcard picture perfect". Go there.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 10:59 AM

The Brooklyn waterfront has probably the best views of any major city in the world (the Manhattan skyline, Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn and Verazzano Bridges, and river and ocean views). Yet, it's not a destination of any kind. That's sad and unfortunate.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:00 AM

Wow, this thread really makes me love Walentas. If he hadn't practically bought up all of dumbo, it would've been leveled by now, to make way for whatever you people think of as high end architecture (you want to throw some names out? I'm just curious if you have any idea what high end architecture actually looks like).

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:02 AM

I agree with 10:26. How about signature buildings and structures worthy of future historical merit and landmarking being built on the Brooklyn waterfront, e.g., the Sidney Concert Hall. The poster is advocating making Brooklyn's waterfront a major international destination. I don't get why people are having a problem with this. Can someone please explain why?

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:12 AM

true, many of the old industrial waterfront structures aren't architectural gems and don't deserve to be saved on the basis of their design merit. however, another 3 (or 30) glass towers w/expensive condos for millionaires aren't to great, either, even if they build in "publically accessible open space," which aren't really parks, and aren't really open.

loss of the graving dock in red hook was historically significant. loss of the revere sugar not so. distinctions need to be made.

i think much of the impulse toward preservation these days actually comes from folks who care less about stopping time and keeping everything as is, and more about stopping the heinous march of concrete and glass and seems to be the dominant characteristic of the current (historic) building boom.

the feeling of place and neighborhood is one of bklyn's most appealing qualities, one that will wane in inverse proporation to the number of lux towers erected.

Posted by: d at June 14, 2007 11:16 AM

Would be cool to reclaim some of these buildings as cultural institutions in the same vein as the Tate Modern in London. I think there could be a very thoughtful way to both preserve a bit of the history and attract new resources to the area. It's not a zero sum game!

Posted by: Rosie at June 14, 2007 11:16 AM

The trouble with the views of people who think with the pumped up hysteria of 10:26, if that in throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you lose much of what makes a successful waterfront work in the first place.

When we look over to Manhattan from Bklyn, what is attractive about the skyline is the almost organic mixture of old and new buildings, architectural styles, and functions of those buildings. The beauty of a Woolworth Building, the Met Life Building, Empire State Building and Chrysler Building, are highlighted by some of the shinier, newer glass and steel tower buildings, which reflect the sunlight as well as the lines of their neighboring buildings. All of these are nestled in the lower level buildings like the Piers in the South Street Seaport, the ferry terminals, and the other warehouse buildings on the waterfront. Anchoring them all together are the roadways and highways, especially on the FDR Drive. This was not planned, for the most part, it evolved, and the sight of it draws the eyes of the world, because you can see the history of the city in the silhouette.

How many people come to downtown Detroit to marvel in the new central city, which looks like a science fiction set of glass and steel towers? Robocop, the movie about technology gone mad, worked there for a reason.

The Brooklyn waterfront can offer an opportunity to be just as diverse in style, form and function, but only if the old and new are allowed to co-exist. While people like 10:26 would love to ring the waterfron with shiny new towers, I hope that that is never allowed to happen. It is possible to adapt factory and industrial buildings to new use - the Tate Modern example can work here, especially in buildings like the Domino Factory, it could have worked in the now burnt Greenpoint complex. Of course not every old pile of bricks should be, or needs to be saved. But to simply let developers, who have shown to be a group mostly devoid of imagination, have at it, would be to see the entire waterfront looking like the Wmsburg waterfront does now - a sun blocking hodgepodge of overly large, architecturally unimaginative piles of overpriced real estate.

That is not the waterfront that will draw the attention of the world, it will only show that NYC is only a city of commerce, not innovative 21st century city planning. I find it interesting that many European cities, who have waayyy more architectural treasures to work around, have come up with the most interesting new buildings, and the most innovative ways of integrating old and new. They should be coming to us, here in NY, to get ideas. That will not be happening anytime soon, unless we stop putting profit before planning.

I hate people telling me what "true Brooklynites" want. I am very proud of the borough I have lived in for over a quarter century. It's greatness does not depend on a shiny new waterfront, a Bizarro World stadium/arena, or tall towers.

Posted by: Preservationista at June 14, 2007 11:20 AM

"Brand new stinking newbies" are the people who made brooklyn what it is now, and CONTINUE to make brooklyn vital"

I'm sorry but Brooklyn was already VITAL before you got here and will remain so long after you leave.

I hope you "newbies" stay the heck out of Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst. We don't take kindly to foreigners telling us how to lead and run our lives. Please stay downtown by the projects where you can assert your will with impunity.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:20 AM

Preserving the Brooklyn waterfront is such a joke! There's nothing there! Ha! LOL!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:34 AM

I'm all for making Brooklyn's waterfront a major destination point in the city. How about making part of it into something like Chicago's Navy Pier? We should definitely include an outdoor amphiteather and enclosed concert hall. Perhaps even an all glass Brooklyn musuem of modern art. That would be hot!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:39 AM

I'm all for making Brooklyn's waterfront a major destination point in the city. How about making part of it into something like Chicago's Navy Pier? We should definitely include an outdoor amphitheater and enclosed concert hall. Perhaps even an all glass Brooklyn museum of modern art. That would be hot!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 11:40 AM

By all means let's build the next Sydney Opera House. But start the process and you'll see quickly there is neither the will to hire great design talent nor the money to pay for what would be an incredibly expensive building.

Besides, "real Brooklyners" don't want to sully their borough with foreigners. If you can't stamp Nathan's or cheesecake adverts on the outside, it doesn't count for nothin'.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 12:13 PM

Yes, please move to bay ridge and bensonhurst or any other generic-ville We'll force you to anyway when we impose a minimum IQ for people to live near the east river waterferont.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 12:40 PM

It's instructive to consider what drew the first and second waves of gentrifiers to the Bklyn waterfront: not just killer views and (for the very first pioneers)cheap rents, but a rough-edged post-industrial vibe that makes you feel as if you're posing for your first album cover when all you're doing is drinking a Snapple in front of a graffiti'd brick wall. Call it "atmosphere," "charm," or "context," or whatever--it's a powerful intangible, a sort of chic stakeholding in the collective urban unconscious. And if we knock down all the crumbling factories and fill in all the windswept spaces with shiny high-rises, this particular goose will have been killed for its golden egg, and we'll be left with Miami Beach minus the palm trees (and,come to think of it, the beach). Thus, it would behoove these greedy buggers to look beyond their nose-tips at some way to preserve the waterfront's historic character--its admittedly dubious charms. Maybe a sort of industrial museum or "theme park"...or string of interconnected sites, like a "BrownBelt" (as opposed to a GreenBelt)...that would serve the precious cultural mission of salvaging memories and artifacts of Brooklyn's industrial past...while simultaneously serving the cynical forces of development by retaining some safe and sanitized "edge." (Isn't one of those bloody towers actually called the "Edge"? Or is there a twin tower planned, called the "Bono"?) School groups could come through and see how we once brewed our beer and refined our sugar and cast our steel, and millionaires could sit on their wee little balconied aeries and feel hip for looking at a smokestack (a non-functional one, the best kind). What think, visionaries?

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at June 14, 2007 12:49 PM

i think that brenda from flatbush sounds like she is from bloody england.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 1:18 PM

This whole debate is ridiculous- what "made" Brooklyn was its waterfront - NY is has one of the few protected deep water ports in the world and with containerization, these types of ports are even more valuable. The problem is that Brooklyn is on LI and has no rail link to the mainland. The Port Authority was in fact created to build a rail tunnel under the harbor - some 80 years later and they still haven't done. it. In fact the most recent push to build such a tunnel was killed by the NIMBY Juniper Park Civic Association who somehow got Bloomberg to sign on to their self-centered and economy killing agenda.

So if you want to keep Brooklyn 'as it was' then you should be jumping up and down to get the cross-harbor rail-tunnel built so Brooklyn can take advantage of one of its greatest assets.

The issue isn't saving buildings or neighborhoods - b/c 99% of Brooklyn's waterfront is inaccessible and not part of the the daily lives of the population, so you can't destroy anything by redeveloping the waterfront - what has to be decided is whether we want a 'working' waterfront or one for the 'public'. If its the former then the Government should be investing in the rail tunnel and zoning off key sections for industry to protect it from residential encrouchment. If the city has given up on building a rail tunnel (the only way the port could be economically viable) then you have to allow residential and park development in this area and while you might be able to protect a few structures, in order to open the area up your going to have to bulldoze tons of old buildings (this isnt SOHO - there is no subway access or x-town traffic).
For all of Bloomberg's talk of NYC2030 and environmental initiatives (which I applaud) he has refused to push for the #1 environmental project ever - the rail tunnel - which would once and for all provide an alternative to NY/LI total dependence of truck transportation.

Posted by: David at June 14, 2007 1:46 PM

I think Fairway is a good example of the kind of development that we should strive for. It keeps the past alive while addressing today's needs. Glass towers are just as bad as abandoned buildings. Brooklyn should preserve the sense history that resides in the waterfront. This part of New York's past has already been mostly obliterated from the Manhattan waterfront, so I hope that we can do something to maintain what is left of Brooklyn's maritime heritage.

A good example of the kind of development we should champion is the Distillery District in Toronto.

http://www.thedistillerydistrict.com/frameset.html

It provides a dynamic setting for shops, galleries, reaturants, etc., while maintaining the architecture of the past.

Posted by: Whitbo at June 14, 2007 1:47 PM

A good example of the kind of development we should champion is the Distillery District in Toronto.

http://www.thedistillerydistrict.com/frameset.html

It provides a dynamic setting for shops, galleries, restaurants, etc., while maintaining the architecture of the past.

Posted by: Whitbo at June 14, 2007 1:47 PM

This isn't a either-or issue as 10:26 so desperately tries to frame it. Preserving a handful of old industrial buildings certainly does not preclude building a new concert hall or a bunch of shiny towers; there's still plenty of room for that. Having some older buildings however will add variety and texture to the neighborhoods that will make living in those glass towers a much more pleasant experience.

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 14, 2007 1:59 PM

Brownstoner and Preservationista have it right. If 10:26 and others actually looked at the map above, they'd see that large areas of the waterfront do not have red dots. There are acres of open space on the Williamsburg waterfront, and that's exactly where the city has put parks. There are also a number of very important industrial buildings that the city should protect so that they can be incorporated into new developments.

The one area with lots of red dots is the one area that no one here seems to be arguing about - DUMBO. But even there, there is enough density that preservation can work, and actually be the primary engine for growth. (And Walentas, who is to be applauded for all he has done for DUMBO also needs to be called out for being one of the major voices talking out AGAINST landmarking there.)

Bottom line - there is a lot room on the waterfront (and inland - this designation is not just about the waterfront) for new development and preservation. Some people even call this progressive, smart urban planning. There is even room for preservation, new development and affordable housing - the Domino site is proving that.

The great opera houses and museums that everyone here is talking about? Preserving historic structures isn't standing in the way of that - greed and lack of vision are the culprits. If you took preservation out of the equation, we'd be no closer to a major cultural institution on the Brooklyn waterfront. But the waterfront would be safe for a wall of luxury condos.

Posted by: Halden at June 14, 2007 2:35 PM

The truly unique thing about Walentas is he loves the neighborhoods he developes -- and he lives there. Where does Ratner et al live --as far away as they can!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 3:24 PM

FWIW, 10:26 is also 10:56, 10:57, 11:20, 11:34, 11:39. Lame.

Posted by: Brownstoner at June 14, 2007 3:43 PM

Brenda, what's the point of "salvaging memories and artifacts of Brooklyn's industrial past"? Those old relics are horrific and are only half standing. What is there to salvage? The time has passed. That's like trying to go back in time and salvage memories and artifacts of Brooklyn's agrarian past. Yes, let's knock down entire public housing complexes to put in its place sweeping farmland to remind everyone of Brooklyn farming history and pastime. What a joke. You people sound so pathetic. Yeah, lets get some slaves up in there too, perhaps from Brownsville and East New York, and make it really authentic.

Sorry folks. The Brooklyn waterfront is dead. It died decades ago. Now let's accept this difficult fact, start anew and rebuild the damn thing the right way. Something of the nature of the Sidney Opera house would be an excellent start. I agree with the above posters We should be thinking spectacular and postcard picture perfect. Brooklyn is the greatest "city" in the world and is worthy of a truly magnificent waterfront.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 3:48 PM

and 3:48

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:03 PM

10:26...

You really give new meaning to the term "cut off your nose to spite your face"... Preserving and restoring these old buildings will add value and interest to a waterfront that, yes, does need new development. Destroying everything and building, what did you call them?..."glorious towers" by cheap, greedy developers will not make the Brooklyn waterfront a beacon of example for the country when it comes to development-- it will make it a bad version of Miami Beach.

Also, the guy who says that preservationist are all rich, white racists... you are an idiot. Do you know how many non-white (and white) working class neighborhoods were destroyed because the preservationists were bulldozed by developers and the city planning process? Millions, literally millions, of people who needed affordable housing were cast out so places like Co-op city and Sty-town and half of the Lower East Side below Delancey could be put up.

It is possible, you dimwited little people, to build affordable housing, parks, "glorious glass towers" AND to preserve some of the f-ing history "native" new yorkers like 10:26 seem so anxious to wipe out in the name of progress....

Posted by: Chad at June 14, 2007 4:03 PM

Postcard Picture Perfect makes me want to GAAAAAG.

Thank god New Yorkers are actually cool and would never settle for anything so phoney.

Go live in Australia. There's plenty of room for you there, since all the Ozzies have moved to Brooklyn to get away from the postcard picture perfect place you so want to inhabit.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:07 PM

that's dimwitted Chad...with 2 ts.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:10 PM

One more thing I forgot to add. What's hilarious about the whole "we want a progressive waterfront" argument is that it's totally from the 60s. If you were ACTUALLY progressive and new anything about high-end, cutting edge city planning and architecture, you'd know that it is resoundinly pro-conservation in terms of incorporating exiting structures while building off of and round them.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:10 PM

thanks. dimwitted... got it.

Posted by: Chad at June 14, 2007 4:12 PM

new=knew. I get illiterate when i'm mad.

Is 10:26 just pulling everyone's leg? It's occuring to me that he might just be.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:14 PM

and that is knew, with a silent "k"

Posted by: Chad at June 14, 2007 4:15 PM

10:26 here.

I only posted once. Let's not dilute this healthy debate with childish behavior. Mr. B is obviously feeling the pressure of being on the wrong side of the issue and has pulled out the old trusty "troll card" again. He does this repeatedly whenever he is too harshly criticized; other times he simply removes postings or entire threads. Now be big boy and take your medicine like a man. The Brooklyn waterfront is a disgrace and everyone knows it. Now take THAT Charlie Murphy!

"Preserving a handful of old industrial buildings certainly does not preclude building a new concert hall or a bunch of shiny towers; there's still plenty of room for that. Having some older buildings however will add variety and texture to the neighborhoods that will make living in those glass towers a much more pleasant experience."

Now you're making a little more sense. However, my concern with preservationists is that if you give them a little then they will want everything. These people don't want variety. They only worship sameness and inertia. Give them the Domino Sugar Factory and before long they will put the entire neighborhood on development "lockdown". I live in a historic district and I encourage the preservation of "good old". Now for "bad old", tear it down and tear it down now!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:39 PM

Walentas' gifts are conditional, he expects you to never disagree with him and will banish you from your space if you do.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 4:54 PM

4:39, talk about tarring everyone with the same brush in one swipe. Please show me any examples, especially in NYC, where preservationists (1)got what they wanted in the first place (2) got an inch and took a mile, (3)"...don't want variety. They only worship sameness and inertia". Huh? All of the preservationists on this thread have advocated a mixture of old and new, and have especially advocated the reuse of old buildings like the Domino Sugar Factory to not be dead monuments of the past, but vital public buildings, museums, commercial ventures and housing. It never ceases to amaze me how people can read comments and extrapolate opinions that are nowhere on the page. No one said there was no room or desire for new buildings, only that the best of the old be reused.

And I must ask, Anon 3:48, why would the slaves for your little theme park have to come from Brownsville and East New York? Do people there look more slavelike (whatever that is) than people from other parts of Brooklyn? And why knock the projects down for an agrarian paradise? The best farm lands for Brooklyn circa 1850 are now parts of Park Slope and other posh nabes. Even in a pissed off fantasy parody, the poor get screwed.

Posted by: Preservationista at June 14, 2007 7:02 PM

My concept for an industrial museum or theme park is directly inspired by, yes, agrarian historic sites like Bethpage Village or Hancock Shaker Village, and newer, innovative urban historic sites like Weeksville (and even Williamsburg, which, yes, has taken on the task of documenting its slaveholding past). History isn't pretty, but that's not the point! Workers were boiled alive inside Domino's vats. The borough's industrial story encompasses the history of technology, the labor movement, civil rights, and cultural anthropology, just to name a few. What the Brooklyn Historical Society was able to do with a few glass cases' worth of artifacts was fascinating; imagine how a few of these sites themselves could be reimagined to tell the story on a grander scale, in situ. And we could do it just as the outsourcing of our manufacturing of--well, everything--to China etc. threatens to erase our collective memory of a time when America's city's actually made stuff (besides money and data and gelato)...

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at June 15, 2007 10:15 AM

lets raze it all and make it look like staten island

Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2007 11:21 AM

Brownstoner is a Pavlov dog. He's an absolute idiot. Lives in the ghetto and can't understand how it must change so that everyone can live in peace and harmony. So pathetic!

Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2007 11:58 PM

11:58, you probably live in your Mom's basement, and wish you had a dog named Pathetic.

Since you are on the man's (very sucessful) blog, he must be doing something right. Idiot comments like yours must make him fall out of his chair laughing.

Posted by: Pavlov at June 16, 2007 12:38 PM

« Stuckey, We Hardly Knew Ye BAM Cultural District: Alive If Not Exactly Kicking »

June 14, 2007

Brooklyn's Waterfront Gets Boost from Nat'l Trust

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Get Brownstoner on your Mobile Phone

Latest Restaurant Additions