« House of the Day: 23 South Portland Avenue Today on the Forum »
September 25, 2007
BREAKING! LPC Approves Historic Designation for Domino
Just moments ago, the Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously voted to designate the Domino Sugar refinery building as a New York City Landmark, ending once and for all months of speculation about the historic manufacturing building's fate. Although the site's owner had in recent months come around to the idea of preserving the exterior of the refinery (which actually includes three buildings, the filter house, the pan house and the finishing house), today's vote adds a nice layer of legal comfort to the development plan, which is still in the planning stages. One member of the commission said it was regrettable that the Domino's iconic sign was not included in the designation but said she hoped it could be saved "through the powers of persuasion." LPC Chair Robert Tierney said the factory "celebrates a time when industrial Brooklyn was king and Domino was its crown" and that the landmark designation "underscores LPC's commitment to preserving industrial Brooklyn." Update: On the jump, Michael Lappin, CEO of CPC Resources, provides the developer's perspective on today's news. Notice the preemptive strike at any attempt in the future to add any additional structures on the Domino site to the designation.
On LPC's Plate Tomorrow... [Brownstoner] GMAP
CPC Shows and Tells Its Plans for Domino [Brownstoner]
Plans for 'New Domino' Released by City Planning [Brownstoner]
Domino photo by krad
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY MICHAEL LAPPIN
PRESIDENT & CEO, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION CORPORATION /
CPC RESOURCES, INC.
New York, September 25, 2007 -- CPC Resources applauds today's action by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the former Domino Sugar refinery structure as an official landmark. This is an important first step toward the creation of a new waterfront development that is tied into the existing Williamsburg community. The New Domino reflects the true legacy of New York, providing a home where people of diverse economic and cultural backgrounds can live together and form welcoming, enduring communities.
While today's designation will add significant cost to our development budget, we believe it also affirms the important balance between the new and the old. We plan on achieving this balance, the preservation of generous open space, and the community's consistently articulated need for affordable housing - an objective that reflects CPC's mission - all within the height guidelines of the Williamsburg-Greenpoint rezoning of 2005. In fact, the design we have proposed, which comprises 2,200 units including two 30-story towers and two 40-story towers, is what allows the entire project to be economically viable given the additional cost of the preservation.
We also agree with the Commission's overall finding that the refinery complex alone represents the site's historical significance. We look forward to transforming a site that has been walled off for a hundred years into a showpiece of affordable housing and park-like waterfront access for all.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2330
Comments
It certainly is an ugly old pile of bricks isn't it?
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:40 PM
Whoa, major news. That's great news for sure. The building needed preserving, as Williamsburg's history and waterfront character is eroding fast. Think the "Dutch Mustard" building.
Posted by: jbjb at September 25, 2007 2:41 PM
Huh? It's beautiful!
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:41 PM
Someday, future citizens of this city will look back on the lunatics who occupy public office and say "Yes, it is fitting such fools would consider such a hulking monolith a landmark of their depraved and wasteful civilization".
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:46 PM
Well, it may be interesting and historic, but beautiful it ain't.
It must have been a really grim place to work. I imagine hot, sweaty, windowless caverns filled with steaming nightmarish machinery and molasses-covered workers. Blechhh.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:49 PM
i agree that future generation's will be very puzzled as to why this old hunk of junk is landmarked. They will reverse the decision and tear this piece of crap down. You preservation types are nuts. Old factories should be demolished.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 2:52 PM
And out of grim factory situations can come housing, recreational, museum and retail space, both preserving what made Brooklyn an important industrial town, and housing people in the future. Who wants to live or work in soulless modern buildings, with no character or history? One could easily argue that today's modern office building is no better in many ways. How much actual real fresh air is circulated in one of these plastic monstrosities? I'm certainly not saying conditions at the Domino factory were idyllic, far from it, but if we don't keep the past, we repeat it. Creative re-use is always preferable to complete distruction.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:16 PM
Landmarking isn't a friggin' beauty contest! The site is very significant to the development of Brooklyn, NYC and America, and you know what - that entials some not-so pleasant elements such as the treatment of workers, and unfair trade practices. Is it better to just forget all of that ever happened?
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:21 PM
I'm not saying it shouldn't be a landmark, I'm just saying that it is a remarkably ugly building. I think it will be a challenge to carve out nice living spaces in that funerial hulk. The industrial buildings in SOHO have huge windows -and they are really beautiful. This thing is a monument to bad labor conditions. And to the rapacious Havermeyers too I suppose.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 3:32 PM
This "thing" is indeed a monument to bad labor conditions, and to a lot of other things: the courage and dignity of factory laborers, the danger and rawness of old smokestack industries, and the economic vitality and opportunity of a time when Brooklyn, and not China, turned out stuff by the shipload. It is a monument to geography--shipments of sugar cane (or rubber for spaldeens, or cotton for garment mills)--so THAT'S why we were built on a harbor! (And here we thought it was for the future condo views!) Finally, it is a monument to collective memory--a part of Brooklyn's generally unremarkable skyline with a profound cultural significance arising straight out of its pug-ugliness. The high-rise-buyers of Williamsburg should have to look at it every day of their lives; methinks they will want to, since part of what they're paying a premium for is a Disneyfied version of "edge" and "grit." (There's a condo named "Edge"--are they going to build another next door and call it, perhaps, "La Gritte"?)
I suggest again: turn Domino into a world-class museum of New York's industrial past, before our children forget that there was ever a time when men and women made something on our shores besides web pages and panini.
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at September 25, 2007 3:49 PM
Ha Ha Issac, what will you do now?
No one asked you to be rich and jewish, now eat it
Posted by: mench at September 25, 2007 4:09 PM
Brenda,
"web pages and panini"
C'est bon!
I don't think anything particularly glamorous was ever made in Williamsburg. Sugar, pencils, mustard, rope, not exactly compelling items to draw the attention of children or anybody else. Most of this banal stuff was made in cruddy factories like this one. Thank goodness that Dickensian phase of history is over in Brooklyn. I would not shed a tear to see this factory imploded. On the other hand if somebody wants to rehab it into luxury condos for the young and very affluent, fine.
What I'm saying is that this building does not have what it takes to capture the imagination. It is just a scrap tossed to preservationists who think it is a big deal.
I don't care about it. I can't imagine many "civilians" do.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 4:29 PM
Jeez... great. For those of us who actually live nearby it means more years of urban blight at our doorstep. The reality is blindly landmarking derelict buildings without a reasonable plan for reuse virtually guarantees that the hulking shell will remain empty for many more years. A monument to past manufacturing greatness could have been achieved without resorting to landmarking.
I bet the "affordable" housing will be contained in this old building, with small airless windows.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 4:32 PM
I'm not an architect, but I can see the potential of these buildings for creative adaptive reuse. Just takes some imagination and some money to get something we will be flocking to, like they do at the Tate Modern in London.
Brava, Brenda, for telling it like it is. I agree, museum space would be ideal here. I still also have to go back to the local example of the former Nabisco bakery, now called Chelsea Market on 19th and 9th Ave. Brilliant use of the old factory, its artifacts, and combining retail, and in this case, office space. They could have easily torn down that monument to industry, too. Thank goodness people with vision were allowed to create a truly special place.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 4:58 PM
Chelsea Market was built in a structure that vastly exceeds existing zoning bulk (The Nabisco factory). They were not being charitable. This building doesn't offer such advantages, and its design is going to be prohibitively expensive to adapt to a modern use.
No developer will waste his money on this thing. All you hipsters better start donating money, or figuring out a way to use government authority to take money from the people to finance your dreams.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 5:29 PM
I agree with 5:29.
This is not a vast empty warehouse that can be readily adapted to other uses. It is a purpose built factory for the refinement of sugar, which means it is filled with all sorts of heavy machinery and windowless expanses of grimy mucky factory guts.
I predict it will just sit there for years. Vacant, ugly, and unloved. I don't know what the preservationinsts are smoking, or when it became imperative to focus only on the very ugliest buildings from the past. Beautiful houses and commercial buildings are being demolished every day and the preservationists are only interested in saving unusable industrial eyesores such as this. The movement has lost its meaning, it has lost its way, that is an unfortunate loss for all of us.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 7:28 PM
Sure a "Tate Modern-Brooklyn" would be great. However neither the City, State or any cultural institution is stepping up. And since the land is owned by a private developer, unless someone is willing to pony up, they're going to look for the biggest return on their investment. Now by landmarking this ugly, massive structure, you preservationists have almost guaranteed 40+ story sky scrapers to compensate for the loss of buildable land.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 7:40 PM
Mmmmmm, panini....
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 7:52 PM
7:40
I think you have just hit the nail on the head.
Attention Municipal Art Society: read the 7:4o post and get a clue.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 8:00 PM
Uh, 7:40, et al - do you have the costs associated with preservation vs. demolition, or are you just working off the developer's assertion? The fact is that there will be significant costs associated with demolition, remediation, etc. throughout the site. The refinery will essentially be a new building within an existing building - there are not significant incremental costs associated with remediation, since they are removing the entire interior. So - either way they have a lot of demolition, either way hey have a lot of new construction. The developer is crying about the costs of preservation, but hasn't shown how that would be significantly more expensive than demolishing the building and replacing it with a 15 story apartment. (Yes, it will be more expensive, but CPC is making out like it will orders of magnitude more expensive - BS.)
Further, CPC is claiming that they comply with the waterfront rezoning, and that's just a load of crap. The height and density on their waterfront site is marginally higher than what was approved for the rest of the neighborhood, but they are also asking for almost double theallowed height and density on their inland parcel.
CPC is looking to max out their FAR at the community's expense, and crying poverty over preserving one building - one 12 story building on one half of one block of a 6 block development site. They bought an industrial site for less than $60 million, and even at the lower density of the existing waterfront zoning, and even with preservation, and even with half a block of (voluntary) open space, the cost per buildable square foot is a gift. Compare that to the $25+ million that the Dutch Mustard site went for.
Don't get me wrong - this is a great project, but it is a great project because of the preservation, because of the open space, because of the affordable housing and (hopefully) because of the compliance with the actual waterfront rezoning.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 10:30 PM
I've seen the inside of huge commercial baking and food factories and I'm betting that the Nabisco factory was much more than simply an open warehouse. We're talking huge mixing vats, conveyer belts, ovens, packing machinery, more conveyer belts, specialized huge heavy machinery, pipes for water, waste, the works. OK, a sugar factory has huge machinery, I get that, but skilled factory demolition goes on all the time, I'm sure they can get the tools and the right people to do it. Using the factory's interior as an excuse to not landmark it, or preserve it is a poor excuse.
I admit, I find much of the CPC project scary, but still, some preservation is better than none, and if nothing else, will be a precident for other future sites. Hopefully they will allow some creative minds to go for it, and do something worthy.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 11:56 PM
no one is going to a museum in the middle of nowhere. I miss the old Purina storage vats much more than I would ever miss this building.
Brooklyn's waterfront is full of history and this is a teeny tiny part of it. I would also be willing to bet there's some sort of toxic sludge laying around on the site somewhere.
Posted by: slick at September 26, 2007 2:59 AM
I think people come to New York to see great art at the Met, the Frick, MOMA, etc. and to see a Broadway show, and to shop and dine at amazing boutiques and restaurants.
Nobody is interested in seeing a derelict factory in Williamsburg. There are plenty of those all over the country.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 9:47 AM
And no one would ever want to live in old factory buildings, either. What an absurd idea. Right.
The lack of vision here is staggering.
Posted by: guest at September 26, 2007 10:42 AM
While we're all waiting an hour for the L train every morning, reflect on how great it is that 1/8 of housing is yet to be developed due to the "cost of design". Whether you think it is beautiful or not, if it is empty, then it means slightly fewer people clogging up Williamsburg and our lacking transportation system...
And honestly, low income housing isn't as casually delineated as you're implying. They can't just say, "we promise we're eventually going to put it all in there..." and then build up the site around the existing factory. The Department of Buildings does have some standardization policies...
Posted by: guest at September 30, 2007 8:37 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.