Admiral's Row: "Extremely High Level of Historic Integrity"

Just donate them to the British or the Germans - they'll cherish them and look after them properly.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:05 AM

The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. The seven aspects of integrity are the integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:18 AM

I guess my question is this: which politician promised this site (vacant) to which developer? That has to be the ONLY explanation for why there's so much political reluctance to save these wonderful historic resources.

This sounds like it could be a slam-dunk adaptive-reuse project, if only some backroom deals hadn't been made first.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:22 AM

houses don't restore themselves, someone has to be interested and motivated to do so. No one has emerged to do that in this case. These houses are toast, let's concentrate on the many other endangered houses in the Wallabout area that are in far better condition and that are just as threatened by redevelopment.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:37 AM

If 9:22 can think of all-caps-only one explanation for why there is political reluctance to save Admirals Row, then s/he just cannot see beyond their own perspective on things.

None of the allegedly corrupt politicians would deny the historic value of these structures. Nor, if they did their homework at Tuesday's poster discussion (or before or since), would they deny that the buildings can be restored. There is quite simply broad consensus that restoring the buildings is not a priority use of public dollars. As I wrote yesterday, if adaptive reuse is going to work here, people who want to save Admirals Row will need to produce realistic financial projections for their alternatives to the Navy Yard's plans. The preservation-minded should also secure letters of intent from prospective tenants. That is how development gets done. It isn't just, "but I want it."

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 9:45 AM

thanks for your drive-by expert's opinion of the structural integrity of these houses. I'll take that over the actaul expert's assessment any day. Were you driving on your way to the prospective developers office?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:09 AM

reading expert studies like this, it is very hard to understand why the BNY wants to destroy part of their own history like this, even though they're talking about building a history museum and visitor center (or whatever they're calling it) out of a far less historic structure. one can only conclude that the BNY people are either a) stupid, b) have another agenda, or c) all of the above.

and although i think money and profit is the BNY's overarching agenda, i imagine that they might come by more money in the end if they preserve these historic structures.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:26 AM

Look, it is the responsibilty of the Government to maintain and care for these buildings, or at least try to. They are publicly-owned buildings which are aknowledged historic resources - this makes them regulated by a raft of environmental review laws, all of which state quite clearly that governmental action should not - if possible - negatively impact them. Asking for private dollars to fix them up is nice, but the governmental agencies need to commit to that ask (i.e., need to construct an RFE in such a way as to solicit all possible alternatives). Anything less is a abrogation of governmental responsbility.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:28 AM

The houses look like they are partially collapsed because the wooden porches and sunrooms have rotted and collapsed. But the main houses themselves, made of brick and stone, are structuraly sound. But they need a full, soup-to-nuts restoration. That would be relatively straightforward but very expensive as anyone who has restored a decrepit brownstone knows. Unfortunately I think these houses have a lot of admirers but no saviors. No one has stepped up and said I will restore them for my company or organization and we will lease them or buy them. Everyone wants somebody else to do it, but that entity has not materialized.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:29 AM

1) No backroom deals have been made. Navy Yard officials have committed themselves to an open RFP process to ensure that everything is on the up and up. Just because you don't understand all of the facts and constraints they are working under, doesn't mean that these people are corrupt. I think we should save our collective outrage for corrupt government officials for those occasions when it's actually happening. If we accuse everyone of corruption, then it starts to lose meaning.
2) The Navy Yard has never really argued that the houses were not historically significant or that, with enough money, they couldn't be restored. The argument has always been (and continues to be) that the amount of money it would take to do so isn't worth it considering that there is only a finite amount of government subsidy to go around. Spending the $30 million to fix up these houses is $30 million that can't go towards affordable housing, or education, or transit. It's a judgement call, and the people whpo are charged with making it have decided it's not worth it. If you disagree, then you have to answer to those people who would have benefitted from the other programs that would have to get funded in order to do this
3)The other argument has always been - what are you going to do with them once they are restored - and is that worth it? Is it really worth $30 million to wind up with boutiques and fancy bakeries across the street from one of the most economically disadvantaged housing projects in the City? Will those residents benefit from that? I don't think so.
4)To the commenter who said that the Navy Yard historical center is a less historical building - on what basis do you make that claim? Do you know anything about the history of these buildings? In reality the Navy Yard historical center building is a SIGNFICANTLY more historic building. It used to be the marine commandants house and is the last building left from a small Marines base that existed on the site. The entire Marines campus was designed by THomas U. Walter, who is one of the deans of American Architecture. He was the 4th architect of the capitol and actually designed significant portions of the capitol building, the library of congress, and many historical buildings in Philadelphia. According to some architectural historians I've spoken with, this is probably the only remaining building of his in New York. The admirals row houses were designed by a staff architect for the Navy. Now you have some facts, now tell me which building is more historically significant.
5) Here's another history lesson. During the late 90's when the City was speaking to the Feds about acquiring the houses, they said that they would only acquire the buildings if the Feds first fixed them up or provided the funds to do so. THe feds said they would have to find the funding to do that and the NOTHING HAPPENED for 8 years until the City said that they would acquire the buildings without the Feds being required to fix them up, but only if that requirement didn't fall on the City. Does the City/Navy Yard's position make more sense now?
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:28 AM

Ella,
way to go.
eloquent and correct.
whoever wrote that the building proposed for the museum is not historic doesn't know the first thing about the Navy Yard.
Thank you.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:36 AM

Kudos to Gowanus Lounge, which said what I've been saying much better than I. Kudos also to Brownstoner, for keeping the Row on the front burner.

The unwillingness to be forthright about what's really going on here fosters more than the usual cynical conspiracy theories. Good ideas for preserving at least the best of the Row AND having room for development have been put forth by both professionals and interested and concerned citizens. They are all dismissed out of hand. Yet when pressed as to why, all we get is that we don't know what we are talking about, or we are asked by self proclaimed apologists to find funding for them. That is not the citizen's job or responsibility to do so, unless hired by the Yard or someone in authority.

They clamor that the need to raze the Row for a supermarket and parking lot is so great that attempts to restore even part of the Row cannot be entertained. Yet when alternatives are suggested, they say that no developers or any money people have been signed on to build said market, so there is no money. So what's the rush to tear down for? As I said yesterday - please! And there is a nearby bridge for sale, too.

Why should any potential "saviours" step up, if they aren't even going to be seriously considered? Why should anyone spend their time and money putting together a plan or proposal if the audition is rigged, and the bulldozers are going to take the show, no matter what?

The complications of ownership and use because of federal gov't claims, military use and subsequent secrecy and lack of public accessibility, historical provenance, the City of New York's involvement, a private company's interests - the Navy Yard, and concerned citizens who mostly want to see the at least the best of the Row preserved in some way, shape, or form, AND the need for income producing development, make this a very complicated stewpot that is being very privately guarded. This in not how our nation's and city's history should be handled.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:47 AM

Ella,

One and possibly three of the Admiral's Row houses were designed by Thomas U. Walter as well. Mr. Walter designed the B Quarter was the home of Matthew Perry when he was in charge of the Navy Yard, before he "opened" Japan.

I don't know where you are getting your information from - the MOU signed by the City & the SHPO from 1996 stipulated that the buildings were going to be demolished, and that HABS documentation was to be done (which it was in 2004 as part of the City ULURP process). Exactly which Federal agency owned the buildings at the time is an intersting question if one is so inclined to investigate. There was a lot of buck-passing among the feds about who was responsible for the properties.

I am not accusing anyone in political agencies of corruption or anything. What I think shoudl happen is an open and real discussion of these houses - based on the responsibilities of the government.

Oh, and the argument about $30 million (fake number by the way) going towards affordable housing and what-not? Can we retire that red herring? It could also by $30 million going towards AIDS research, preventing global warming, or giving every family in the Ingersoll Houses free wifi and the computers to utilize it.

Anon 10:28

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:54 AM

Ella:

I urge you to update the estimated cost via yesterday's Brownstoner comment. For your convenience - here it its:

"The Army Corps of Engineers study that was available for review last night (though not for distribution) put the cost of restoring the ten buildings at about $25 million, significantly less than what the BNYDC has been telling people; what's more, according to one of the engineers manning the tables, eight of the ten houses are still structurally sound. Additionally, even a back-of-the-envelope sketch like the one above from Pratt's Brent Porter shows that there may be much more creative solutions that let the community have its cake and eat it too."

As for the corrupt officials - it's hard to look past the three nearly identical talking points from our distinguished leaders. [See said Brownstoner post]. Also - Marty's contribution to the Atlantic Yard debacle lingers.

Someone is coordinating this. We have a right to be suspicious.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:02 PM

"The unwillingness to be forthright about what's really going on here fosters more than the usual cynical conspiracy theories." Huh?

The Navy Yard has said, 'we're going to build a supermarket in response to the long standing (20 years) community request for one and we're going to tear down the Admirals Row houses to do so because the cost of restoring them is not justified by the rents that will be generated.' Someone can have a philosophical disagreement with that statement, but I fail to see what is not forthright about it.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:18 PM

1) Coordinated public statements by three public officials does not automatically equal corruption. THey all agree about what should be done, so they coordinated their message. That's just the smart thing to do.

2)11:54 - WHere did you get your information that Thomas U Walter designed houses on Admirals Row? I am curious about the source. I have done alot of research on these houses and have never come across that. I would be very interested to know where that comes from and if it is in fact a believable source. Every record I have seen indicates that it was a staff architect for the Navy.

3)Also 11:54 - I am referring to a bunch of letters that went back and forth between the City and Army Corps subsequent to the signing on the MOU.

4) ALso - I don't understand your point about the $30 million (or $25) going to AIDS research. I agree with you - that money could go towards any number of important causes - so what? Why does that disprove my point? My point is that government resources are scarce and that people have to realize that advocating for the government to pay for something means that they will have less money to pay for something else, or they will have to raise taxes. So these proposals need to be subjected to a strict cost-benefit analysis. Is it really worth it to spend this much money on these houses? Or does it make more sense to get a bigger bang for you buck and spend the money on restoring more important buildings in the yard that are not in nearly as bad shape, like the Hospital or the Surgeon's house. Or how about spending the money to help grow Steiner Studios in a way that will allow them to house even more than the 1,000 jobs they already provide (keep in mind that most of those jobs are for middle -class blue collar electricians and carptenters, not Brad Pitt)? I think it's an easy call.

5)11:47 - the problem with your argument is that the ideas that have been put forth are not in fact "good ideas" they are very bad ideas that are masquerading as good ideas but will in fact lead to a complete waste of time and money and not put us any closer to doing anything (either preservation or development) with this important property for many years to come.

Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:20 PM

This is just another tragic example of the failure of federal agencies and major American cities to embrace healthy redevelopment. These buildings should be saved (in deference to the cost, they could be renovated rather than restored), the supermarket built, the Navy Yard invested in still further, public transportation expanded. It would reinvigorate the local economy, create jobs, and give people hope about their urban enviroment. Instead the bureaucrats consistently fail the people.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:23 PM

"Someone is coordinating this. We have a right to be suspicious." Why is the Navy Yard's coordinated rallying of support grounds for suspicion? What should they be doing? Crossing their fingers and hoping that elected officials support the project? They believe in the project and are taking steps to be successful. Are the people opposed to the project talking to each other? The accusations of corruption are just so stupendously, incredibly naive.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:28 PM

Jesus Freaking Christ! You want to talk "unwillingness to be forthright"? What about all the supporters of preservation who are unwilling to come out and say, "I want the government to spend $25 million on this, not on education, not on health care, so that I can have some more pretty old buildings to look at"?

I defy anyone here to come out and say that. Of course you won't. I await the responses that say we can get the money by eliminating "waste" or ending the war in Iraq or something.

You people are as bad as any politicians--wanting to pretend there's something to be had for nothing.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:35 PM

I do, I pay over 60K in taxes each year, a chunck of which goes to HYS and NYC. I'd like some of that money to go to this project. Ok?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:46 PM

Ella,

The attribution of Walters comes from the 1986 Statment of Significance from NYSHPO. There is some disagreement between the most recent report (2007) and earlier reports on the houses about their date of construction; most recent report puts the oldest much earlier than previous reports; seems that earlier reports took the mid-late 19th C enlargements as construction dates.

re: $ for preservation - I'm sorry, I'm a taxpayer as well and I do not approve of my tax dollars going to destroy the history of our country in order to build a parking lot.

Anon 10:24/11:54

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 12:58 PM

"I do, I pay over 60K in taxes each year, a chunck of which goes to HYS and NYC. I'd like some of that money to go to this project. Ok?"

No. Pony up out of your after-tax income if you care so much. Public funds should be spent on the basis of the greatest common interest, not the whims of society's highest earners.

If you're being taxed 60K a year, you can afford to give charitably to your pet passions.

I expect that since you asked my permission by asking "OK?,? and I answered in the negative, you will now do as I say.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:03 PM

I'm a taxpayer.

I want the goverment to spend 25 million on this; rather than 'investigating' congestion pricing.

I want the cigarette tax increased to pay for it, if there isn't enough money.

I want a tax on luxury condos to pay for it.

I would also accept a tax for people who flip apartments, to pay for it (a capital gains tax).

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:03 PM

I stand by my comment on the scent of corruption in this process. Not naive - just suspicous. Why do they feel the need to coordinate - Why do they not want other options to be considered in public? All are rationale questions. Just because i'm not an insider....

This is a public project with public funds in the mix. The officials are elected by the public, paid with public funds and -- by the way they do work for the public. Why are they championing a side before the public has been heard? I thought it was suppose to work the other way around.

We deserve much much better. Just because the Navy Yard wants it this way - doesn't mean it is the appropriate course of action.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:10 PM

Anon 12:58 - thanks for giving me your source. I have read that. My memory of that was that is said that up to 3 of the houses MAY have been designed by thomas u walter. Since this was never confirmed by any other research I've done, I always assumed that the writer of that report confused admirals row with the marines campus - which originally included 3 buildings by Walter. I have also done extensive research at the Thomas U. Walter archives at the excellent Atheneum in Philadelphia (if you are interested in historic architecture and preservation, I would recommend that you all go to check it out) and I have never seen anything that shows any link to Admirals Row from Walter. The only reference was the marines campus. Given that - I stand by my original assumption - the 1986 statement of significange is making a guess and they are wrong.

ANd as for all you taxpayers out there. We all pay taxes that go for things we don't support (like maybe - the iraq war) but we don't have the right to pick and choose do we? No we elect people and we tell them to pick and choose for us. That's what's going on here. You don't like it - elect someone else next time.
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:28 PM

Please Tear them down it is a waste of money to restore these.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:38 PM

I want the government to spend money on something like this instead of more defense spending!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:55 PM

Ella,

re: The Walter connection - could be. As I said, the newest report does date the buildings to earlier than previous ones, so it's obvious that there is room for more research to be done on them. And wouldn't be a crying shame if the research turned up something very significant and the buildings were gone?

about the tax dollars, this is all being based on decisions that were made by officials from 1996; none of whom are in office any more. at the time, there was a economic rationale for the decision to demolish - whether or not I agree with it is beside the point - that is no longer valid. BNY has hunkered down on this issue and does not want to examine it any further. I disagree with their stance. You don't.
However, the Feds pursuing due process for environmental review (which plenty of flks on this board are familiar with) and they might not come up with the answer that the Navy Yard wants to hear.

Anon 10:24/11:54/12:58

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 1:57 PM

I don't know how it can be said, "BNY has hunkered down on this issue and does not want to examine it any further," when they have announced that there will be a design charette. I consider this just the pep rally before the big game.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:06 PM

Ella,
While many of your points are valid, you're clearly associated with the BNYDC somehow and aren't exactly impartial.
The references in some posts here and in various press releases, etc. to "twenty years of the Navy Yard working with the community" on this plan is a complete joke I'm afraid. It would be generous to say two years that the Navy Yard has sincerely made an effort at reaching out to the "community". And they're clearly only reaching out to those community members that agree with them, and then saying "the majority of the community wants...". And if this were a 20-year-old plan, then it's clearly out of date, so the Navy Yard shouldn't be standing by it anymore anyway.

I believe the Navy Yard wants to do good by the community, and clearly preservation costs money, but I think the Navy Yard should have been more honest and upfront about this whole process, and should not be doing its best to drive yet another racial and class divide into this community. If it continues to do so, it will lose all credible standing as a true community partner. A compromise solution can be found if people are willing to talk and allow everyone a seat at the table, instead of presenting their plans as a done deal.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:07 PM

"11:47 - the problem with your argument is that the ideas that have been put forth are not in fact "good ideas" they are very bad ideas that are masquerading as good ideas but will in fact lead to a complete waste of time and money and not put us any closer to doing anything (either preservation or development) with this important property for many years to come."

So says you, Ella. And you are?????

Now would be a convenient time to reveal your connection to the project and/or the Yard, because, as 2:07 states, you obviously are not impartial. Otherwise, your opinion about other people's ideas and comments being worthless, are just your opinion. That and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.

11:47/Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:17 PM

From the Daily News:

"If the federal government...requires that some or all of these structures be rebuilt from the ground up...neither the City of New York or the [Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.] are interested in acquiring and developing the site and it will continue to lay fallow for years to come," wrote Navy Yard Development Corp. President Andrew Kimball yesterday in response to the report."

Multiple Anon

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:20 PM

Actually, i've seen absolutely no evidence that the Navy Yard is doing anything for or with the community, not in the 11 years that i've lived in the Navy Yard area. The only place that has included the community at all from what i've seen is Steiner Studios and they aren't really part of the Navy Yard IMO.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:25 PM

Oh, this is classic Brownstoner.

Ella is clearly not to be trusted because she's TOO WELL INFORMED.

LOL.

Yeah, Ella, if you want to do research instead of pulling wishful thinking out off your ass, you don't belong in our discussion!

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:34 PM

1:03 PM,

"No. Pony up out of your after-tax income if you care so much. Public funds should be spent on the basis of the greatest common interest, not the whims of society's highest earners."

ok, by your word here there should absolutely be no tax money for Atlantic Yards and there should be no money for parking lots. do you really think that the greatest common interest here in NYC would be to tear down historic structures and build a parking lot?? guess again!

i actually think the "greatest common interest" would scare you if you could actually see it. i think you may be referring to your own greatest interest in your posting.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:37 PM

Whether I am associated with the Navy Yard or not is irrelevant. WHat is relevant is the facts I am presenting in the arguments I am making. As long as those are all truthfull then why does anything else matter?

I am someone who knows alot about the Navy Yard, who cares about preservation (member of the national trust for historic preservation), who cares about Brooklyn, and who cares about economic development. Nothing else matters for this discussion
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:42 PM

Anon 2:25 - you are poorly informed.
Roughly a quarter of the 3,000 people who work at businesses in the Navy Yard, live in the surrounding communities. Moreover, the Navy funds an employment center that has placed hundreds of people in full time jobs, both at companies in the yard and those outside the yard. The Navy yard has had several community meetings discussing it's general development plans over the past 3 years or so - including the plans for Admiral's Row. Also, at least once a year (usually more) the President of the Navy Yard goes to community board public meetings to update the public on what is going on in the Yard and to take questions. I have been at several of those meetings. The Navy Yard has sponsored many cultural events in the neighborhood, including Brooklyn Designs, and the Brooklyn International Film festival. The Navy Yard has committed to building a historic center which will eventually provide educational programs for Brooklyn School children.

ANd that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are even more that I haven't even thought of.

Does that qualify as doing things for or with the community?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 2:59 PM

Wrong, Ella. When you state your opinions in posts like they come from the lips of a Higher Authority, then your association with the Navy Yard is relevant, because you speak as if you are an official voice for them.

I really wouldn't care otherwise, God knows there are plenty of people here who do the same. However, your condescending attitude and comments about "very bad ideas masquerading as good ideas", etc, etc without the bona fides to back that up, or even a good explanation of why, aside from "it just won't work, and is a waste of time" (paraphrasing here) still is not cutting it.

I'm a member of the National Trust, too. I also care about economic development. That is why I think both preservation and development can both work at this site. We should not be at totally opposite poles here.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:13 PM

The Officer's Row website (linked to at the photo credit) has some great photos, and interesting historical detail.

Sites like this, parts of Ellis Island, and the hospital ruins on Roosevelt Island are about the only places left in the city where history has been frozen, stopped at the point that the sites were abandoned. All of them should be preserved in some way, to allow us and future generations the opportunities to see and experience history first hand.

That is not elitest, or a waste of money, and should not be compared with efforts to house or otherwise help our growing population. If our historic places don't resonate with us as a people, if we are doomed to only experience our past as a special effect in a movie or behind velvet ropes, then we have truly lost more than a couple of old building.

Preservationista/3:13

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:53 PM

"If our historic places don't resonate with us as a people, if we are doomed to only experience our past as a special effect in a movie or behind velvet ropes, then we have truly lost more than a couple of old building."

I was going to disagree with you, Preservationista, but then it occurred to me that you're right. After all, these are the only 19th-century buildings remaining in New York City. After they are gone, there will be nothing left.

How could I have been so blind?

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 3:57 PM

I think that the Navy Yard has not done much for the community. it is a world apart. A gated community onto itself. It has not been a good steward of its historic buildings including the magnificant hospital and surgeon's house. Fortunately most if its buildings and other structures are made of solid brick and stone so though neglected and unused, they refuse to disappear.
What can be done about the Navy Yard? It is now becoming Hollywood East or something, so one can imagine it will be ever more gated, ever more venal, ever more uncaring of the historic buildings within its boundaries.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:18 PM

4:18 you are poorly informed.

The navy yard has been a very good steward of the buildings it controlls. It does not currently control admirals row so it can't be blamed for their condition.

The Navy Yard only gained control of the hospital campus a couple of years ago. Up until then it was still owned by the Navy. In the couple of years since they have owned the property they spent several hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform a buildings conditions survey to understand what kind of shape they are in. They have also spent a ton of money to do "stabilization work" so that the condition of the hospital does not deteriorate (like the Admirals Row houses) while they figure out what to do with it. They have also spent alot of time and energy trying to come up with a plan to re-use the hospital. But it is not simple and it's a big job, so it will take time.

Saying that the Navy Yard has not been a good steward of the hospital and surgeon's house shows your ignorance. Please refrain from commenting until you actually know what you are talking about.
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 4:35 PM

"Saying that the Navy Yard has not been a good steward of the hospital and surgeon's house shows your ignorance. Please refrain from commenting until you actually know what you are talking about."

Ella - if you represent the Navy Yard, (and my guess is that you do) you are doing a diservice to your organization and your cause by insulting the Brownstoner community. You don't have to get personal. The facts are coming out and my gut is that the right result will prevail. Atlantic Yards won't be repeated in any way, shape or form. My two cents - preserve the houses. They had and should continue to have a place in our community.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 5:02 PM

I do not claim to represent the Navy Yard organization. If I did - then yes, I would probably have to be alot more polite. But I honestly find it hard to be polite to people who are behaving as irresponisbly as many of the people on this site. I am not insulting the Brownstoner community - only the ones who think that they can sit on their ignorant high horses and pass judgement on the Navy Yard's plans based on thinking about it for 3 minutes when the Navy Yard plans are have been in the works for several years.

My main point is that you all must understand that in order to save these houses, it's going to cost alot of money to subsidize their renovation. You may argue that the City or the State SHOULD step up and fund those costs (and I may agree with you there), but the fact is that they haven't, and they likely won't. The City is already fundng millions of dollars to other projects in the Navy Yard and doesn't seem to have the appetite to fund even more (can't really blame them - they are already investing so much in the Navy Yard). The Feds have been trying to find money for these houses for about 8 years now - which to me says they are not really trying at all. The sad fact is that they did not give a damn about this site until maybe a month or two ago. Still I doubt the money is going to come from them. The State has been pretty absent from this whole discussion. So it's easy to say "save the houses" but without that money - that won't get you anywhere.

Given that constraint the Navy Yard has been trying to find a development program for the site that does not require any public subsidy. The development hybrids that have been proposed do not accurately depict the financial realities of the site. The simple fact is that if you require a private developer to restore the houses in order to get the right to develop a supermarket, no one will touch it because that project will lose money - lots of money. Not even close. The only way a private developer will touch the site is if he can develop on a blank slate. A supermarket development will not generate enough profit to subusidize the renovation of the houses. Hucksters like Shahn may try to convince you it's possible, but the numbers they are throwing out ($500,000 per house to renovate) are so far from reality that it's hard to take them seriously.

I'd just like everyone to appreciate the situation the Navy Yard is in and understand that this is not a black and white easy issue. It is complicated and difficult and requires one to have alot of knowledge about politics, finance, real estate development, preservation, and engineering in order to truly come to the appropriate solution.

Given all of that you can see why I have little patience for those who call the Navy Yard officials idiots or corrupt. Let's recognize these public officials for the good they do. Most of them earn less than the typical Brownstoner reader and are earnestly trying to improve their communities. They have a pretty sparkling record when it comes to preservation, and they are a mission driven organization who's whole purpose is to aid the surrounding communities by providing a place where industrial businesses can thrive a provide jobs to those who aren't really qualified to go work at Goldman Sachs or TIme Warner. They don't deserve to have to deal with the ignorant insults that are being flung at them.

-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 6:02 PM

Exactly Ella, "this is not a black and white easy issue." Then the Navy Yard should not treat it as one. They may have done plenty of their own analysis, but they have not been transparent about anything other than presenting their plan as they see it. That is not community-based planning. They have been quoting $50 million to restore the buildings before this new report came out. And when Mr. Kimbal starts the discussion with "we do not want the land with any preservation restrictions attached" (paraphrasing), it's really not respectful to all of us people who can quite competently understand the financial and political realities of developing this site and would prefer to be part of the process than be told (by you) who has intelligent ideas and who doesn't. I agree, this has nothing to do with corruption, but it is definitely short sighted, and the public housing community, which the Navy Yard has suddenly taken an interest in, is being used as pawns in political grandstanding. If it was so crucial to get a supermarket and fresh produce near the Farragut houses all these years, I'm sure one of our local elected officials (or the Navy Yard themselves) would have negotiated with the NYPD in regard to their tow pound lot and had them move it so a supermarket could be built. That option should still be on the table. After all, sounds a lot less complicated given that the City already owns that land, not the Feds. If the Navy Yard wants everyone's support, they should release their financial projections, including the income they expect to bring in on this supermarket tenant, to the public. After all, the BNYDC is a non-profit that manages city owned land, and should be as transparent and open to scrutiny as possible. With all of the data open to all, reasonable people can make reasonable conclusions.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 7:45 PM

The problem is that the Navy Yard is run by quasi-gevernment entities who are, sorry, quasi-retarded. They run it like eleven year old boys. Landmark the important buildings and sell the goddam place to private business people. Then you will see American know-how and savvy kick in to gear.
Right now it is like a tree house club run by little boys, no girls allowed. believe me, I know the navy yard. There is absolutely nothing smart there, it has been brain dead for years. I repeat, because it is an important point: it has been brain dead for years. It has been a wasted and under-used resource for too long.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:34 PM

3:57, you must have huge problems with reading comprehension, as I said nothing of the kind. These buildings (all 3 sites) are unique because of their histories, locations, etc. The fact that thousands of other different 19th century buildings exist really isn't the point.

Ella, you still come off as an apologist, and some kind of official voice for the Yard. Last I heard, everyone is still entitled to their opinions, and that is all any of us have given. If we are wrong, then educate us with facts and figures, not condescension and an almost patriotic, you're either with us or a traitor, administration like attitude. I don't see where questioning any authority makes any of us "irresponsible" or Shahn Anderson a "huckster" for stating that in his expert opinion, he thinks their estimates for restoration wrong. How many buildings have you renovated or developed?

If you want to change minds and hearts, take 7:45's most excellent post to heart - "it's really not respectful to all of us people who can quite competently understand the financial and political realities of developing this site and would prefer to be part of the process than be told (by you) who has intelligent ideas and who doesn't."

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 8:37 PM

I really don't think there are many intelligent ideas coming from the Navy Yard or from the community activists.
I say sell the Yard to private entreperneurs, then we will see smart ideas.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 10:59 PM

Anon 7:45 - You started to make some good points but then you went right back into the kind of thing that bothers me.

"I'm sure one of our local elected officials (or the Navy Yard themselves) would have negotiated with the NYPD in regard to their tow pound lot and had them move it so a supermarket could be built."

Yeah? What makes you so sure? Do you have any idea what that entails? No you don't. FYI at the very beginning of this process the Navy Yard went to City Hall and tried to get the tow pound moved. They got a big fat lesson from City Hall in how hard it is to move a tow pound and were given a big no. Instead, they were only allowed to rearrange the tow pound and gain an acre or two that way, on which they are building new industrial buildings to further their mission.

What I'm trying to say is that you are all accusing the Navy Yard of not listening to your brilliant creative ideas. The problem is that all of the ideas that I've seen put forth on this blog are neither brilliant nor creative. They are all ideas that the Navy Yard has already thought of, done some research on, and rejected because they don't work. If someone would propose a single alternative idea that had not already been thought of, analyzed and dismissed then you all would have the right to be upset. But to date, no one has.

Like I said before, the only real counter position I've heard that I respect is that the gov't (City, State, or Fed) should provide the Navy Yard with the subsidy to fix up the houses. I don't agree with it, but I respect it. I don't agree with it because I think that that money could be better used elsewhere in preserving some of the other historic buildings in both the Navy Yard and the rest of the City that also need to be restored. Also - if you do restore them I don't really think that high end boutiques and cafes will fly in this neighborhood as an adaptive re-use. However, I can see how reasonable people would disagree on this. Unfortunately, the City and Feds have not offered up that subsidy, so it's irrelevant anyway.

All this other crap about having your cake and eating it too strikes me as a huge diversion and a waste of time.

And preservationista (i'm assuming that's you at 8:37pm) I'm not saying you are unpatriotic for questioning authority. I am saying that the way in which many people here are questioning authority (i.e. by calling the Navy Yard officials quasi-retarded or corrupt) is extremely disrespectful and ungrateful. And I believe I have been educating you all with plenty of facts throughout this conversation. I know they might be hard for you to see since they are randomly placed between all my condescension. Maybe if you were better at reading comprehension, you'd pick them up.

-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:26 PM

Ella,
you seem pretty smart.
You have to admit that the guys who run the Navy Yard are quasi-retarded. Do you work there? Are you emotionally tied to whosis, the new navy yard presidente?
I know its disrespectful but this is America, it is not Venezuela. Citizens have every right to question and possibly embarass officials. And in this case I don't think the hazing is over.

Posted by: guest at December 13, 2007 11:42 PM

Ok, Ella, I've really about had it with your smarmy, superior attitude. You've done nothing during this entire discourse but belittle anyone who disagrees with you or the Navy Yard's position. You've called our ideas stupid, our projections and calculations wrong and stupid, and now you're calling us stupid.

Are you an architect? I doubt it. Are you an urban planner, any kind of designer, a builder, a contractor, a civil engineer? Do you have a degree in historic preservation, or years of experience working in any of the above fields? Because if you don't, who died and made you the expert? And who appointed you the judge of what is or isn't a good idea? Who made you the Decider? Are you on the board of decisions?

I ask this because, especially in your last post, you use the official "I" quite a bit.

"The problem is that all of the ideas that I've seen put forth on this blog are neither brilliant nor creative." (again - bona fides, please. I'd like to see your degrees or expertise that entitles you to dismiss anyone's else's out of hand. If a panel of recognized experts told me any of our ideas sucked, and explained why, I'd back down. You? Who the hell are you?)

"I don't really think that high end boutiques and cafes will fly in this neighborhood as an adaptive re-use." (I checked - NOBODY suggested that, except you in yesterday's post - you went there on your own)

"I believe I have been educating you all with plenty of facts throughout this conversation" (Because you stated them, that makes them facts? Yeah, that'll fly, especially from someone who has yet to confirm or deny their obviously tight business, or other relationship with the Navy Yard, yet has access to the inner workings of those in charge. Neutral party, or concerned independent citizen - NOT)

And lastly, my favorite - "I know they might be hard for you to see since they are randomly placed between all my condescension. Maybe if you were better at reading comprehension, you'd pick them up." - Oh, I comprehend just fine. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the Navy Yard doesn't belong to you. You have no clue as to the experiences, expertise, education, successes or failures of the people who post their ideas and opinions on this board. A little more open mindedness, and less judgemental dismissal of people, might go a long way to a meaningful discussion that could provide good ideas. If we didn't care, we wouldn't bother to write.

Note to those in charge of Navy Yard - if Ella works for you, she's not helping your cause. You catch more bees with honey than with dripping condescension and bile.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:40 AM

I'm not calling you stupid. I'm just saying that the ideas that are being put forth are not ground breaking great ideas. They are the obvious first couple of ideas that anyone with half a brain would think of - and since even 11:42 admits that the Navy Yard folks are only quasi-retarded, they have already had those ideas and figured out that they don't work.

Fair question about my bona-fides. I have a masters degree and many years of work experience in city planning, architecture, urban design and real estate development. I have worked on many successful real estate projects, many of which have been in brooklyn. I regularly consult experts in related fields for data that I don't know. I think it's pretty hard to read all that I've written on this topic and not realize that I obviously have a ton of relevant work experience in related fields.

The boutiques and Cafe stuff did not come from me - that is what the Pratt professor was proposing to put in the houses once they were renovated. I got that from speaking to him and reading the flier that he handed out Tuesday night. I did not make that up.

I apologize for that reading comprehension remark. That was a joke that I couldn't resist making. Actually, I apologize for any degrading or insulting comments I've made over the course of this argument. It always bothers when the discourse on Brownstoner gets mean and personal, and I did not mean to contribute to that. I just obviously care about this issue alot, and it upsets me when some folks on this website assume that the Navy Yard folks are too stupid or corrupt to do the basic analysis that any responsible project manager would have to do. I got a little emotional. However, I stand by all the facts that I've presented here. Nothing that anyone has written has shown me how one could save these buildings without getting a big fat subsidy from somewhere. And anyone out there who has ever tried to find huge subsidies for historic preservation projects knows that they are almost impossible to come by. Since that's the situation here, the Navy Yard's proposal to tear them down and build a supermarket still seems to be the best use of the site.
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:16 AM

The restored buildings do not have to be used as bakeries or fancy boutiques. They can be used as a library, children's center or even a navy yard museum. The lefferts house in Prospect Park is regularly used for children's programs. I think this would be an excellent resource for the local community. Something that broadens a child's scope of the world (which a parking lot does not) is the best way to better a community.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:19 AM