Admiral's Row: The Projected Costs of Preservation

Amazing. If the Feds had done all this research, it seems clear that they wanted a restoration/rehabilitation from day one as an option.
Not that $20,000,000 is cheap, but maybe it is doable and maybe it would make an amazing enhancement to a neighborhood that 50's and 60's urban renewal almost destroyed. Bring some charm and life back to the neighborhood.
Why stop there. Maybe all the city housing should be razed and replaced with low rise traditional brownstones!!

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:11 AM

I don't really see how these would be used by the public in the future, but I think they should be saved.

Where is NY's George Lucas who could come in, save these buildings and use them for a business campus (with plenty of community opportunities)?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:25 AM

$400/sq ft seems like an awful lot for rehab. Especially given the fact that 20% of the structures are not worth saving.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:44 AM

Sadly, I think these houses will be toast!! Not because of the cost to reno but because the city has already done a deal on the land.

If these houses were in Europe, they would have been protected. You yanks are useless when it comes to preservation and history.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 10:46 AM

I agree with 10:13; when you know what new construction is costing these days, $414/sf to rehab' 19th-century buildings that have been unsealed for a couple decades seems highly questionable. At least two other facts need to be provided with the data above. 1. How is "Rehabilitation" defined? Secretary of the Interior standards? 2. What was the basis for the cost estimates? It common to use schedules of standard costs for these types of estimates; e.g: X square feet of dry wall at Y per square foot. If that was the methodology, what geographic area are the numbers for? The whole country? The Northeast? And how old is that schedule?

Also, as has been stated several times over several posts -- poor Ella, she won't get any work done today -- you have to compare the cost of rehab' with the revenue generated. If these buildings are going to generate (say) $100K in rent per year, does it make sense to spend $20M (round numbers) to rehabilitate them? That's a capitalization rate or 0.5 percent.

Finally, I keep reading about how the (City's) money being spent by the Navy Yard should be spent instead on the rehab' of the structures. I don't have any facts and would appreciate some, but how much public funding is actually going into this project? I'd bet not a whole lot. If that is the case, then arguing that the money should be reallocated isn't realistic.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:03 AM

"Also, as has been stated several times over several posts -- poor Ella, she won't get any work done today -- you have to compare the cost of rehab' with the revenue generated. If these buildings are going to generate (say) $100K in rent per year, does it make sense to spend $20M (round numbers) to rehabilitate them? That's a capitalization rate or 0.5 percent."

This is the wrong way to look at it. Clearly, having beautiful buildings in a city creates value for its residents. It's not easy to put an exact price tag on aesthetic benefits, but they clearly exist. So you don't have to just compare the cost of rehab with the revenue generated. You also have to include, as part of the value generated by saving these buildings, the vast aesthetic superiority of these buildings to whatever will replace them if they're knocked down. Obviously, aesthetic superiority has a dollar value: people will pay much more for an apartment with a good view than one without, more to live near mountains than not, and so on. Similarly, it's more valuable to live near beautiful buildings than near ugly ones. Now, it may be that even if you include the aesthetic value created, it still would be dwarfed by the cost of rehab. But just talking about this debate in terms of literal dollars generated misses the entire point.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:38 AM

Yeah, why does every project need to be profitable?

Having taste, having class,
_costs_ money, it doesn't make money.

Aesthetics aren't always profitable... that doesn't mean they aren't valuable.

Of course NYC is becoming nothing but squares, and you can't expect squares to see that... They want everything to be a mall, and prefer to live in investments rather than neighborhoods.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:46 AM

I do not think that houses from this era would be considered particularly important in Europe. European patrimony laws would never fly in the US. They are almost confiscatory. I prefer the system of private, grassroots preservation we have in this country. Keep the power with the people.
This is a rare instance of houses owned by the armed forces that were not properly taken care of. I say rare because the army navy and coast guard usually take a lot of pride in their buildings and community and maintain them well. This was a strange case where the navy was to forfeit the land to the State but the deal kept falling through and ultimately the houses just became the property of the wild dogs roaming that part of Flushing Avenue.
I do not think that these houses should be saved. They have lost their context and the area needs a new start that works in the new, existing context of Flushing Avenue and the Navy Yard. Unfortuately, issues like this involving various branches of government, can drag on forever, just prolonging everyone's discomfort and unhappiness.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 11:49 AM

20 million dollars dependending on who you ask is or is not a lot of money for rehab. Althought these buildings are beautiful, I it is a waste of resources to rehab them. Perhaps they could be sold and dismantled for placement somewhere else, even if the full lot of the buildings fetch only 5 million, it's money that could be used for I don't know the underperforming schools in the area - afterschool programs... my 2 cents.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:07 PM

1. These houses have NOT lost their context and they provide the area with a look. It is the area around it that has become decontextualized in an aimless sort of way. THings need to be re-"anchored" at the Navy Yard.
2. Each house could be rented out to a not-for-profit for about $8,000 to $11,000 per month. That would provide about $960,000 to $1,320,000 per year in income for a $20,000,000 investment. That is a ROI of 5%, which is not half bad social investing.
3. That is just the start. Keeping this Admiral Row intact will lead to a more successful and "magnetic" supermarket that will generate more money for the city and navy yard. Keeping this Admiral Row intact will increase RE values in area, thereby increasing tax base. Keeping this Admiral Row intact will enhance tourism traffic in area which will help local businesses and their tax receipts/tax payments to city.
4. Interesting that the econ dev gurus at Pratt and Brooklyn Navy Yard and City Hall didn't see how investing more now would lead to more benefits later.
I wonder if any in positions of power in NYC are even listening to this debate.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:14 PM

the houses ARE part of the context -and are you ignorant of the beautiful Commodore's Mansion just around the corner?
What a waste it will be.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:55 PM

Hey - I'm already taxed to pay for the projects.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 12:57 PM

The houses were never part of the community's context. They were situated behind a huge brick wall. They were the original gated community. All that was missing was cannon pointing at Clinton Hill.
If the wall comes down and the houses are restored, they will have lost all their original context. They were never accessible from the street, they were never part of the neighorhood. In the 1950's through 70's they were the homes to white Navy officers who probably thought of the neighborhhod beyond the wall with trepidation and considered it "terra incognita". Cars and ships brought them in and out of their compound. Had the officers remained another ten years, they would have probably petitioned the Navy to increase the height of the wall and add razor wire. Instead, the Navy just walked away. Some wonderful legacy.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:05 PM

Sorry, I slipped a digit in my earlier post; I meant to express a cap' rate of 5 percent. I agree with The Polemicist's points; how'd that happen? -- 11:03

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 1:13 PM

Thanks for your concerns about me getting work done - I have to say that yesterday was not that productive a day for me. But today, it seems like the polemicist has made most of the points I was going to make, so I should be ok. But just to throw in my $0.02:
1) Those hard costs seem a bit low to me. According to my research and construction people, you're probably looking at a hard cost number of about $550/SF.
2) Keep in mind that that is just the hard costs. There will be significant soft costs associated with this project (architecture and engineering fees, insurance - lots of insurance, etc). That will easily add several million to the price tag.
3)THere will also be significant site costs. These buildings are not currently connected to any infrastructure or utilities (electric, sewer, water, telecom)and if you're ever been in those 6 acres after a heavy rain, you'd know that there is no drainage on the site at all. THat will also add several million dollars to the development costs.
3) The market rent you could get from either office or retail re-use of the site is nowhere near what it would be to justify costs to redevelop. Even if you just used the feds numbers and didn't add in the very real additional costs I just outlined.
4)If you want to redevelop these houses you have to assume that they are either going to get seriously subisidized by the feds or be done as a purely market rate deal. If you assume it's market rate - it will need to earn enough profit in order to attract a private developer to invest the money. And as I said before, it doesn't come close. If you run the numbers and use real costs and rental assumptions, you come up with a negative IRR. A developer would want an IRR of around 20% to make it worth their while. Also, if you're looking to a market rate deal, then all those comments about aesthetics are irrelevent since the aesthertic value created would be recaptured by the developer who invested the money. It would be a positive externality. If you assume that it would be sibsidized by the gov't then the aesthetic issue matters, since the gov't should place a value on that. However, as I've tried to point out before, there have been attempts to raise those fund from every level of gov't and they aren't there - so it's not really a feasible option here. Maybe this will be a watershed event that will force gov't to make more preservation funds available for projects like this, but in today's world, it's not there.

Have a good weekend everyone.

-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:01 PM

The Brookyn Navy Yard, as a whole, probably has more historical provenance than any other place in the borough. It has been a part of our city’s history for over 200 years. These houses are a part of that history. Frankly, I’m glad the fence is there, and the site has been inaccessible. Had it not, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, as the only thing left of the entire Yard would be photographs and memories, and a plaque on the side of a building.

The Yard is HUGE. There is more than enough space for Steiner Studios, light manufacturing, retail opportunities and historic preservation and appreciation. If plans previously reported go through, where Steiner Studios can expand, and the historic buildings such as the hospital, morgue, etc can be restored and used, why not include the Row in this historic use? These houses are the only part of the historic legacy of the Yard that is easily seen from the street. For that reason alone, they are an enormous draw, and elicit queries whenever anyone goes down Flushing Ave.

Why not incorporate them into a destination? People complain there is “nothing there”. That’s not true – the Yard is there, and could be marketed as a huge tourist attraction. It’s not far from the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, it’s easy to get to. It’s close to Manhattan. Those double decker tourist buses would have no problem getting there.
What would they be going to?

Steiner Studios – movies, tv, stars, need I say more? They could very easily put together some kind of studio tour. Especially if they get the additional space they want.

WWII era Yard - when the Navy Yard was one of the most important ship building and staging areas in the US. If people line up for the Intrepid, they will line up for this, if done imaginatively and correctly.

!9th Century Yard – the hospital and morgue, Commander’s House, other period buildings and the Row: a museum, interactive stuff, one restored house tour, gift shop, restaurants, a bar, ice cream shop, yeah, even a b&b in one of the larger Row houses. The rest of the Row is leased to non-profits, community groups, or commercial tenants like architects, print shops, traditional furniture makers, any kind of business that would benefit from an historical location or a destination. Perhaps there would still be room for a program that trains people in historic restoration techniques, and other programs geared toward lifting up the lives and income levels of many in the surrounding neighborhood.

The Yard faces the Wallabout neighborhood, which could easily become the next vibrant community of loft spaces, small businesses, restaurants and entrepreneurs. Further down is planned affordable housing and existing suburban type housing, and then a park. The Flushing side of the Yard does not face the projects, and the part that does – well, that’s the end that the Supermarket is supposed to serve. A revitalized Navy Yard shouldn’t have the impound lot in it anyway, and that is a perfect place for a market/shopping complex.

This is just my off the cuff idea. I have never been inside the Yard, and don’t know how close or far apart any of these things really are, and I’m sure Ella, and others, will shoot it down as “a bad idea masquerading as a good idea, but is really a bad idea, and we already thought of that, and it won’t work.” Still haven’t heard why it won’t work. The red herring of funding is just that. Have they pitched a similar proposal to anyone? I can’t believe that in this vast country of wealthy risk takers, there isn’t someone who would want to see something like this work. Maybe they just need to go farther afield. Get some new and different marketing done, some celeb endorsement, a starchetect to sign on. (one who understands history, preferably)

It certainly beats watching the status quo, as the Row slowly sinks into the ground, and the Navy Yard goes on about its business. Kudos to them for revitalizing as much as they have, kudos for bringing in businesses like Steiner and all of the light manufacturing that is there, and big kudos for spending the money to stabilize the other historic buildings. But now is the time to perhaps go outside the box, and find new ways to grow in the future. As has been said for the last week, on this topic, it doesn’t have to been all or nothing, bulldozer or useless pile of 19th C. bricks.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:22 PM

preservationista at 2:22 says it all.
She draws just the right future pix of this whole neglected botched morass of brix.
Polemicist suggests a myopic approach to this issue. Within the confines of that perspective, the conclusion reached is accurate. With a broader perspective, many other possibilities emerge and become pertinent to the value equation.
Pls be aware that there are often multiple prisms through which to see reality. And, all are imperfect.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:48 PM

Preservationista,
From inside the gates, the navy yard looks like what it is: an industrial park.
The Steiner studios are off behind their own gates, a gated enclave within a gated enclave.
There are some very nice Victorian industrial buildings here and there. The most interesting thing is the drydock, made of solid granite. It is very interesting especially if there is a ship being repaired. But all in all the place is not really pretty, or romantic, or even photogenic. It is gritty and workaday. You see the dockyard workers walking past the Hassidic bussinessmen who rent factory space. I don't think it would be a huge draw and the occupants would not want people traipsing through anyway. The water views are nice, but the water views anywhere in Brooklyn are nice. The modern buildings are super-ugly. That's about it.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 2:52 PM

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, and teenagers from local youth groups man them and give tours to the public on weekends. I think this would be an excellent resource for the local community. Something that broadens a child's scope of the world, and sffords social responsibility (which a parking lot does not) is the best way to better a community.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 5:03 PM

The Lefferts homestead is a magnificent 18th century farmstead built by one of the most prominent colonial families in Brooklyn. Even back in the 1920's, its importance was appreciated, which is why it was moved from its original location in Crown Heights to Prospect Park. It is a house museum and a great one.
The houses along Flushing Avenue are boring by comparison, especially the ones that were dormitories. There is no comparison.
These are not great buildings. Why do people have it in their heads that these perfectly ordinary and banal old navy houses are so special?

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:47 PM

its the collection of them toghther, in the context of the Navy Yard (going back pre-revolution as a historical site) and the Commandants house round the corner) that make it spesh.

Posted by: guest at December 14, 2007 7:57 PM

7:47: You're missing the point. I'm not comparing the historical importance of the Lefferts House to Admiral's Row. The point is that, if preserved, they can be an inviting AND useful addition to the existing community. They can be both visually exciting AND productive for the local population (not impending yuppies). This has been an argument against their preservation on theses threads, and it's not valid.

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 12:00 PM

Shahn,
Never met you, though I was there Tuesday night. One of the people at the Navy Yard desk told me that you were spouting that number.

Your numbers are interesting, but they leave out a ton of costs and underestimate others.

Preservationista, you paint a beautiful picture. Really - I think Brooklyn would be a a much better place if the development you described happened. What you fail to realize is that it's incredibly easy to think up those kinds of scenarios - it's incredibly hard to make them happen in the real world. If you're going to waive off funding concerns as a "red herring" you lose all credibility. I no longer feel the need to respond to your comments. You've just proved my point about your comments better than anything I could ever say would.
-Ella

Posted by: guest at December 15, 2007 7:59 PM

No way you get $20 per square foot; more like $15.

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 3:24 PM

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"
Robert Kennedy

S'ok, Ella. You just don't get it, either. If we don't dream big, we shouldn't be surprised when we don't get anything big.

When matters of high commerce are discussed, ie, the AY's of the world, money is always found. Deals are made, tax incentives are proposed; investors, financial angels, venture capitalists come out of the woodwork. Once the powers that be decide to do something, it gets done.

Obviously, that will, or grand master plan, to truly remake and preserve the Navy Yard, is not there. Whether it's because the BNY has tried, and is tired of trying, or they just don't have any vision, or they simply want something else - hey, I don't know. I'm just a single opinionated citizen of Brooklyn writing on a blog, interested because I care about the preservation of the historic sites in my town.

So do me a favor, Ella. The next time an opinion is offered, the next time a back of an envelope sketch by a distinguished professor is displayed, the next time a seasoned professional tosses out some numbers, don't just assume it is the work of idiots, dreamers or fools. How about the common curtesy of a civilized discussion, free of condescension, ridicule, or dismissal? If you are in a professional position to have some info and insight the rest of us don't, it can be imparted in such a way that does not belittle or try to degrade those who may speak without that insight.

Long story, long, work on those people skills. It will go a long way to helping you better succeed with this or anything else. I may be as wrong as wrong can be about everything at the Navy Yard, but I will always continue to imagine something greater than only a bottom line. Imagination can become reality. It happens quite a lot, and could happen here. You never know.

Happy Holidays
Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 6:27 PM

Preservationista,
We seem to be talking past eachother this whole week, and I think I just figured out why. You believe that whenver the right vision is put forth, the financing is found. As someone who has worked on many master plans, and has been involved in similar types of project from the ground up, I can tell you that this is just not so.

The dreaming of big dreams is a necessary and exciting first step in order to improve the urban fabric of our beloved city and borough, however there is a crucial step 2 and that is turning those dreams and big plans into reality. In alot of ways, step 2 is a much more difficult step. The vast majority of great plans die in step 2. Wonderful plans that would have made our City much more pleasant have died because of pedestrian concerns like funding sources, engineering concerns, or labor shortages. This is a bit unscientific, but I would say that fewer than 20% of extremely worthy visions make it past this step.

Getting a project past this step is difficult, costly and extremely time consuming - so after a while, you start to get a good feel for what visions have half a chance of making it past step 2 and which ones ones are dead on arrival. Those feelings are based on tons of research and actual work and life experience. Based on that, I can assure you the grand visions being put forth here, while inspiring, are not even close making it through step 2. To say that if an idea is beautiful enough the money will be found is naive, and quite frankly, insulting to those who spend way more time and effort than you do in order to make them happen.

Sorry if you find this insulting, but it's the truth.
Ella

Posted by: guest at December 16, 2007 7:13 PM