« Weekend Events Dock Street Protesters: 20% There on Signatures »

December 7, 2007

Officers' Row Preservation Coming to a Contentious Head

ORPsewingroom.jpg
With a large, and potentially contentious, public hearing about the future of Officers' (or Admirals', if you like—and while we're at it, why can't anyone agree on where the apostrophe should go or whether it's needed at all?) Row slated for Tuesday and the transfer from the Army Corps of Engineers to the city likely to follow in the coming months, the debate seems to be shifting from not whether to put a supermarket on the site but whether it's possible to save at least some of the 19th Century houses from the wrecking ball in the process. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp has made its position pretty clear: We're doing tons of adaptive reuse elsewhere around the Navy Yard but the Federal Government has let Officers' Row deteriorate to such a point that it's no longer economically feasible or practical to restore it.

One prominent group of preservationists in the area is circulating a statement that, according to an email from Brad Lander of the Pratt Center for Community Development, attempts to "thread the Jane Jacobsian needle between 'save every single house' and 'knock em down & build the supermarket that public housing residents need.'" Can a compromise be reached that finesses the "problematic polarization...of the related preservation-vs-interests-of-low-income-residents"?

A position statement circulated by heads of the Historic Wallabout Association (but not yet officially endorsed by its members) proposes that preservationists take the following tack:
1) Support the transfer from federal to city control;
2) Support the use of the site as a supermarket;
3) Prioritize adaptive re-use and restoration in whole, or in part, of Officers' Row to allow for benefits to the local community including food as well as job placement and training;
4) Try to minimize the need for a large parking lot while emphasizing public transportation options.

The proposal calls on the Feds to require as a term of the transfer that the city (which in turn is planning on leasing the property to the Navy Yard) appoint a task force of "local stakeholders" to arrive at a plan that meets these objectives.

In today's Brooklyn Eagle, however, Navy Yard president Andrew Kimball said such a requirement would be a deal killer: “We’re not interested in the site if there’s restrictions put on to rebuild from the ground up.” Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, another group pushing for the preservation of the houses, ain't buying it. “He is really positing that a public agency does not wish to live up to its obligations … to look at mitigating the demolition of intact historic structures with public funds.”

One thing we haven't heard enter the discourse is how the large-scale development on nearby Myrtle Avenue might mitigate the need for a supermarket at all in the Officers' Row location. Presumably John Catsimatidis, the supermarket magnate who's building the biggest development on that stretch, isn't going leave his tenants with no place to buy groceries. The possibility of a market there should be part of the discussion, we'd think. Another thought: The anti-driving stance of the Wallabout proposal sounds nice on paper, but if the Navy Yard has any chance of landing a tenant like Fairway, it's going to have to have parking in order to attract shoppers from beyond the nearby housing projects. Without it, the best you're going to do is a Met Food. The hearing will be held Tuesday, December 11th, from 7 to 9 pm at PS 307, 209 York Street.
Navy Yard Doesn’t Want Admiral’s Row if Forced To Preserve [Brooklyn Eagle]
For Officer's Row, Supermarket All But Certain [Brownstoner]
Photo from the Officer's Row Project [NY Times]




Posted by Brownstoner at 8:55 AM | Comments (17)
Categories: Navy Yard

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3154

Comments

Demolishing those buildings for a parking lot is retarded. You might have expected them to do that sort thing back in the 1950's and 1960's but this is 2007, we should know better.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:09 AM

If they restore them what will they do with them? I think they are pretty far gone in terms of condition, and if there is something the community has plenty of, it would be nineteenth century houses in varying stages of decay. You would think these were the last old houses in Brooklyn. Such obsession over crap. Aren't there pragmatic community activists who can look into the future rather than cling to the pathetic corpses of the past?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:19 AM

I disagree with Bankoff's interpretation of Kimball's declaration, "We’re not interested in the site if there’s restrictions put on to rebuild from the ground up." In fact, I think Kimabll is doing exactly the opposite. The Navy Yard Development Corporation did not allow these buildings to deteriorate. It is under no obligation to clean up someone else's mess and Kimball seems to be saying, 'if we have to do so, we're not interested.' That creates the opportunity for another organization to step up, although I bet that the estimated $18M is more than anyone is prepared to take on.

There are several points to consider regarding whether or not a supermarket at this location is redundant to one at the Red Apple development site on Myrtle. First, the Navy Yard is between the Fort Greene and Farragut houses, serving both developments better than a Myrtle Avenue site. Secondly, the Red Apple chains tend to be more up-market than may be desired by residents of the NYCHA developments. Perhaps two different supermarkets serve two different demographic markets. The comparisons to Fairway call into question if a more affordable chain is planned for the Navy Yard. In the past, the only references I heard to Fairway was the desire to repeat that company's practice of working to hire local residents.

Finally, I think any large supermarket, up- or down-market, is going to struggle to be financially successful without a parking lot. I would be interested to learn (if possible) what percentage of people drive to the Gowanus Pathmark, Fifth Avenue Key Food, Fairway, etc. as well as the gross receipts at supermarkets with parking lots versus more pedestrian-oriented stores; e.g. Seventh Avenue Key Food.

Posted by: g man at December 7, 2007 9:27 AM

The NYC tow pound, behind the Officers' Row, is currently undergoing a redesign/rebuild (see the construction sheds past the main gate?). The number of parking apaces in this area have been substantially reduced. which seems odd to me, especially seeing automobile storage fines and fees as income generation for the city.

Cynicism rules - I foresee this scenario: Developer builds grocery with HUUUUGE lot, City rebuilds adjacent tow pound including a tiny lot. Developer then leases excess parking spots BACK to the city, enabling important kickbacks and pork barrel possibilities.

What do you think? Can greedy politicians overlook this one?

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:48 AM

I think the Historic Wallabout Council's proposal is a good compromise. As a practical move to at least get something saved, I might not put as much emphasis on trying to limit the parking lot size, as convincing Americans to not drive somewhere is a waste of time. Time better served in figuring out how to preserve at least some of the Row, and figuring out what to do with the houses. It's better to save even one or two, adapt them to community use, as well as an historic reminder of a proud past.

I hope neither side digs their feet in and refuses to compromise. Razing history for a parking lot is a shame. Saving them with no money to restore, or no plan for sustainable reuse is a waste too.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 9:54 AM

I've also wondered whether or not there will ever be improved public transportation access to the Navy Yard (and Steiner Studios, btw). With all this expansion going on, is everyone working at and visiting these facilities (without cars) expected to cram onto the already overcrowded and slow B61 to get there? (There are a few other options like the G plus a walk, but none are great.)

Posted by: Carol Gardens at December 7, 2007 9:56 AM

Public transportation improvements are hard to come by in this city. The politicians are always admonishing the peasants, sorry the public, to take public transportation but they never seem to do anything about making mass transit more convenient or more modern or more pleasant. Subways and buses are still the screeching, overcrowded, hideous cattle cars they were forty years ago. Ever try the Myrtle avenue bus? Beyond bad.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:37 AM

Id rather something then nothing. I used to work in the area and always admired the old houses used as barracks or dorms for officers. Unfortunately they are in really bad shape and an eye sore for an area that is prime real estate. Is there an issue using underground parking? That could be an option, or build one over the the supermarket like the Path Mark on 125 street in Harlem. Im a driver and would love to have another option other then Atlantic mall thats local. Between the traffic, parking fines or paying for parking I find myself shopping in long island for the convience and variety. Officers Row has been forgotten neglected for decades. It doesnt appear the feds have any interest in it. If nothing will be done about it, I'd rather something then nothing...

Posted by: ree_ss at December 7, 2007 10:58 AM

Make it Fairway, please.

Fairway is huge, beautiful, really well-stocked, and has great NYC attitude and wit.

Fairway sells upmarket gourmet stuff AND regular food.

Fairway Red Hook hires local employees, including from the neighborhood projects.

Fairway has the lowest prices and best quality of any grocery I've ever shopped (example: their house-packed fresh herbs, in large bundles, for $1.29--every other market sells smaller, plastic packages of herbage for $2.50).

Every other market in NYC sucks--hard--except for the teeny, specialty places like Amish and Union.

And while I appreciate the idea of encouraging people to use public transit, there IS no viable public transit anywhere near the Navy Yard. The store obviously has to have a parking lot.

Posted by: Rehab at December 7, 2007 11:01 AM

Oh, I agree that it needs a parking lot! I just hope that at some point the MTA takes a look at a changing Brooklyn and makes some revisions and additions to bus service. Not that I expect that. (But if the Navy Yard and Steiner management (and eventual supermarket) lobby for it, it could happen.)

Posted by: Carol Gardens at December 7, 2007 11:17 AM

"admirals row" - it's where the admirals lived; it did not belong to them.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 11:49 AM

No. Admirals' row would be correct but pedantic, since there's more than 1 admiral involved; admiral's row would be correct also. In both cases, the "belonging to" is grammatical (possesive case,) and has nothing to do with ownership.

It's my tenant's home even though I own it.

Posted by: cmu at December 7, 2007 12:17 PM

I can't look at that photo too much it gives me the heebie-jeebies. Please fix it up or tear it down right now.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 12:42 PM

Looks like a serious lead paint hazard.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 1:18 PM

It's a heebie-jeebie hazard.
Really is gross I have to concur.

Posted by: guest at December 7, 2007 10:04 PM

Has anybody considered the possibility of underground parking or some other alternative? Why must parking always be envisioned as acres and acres of flat open space? If you go to South Korea, they have supermarkets in high-rise style buildings where you drive up a ramp to the upper levels where you park. Then, you take escalators down into the store. It's really quite fantastic. If they built a Fairway with THAT configuration, you'd have 3/4 of the space left for other uses.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 11:33 AM

Have you ever parked in the underground lot at Atlantic center--NOT a pleasant experience (dark, damp, stuffy, tight turns, etc). However, the parking lot at Fairway is a breeze (literally a cold slap in the face this time of year, feels like the coast of Maine). Driving in Brooklyn is an assault to community's air quality, pedestrian safety, and a driver's nerves. Would that we could do without it.

Posted by: guest at December 8, 2007 7:06 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions