« State of the City: $3.1 Billion Deficit AIA’s Zoning Tweaks Draw Heat »
January 18, 2008
Officers’ Row Supermarket Not Happening Anytime Soon
The controversial plan to demolish ten 19th century houses owned by the federal government in order to build a supermarket at the Navy Yard has been "delayed indefinitely," according to an article in this week’s Brooklyn Paper. Federal officials say they need to determine if the Officers’ Row buildings can be preserved and hold a series of meetings about the buildings with the city and neighborhood residents. Those meetings wouldn’t begin until March, according to Kristin Leahy, the manager of the National Guard Bureau Cultural Resources Program, who said it was impossible to estimate how long the review process would take. The potentially lengthy review isn’t being greeted favorably by politicians who have been pushing for the feds to hand the properties over to the city so they can be torn down to build a supermarket that would serve residents of the nearby housing projects. “I’m disappointed,” said Councilwoman Letita James. “We’re trying to expedite the process.”
Navy Yard Supermarket on Hold as Feds Consider ‘Row’ [Brooklyn Paper]
Federal Goverment Not Rushing Admiral's Row Decision [GL]
Admiral's Row: Feds Must 'Consider' Preservation [Brownstoner]
Admiral's Row: "Extremely High Level of Historic Integrity" [Brownstoner]
Officers' Row: Let's Have Our Cake and Eat It Too [Brownstoner]
Officers' Row Preservation Coming to a Contentious Head [Brownstoner]
For Officer's Row, Supermarket All But Certain [Brownstoner]
Photo by j. vasco.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3572
Comments
I just don't understand why anyone would want to expedite the destruction of historic properties. There are plenty of potential sites for a supermarket, that would not require the city to abandon its heritage. Private landowners don't have the right to destroy landmark buildings to increase the value of their property. Government agencies should be held to the same standard.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 9:50 AM
It seems like a mistake to "expedite" the demolition of these historic buildings, especially when we've read in previous posts that these buildings can be saved. I understand the need for a supermarket, but why can't the politicians get behind a plan to do both?
Someone will remind us whether or not these buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places OR are NR-eligible. If so, then because there is public money involved, then this project must go through Section 106 review, which will seek to analyze and mitigate any negative effects to these buildings and perhaps to the adjacent landscape.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:09 AM
Hypocrites. If they really want to save it, they can. Problem with the private/public system is they're too practical, greedy selfish bastards, who lack passion and idealism, could give a shit. Bottom line. Am not an eco-nut, butI walked passed it yesterday, I said to myslef it would be great if they can fix it. They still look good after neglect. Give them to, I can fix them. That's the diff. If I own it, I'll make sure it's fixed. Muthas.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:26 AM
I respect and admire Tish James greatly, but I heartily disagree with her on this one. The Row can and should be saved, and some kind of compromise is possible in order to both save the Row, and build a supermarket.
I hope this isn't a sneaky plan to postpone indefinitely until there is nothing left to save. As noted in a recent study, most of these houses are still in decent condition, and can be saved. But the decay has to be halted before it's too late. I'd be happy, FOR NOW, just to see the roofs covered, and the houses secured from the elements, animals, etc.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 10:34 AM
I am very surprised and disappointed by Letitia James' position on this as well. I love Officer's Row. The whole Navy Yard is such a significant historic site, it should be treasured. It is so important to remember what came before us.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 10:50 AM
I also disagree with Ms. James on this issue but I guess from her point of view, her constituents need a supermarket more. And they do- but why it has to be on Officer's Row is the question. the only reason I can see is that it was thrown in as a sop to the community. Certainly not out of altruism or care.
Posted by: bx2bklynstill at January 18, 2008 11:07 AM
People need to protest in droves and make big stink bec that's the only thing politicians seem to hear. People power, as they say. I'd go. I think the board room meetings set a different atmosphere for politicians and they all end up in agreement on something, and usually not beneficial to the community they serve.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Expediting the process in this case will result only in the demolition of the old houses and perhaps paving over the area for a parking lot in anticipation of a supermarket that will never come.
Posted by: sam at January 18, 2008 11:34 AM
It seems that all of the neighborhood preservationists that came out to the last meeting made enough of a noise to get the demolition postponed and the possibility of preservation given a closer look. Good job everyone. Maybe we will get our cake and eat it too after all.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 11:35 AM
We did it. Hooray! Big box stores aren't good for NYC's economy. Big box stores are ugly. And we need to preserve our city's cultural heritage and in this case our country's heritage as well (as unpopular as it is to claim to be patriotic these days.) Look at Manhattan, everywhere it's chain store after chain store. We can do better in Brooklyn. Why wouldn't everybody just move to the 'burbs and pay lower rent if the city looks like a Staples/Walgreens based mini-mall?
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 12:05 PM
These buildings are so beautiful they make my heart ache. Only a monster would destroy them.
And please, starving? Have you seen the people in those towers? Obesity is the norm, and the ground is littered with chicken bones. There's so much chicken people don't even have room in their garbages for the bones.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 12:46 PM
12:46 -- I think the idea is to get better food options than just chicken. not that i support a tear-down, i'm just saying.
but i've also noticed the chicken bones and share your feelings about getting bigger garbage cans for the tenants.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 1:04 PM
The first time I drove by those houses on my way to LGA, my head snapped around. "What are those?" I wanted to know -- and was amazed to find out they (specifically, and the larger site in general) weren't being used for anything.
Over the years I've been in cabs with a fair number of out-of-town folks, and their reaction has always been the same. "What are those? ... They're just sitting there? Really?"
Seems like buildings that turn heads like that shouldn't be hastened out of the way. There have to be other ways to get a supermarket.
Posted by: BklynJace at January 18, 2008 1:18 PM
Ummm, please let's not turn this into a discussion of the eating habits of poor people. Obesity is a huge problem in our communities, and its causes are genetic, cultural and economic. One reason enough would be hard to change for any group. Chicken, unfortunately, usually fried, is a cheap and plentiful source of nourishment. It is also one of the few dishes in the world shared by almost every culture on earth. It also has bones, which are taken out of the trash by animals, and sadly, also littered by people. None of this has anything to do with preserving the Row.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 1:27 PM
Montrose Morris, you done stepped in it.
First, I don't know what "genetic" or "cultural" pool you're talking about, because when I walk through Farragut Houses, I see all kinds of folks. No obvious common DNA or cultural heritage among them. And they all fat, and they all be eating some chicken. (Except the ones that smoke their nutrition; they skinny.)
Second, you are flat wrong that "none of this has anything to do with preserving the Row." Food and diet has everything to do with the Row -- they're trying to replace it with a supermarket, for crying out loud. Listen to Leticia James' stock speech advocating the tear-down. She says "diet," "food," and "fruits and vegetables" at least five times each. She might even say "chicken;" I'd have to go back and check.
Third, don't blame the animals for the chicken bones. Let's keep this civilized.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 2:17 PM
2:17, if you don't want to go there, please don't resort to Ebonics to describe walking through Farragut houses. That either makes you someone falsely getting down with the peeps in order to mock them, or someone who should know better. And talking about chicken bones has absolutely nothing to do with viable discussions of nutrition, and is a total red herring, pardon the food pun. Tish truly cares about the kinds of food the community gets, and that is admirable, but she is probably the only one there who does. For everyone else, it's purely financial.
Lastly, I guess you've never seen feral cats, along with rats and even domestic dogs on leashes, pawing and ripping through garbage to get to bones. Those are the only animals I'm talking about, don't know about you.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 4:50 PM
Shorter Montrose: I can't defend my blaming obesity on "culture" and "genetics," so you're a racist.
Posted by: guest at January 18, 2008 5:29 PM
Longer Montrose: culture, in that high fat, fried foods are a part of African American culture and cuisine. The reasons for that are many, including slavery, making a little go a long way out of necessity, and preserving food in the hot climates of the South. This is a part of larger Southern cuisine for the sames reasons, as well. Try reading a book on the history of food, cooking and regional styles before screaming racist.
Genetics in that the predisposition towards obesity can be inherited, along with a lot of other things. This is true in any race or culture, it's a human thing. Simple science, what does race have to do with that?
If you want to make something of my remarks, feel free, but try to back it up with more than calling me a racist, which is rather silly in this case, as I am a member of the same group I'm supposed to be racist about. Self hatred is not in my portfolio.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at January 18, 2008 5:44 PM
And, might I add, since the obesity problem is nationwide and covers every group and culture, only a racist would target comments about obesity and garbage to those living in the Farragut houses.
Might I also ask "guest" how their comments add anything intelligent to the discussion of the Row and saving it? It isn't in danger from the inhabitants of the towers, it's indanger from greedy developers and short sighted politicians anxious to please their developer friends.
Posted by: bx2bklynstill at January 18, 2008 6:34 PM
In my neighborhood - which is not wealthy, but not the projects either - there is a small "gourmet" store that sells fresh fruits and vegetables, as well as Scandinavian flatbread, Boursin cheese and various exotic yogurts. It has no parking lot. With all the "luxury" development going up on Flatbush Avenue Extension, I'm sure that there's enough business to support one of these.
No need to set up a plan designed to encourage people from wealthy neighborhoods to drive cars through the projects. If James thinks that that additional car traffic would be good for her constituents, she's nuts.
Posted by: Capn Transit at January 19, 2008 10:13 AM
Things seem to degenerate exponentially. Why are we discussing fried chicken? Everbody eats fried chicken (vegetarians excluded). I remember walking through Captains Row almost 30 years ago when I was an employee of Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. and it was so elegant it almost took my breath away. And yes, I was a bad employee, leaving my job on the graving dock to stroll along the beautiful Captains Row. These houses have been neglected for so long it is criminal imho. We all deserve better treatment.
Posted by: guest at January 19, 2008 5:11 PM
At a meeting of the 57 AD Democratic Club in November, officials of the Brookiyn Navy Yard Corporation (BNYC)stated that as per an engineering review undertaken by the corporation, they found that the foundations of the buildings on Captain's Row had deteriorated so badly that it was simply not cost effective to save them. They blamed the deterioration of the site on the foot dragging of the federal government in transferring ownership of the site to BNYC, somethng that they had been attempting for several years and which in fact negotiations, though very promising are still pending.
It was then decided by the corporation that a supermarket would best serve the needs of the surrounding communities, namely residents of the Farragut, Ingersol, Whitman and Navy Yard Houses. Their aim is to provide this much needed sevice as well as additional employment opportunities for area residents. This project has the potential for producing as much as 150-200 area jobs. When placed in conjunction with their other income producing projects, we have the projected potential for 3000-5000 jobs for Brooklyn residents at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
The BNYC says that they have been in consultation with the tenant leadership of these communities and that they are overwhelmingly in favor of this determination. Tish James, who has also been in consultation with the leadership of these communities, which constitute a large part of her constituent base, wisely supports this plan.
As a life long Brooklyn resident currently residing in Clinton Hill for the last 14 years and in Fort Greene for 5 years, my son has already benefited from their employment initiatives.
It was suggested at the meeting that if preservation proponents sincerely wish to preserve the buildings they come up with a viable alternative plan with independent funding that could invite serious scrutiny.
I would like to see Captain's Row preserved as much as anybody, however, the BNYC's plan seems to be of much more profound benefit to the surrounding community.
At this point in time I am personally in concurrence with the BNYC plan.
I am Native Son.
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 10:14 AM
Unfortunately, Native Son, independent studies of the Row have shown that at least 8 of the 10 houses are indeed structurally viable, and could be restored. The BCNY's study only backs up the BCNY's determination that Admiral's Row is completely derelict, and should be demolished. I don't believe it, because it has the validity of those 1970's studies on the affects of smoking paid for by the tobacco industry.
We can assign blame wherever, and there is plenty to go around, but we now have what we have at the Admiral's Row, and we are in danger of losing a viable part of history. If the Row was torn down tomorrow, according to Ella, who has spoken as a voice for the row on previous threads, there is no firm developer or sponsor or even a supermarket chain lined up to put one there. This is her reasoning for why alternative plans for the site won't work - no one has signed up to build, and there is no money. If that is true, why tear down? It will result in nothing more but another brick filled bulldozed empty lot. Scarcely serving the needs of the residents, is it?
If that happens, the ghosts of the houses will haunt us for generations.
Preservationista
Posted by: guest at January 20, 2008 1:14 PM
Preservationista,
You misrepresent what I've said in previous posts. Not surprising considering how you misrepresent the entire issue. What I've said is that as of right now, there is no deal between the BNYDC and any specific developer or or supermarket chain. This was said in response to conspiracies theorists where were saying that the Navy Yard is only trying to knock down the buildings because they've already got a deal with a developer or supermarket chain. The those conspiracies went to the next step to say that the developer/supermarket was paying the Navy Yard officials under the table in order to get their approval. All of that is obviously ridiculous and insulting.
My reasoning for why alternative plans won't work is quite simply based on having a working knowledge of real estate markets and financing and applying that knowledge to a rigorous analysis of the proposals which results in a clear outcome that none of the alternate proposals are even close to being financially feasible. If a feasible alternative that saved the houses and didn't involve serious subsidy were proposed - I would be the first to embrace it. Alternatively, if an alternative were proposed that saved the houses and identified the source for subsidies, again I would be the first to support it. But to date, none of the alternatives have either shown themselves to be financially feasible, or have identified the sources for required subsidies. The BNYDC plan is the only one to date that actually works, that's why I support it. Nothing Preservationista has said on this topic has changed that.
Ella
Posted by: guest at January 21, 2008 11:58 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.