« Condo of the Day: Third Cut at Greenhouse 2BR House of the Day: 145 Bergen Street »
March 13, 2008
Inside Admirals' Row
Urban guerilla photographer Nathan Kensinger recently found his way into the Admirals Row houses and came out with some interesting photos and observations:
However, some of the buildings are in remarkably good condition. Their staircases, light fixtures, plasterwork, shelves, mantlepieces and wood floors are only in need of polish and paint. The beauty of these architectural details, when compared to the complete devastation in other buildings, is a stunning indictment of the Navy's neglect.
Lots more photos on the link. Enjoy.
Brooklyn Navy Yard: Admirals Row [Nathan Kensinger]
Pratties Develop Alternative Plans for Admirals' Row [Brownstoner]
Admirals’ Row: Debate Still Framed as Either/Or Decision [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4206
Comments
Did "urban guerilla" Nathan "find his way in" by trespassing?
Wow, some balls, especially when he posts it on a blog.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:19 PM
What's the big deal about Admiral's Row? Are they gonna sell it to private developers or something?
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:28 PM
www.smoinge.com/media/1882/KULA_SHAKER-Hey_Dude/
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Hey 1:19 those pictures fell off the back of a truck! You got any proof otherwise tough guy?
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:37 PM
Have you seen the other photos on that blog? Balls like watermelons!
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:46 PM
Apologies if I missed a whole set of pictures but I'm a very experienced renovator and I didn't see anything that could be saved!!!!
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at March 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Gorgeous shots. The ballroom is incredible, and so is the lighting. The layers of decay, as well as the composition of elements is very nice. I would love a coffee table book of this series of photos. The man has an eye.
That said, it must have been extremely dangerous, especially going above the ground floors, and he's really lucky he didn't get hurt.
While some of the houses do seem to be completely derlict, it is also obvious that some are restorable. I've seen worse in house hunting. I really hope a compromise plan is worked out preserving the best, and providing the community with the supermarket and other retail space.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 13, 2008 1:54 PM
"only in need of polish and paint"...
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 1:59 PM
guest@1:19's comments are totally irrelevant to the larger discussion of the navy yard, preservation and a larger community discussion on decisions that will utlimately affect brooklyn as a community.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:00 PM
The work is not that bad. demo is almost done! Wish they would employee the PJ residents and let them rebuild the row and at the same time learn a trade or 2.
Jack
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:25 PM
That's an excellent idea, Jack.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:32 PM
No, not trespassing in vacant buildings! Clutch pearls! They do that in New York? And they take pictures or stage performances or throw raves? I am shocked, simply shocked...
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at March 13, 2008 2:44 PM
These buildings haven't been owned by the Navy since the 1967 when it was sold to the city of New York. It is the neglect of the city, and the corporation that runs the navy yard that is responsible for the neglect.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 2:52 PM
Actually Admiral's Row is the only section of the Yard still owned by the Coast Guard. It's in the process of being handed over to the city, but in the meantime remains government property.
Trespassing in the name of documenting historical treasures should really be the least of anyone's concerns.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:01 PM
two-fifty-two, get yourself a clue--the whole point of the federal review right now, the thing that is generating all the hub-bub, if that the feds are preparing to transfer the property from the National Guard to the city, which intends to lease the property to the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.
The trespassing doesn't bother me so much, but "polish and paint?" Knee-slapping funny. And yeah, Mr. Morris, I've restored some properties too.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:15 PM
The superstructures of the buildings are most certainly salvageable, with the possible exceptions of Quarters K,L,H,C and the stable; J's a total goner (the groundskeeper's building back by the NYPD impound lot) but for the most part, the exteriors are sound.
The interiors on a couple of the buildings - B and D especially - could be rehabbed with some serious effort and thoughtful planning.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:25 PM
It says only that some of the architectural details, like "staircases, light fixtures, plasterwork, shelves, mantlepieces and wood floors" were in need of "polish and paint."
From the looks of these photos, thats true. Those banisters aren't going to take much work to repair. Wood is pretty easy to clean as long as it is still in one piece.
And whats so hard about polishing a light fixture? I don't understand why some earlier comments think its difficult to clean wood and glass....
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:49 PM
If his ass fell in the building and injured himself I'm sure he'd want to sue. what's so special about Admiral's Row...seems everything in the past is precious...
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 3:55 PM
Conversely, whats so special about a new supermarket?
I'd sooner renovate some old buildings then build a new supermarket any day.
Or do you people like supermarket architecture?
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:01 PM
agreed that site could be a great turist attraction.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:04 PM
Why does Mr. B only quote the portion of Nathan's post that says some of these houses only need "polish and paint," and neglect to quote the first part in which he notes that many are in a "state of irreparable collapse"? These houses are in terrible shape. It seems like folly to spend enormous amounts of money restoring them when other neighborhoods in Brooklyn are facing foreclosure. I can understand the desire to preserve history, and under other circumstances, and in a different economy, I'd say let's all get on the preservation bandwagon. but let's be honest, and realistic: a supermarket would do much more to serve the needs of the neighborhood than undertaking the extravagant expense of bringing these decrepit old houses, however beautiful they once were, back to life.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:09 PM
To 3:49- absolutely agreed. While some parts of the building seem beyond repair, some just need some sanding, staining and painting. The floors are hardwood, some in beautiful shape beneath all the downed plaster.
To 3:55- I wouldn't be so sure of that. If he's entering the buildings to try and document/preserve and he got hurt, what good would suing the owners do? It would reduce already slim funds that could be put toward rehabbing, and would create an even greater negative stigma about the Row than it already has in the controversial save/destroy debate.
I think the most shameful part in all this is that a grocery store could easily fit in just one or two sections of the lot where the most damaged buildings remain (stable, quarters k). The rest gets razed in the name of a parking lot. If we must destroy history in the name of helping the neighborhood- than actually help them. I promise you they would rather housing, or other small stores crop up beside the supermarket. Not a vast parking lot.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:22 PM
If some of the architectural detail needs only polish and paint, why not remove it and place them in historic homes that are structurally sound? No reason to raze the whole row, either, if some of these houses are salvageable. but it's clear that at least a few of these are way beyond repair and need to be demolished.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 4:34 PM
Even the front halves of quarters K and L are salvageable, as is C without the eastern addition. True, it would be a complete gut renovation, whereas, say, B could probably just be rehabbed - the parquet floors are still freaking glossy with shellac in areas of B! - but it would be doable.
Not to mention, as the Pratt plan makes clear, there are plenty of ways to meld the commercialization plan with the preservation of the Row, providing valuable services to Farragut and Ingersoll residents whilst helping maintain a valuable vestige of old NY! But of course, I'm sure there are some idiots on here who would happily part with some gorgeous old Second Empire buildings in exchange for another "Hot" Karl Fischer row. Well, there's no accounting for taste.
R. Nickel, Jr.
kingstonlounge.blogspot.com
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 5:41 PM
The only thing the Pratt plan makes clear is that Pratt professors and students have no concept of reality when it comes to developing and financing actual real estate projects.
-Ella
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:00 PM
Very true, Ella. Intellectual exercises make for interesting classroom experiences, but rarely traslate seamlessly into reality.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:08 PM
Nobody said the buildings were not salvagable or beyond repair. They said it would cost tens of millions of dollars for each building, and that's what made it impossible. It's all about the cost and never being able to recoup it.
Very expensive housing would not sell in this area and it would have to be very expensive housing, with the high cost to renovate.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 6:14 PM
Historic buildings should be saved. Preserve the history of NYC and the US, it makes sense! Once it's gone it's gone forever.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:38 PM
Okay, good, so that means you're donating the money to renovate these buildings then, right 11:38?
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Posted by: guest at March 13, 2008 11:56 PM
These should have been saved but they seem to be too far gone now. Knock them down build affordable. Lesson learned preservationists have to jump on the preserve not destroy bandwagon much sooner.
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 1:56 AM
wish i had a choice where my tax money went. id much rather it be put into this project than a stadium
Posted by: guest at March 14, 2008 9:36 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.