« Friday Links Myer Has 'Hope' for Brooklyn Bridge Park »

April 18, 2008

Another Old Burg Beaut Biting the Dust

As we've long feared, Con Edison is demolishing the beautiful old power plant on Kent and Division that was built in 1905. Echoing a post put up last month on I'm Not Saying, I'm Just Saying, this morning AM New York has a story on the demolition, which sure isn't sitting well with preservationists. The sprawling industrial building once helped power the BRT, and Con Ed bought it in 1950 and kept it running until 1999. The utility company wouldn't comment on what it has planned for the site. The LPC rejected a push to landmark the structure last year. Preservationists argue that the demolition will result in the loss of a crucial piece of the area's—and Brooklyn's—history. "Large buildings like that are great adaptive reuse projects," says Lisa Kersavage, director of advocacy for the Municipal Art Society. "The industry on the waterfront is really what saved Brooklyn, and that is going to be forgotten." The most disappointing quote in the article comes from Evan Thies, a CB1 member who is campaigning to replace David Yassky. "Right now it's an eyesore that's way out of context for the neighborhood," says Thies. "This is the 100-year-old problem of New York, that we don't have access to the waterfront. ... We can move industry and utilities to other parts of the city and the borough that are much less desirable."
Historic Kent Ave Power Plant: Are Renovations Prelude to Demolition? [INSIJS]
Community Shocked as Plug Pulled on Historic Power Plant [AM New York]
Proactive on Kent Avenue? [Brownstoner] GMAP
Photo by i'm just sayin

Rear view

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4588

Comments

This is a total tragedy, I agree, but why weren't the preservationists making noise about this two years ago? They had to know it was at risk, right?

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 9:11 AM

God, this could be an incredible museum. It's getting cliched to keep citing this, but, hello, Tate?

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 9:20 AM

there was a copy of the original news article reporting the opening of this place in the edwardian era on some website ...but i can't remember which one....

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 9:23 AM

"We can move industry and utilities to other parts of the city and the borough that are much less desirable."

I will immediately give the maximum legal campaign contribution to Thies if he has the guts to name specifically which "much less desirable" parts of the borough he has in mind.

Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at April 18, 2008 9:25 AM

Check out a photo of the building back in the day here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imjustsayin/2324998039/in/photostream/

Posted by: brownstoner at April 18, 2008 9:32 AM

9:11 - Actually, the community was making noise about this 15 years ago. This building was called out specifically in the Williamsburg 197-a plan for designation and preservation. Just about everything else the community asked for in that 197-a plan was ignored, so its not surprising this being ignored too.

Posted by: WBer at April 18, 2008 9:51 AM

I'm not disapointed, I think it takes a hell of a lot of courage to stand up the Brooklyn-industrial-preservation-complex. I would offer that just about anywhere in brooklyn is a better place to site a huge industrial building than on the water, obstructing views and preventing recreation. This idea that because something is old means it is sacred is a fetish. The city should serve the people who live in it and not merely serve as an homage to those who came before. If you want to preserve the industrial past, why don't you do it on the cheap in one of the rust belt cities?

Posted by: Buttons at April 18, 2008 9:58 AM

The sad part isnt that this building isnt being preserved - given our severe lack of production facilities electricity is way too expensive in NYC and therefore the sad part is that Con Ed isnt replacing this facility with a new electric plant.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:03 AM

Thies was instrumental in Yassky's efforts to de-designate 184 Kent. I guess he just doesn't get it (maybe he doesnt need the brownstone Brooklyn vote).

And given what has been constructed nearby, he also has a pretty warped view of what constitutes an "eyesore". (Not that a bunch of beaux arts decoration makes for a beutiful building, but between the other old buildings and the new buildings in this area, the bar is pretty low.)

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:19 AM

I would rather conserve it than watch Con Ed put another electrical plant there. Why expect they will put something recreational or appealing?

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:21 AM

"We can move industry and utilities to other parts of the city and the borough that are much less desirable."

Yeah, I wonder where he thinks that is, too. Even so, those parts of the borough, cuz you know he's probably thinking ENY, Flatlands, etc, are notoriously inaccessible without a car, and hard to get to with public transportation, so in the name of impressive everyone with the Wmsburg waterfront's shiny new look, he's going to add more pollution, and cause already strapped blue collar workers to spend more time and money trying to get to whatever jobs are left.

This WOULD be a great building for adaptive reuse, and what is more Brooklyn than our historical industrial past. Any city can have mediocre shiny condo towers. Which leads to Button's remarks - preserving the past in "some rust belt city" is akin to only having park land in Idaho, because it takes up too much room in New York. We preserve it here, because it is here, and the people here can reuse and appreciate it. Obstruct someone's view? Ahhh, the rich, who really NEED another condo tower in Williamsburg. Somehow I doubt you are thinking about affordable housing, or even a public park.

What a wasted opportunity.

Preservationista

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:21 AM

"BRT"??

I think you mean "BMT" or "IRT." There's no "BRT."

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:27 AM

Thies was instrumental in Yassky's efforts to de-designate 184 Kent. I guess he just doesn't get it (maybe he doesnt need the brownstone Brooklyn vote).

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:32 AM

BRT was Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company - they operated the surface rails (trolleys), for which this plant provided all of the power. Eventually BRT was reorganized into BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corp.).

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Rapid_Transit_Company

Posted by: WBer at April 18, 2008 10:39 AM

not all 10:39

see the big red building on the gowanus down the street from what was washington park (where the dodgers played before ebbets) and is now a con-ed yard.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:53 AM

I congratulate Con Ed on this move. I congratulate that they saw fit to exercise their right as a property owner. I especially congratulate them that they exercised their right in a straight-forward manner, without trying to waste their money on items such as "community consultations", which in such manners only empowers the NIMBY/comminity "activist"?presrvation at any cost crowd. Well done!!

I compare this scenatio to that of Clarett's ongoing experience at 340 Court. Here is a situation wherein they can build as-of-right, yet they have tried to "engage the community". What have they gotten for these efforts, but endless grief from this crowd, who has not the least concern for the time and money wasted. At the same time, they'll engage in endless hand-wringing about the need for "affordable housing", and will lobby for Byzantine laws and set-asides to accomplish such. And who is going to administer these laws? Why, the very same crowd of "non-profit" agencies, community activists, etc.

Once again, I heartily commend Con Ed for standing up for their property rights- a fundamental value of this country, and one of the foundations of liberty. Let's hope that others will do so in a city where all too many socialist losers are ready to trample on them.

Benson.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 10:56 AM

10:03 & 10:21, I hate to break this to you but Con Ed does not generate it's own electricity and has not done so ever since the industry was deregulated in the late 1990's. Con Ed is a distributer of electricity generated by others. It makes sense for them to get rid of this building since it is surpless to requirements

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 11:08 AM

11:08 - uhh you are wrong - Con Ed still has subsidiaries generating power - further Con Ed has leased and sold numerous locations to power generators (like NYPA). This site is perfect for one of the NEEDED small power plants in NYC

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 11:58 AM

11:58 - Con Ed does NOT generate!! It is not allowed to under state regulations. The locations leased and sold to other power generators were mandated by Albany. NYPA, Powergen etc. have absolutelty nothing to do with Con Ed.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 1:03 PM

Con Edison Development, Inc. is an independent power producer that develops, builds and operates electric generation plants primarily in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic

Con Edison Development was formed in 1997 as a wholly owned unregulated subsidiary of New York City-based Consolidated Edison, Inc.,

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 1:59 PM

Con Edison Development Inc. is a seperate company to Consolidated Edison Company of New York PLC

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 3:20 PM

Out of context???!!! WTF?? The building epitomizes the context! What the hell kind of idiot is this Thies guy? This guy is dangerous and must be stopped.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 3:22 PM

3:20 is correct. They are two separate companies operated independantly of each other. There is also Con Edison solutions and Con Edison Orange and Rockland.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 3:25 PM

whatever. it's a factory. build something that maximizes housing and facilities and amenities.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 4:22 PM

So dissappointed in Theis. I guess he learned a lot while working for Yassky. The community hasn't forgotten Austin Nichols. Is a developer going to contribute to the council campaign??? There's lots of room for adaptive reuse along the waterfront. Reusing the boros industrial heritage structures is certainly not incompatible with development, parks etc. Anyway, the new stuff that's being built - even at luxury prices - is total crap.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 7:20 PM

I agree 7:20
the Con Ed building at least won't fall apart in the first hurricane like the glass clad towers. Reuse it!!

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 7:42 PM

rivers are out of context in nyc.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 9:39 PM

As always Benson RIGHT ON!, I couldn't have said it any better.

Posted by: guest at April 18, 2008 11:52 PM