« No More Free Rides From Ikea? Federal Probation Officer Defends Proximity to St. Ann's »
July 16, 2008
James Opens Door to (Partial) Admiral's Row Preservation
Coucilmember Letitia James has modified her position on the preservation of Admiral's Row, the group of ten historic houses along Flushing Avenue, according to an article in The Brooklyn Paper. James had previously advocated razing the structures to make way for a supermarket, but the councilmember is now saying that "some" of the houses could be preserved and some kind of balance struck between preservation and addressing the lack of supermarket options for nearby residents. James told us that "the key to preserving some of the buildings is money. If the economics are resolved, we can move forward on preserving some of these buildings, but, my first priority is to meet the immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Vinegar Hill." A formal public review of Admiral's Row redevelopment plans begins next Tuesday at a meeting at Borough Hall (209 Joralemon Street, 7 p.m).
James gets in middle of ‘Row’ [Brooklyn Paper]
Guard Starts Talks 'To Come Up With Alternatives' For Row [Brownstoner]
Photo by SmithersJones.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5531
Comments
I'm glad to see some public official willing to even consider a nuanced position on this instead of all the class-baiting extremism.
Posted by: itsagas at July 16, 2008 10:10 AM
Brent Porter's idea is a perfect solution. downsize the parking lot. A 300 car lot is a ridiculous waste of land in this area.
Add bus shuttles the same as Ikea does. That would certainly help the people who live in the area and don't have cars, and be more environmentally sound. The land saved could be used for the supermarket, and take pressure off of destroying the row. If they want to have more parking, build it underground or a multilevel lot with a smaller footprint.
Makes no sense to build something as basic as a supermarket in a place where people without cars have difficulty getting to it, and we shouldn't be destroying history just to accommodate cars when we really need to improve public transportation. that's much more environmentally sound.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 10:12 AM
Please, bxgirl, Brent Porter's plan is the most lamebrained thing i've heard put forth for this site. He even understand the financial realities that surround this site a little bit. It's fine to advocate for preservation, but unless there are subsidy funds around to pay for it - it's not gonna happen. Yeah you could say that the supermarket should subsidize the preservation, but (1) I'm not convinced that there would be enough $$$ flowing from the supermarket to cover all the costs , and (2) Any extra money coming out of the supermarket deal should go towards helping the navy yard support their mission of fostering economic development of the city's industrial base. Maybe there's a compromise to be had here where 1 of the houses gets saved, but that's about it.
And by the way, the 300 car parking lot would be required under zoning for a 50,000 SF supermarket. It's not like it came out of nowhere.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 10:32 AM
From what I can see, there is plenty of room for both a supermarket (with parking) and a partially preserved Row. I concede that a couple of the houses may be too far gone to restore, unless vast amounts of money are spent to do so. However, it seems that many of them could be restored, and a feasible plan with a mixture of creative reuse, as well as straight up historic preservation could be done.
I'm sure Ella, the unofficial spokesperson for the Yard on this site, will again weigh in with her declarations that it won't work, is too expensive, etc, etc. Nothing she, or any of the naysayers have ever said on the topic can convince me that a compromise plan, a well thought out, creative and profitable plan, cannot be put together that will address the needs of the community, the Naval Yard, historians and preservationists.
Can we please do something soon, before it is all ivy covered rubble, and the point is moot? Or is that the plan?
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2008 10:49 AM
MMHTPH- I'm not advocating the supermarket pay for the preservation but Porter is an architect and professor of architecture at Pratt which has a huge program that community studies in Brooklyn, so I'd say he must know something. As for the parking lot, maybe it's time to change certain zoning demands- and again, a flat lot for cars is a waste of land when there are alternatives- multilevel lots are all over the city. It's certainly feasible.
that said, the preservation of Admiral's row is important. Not just historically- but history is an important part of everyone's education-but in terms of making money for the Yard. they are building a Navy Yard Museum- why not use the houses and incorporate them? They'll be a tourist attraction- tourism is money. Or renovate them and lease them as high end office space- they'll make money.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 10:54 AM
I actually don't think Ella wants a solution. I remember that thread!
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 10:59 AM
Agree, bxgirl. Has anyone noticed any surface parking lots in *really* great cities like Paris or London? There aren't any. And the people get along fine without.
On even a small scale, note the 12 car Commerce Bank lot at 5th Av & 2nd. While kudos to the group that at least forced them to change the design so there wouldn't be a drive-thru window (!!), it still sticks out like a sore thumb, breaks the streetscape "wall" and is an irritation when the SUVs pull in or out.
Parking lots are one of the worst offenders of the public realm and we should never build any more in the denser urban areas of NY.
Posted by: cmu at July 16, 2008 11:07 AM
Why not incorporate Admirals Row facade into the supermarche's design. Thats how its down in historic urban sections of Europe...Love that Letitia J! She's a keeper...
Posted by: qis4quincy at July 16, 2008 11:07 AM
"If the economics are resolved, we can move forward on preserving some of these buildings...." That's a mighty big "if." Of course, if the preservationists get the upper hand in this fight, and they have been gaining strength for months, the mayor might find the money needed to keep the project from collapsing completely. Or not; real potential for a pyrrhic victory here.
Also, whenever people discuss what should be built at the corner of Flushing and Navy, some of the comments are, 'we can both save Admiral's Row and build a supermarket.' Not mentioned is the other building planned for the site. Since I have not read any comments stating, 'we can have all three uses,' I assume that people either have forgotten or don't know about the new industrial building or are expressing a preference for preserving Admiral's Row.
Posted by: g_man at July 16, 2008 11:23 AM
qis4quincy- that would be awesome, especially if they can save several of the houses and maybe use them for offices, and as part of the museum. I'm all for living history, is it were, but I'm not willing to lose all of them. Not that it's my decision- but I have seen that historic districts tend to remain stable and valuable. Maybe it's because of their cachet? Of course, and their beauty. those aren't financial tangibles although they often translate into such.
I'm helping a friend who is moving her family's century old store as the building was sold and is to be torn down. For the last 10 years I have archived materials for her and we are now in the process of moving it but my hope is to have her create a museum because the history of that store is the history of the garment center and it also relates to the military since they used to be suppliers to the military for uniform trim and accessories. Yet she has another friend who would have simply thrown it all out or sold it. So some people really just never get it.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 11:24 AM
g-man, if the row took up a major part of the Yard it would be one thing. But there is nothing wrong with working out a solution to please everyone. The Navy yard is a huge, proud part of our history- that has impact, our history is what shapes us as a nation and we need all the proud history we can get at this point. It always seems to be that preservation and finance are seen as adversarial, but that isn't always the case. Usually those who want fast and cheap advocate for demolition. And that is not always the best way in the long run. And sometimes it turns out to be the most expensive.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 11:30 AM
Can anyone tell me why the enormous vacant lot between Park and Flushing at Clermont isn't a viable candidate for a new grocery store?
Posted by: brooklynfamily at July 16, 2008 11:58 AM
When I see the decrepitude and abandonment of these old mansions, I associate it with the ineptitude and wastefulness of the Federal Government and the people who run the US Army.
What organization in its right mind would allow this to happen to its valuable, historic properties?
Let these houses be a reminder to all of us of the low esteem in which the Boro of Brooklyn is held by our elected and non-elected officials in Washington DC.
The condition of this Federal property is a disgrace and an insult to the people of Brooklyn and New York.
The only hope for these houses is for them to be separated from the rest of the parcel and sold off individually with preservation covenants, to private citizens. The private owners would do what responsible citizens have done throught the boro, they will restore them and live in them.
No other solution, including any that involves the brain-dead bureaucracies or the Yahoos at the Navy Yard will work.
This is a disgrace and an affront. We should make that clear to our so-called leaders.
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 12:01 PM
I agree that the zoning reg that requires that much parking here is stupid, but there's no getting around the fact that it exists and any development plan for this site needs to deal with it. We should all pressure City Planning to make update the parking requirements in this city to something more urban and transit friendly, but that's a separate fight that will likely take a long time.
I don't think a shuttle would be very feasible for a development of this size. Remember, IKEA is a huge international corporation with a store that is 4-5 times larger than what we're talking about here - so I don't think that's really a comparable situation. The Navy Yard has a shuttle that runs in the AM and PM rush hours - that would probably be your best bet.
As for Mr. Porter - all I can say is that i've dealt with many architects in my lifetime. Some are very practical and deal in the realm of the "possible", some are egg-headed intellectuals who feel that real world concerns like making a project economically feasible are beneath them. I don't Porter personally but from his position as a professor at Pratt, and from what I've read of his proposals for this site, I'd say he falls into the second category.
And Montrose Morris - I agree that there is a creative compromise that could be worked out - but it's important to understand that that compromise would no doubt involve something (reduced parking, underground parking, reduced supermarket size, requirement to preserve all/some houses) that would make the site worth less money to the Navy Yard. At the end of the day, this whole development (and their whole development plan) was about 3 things: (1) creating more industrial space (2) providing services
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 12:21 PM
Sorry - I got a little verbose there and the end of my comment got cut off. Anyway to finish that thought:
The Navy Yard plan wanted to accomplish 3 things: (1) build more industrial space (2) provide better services to the surrounding community and (3) increase revenues of the development corporation so that they can afford to maintain the whole yard in a state of good repair without relying on subsidies from the city every year - subsidies that will no doubt dry up one day. It's important to realize that the navy yard campus is 150 years old and that for a long time, no money was spent keeping it up. The development corp is in the middle of digging themselves out of a huge "deferred maintenance" hole. So while it's easy to be a consipiracy theorist and paint the dev corp folks as greedy, I think their desire to maximize revenue from this site is rooted in good intentions. I think that's why they've been unwilling to compromise to date. But with Tish Jame's softening, they may not have any other choice at this point...
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 12:40 PM
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, bxgrl; I was just pointing out that I have not seen any indication that anyone is prepared to allocate millions of dollars to restore/re-build some or all of Admiral's Row. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. cannot afford to fix up the buildings, the income stream from the redeveloped properties won't sustain financing, Councilwoman James does not have that kind of discretionary funding.... Maybe the mayor will find the money, or maybe not.
Posted by: g_man at July 16, 2008 12:49 PM
This property does not belong to the Navy Yard. There is a fence behind the houses separating this parcel from the Navy Yard. It is owned by the US Army.
The Army wants to get rid of it by selling it to the City of NY. Who only wants it if it is completely wiped clean of any buildings. They will then convey it to the Navy Yard who will, God knows, probably do nothing with it for another twenty years. If you have followed the history of this parcel, you will uncover all sorts of chicanery, cheating, lying, corruption, and stupidity on the part of government officials at every level. It isn't a conspirancy, nothing that intelligent, it is just a comedy of errors and breathtaking lack of vision.
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 12:50 PM
MMHTPH, (whew!) I have no gripe with the fact that whatever is done there, it needs to be something that generates income. The Navy Yard is entertaining the idea of tours. Any tour should surely include the very historic, and very visible Row. I would venture to say that the Navy Yard is the most historic site in the city, given that it has been a participant in our nation's history since our inception, not just once, but continuously for over 200 years. No other site in the the city, and certainly not in Bklyn, can claim that. I'd be more than willing to pay to see the drydock, the Commander's House, the WW2 sites, and all of the rest of the historic buildings. Add a restored Row, and throw in Steiner Studios, and you've got a day long experience. One of the Row houses could be restored as a house museum. The rest could house tourist related office space, a gift shop, cafes, maybe a non profit organization related to historic preservation, or NYC history.
I still think a training program, perhaps co-sponsored by Pratt, could be set up, teaching historic restoration skills, especially to local students, leading to lucrative and real careers in building trades, historic restoration, architecture, engineering, etc.
There is still plenty of room, at least it looks that way from the outside, to have a proper supermarket/retail space with parking. The Navy Yard is enormous. So is the potential.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2008 12:59 PM
MM- I also wonder why Pratt couldn't set up a program similar to the one at St. John the Divine where they have apprenticeships for community people to learn skills- in their case, masonry, stone work, restoration, stained glass, tapestry restoration. Think of the skills young people in the neighborhood could be taught by restoring Admiral's row that would give them skills for life. Eventually the program became renowned and now brings in money.
g man-One thing I believe is that you won't see anyone wanting to give money for restoring Admiral's Row because up to now there hasn't been much talk of really what to do with it. People have simply been trying to keep it from being destroyed, but if viable plans were put forward, I think money would be found. Investors need to see that there is a real, tangible benefit to keeping the houses and from the number of suggestions here, there is quite a lot.
Maybe it's that most people in business don't have experience with the money-making potential of historical buildings and museums, so they tend not to consider them.
It's actually the Army National Guard that owns the site.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 1:16 PM
Actually, MM- if they concentrated on building trades, maybe the Unions would sign on to give money for such a program?
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 1:17 PM
bxgirl,
just fyi, the Army National Guard is a component of the
US ARMY.
The building trade unions hate restoration jobs, 95% of the crews who work on restoration, and who have expertise in Brownstone repair, plaster repair, wooden windows, etc etc, are non-union.
Pratt's architectural and engineer programs are professional programs, it is not a trade school for the disadvantaged (like St John The Divine's defunct program).
geesh!
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 1:52 PM
sam, bxgrl didn't say that Pratt HAD the program set up, but only echoed what I said, in that a program in the same vein as the St. John's program COULD be set up.
No kidding Pratt's programs are professional, no one intimated that they were some kind of remedial trade school. Who better than a nearby school with professional programs in architecture and engineering to set up and run a hypothetical program of this sort?
If you don't ask questions, how is one supposed to get answers? Geesh, indeed.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2008 2:09 PM
really, Sam???? Gee- what was I thinking? that the "Army" in "Army National Guard" referred to bulgur wheat? I am very aware that the ANG is a component of the Army but it should be obvious there are differences in organization and command structure in several points. Otherwise why does the ANG own the Yards property, rather than the army proper? My organization does training for them, and my employer happens to be in the Guard, so yeah.... I knew that.
Thanks for running interference MM. Obviously Sam has difficulty with creative solutions. The St. John the Divine program's apprentices have since gone on to other things as construction has ended- at least for now- however the tapestry workshop still exists and is considered one of the best.
If i were you I wouldn't speak for the unions because they do have apprenticeship programs and they are looking to do outreach. as far as Pratt goes, there is no reason why a professional program for the "trades" couldn't or shouldn't be run by them. they want to impact the community, let them do so in a way that really helps. If you think a university like Pratt should not run community programs to help the disadvantaged I would say that's unhelpful, shortsighted and elitist.
You might also take a look at European schools that teach trades and crafts. They are professional, demanding programs and graduates are as knowledgeable in their fields as architects and engineers are in theirs.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 2:31 PM
Montrosse, it is just the idea of using the houses as labs for kids wanting to enter the building trades, somehow sponsored by Pratt, that I find so very loony.
How many millions of dollars would such an undertaking cost? Who would pay for it? The folks at Pratt need to focus on their mission and their own historic buildings. They have enough on their plate.
The building trades (union and non-union) have their system of recruitment and training (don't worry).
The houses themselves are financial albatrosses unless they are sold to private owners with legal covenants that they be restored.
There aren't that many goo-gooey options in this case.
I don't mean to pick on bxgirl but her points were so off the mark that I needed to respond.
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 2:41 PM
bxgirl:
why don't you contact the DANSK KULTUR OPERATEN INSTITUTEN
to set up shop in Brooklyn to teach the natives about building trades?
You talk a good game but your ideas are flaky.
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 2:47 PM
Well, sam- I suggested Pratt because they have a program that deals with urban community planning. and since I work with non-profits I have seen many "flaky" ideas come to fruition and actually do good in the community, whereas people with your attitude typically sit back on their asses and bitch about the state of the world. that's a lot easier isn't it. And in fact I'm an honorary director for one of those "flaky" ideas that a very visionary, ordinary businessman had and brought to reality. I have no idea what field you are in but I would bet it's something like land speculator or pork futures.
Having also dealt with unions, I will also reiterate- you simply don't know. You've decided but as MM says, you don't ask, you don't get. So basically I can see you have no real idea about any alternatives for these houses or even any of the possibilities- If the fact that I do makes me flaky, good for me.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 2:58 PM
Oh and sam- I refer to people in the local community, not "natives" but that's just my flakiness, I guess.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 3:07 PM
I see very limited possibilities for these houses, you are correct.
Unless of course we can turn them into the pork belly futures institute (a for-profit corporation that could afford to fix up these money pits).
Posted by: sam at July 16, 2008 5:06 PM
Sam, as historic buildings in an historic site, the Row houses would need to be sensitively and expertly rebuilt and restored. That is very different than just fixing the roof, slapping up the sheetrock and painting with Benjamin Moore historic colors. Ideally, they should be picked over and researched meticulously like an architectural dig, in order to preserve/reproduce original detail of all kinds, including 19th century paint colors, wallpaper, lighting, etc.
Of course, much of this may be impossible, due to constant upgrades by the Navy up until the time the houses were abandoned and left to rot, and lack of funds. It may be that they will have to simply be rebuilt in the manner of their original styles, with updates for modern conveniences,safety and code requirements. I'm going by pictures I've seen, I haven't seen them up close.
My idea for a training center, which bxgrl echoed, would not just teach building trades, but specialized skills in restoration. 19th c. bricklaying, for example, slate tile roofing, sympathetic methods of electricity for historic public buildings, period appropriate paint techniques, the list could go on. "Graduating" from this project with these specific skills could lead to jobs at museums, other historic sites, or private restoration jobs for homeowners who want to pay for a museum style historic restoration, or starting one's own business. It may even encourage someone to get a degree in historic preservation, or engineering or architecture. Who knows?
Will this happen? I have no way of knowing. But I don't think belittling the idea serves much purpose. We need to foster new ideas for helping communities. This is certainly no worse than some, and accomplishes the twin goals of fostering hope for a better future, and getting a job done for Brooklyn's continuing prosperity.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 16, 2008 5:26 PM
MM, Sam and bxgirl: You guys all seem to be talking past one and another and not getting eachother's points, so maybe I can elaborate. Bxgirl and MM - clearly it would be great if something creative that you mentioned could be done with this site. There are actually probably tons of creative ideas that could be put forth for the site that would either help the poor or raise supply some sort of cultural or educational amenity to the citizens of NY. I know that sam is being a little rough around the edges, but you guys are being very offensive. You call sam "unimaginative" and think that you are so much more creative than him, but you fail to recognize that all of your creative plans cost money and it's very easy to be creative when you're playing with other people's money. Bxgirl - your point is well taken that sometimes those crazy ideas find money to support them once they are put forth, but you'll have to admit that those situations are few and far between and they take tons of time to put together. One things these houses don't have is time. Every winter that goes by, their condition gets worse, and it won't be long till they collapse under their own weight. Portions of the houses have already begun to do so.
Because of this time limitation, we need to focus on what can actually happen here - which means limiting ourselves to options that make financial sense without some angel appearing out of the blue. It's not like Pratt is an institution overflowing with money and donors who are just looking for a project like this. It's a relatively cash-strapped institution that has along priorities list that it would like to get to before
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 6:03 PM
MMHTPH- Offensive? He insults me in his first post by snarking everything I said. He assumes I didn't know that the ANG was part of the Army, whereas I know better than he what it is and how it relates to the Army. The guy calls my ideas flaky and me calling him unimaginative makes me offensive? Right.
And talking about offensive assumptions, what makes you think I don't know that creative ideas cost money? You have no idea of my background or the things I've accomplished, or the people I've worked with so please don't hand me that "you fail to recognize that all of your creative plans cost money and it's very easy to be creative when you're playing with other people's money." BS because, since it's obvious you aren't in the arts or in nonprofits you yourself have no clue as to what's out there. No one said Pratt should fund it- but bear in mind Pratt is an established institution with major connections and if they want to start a program they have a better chance than most to get money for it. If you're the President of Pratt I'd accept your superior insider knowledge of Pratt priorities but somehow I doubt you are.
You have accused me of thinking I am so much more creative than sam, yet neither he or you threw out any ideas at all. That should tell you something.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 6:39 PM
bxgirl,
get over yourself. You are being way too defensive.
Sam is right. these houses are money pits and Pratt has its own problems, including its own row of vacant and abandoned historic houses, formerly for faculty, now empty.
Maybe the Mayor's billions could fund a philanthropy that could run a trade school at the officers' row, but he and his deputies are the ones pressing the hardest for their demolition.
Wishful thinking is fine, but not all of us live in la-la land.
Posted by: Gary Cooper at July 16, 2008 7:59 PM
gosh gary- and here we thought you'd be too bored to post again.
I hardly live in la-la land and frankly, if I give an opinion and you don't agree with it, I simply expect common courtesy. disagree without getting all crappy about it. so far sam, you and mmhtph can't seem to accomplish that. Sure they're money pits- but the idea was to make them bring in money and I'm neither going to repeat myself nor apologize for being able to think outside the box just because you can't. You have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about.
I'm not being defensive- I don't think people who are incapable of coming up with any ideas at all are hardly in a position to criticize anyone who can. And the simple refusal to acknowledge what I actually did say regarding Pratt simply tells me yet again you either can't or you are willfully misunderstanding what I am saying.
so you 3 can bitch about being bored or bitch about people throwing out ideas you can't even think of, or think you are so superior while I'm in la la land, as you so meagerly put it, but the bottom line is if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Posted by: also guest at July 16, 2008 8:25 PM
and yes- also guest is another name, just as i know who you are, gary.
-bxgrl
Posted by: also guest at July 16, 2008 8:26 PM
Bxgrl - calm down honey. You're missing the main point. Sam, Gary and I could all come up with super ideas of what do with these houses if we didn't limit ourselves to what is realistically financially feasible. We are choosing not to speculate on it though, not because we can't "think outside the box" but because we don't see the point in this case. Don't flatter yourself to think that just because you work in non-profits, you can come up with ideas that we can't. Don't get me wrong - the trade school idea is interesting, but you didn't really blow my mind. The point is, it's even more difficult and creative to come up with ideas that will work within the confines of economic feasibility than to come up with ideas when you have no restrictions. If you could come up with a creative use of the buildings that is actually self supporting and doesn't rely on some millionaire somewhere deciding to drop a load of cash into this money-pit out of the kindness of his heart - that would blow my mind and that would prove to me that you are far more creative than any of us nay sayers.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 8:39 PM
I am hardly missing anything. I'm expecting a blog to be a place of ideas and discussion. "Don't flatter yourself to think that just because you work in non-profits, you can come up with ideas that we can't." But the point is, you didn't.
both MM and myself pointed out the money making side of tourism, and the Navy Yard is building a museum- obviously they see money to be made in their history. I'm not going to tell you that museums or historical buildings are profitable moneymakers- usually they aren't. Expecting admiral's row to be a money making business is not realistic but as part of a nonprofit organization they certainly can be useful and beneficial to keep- and there are corporations and philanthropists who recognize these things are important for the same reason teaching the humanities and the arts are important. It goes to who we are and our potential.
Museums, Universities, libraries, charitable organizations, social services organizations, animal rescue organizations- they bring in money, but they aren't run for profit. NYC Museums are moneymakers for NYC because they generate millions in tourism and sales. They serve a purpose in society- Weeksville serves a purpose. Admirals row has that same potential. If Admirals Row were restored, they could be used for movie locations- a nice chunk of change too. There are a lot of things that can be done, and a lot of people who would see the value in saving them.
I perfectly well understand your point but I'm speaking from a nonprofit's point of view. Yet for participating in a discussion I'm told I'm in la la land, that I don't understand my ideas cost money,and that every possibility was no good. (And to call dansk whatever to see if they'll run programs for the "natives" as sam
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 9:17 PM
o interestingly put it). You know how businesses work- I know how nonprofits work. I'm not denigrating your expertise- what gives you the right to denigrate mine?
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 9:18 PM
And in the category of "you couldn't be more wrong if you tried": You assume that I have a business background and don't know anything about non-profits. Guess what sweetie? I've spent a good chunk of my professional life working for non-profits. Wanna take a guess what my responsibilities were at those non-profits? (wait for it people, this gets good). That's right. My job was to come to come with potential uses for a bunch of historic buildings that required a buttload of renovation. You know what I spent most of my time doing? Triaging through all the ideas and figuring out which ones were feasible financially - which ones could be self supporting, which ones we could find donors for etc. So get over yourself and back off - OK?
Don't take it so personally - you put forth an idea and bunch of people thought it was a bad one. And stop accusing us not coming up with alternatves, becase we have come up with plenty of them. Sam suggesteed selling them off individually to private investors. Other have suggested just saving one or two houses and having the private development subsidize the renovation. All of those are much more feasible alternatives.
As for tourism - the navy yard is already going to have to subsidize and find funding for the historic center they are currently planning - you really think they have an appetite to take on even more? And tours of the historic buildings will not bring in even close to the amount of cash that would be generated by leasing out this site for private development.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 9:54 PM
MMHtPH- as i said, i don't denigrate your expertise. i also didn't denigrate any of your ideas, assume you were being offensive because I may not have liked your ideas, nor did I insult your intelligence simply because I didn't agree with you. You decided Montrose Morris and I were very offensive to poor sam. Well why don't you take a look at sam's posts and tell me what was he?.
Obviously you didn't read the thread because I also agreed with other ideas that were proposed. I never said anyone was in la la land, I didn't slap anyone down for talking about outreach to the unions, I don't call someone' idea i don't agree with flaky or loony, and all I did was mention Pratt and its program. of course the idea of using the houses as "labs" was not my idea but sam's ignorant interpretation of it.
If you wanted an honest discussion with me you could have said what your expertise was, instead of defending someone for calling me names like a 5 year old brat. But have it your way- you're all about the money- I'm about saving as much of the row as possible and in a useful way.You don't like the way i would do it- fine. If everyone were like you the Weeksville Houses would be gone now. There wouldn't be an LPC. Every bit of non-economically feasible piece of history would not exist.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 16, 2008 10:59 PM
Bxgirl - arguing with you is like arguing with an hysterical 8 year old child. Never mind, I'm done with you. You're not listening - all you want to do is complain cause big bad sam was mean to you. Go back to your life where you can convince yourself that you're so much more creative and superior to the rest of us. And I'll go back to mine.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 16, 2008 11:26 PM
Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. Nothing i can say will convince I have been listening and or that i understand anything or even what my issue is. I don't feel superior to anyone but I am not the one who resorted to insulting people whose ideas I don't agree with. In fact the only idea I didn't agree with or consider is tearing the row completely down. So what was your problem with that? That I agreed with other ideas besides mine? Or that I stick up for myself and what I believe in. If you can't handle that, and it seems you can't,you're not a person I want to have a conversation with either.
Posted by: bxgrl at July 17, 2008 12:23 AM
Oy. Ok - I'm going to give this one more shot - because you seem earnest:
First of all - on behalf of everyone who doesn't have as much non-profit experience as you, I apologize for sam's insults. I thought that I had already indicated that I thought sam had gone over the top in his insults, but in case it wasn't clear, i'm saying it now. I wasn't trying to defend sam, just pointing out that you were not completely innocent here. Your whole attitude of "I'm a creative thinker and you're all a bunch of boring business types" comes off as extremely condescending and more importantly is untrue. Maybe you didn't mean to come off that way, but you should know that that's how it reads. Take it not as an attack but as constructive criticism.
Now on to my main topic. Everything I said before is not my real point. You keep on saying that you do in fact get my point, but then all you focus on is sam's rudeness and how you know that the national guard is really part of the arms, etc and never respond to my actual argument. So let me lay it out for you in terms you'll relate to.
As a non-profit professional you know that every non-profit is a mission-driven organization that is usually organized around a single issue. To the extent that they can incorporate other issues into their work, that's great, but if other issues get in the way, they will always refocus on their core issue. FOr example - let's say I ran a non-profit that was focused on providing temporary shelter for the homeless. Let's say I've got a project to build a new shelter. You may come along and say "it would be great if
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 17, 2008 12:30 PM
Continued:
You may come along and say "it would be great if the new shelter could be environmentally sensitive - if you use recycled floor tiles it'll only cost you $5,000 more". Since it's only a little more expensive - I might be inclined to do it. But if you said "You should put solar panels on the roof - it'll cost $200,000 more" then I'd probably shy away from it. The environment is not my issue, and I'd rather use that $200,000 to run my homeless shelter. Let some environmental non-profit spend $200k on solar panels.
Same thing here. The brooklyn navy yard is a non-profit whose mission is to operate and maintain the navy yard in a way that will maximize their ability to provide space for industrial businesses. They will do what they can to provide cultural or educational uses and also to achieve historic preservation goals when they can. They have already renovated and put back into use many old warehouse buildings from the 1800's and there was just an article in brownstoner yesterday about the historic dry dock 1. They are also taking another building in the yard that can't be re-used for industry and with some cooperation with other non-profits, turning it into a historic center. But at the end of the day, they need revenue to maintain the whole yard. When you look at admirals row, the cost of renovating the houses starts to be so huge that it starts to get in the way of their core mission, which is providing industrial space. So as important as preservation might be - they can't afford it here and would rather use the site as a way to earn some cash to subsidize the rest of the yard. That's why your idea was a bad
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 17, 2008 1:01 PM
Continued again:
That's why your idea was a bad idea. While it may lead to preservation of the houses, it doesn't respond to the development corp's mission of maintaining the yard. A really creative "out of the box" solution would be one that would provide for some level of preservation of the some of the houses, and respond to the Navy's yard need to fund their core mission - providing space for industry.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 17, 2008 1:04 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.