« Property Shark Jumping Into Online Listings Game Garden of the Day: Rocking in Rockaway »

July 22, 2008

Public Hearing on Future of Admirals Row Tonight

Tonight the long-awaited follow-up to last December's public hearing on the future of Admirals Row takes place at Borough Hall. All we can say in advance of the meeting is that we hope that the spirit of creativity and compromise can win the day. At this point, there appears to be strong political support for including a supermarket on the site to address to current lack of options currently available to the residents of the nearby Farrugut, Ingersoll and Whitman Houses. There is also a large group of people who feel strongly that the Admirals Row houses deserve to be preserved, and a recent study commissioned by the National Guard gave weight to this view. (The report stated that the structures have a "high level of historic integrity.") So what's the answer? Find a way to create a supermarket while preserving most, if not all, of the houses. One such proposal has already been put forth by a team from Pratt. The one stakeholder that would be unhappy with that scenario would most likely be the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, which wants to squeeze a new industrial building onto the site along with a massive parking lot for the market; the BNYDC has also said it does not want to assume control of Admiral's Row from the National Guard if it comes with preservation strings attached. As with most thing, the real rub comes down to dollars and cents. It should be an interesting evening. The meeting takes place at 7 p.m. tonight at Borough Hall.
Pratties Have 'Cake-and-Eat-It' Design for Admiral's Row [Brownstoner]
Guard Starts Talks 'To Come Up With Alternatives' For Row [Brownstoner]
James Opens Door to (Partial) Admiral's Row Preservation [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5599

Comments

i guess it's possible that all of their property data could make the listings more useful in some way.

Posted by: itsagas at July 22, 2008 10:02 AM

Beautiful plan, but is it financially possible? Another 5 year delay... supermarkets run on tight margins, can't pay much rent (witness decline of same in city) and wouldn't be able to finance an ambitious reno plan. Save two houses and move on, Brooklyn!

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at July 22, 2008 10:05 AM

oops. meant that to go on the propertyshark post.

Posted by: itsagas at July 22, 2008 10:05 AM

I bet the preservationists would settle for 3 or 4.

Posted by: This Aint No Disco at July 22, 2008 10:30 AM

A couple dozen preservationist vs hundreds if not thousands of low income housing residents. I wonder who wins?

Too bad the low income residents don't have a slick website and college professors to make their case.

Posted by: la di da di at July 22, 2008 10:37 AM

What I don't think anyone seems to understand is the preservationists balk at the idea of a gigantic parking lot taking the place of the majority of the buildings, not the idea of a grocery store allowing the neighborhood more options. Have you also seen the proposed square footage of said grocery store? FAR larger than necessary to accomodate the neighborhood. I like Pratt's intentions, and while price tag will be called into question, if Ratner and Co can get that much funding for 'subsidized housing' that will never come to fruition... why we can't preserve what little remains of the Navy Yard before another hospital becomes another empty, unused asphalt lot across the street (off Flatbush- seen it? Great use of space, anti-preservationists.)

And for those questioning the structural integrity of the majority of the buildings, other than some of the later wood additions in the back of some which are collapsing, they're sound and salvageable.

http://sympathetic-compass.blogspot.com/search/label/Admiral%27s%20Row

Posted by: sympathetic compass at July 22, 2008 10:47 AM

It's hardly a done deal and there are a lot of people who speak for the low-income people. Tish James for one. It doesn't have to be either or. Pratt's plan shows one possible solution.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 22, 2008 10:48 AM

problem with salvage is now way to pay for them.... can't legally be used as housing on Navy Yard premises, no big money for museum large supermarket and lot needed to finance deal and buildngs

Posted by: BK realestate veteran at July 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Bigger is not always better. The Pratt proposal shows one possiblilty, and there are probably others out there. There is room for preservation and commerce. I doesn't have to be one or the other.

Why does a parking lot have to accommodate every car in Bklyn? As at Pathmark, Costco, etc, people without cars use livery cabs as one alternative. Along with a smaller parking lot, why not an underground lot under the supermarket? Or a roof lot, like the Sunset Park Home Depot? Let's have some creative thought here.

I still think the Row makes for an interesting part of a Navy Yard tourist attraction. Any buildings not incorporated in the museum/tourist operation could be rented out as office space for professions such as architects, restorers, showrooms for designers, graphic or print artists, photographers, gallery spaces. Why not?

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 22, 2008 11:17 AM

In case you didn't get one of the leaflets:

http://www.brooklynsothermuseumofbrooklyn.com/admrow.html

Posted by: Karka at July 22, 2008 12:39 PM

Compass and Morris nailed it. There's absolutely no reason that a supermarket can't coexist with the AR buildings; what might need to be sacrificed is:

1) The other industrial building (which doesn't serve the residents of public housing)
2) The overly large parking apportionment (which LOCAL residents don't need, since they live right there!)

Meanwhile, we can make sure that these historic treasures are preserved for future generations, whilst creatively repurposing them for present ones - I like Morris's suggestion about using them for architects / photographers / etc studios, and having been through all the AR houses myself, they're certainly perfectly designed for it - the ballroom in Quarters B could even function as a sort of community events center, and Quarters B itself would be an ideal place for a historical center.

There are tons and tons and tons of possibilities that Kimball & Co. have not addressed in their rush to bulldoze, and those options MUST be considered before New York is robbed of still more of its architectural heritage.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at July 22, 2008 12:44 PM

Thanks, kingstonlounge. It would be a shame to lose the Row for lack of imagination, before even crying about lack of funds. Unless I melt before tonight, I'm going to try to go to the hearing.

Does your screen name have anything,to do with the actual Kingston Lounge in Crown Heights? That is such a fabulous site for a superior, long awaited, local dining spot. I heard someone bought the building.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 22, 2008 1:11 PM

Yes, the Pratt plan is one possibility, but it's an entirely unfeasible plan for so many reasons, that it would take me too long to list, and I've got work to do today and can't get into another argument with bxgirl about this again.

The problem with MM's suggestion about using them as Architect's offices etc is that the revenue generated from those uses (ballpark $15/SF) doesn't even come close to justifying the renovation costs of those buildings (at least $250/SF).

I've never seen bkreal estate veteran post before - but he/she seems to be the only one on here who's thinking about this practically and with knowledge of how these things work. There is a compromise to be had here. Save one or two houses, give the Navy Yard some money to help offset the cost of preservation of those houses (probably around $5 -7 million would cover it) and let the Navy Yard reconfigure the rest of the lot the way they see fit. Asking for any more preservation will kill the whole deal and will mean that the whole thing sits dormant for several more years while the houses slowly decay.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 1:18 PM

Make My Heights the P Heights,

It seems that you really are quite the authority on the subject! Please tell us more!!

Posted by: werner at July 22, 2008 1:37 PM

I am by no means an authority. I just understand the very real constraints that are put on this site by the realities of the economics of real estate market and the policy ambitions of the Navy Yard folks. The fact is, saving these buildings, as laudable of a goal as that is, is going to require subsidy. And even though this whole debate has been kicking around for about 3 years now, no one has been able to identify a source for that subsidy. So that means that this is going to have to get in a way that relies on the marketplace.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Anyone know what an average square foot price would be for commercial office space in DUMBO, downtown Bklyn, or comparable area?

Seems like a unique, historic and potentially gorgeous renovated space in a Row house would command a better price than $15/SF. Granted, because it's out of the way, it wouldn't work for every kind of business. I'm in the home design biz, a showroom/workspace on a floor of one of those houses would be unique enough to get the kind of buzz to draw people in, especially if enough like minded businesses made it a real location. Furniture and art restorers, architects, product designers, graphics and photographers, etc, do not depend on off the street traffic to make their business. Your customers will come. The Yard already has some great artisan studios there. It, and the nearby Wallabout area have the potential to become not only a destination for these trades, but a real district. Home design is one of the few growing NYC industries, why not invest in it?

That, along with preserving history, could mean a profitable venture. Yes, it would take years, but I'm so tired of bean counters telling us that something won't succeed, because they know it won't. MMHTPH, you may know your facts and figures, but where is the vision that used to make NYC the cutting edge of so many different industries? If not design, then something else.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 22, 2008 3:01 PM

I actually read law last year on government owned property. It referred to how they were required to maintain the buildings and/or land. I can't recall exactly, but I thought they were bound by law to maintain it to a certain degree. IF Admiral's row is "transferred" to a private entity, as I've been reading about, the law would no longer apply. Is anyone familiar with law regarding state owned or federal owned property?

here's a link to the report done for the national guard on the buildings? http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/buslinks/admiral/pdf/report.pdf

Posted by: dtrain at July 22, 2008 3:31 PM

here's a link to the report done for the national guard on the buildings
http://www.nan.usace.army.mil/business/buslinks/admiral/pdf/report.pdf

Posted by: dtrain at July 22, 2008 3:32 PM

Dumbo is about $20/SF. Downtown Brooklyn is about $25/SF. Office space in the Navy Yard itself is about $15/SF. Keep in mind that access to subways pretty much sucks, which has a big impact on rents.

As sick as you are about the bean counters - we are doubly sick of people who denigrate us as bean counters and accuse us of having no imagination. Anyone can come up with interesting ideas if they are not bound by any restrictions. The truly creative people who have made this city great and in the cutting edge in so many industries are those who have figured out how to take a creative idea and bend it to fit the harsh restrictions that fiscal realities impose. You can talk on and on about how sure you are that it would work, but you obviously don't have the knowledge of how the real estate development world works. I don't understand why you are so resistant to this. Do you argue with the dr when he tells you're sick? THis is a profession, and alot of people have spent alot of time becoming knowledgable about how it works. Spend some time - learn how it works, then get back to me.

And by the way, the artist studios in the Navy Yard were funded through a federal grant - which further proves my point that this is not feasible without subsidy.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 3:34 PM

I wish Whole Foods would scrap their Gowanus site and set up shop in the Navy Yard. Surely they could be suckered in subsidizing the buildings.

Posted by: la di da di at July 22, 2008 3:49 PM

Make My Heights the P Heights,

Yes, it *is* a profession. A profession which tends to define itself by greed, graft, and myopia, sadly.

Are you honestly telling me that over $200M in subsidies for an ugly basketball arena in Prospect Heights is reasonable, but the $20-40M it would take to FULLY restore Admiral's Row is unreasonable?

Not to mention the fact that nobody has to lose their home to restore the Row.

Preservation through legislative mandate is often quite successful, and the Section 106 proceedings currently underway open the door to this. If the National Guard decides to mandate preservation in the revised MOA, then the Navy Yard can take the buildings or leave them. If they take them, fine - they will have to rehab them. If not, given their historic location, the quality of the architecture, and the fact that so much undeveloped land is attached - it is likely that somebody will take on the burden of rehabilitation for the structures with a long term goal in mind. And if not, NRHP listing is the first step towards legislated preservation - look what's happening in Buffalo, NY, with the H. H. Richardson Complex. Preservationists sued for money, won, and now Buffalo is getting an Architecture and Visitor's Center among other things, and some priceless buildings are being spared the wrecking ball or further demolition by neglect.

And Morris - yeah, I run a blog called "The Kingston Lounge" after the old jazz spot in Crown Heights; I have recent photos from the Lounge if you're curious. And yes, it has been sold and work is going to begin on it at some point in the near future :)

Posted by: kingstonlounge at July 22, 2008 4:29 PM

Yes - there are plenty of greedy developers. Also plenty of greedy doctors and interior designers. I, myself know one or two teachers who are jerks. So what? That doesn't change the
economics of the situation.

I just want to be clear. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be subsidized. I'm not commenting on whether they are more or less worthy of subsidy than any of the of the hundreds of projects out there that are being publicly subsidized.

I'm just pointing out that it doesn't work without subsidy and that even though this has been in the news for years - no one has stepped forward and said they were willing to subsidize it. That's all.

Look, this is a pretty tough site. It's got a lot of restrictions. You've got a relatively high renovation cost, crappy subway access, the Navy Yard's mission of industrial development, the needs of the surrounding public housing community, and the desires of the preservationist crowd to balance. And you have to do it in a real estate market which is currently having a tough time finding financing for alot of other projects which are slam dunks compared to this.

Alot of the "solutions" put forth so far only focus on solving for one or two of those issues, but what's really needed is a solution that is responsive to all of those issues.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 4:43 PM

But has anybody actually, you know, ATTEMPTED to subsidize this project? Nope!

Andrew Kimball and the BNYDC haven't. It's very transparent that they'd like nothing more than to demolish the structures. They're not trying.

The National Guard? They barely even seemed cognizant of the fact that they were the titleholders until recently, and it's not really what they do.

So what can be done?

It seems fairly simple to me. Allow other developers - other than the BNYDC - to make offers on the land, while making explicit the fact that the winning bidder will be expected to rehabilitate the structures, which ought by that point to be landmarked. This will encourage creative competition for a valuable parcel of land, and *somebody* will come forward with a plan that can save the Row whilst making the overall land (and, long-term, the Row itself) profitable. $40M - the high estimate for rehab - is a drop in the bucket next to land that valuable; offer the whole thing to the developer with the best adaptive reuse plan and there you go.

By ONLY considering the BNYDC as a recipient of the land, the National Guard has until now guaranteed that there is going to be no serious attempt for subsidies, and no reasonable plan for redevelopment. Doesn't mean it can't happen, just means the BNYDC should be considered only one of many possible owners for the land.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at July 22, 2008 5:07 PM

That site is alot less valuable than you think it is. Far from subway, across the street from the projects, high renovation costs, and it's zoned M1 - which means that you'd have to go through the ULURP process which will add at least another year to the development timeline. Not saying it's not doable, but it's not nearly the slam dunk that you are so glibly painting it as. Most greedy developers that I know would shy away from a site with so many issues and focus their energy and money on more compelling sites.
Also you are completely ignoring the very real need of the Navy Yard to use this land to help them with their mission. If you approach this problem as "how do I save the houses" then it's pretty easy and yes, your solution would be one of the many that would work. But as I said in my earlier post, there are several other desirable goals to achieve with this land, and I'm not convinced that preservation goal is so much more important than the other goals. I have a soft spot for industry, and I think that the Navy Yard's mission of providing safe haven for industry is more important. Especially since the folks at the navy yard have already done so much for preservation, including their announcement last year that they are restoring another historic house and turning it into a historic center.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 5:35 PM

MMHTPH- what makes you think I'm going to get into another argument with you on this? Seems there are other people you can argue creativity vs beancounting with today so keep the snarky comments to yourself, thanks. Jeesh- and here I thought we managed to get past this crap.

Posted by: bxgrl at July 22, 2008 7:04 PM

Chill out bxgirl - it was a joke.

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at July 22, 2008 7:19 PM

In that I apologize and offer you chocolates :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at July 22, 2008 7:22 PM

MMHTPH, don't get all tied up in knots. I was not singling you out as head bean counter, but since you have volunteered to be the counterpoint to my point, let's have at it.

I may not argue with the doctor when he tells me I'm sick, but I don't lay down and die because of it, either. I'm going to investigate alternatives and do my best to beat the odds.

Kingstonlounge said everything I could ever say, and better, so I'll just add an "amen" to his posts. Thanks for having facts and figures.

Everything is subsidized. No developer uses his/her own money, that's not good business. The space taken up by the Row is miniscule compared to the entire Yard. Surely there is more than plenty of space for the furtherance of industry. It does not need to be at the expense of the Row. I would love to see some form of the Pratt plan happen. If the Yard can't do it, then find someone who can. Our history is crumbling as we speak.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at July 22, 2008 11:05 PM

I was busy yesterday so I didn't get to post the comments MMHTPH made, or tried to make since others just ain't buying it. In any case, I agree, but at this point, I am just waiting for the Section 106 process to play itself out and then we'll all know where we stand. Until then, much of the discussion is just bloviating.

A couple facts from another bean-counter: the BNYDC operates at a deficit, so KL, it is not in a position to subsidize a money-losing proposition. In fact, the development corporation has been charged with standing on its own feet financially, which is why it is pursuing profitable projects like the supermarket.

Also, federal base relocation laws require that the property be offered first to the city, so it is logical and appropriate that the BNYDC, which manages the rest of the former naval base, should be the only party being considered for redevelopment of Admirals Row. That may all change when the Section 106 review is complete, but it is reasonable at this point.

Posted by: g man at July 23, 2008 11:19 AM

« Property Shark Jumping Into Online Listings Game Garden of the Day: Rocking in Rockaway »

July 22, 2008

Public Hearing on Future of Admirals Row Tonight

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions