Preserving NY's Industrial Buildings, Not Just for Nostalgia

Brooklyn's industrial waterfront was named one of the 11 most endangered places in America by the National Trust for Historic Preservation last year. "A Civil War-era graving dock in Red Hook was paved over and is now a parking lot for Ikea; the old Dutch Mustard Company building in Williamsburg was torn down and turned into condominiums; and the Greenpoint Terminal Market, a former rope factory, was destroyed by fire," writes the NY Times. The article summarizes a panel on “Recycling New York’s Industrial Past: Inspiration from Home and Abroad," held at the Municipal Art Society last week. "Panelists argued that preservation does not just serve nostalgia, but has tangible economic and environmental benefits, creating jobs and reducing the waste from demolition. And they identified several buildings that they said deserved to be saved." Those include the National Cold Storage Buildings on Furman Street and Admirals' Row in the Navy Yard. Losses they lament: Revere Sugar Factory in Red Hook, the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Power Plant in Williamsburg and the LIRR powerhouse in Long Island City.
Preserving New York's Industrial Past [NY Times]
Photo by masnyc.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6947

Comments

Let's hope sensible preservation wins the day here. It seems to me a no-brainer that reuse of existing building stock makes more economic and eco-nomic sense than tearing down to build inferior buildings, or in many cases, nothing. I've been doing some informal research on this, and I've seen projects all over the country, in places many New Yorkers would see as Podunk backwaters, that are much more in tune with the spirit and deed of adaptive reuse, and preservation of industrial and commercial structures. NYC is way behind the times here, and I have to think there is no other reason other than the big business clout of real estate and general greed and short sightedness.

The article mentions Soho as an example of the reuse of former industrial space. I never get tired of really looking at the beauty and detail of the buildings on Broadway and in the back streets of Soho. They are a unique and fantastic monument to late 19th century technology and building practices, and the mastery of the architects and builders who incorporated ornament, advertising, arrogance and practicality into these buildings. If they hadn't been reclaimed as studios, businesses, homes and stores, we would have lost a valuable part of New York. Soho could easily look like Battery Park City, or upper Second Avenue.

London's Tate Modern gets used a lot as a comparison, but for good reason. It should be a model for what we could accomplish here. Progress and preservation are not opposing forces.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 30, 2008 10:47 AM

The Municipal Art Society is so way out there. I like old buildings and preservation but some of the things that they are espousing are just wacky. It is just showing off I think and getting their name in the media. The National Cold Storage building is an ugly toxic bunker. The old Revere Sugar plant was a decaying pile of rusty pick-up sticks. You just cannot take an organization seriously who wants to see more decay and deriliction rather than less. That is a very elitist position. Hopefully under new leadership, the organization will veer more in the direction of planet earth.

Posted by: sam at October 30, 2008 11:31 AM

The former BRT plant at Kent and Division avenues was offered, I believe, at little or no cost to local not-for-profits (I assumeUJO being one) who determined that the environmental remediation was so great that a conversion wasn't feasible. Circumstances like that contribute to statements like sam's, "The Municipal Art Society is so way out there."

Despite being a long time member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I have had to learn to separate idealism from practical reality. I am all in favor of thinking outside the box to expand the boundaries of the latter, but it seems some preservationists advocate for buildings that are not economically viable.

Posted by: altervoce at October 30, 2008 11:56 AM

You are absolutely right Sam. The buildings they cite are completely useless.

The problem with MAS is it is entirely staffed by policy wonks with masters degrees from elite institutions, primarily MIT. They honestly know nothing of the economics of real estate, construction processes or costs, or even how industry works (or doesn't work) in this city.

I love their original work at the turn of the last century. Their City Beautiful advocacy was enormously beneficial, even to this day.

They need to drop the academic views regarding city planning and return to their roots.

Posted by: Polemicist at October 30, 2008 12:00 PM

The razing of Admiral's Row is one of the most evil things. Does anyone know if this is being reconsidered in light of the changes to Ratner's development plan post-economic meltdown?

Also, people who've owned their own houses in the Navy Yards for 30 years are being forced to move. It's controlled-income not market-rate coops, so not sure what kind of compensation they're getting. It's horrible.

And criminally short sighted. They should do something with it like the Presidio in San Francisco, turn it into a park and historic site, basically. And let people stay in their houses.

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2008 1:23 PM

People owned houses in the Navy Yard for 30 years? huh?
Are we talking about the Brooklyn Navy Yard?

Posted by: sam at October 30, 2008 1:25 PM

Yup. I know someone who has lived there in a house she owns for 30 years (some kind of controlled income owned housing).

Posted by: mopar at October 30, 2008 1:31 PM

Sorry mopar - I think you're confused. There is absolutely no housing in the Navy Yard. None. Zero. Nada. And all the land is owend by the City or the Feds, there's no private ownership of anything there. The only house that could be charachterised as "in the Yard" that is provately owned is the Commandant's House up in Vinegar Hill, which was sold off years ago and is owned by some Professer at Rockefeller university. He's got a cool collection of vintage cars in the driveway too. I haven't heard heard of anyone forcing him to move. ALso - not sure why you think that atlantic yards has anything to do with Admrials Row?

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at October 30, 2008 1:59 PM

I think mopar confused "navy yard" with "atlantic yards". That's OK, I do stuff like that too. But the derelict houses next to the Navy Yard known as "admiral's row" is another lost cause. Not only are they totally ruined but there is no financially viable life for them even if they were rebuilt. I'm tired of lost causes.

Posted by: sam at October 30, 2008 2:16 PM

Ahhh. Good call Sam. That must be what's going on. And I'm already on record as agreeing with you on Admirals Row as a lost cause. Now if I could only convince you that Brooklyn Bridge Park is a great project that's actually gonna happen, we could be BFF...

Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at October 30, 2008 2:20 PM

I hear that the Brooklyn Bridge Park is in a lot of trouble again. No shit. Now more than ever. I wonder if the State of NY will really come through with its funding promises and if so, when. You heard it here first.

Posted by: sam at October 30, 2008 2:38 PM

Altervoce - who was offered the BRT plant? I've never heard of anyone being offered that site at any price.

I've seen the environmental data on the site - its pretty tame by industrial building standards. Localized lead paint and asbestos, much of it (and petroleum products) in equipment that would be removed anyhow. The only significant environmental hazard on site was not in the buildings but in a small pit on the site.

The real environmental issue is next door (the lot to the south), at the former BUG manufactured gas plant. Big plume of shit below grade. (Apparently, it does not extend below the BRT site, though.)

Posted by: WBer at October 31, 2008 12:30 AM

I believe that United Jewish Organizations (Rabbi Niederman and company) had a crack at this twice, once through an RFP- or RFEI-like process and then in a more one-on-one negotiation. I think Con Ed also tried to market the site to generating companies but it's a direct current plant that has almost no utility (pun somewhat intended). My recollection on this topic is admittedly somewhat vague; it might not have been the environmental clean-up that scared away UJO, but perhaps that and the other conversion costs. I wish I could remember who I heard this all from. Since the issue doesn't really concern me, I only paid partially attention. For the record, I think it's a handsome building and if it could have been re-used, it should have been.

Posted by: altervoce at October 31, 2008 10:18 AM

« Music: The Final Frontier of Outsourcing for the Home "Tuscan" Townhouses Coming to Red Hook »

October 30, 2008

Preserving NY's Industrial Buildings, Not Just for Nostalgia

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions