« Vox Pop Teeters On The Edge Where Is The New Brooklyn? »

March 16, 2009

SCA To Build New P.S. 133, Tear Down Old Building

Construction of a new public school in Park Slope could start as soon as this summer and end with the destruction of the century-old structure currently housing P.S. 133. Currently P.S. 133, which is located at 375 Butler Street at 4th Avenue, seats about 300 students; the new building would accommodate approximately 900. The School Construction Authority plans to build the new structure on the footprint of the existing schoolyard and a community garden then tear down the turn-of-the-century Gothic-style building (currently being considered for the state's list of historic places) upon completion. In a Courier Life article last January, SCA President Sharon Greenberger said that the new building would be marginally taller than the existing one. According to PropertyShark, the existing building is 46,000 square feet; according to the Courier, the new one would be 115,000 square feet. In a districting quirk, the old building technically lies in District 15, which covers Red Hook, Park Slope and Sunset Park, but the new building would be in District 13, which includes Fort Greene, Clinton Hill and Prospect Heights; District 15 funds would pay for the construction. We're dying to see the renderings, but our initial reaction is that it's disappointing and shows a total lack of creativity to have to tear down the beautiful existing structure. There's a meeting at the Fifth Avenue Committee at 6:30 p.m. on March 18 and a CB6 Land Use hearing scheduled for March 26th at 6 p.m. at the 78th Precinct (6th Avenue between Dean and Bergen) at which the project will be discussed. Technically, since the SCA published a public notice in the back pages of a newspaper in January, the 90-day comment period expires on April 3rd, so don't tarry.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/8836

Comments

Yes, tear down one of the coolest looking buildings in all of Park Slope.

Brilliant!

How about moving the school into one of the vacant condo building on 4th Ave?

Posted by: SnarkSlope at March 16, 2009 10:07 AM

I agree, it does show a profound lack of imagination to demolish this beautiful building, instead of coming up with a design that would expand and enhance a building that is deemed worthy of being added to the state's list of historic places. A new school is a necessary and good thing, but why tear down this school to do it? A community garden is also sacrificed, which I'm sure is not pleasing to too many people either.

I'm not an architect, although I probably should have been, and I can envision using the shell of the building as the beginning of a larger school, expanding up and out, using the schoolyard for more room, as necessary, taking into consideration height, sunlight, and most importantly, the needs of the new school for classroom and other spaces.

Since they hid the notices on the back pages of the paper, I suspect the city knows this may not be a popular stance, and are hoping the CB rubber stamps it. I hope area people take into consideration all possible options, including the repurposing of an already adknowleged historic building.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 16, 2009 10:19 AM

Can't the LPC do something? Why do this? I'm totally disgusted with the city. It seems to insist on remaining stupid, wasteful and contemptuous of communities. And part of the stupidty and wastefulness is not retaining an architect with the creativity and brains to repurpose this existing building. It is cheaper to get a hack.

So can they do this even though the building already under consideration for historic status by the state?

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 10:25 AM

what a lovely building. a shame to tear it down. surprised it's not landmarked!

Posted by: janelle at March 16, 2009 10:33 AM

So Mr Brownstoner, and brownstoners, what needs to be done to organize against this? Is there any reasonable hope to keep the building? Seems like if this readership is against it, we should at least figure out a way to be heard as a large group.

Posted by: Park Place at March 16, 2009 10:42 AM

If someone wants to start an online petition, we will post the information...

Posted by: brownstoner at March 16, 2009 10:51 AM

i'm all for less crowded, more efficient public schools, but this seems a pretty ridiculous way of getting to the goal. why do they need to expand this school anyway? are they planning on rezoning district 15 to relieve some of the pressure on 321? if so, my understanding is that ps 282, which is a couple of blocks away, is undercrowded. wouldn't it be a better use of resources to rezone ps 282 cachement to include some of these people?

Posted by: i disagree at March 16, 2009 11:00 AM

Thanks to all the new multiple unit buildings that have gone up all over the area, all of our elementary schools are overcrowded. We desperately need new seats in all of our neighborhoods, not just Park Slope, but Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, etc.

I'm not saddened if this building is lost beacuse there are dozens more just like it all over the city. It's not unique and therefore, not worth of landmark status.

What's more important, saving a building that doesn't not meet the needs of a 21st century student body or creating a modern building that can cater to 3 times the number of students and adapt to changing technologies over time?

Posted by: BrooklynSteve at March 16, 2009 11:10 AM

Some of the initial post is incorrect. PS 133 is in CSD13 and will remain there. However, two schools are proposed to be built in a single building. One will replace the exisiting school. The other will serve the reported need for additional capacity for the northern part of CSD15 and administratively be part of that district. Funds from both districts would pay for construction.

Sharon Greenberger has stated that the current building is at the end of its useful life. A lack of amenities (air conditioning) and features (gym, auditorium, both--I don't remember) were cited. I'm not expressing an opinion, just sharing her comments. As I am sure most of you know, listing on the state and national register provides no protections against demolition.

Posted by: g man at March 16, 2009 11:13 AM

actually, steve, i don't think it's true that all of our elementary schools are overcrowded. the "good" ones may be, but as the DOE has repeatedly stated, there's capacity in lots of brooklyn elementary schools. the problem is in improving the quality of the undersubscribed schools, and it seems to me the money and time involved in building a new school would be much better spent on bringing up the quality of the existing school that is right around the corner.

Posted by: i disagree at March 16, 2009 11:18 AM

I think it sounds like they just want to take the quickest, cheapest route. I think its wasteful and shortsighted myself. And they will wind up with a building that may have amenities but is ugly and certainly will not be nearly as well built.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 11:19 AM

Brownstoner:

Here's a building worth preserving, as most of this thread's posters so far agree. My 19th-century public school, P.S. 41 in Crown Heights where I grew up during the 1950s, was demolished for a "modern" apartment building, and the surrounding historic district suffers as a result.

P.S. 41 was actually older than this one. But the ceilings were high, the construction solid, and the mansard roof and brick tower made it a fanciful place to go to school. There were nice interior details, too. Heavy wood desks. Pendant lamps. And lots of wainscotting.

Because the building was on a street corner (Dean Street and New York Avenue), all the rooms got great light. And, yes, the play yard was small, but that didn't stop us from running around and screaming our heads off every recess.

My favorite rooms were in the basement, off all places. This is where they stashed the kindergarteners. But the ceilings down there were high, too, and light came through the playground-facing windows and splashed against our rooms' white-washed brick walls. The combination of light and texture made the experience especially tactile.

Can't bring buildings like P.S. 133 up to snuff technologically? Tell that to private schools, colleges, and universities who revere -- and retrofit -- their old buildings. Can't combine new and old construction for educational purposes? Check the Berkeley-Carroll School nearby.

We've seen SCA buildings. You simply don't get the high ceilings, generous proportions, and big windows of buildings like the old ones. And there may be others like P.S. 133 throughout the city, but that may be an additional reason to save it. Why shouldn't a system of fine public-school buildings be preserved, when a system of fine buildings was their point? When walking through distinctive neighborhoods, they remind us that we're part of a larger city with shared values and aspirations, expressed through the education of our kids.

Nostalgic on Park Avenue

Posted by: NOP at March 16, 2009 11:44 AM

NOP- welcome back! Was the building you are referring to the senior residence?

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 11:56 AM

Yes, Bxgrl. Montrose Morris told me once that the building that replaced my old school houses elders. That's a positive. But the building is about as pedestrian as they get. (I'm surprised about that, too. I once interviewed the architect for a college term paper. He was a quite prominent and historic figure.)

And thanks for the welcome back. I haven't been in NYC, that's true, but I still post on Brownstoner.

NOP

Posted by: NOP at March 16, 2009 12:10 PM

BrooklynSteve, just because there may be other schools similar in architectural style to this one, does not therefore make it unworthy of landmark protection. By that argument, we should only preserve one brownstone of every style, and let the rest go. I'm sure that may please certain people, but fortunately, more visionary souls prevail.

NOP, as usual, says it well. Why shouldn't New York City be known for its system of well-built, architecturally beautiful schools? And he's right about retrofitting older buildings with modern technology. It's done everyday on campuses, hospitals, and in residential reuse. If they can transform a school into apartments, which is more of a conversion, surely adding needed componants is possible.

Besides which, there is that intangible feeling one gets walking into an old beauty like this school. I remember my grade school, which was not as old as this (1930's) but still had that feeling of history to a little kid. You could almost see the generations of kids in the halls, the knowlege almost floating in the air from years of teaching. The light coming in through the old glass windows, the desks with the initials of kids who grew up to be the parents of my classmates. Even the classic schoolhouse light fixtures which now command big money as salvage. I'm not saying that there are not advantages to a shiny new building, but retrofitting an older structure is much more benefitting the neighborhood, and I dare say, the atmosphere of education.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 16, 2009 12:16 PM

My elementary school was - and still is- a wonderful 19th. C. red brick fortress that looked like a castle. It also had- and I hope still has_ a set of WPA murals in the library and auditorium. So did my Jr. High and High Schools. I think they were by a famous artist- possibly NC Wyeth.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 12:25 PM

The school is in district 13 now, not district 15. District 15 is supposedly paying for the renovation, and then sharing the school with district 13.

Posted by: nan at March 16, 2009 12:41 PM

i am torn over this. i agree this is a lovely old building, it could be turned into great apartments, but as a school, i think it is probably dingy and depressing not to mention hot in the summer. i went to a school like this. it was depressing. better to give the kids a bright new school with air conditioning and a really nice gym and all the rest. In the perfect world we could have both, but in this one I opt for a new school.

Posted by: Mrs de Dough at March 16, 2009 12:46 PM

I agree with you Mrs. De Dough.

As much as I love this building, I can only imagine the cost of retrofitting this as a school would be astronomical. We all know what money pits brownstones can be, then multiple that by 100's and that's probably what kind of maintenance a place like this would require.

Too bad it can't be preserved and find another location for the school but education is the most important component to a prosperous new America and if that means sacrificing an old building for a new and technologically forward one, I say go for it.

Notice that the addition to the Berkeley Carroll School (while nice) is not in the 20th Century style. It is fully modern.

Posted by: 11217 at March 16, 2009 12:51 PM

People do gut rehabs all the time. YOu wind up with a better quality building- you won't be able to match the workmanship or the beauty of a building like this with a new one. With the right architect and designer, it can be done and within a budget. It means not taking the lazy way out.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 1:05 PM

Yes, people do gut rehabs all the time. Most of you on here say it costs 1 million dollars to renovate a brownstone, though.

We are talking about the City of New York now. They SHOULD be prudent with our tax dollars. And in this case, it's probably WILDLY cheaper to start over and build a new school.

I love this building as much as the next person, but I'm not willing to pay 3 times the amount to renovate it vs. build a new school. If money were no object, sure.

Can you imagine what it would cost to retrofit just the central air conditioning for a building of this magnitude?

Posted by: 11217 at March 16, 2009 1:09 PM

Not to take sides, but one of the goals of the project is to triple the number of students served. Modernizing the existing building will not accomplish that goal.

Posted by: g man at March 16, 2009 1:18 PM

11217- it seems that neither one of us can really say for certain (I have never done a milliondollar reno on anything. More like a 5 dollar reno on the cat's litter box) but until the actual costs have been researched and bid on, why shouldn't it be considered? There are a lot of pluses and new construction may be cheaper at the cost of quality. Then again, even with new construction, they always go into cost overruns so even if a retrofit might seem like it would be more expensive in the beginning, at the end you may have spent just as much or even more on a new building that looks like crap and may be badly designed as well.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 1:22 PM

Speaking as a New York City teacher who loves landmarked buildings I have to say I am torn.

As a DoE employee I know the School Construction Authority takes forever to get things done. Forever as in my school needed the facade re-pointed 5 years ago. They started in August. They say it will take 18 months. My school has a capacity of 300 students.

I can only imagine how long it would take SCA to gut reno that building. Who knows how long it'll take to build a new one, but for some reason I feel like they'd be a bit swifter starting from scratch than trying to figure out how to upgrade/retro fit an old building.

Do I want the old building razed? Hell no, it's beautiful. Do I think SCA can renovate it this decade? Hell no.

Posted by: christopher at March 16, 2009 1:25 PM

Not to mention the lack of accessibility. There are very few truly accessible schools in New York City. I very much hope that the SCA makes one here, instead of just putting the entrance at sidewalk level and calling it an ADA day.

Also, large lots like the one currently occupied by the school and garden are pretty hard to come by, yes? That location is great for a school.

Posted by: Brooklyn Chicken at March 16, 2009 1:26 PM

What was the reaction from the people who run the community garden?

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 1:29 PM

According to the article above, they plan to use the schoolyard and the adjacent community garden for the new school. Why not incorporate some of that space into a new building.

For crying out loud, can someone in charge of public anything in this city please think creatively for once? Use the basic facade of the building as a shell for a new school. It's not necessary to keep all the walls intact, I'm sure some of the side and back walls could be expanded and extended to include all of the space needed to accommodate an expansion. I have no problem with a modern extension. I can cite several buildings built with the shell of an original building incorporated with a modern addition. The Hearst Building, though not my favorite, comes to mind. That is not the same as retrofitting, it is, in essence, building an entirely new school.

11217, I'd rather spend a bit more for a school that one could be proud of, than for the educational equivilent of a 4th Ave condobox, which will look dated in ten years, and will no doubt start to deteriorate before the paint is dry. In the long run, building it right, and building a building worthy of the investment, costs less than rushing to simply get it built.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 16, 2009 1:32 PM

There are more issues at stake here than simply preserving a lovely building, which I wish could be done.

As a 25 year resident of Butler Street, I am very concerned that he proposed construction will totally change the look and feel of the two streets (Butler and Baltic) adjacent to the existing school. These two streets, which have kept a residential feel despite the ugly boxes being built on 4th Avenue, will now have a building - as tall as the existing school - that massively intrudes on both streets. If you look at the footprint of the site, understand that the space fronting Butler, 4th, and Baltic will no longer be open space – but will have a solid, massive square structure.

As was correctly noted, the current school serves District 13 – which is where it is located. The expanded school (it goes from 300 seats to 900 seats) is being built to serve the needs of District 15, which has supposedly run out of building sites. There will be two schools in the new site – one for District 13 and one for District 15 – which will “share” certain facilities – such as the cafeteria and gym and playground. It remains to be seen how much the much smaller District 13 school will benefit from this “sharing” – in some schools it has been done successfully, in other schools, not so much. As a local resident, I am certainly supportive of initiatives that will improve my district schools, but I’m not at all sure that this will be the case for PS 133.

There are a host of other problems associated with the proposed new school. The main entrance will be on Baltic – which is one of the few through streets from Cobble Hill (Court Street) to Park Slope (5th Avenue) – it is already a pretty well trafficked street. The thought of the bus traffic that will be necessary to bring in 500 to 600 new kids is staggering. Baltic Street has already seen its share of problems because of streams that run under it – just imagine what will happen with additional traffic. Anyone who walks along 4th Avenue between Butler and Baltic knows that the storm drains on both corners frequently overflow.

Then there is the problem of actual construction. Again, look at the site plan. The old school is supposed to remain until the new school is build – it’s hard to understand where construction equipment and supplies will be located once the foundations are dug. The new school is very, very close to the old school – the SCA has never done construction in such a tight space – and there are certainly concerns about dust and noise affecting the classrooms (the building is not air conditioned and the windows are open in warm weather) – as well as the impact on the homes adjacent to the new construction site! In it’s zeal to build big, the SCA has itself in a very tight corner. The preliminary borings they made to test the ground rattled some of the houses on Baltic.

One of the most distressing things about the whole process has been how the SCA and DOE have completely ignored the local community. While there has been a limited amount of discussion with the community gardeners, limited e-mails in no way should be considered as neighborhood discussion. The SCA has resolutely refused to share design ideas with neighborhood residents – they seem to feel that keeping a few of the existing gates will distract us from the massiveness of the project. They have also stonewalled CB 6, only giving them the foot-print of the site (at least to date) for review prior to the public hearing.

At a point in time where there is a lot of discussion about the lack of Board of Education responsiveness to community needs and input, this ill conceived plan is a perfect example of riding roughshod over a community to achieve goals set by paper pushers in Long Island City who have no feel for, or apparent interest in, local neighborhoods.

I hope that people will come to the meeting on the 18th to help my community figure out ways to avoid a disastrous building project.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red at March 16, 2009 1:51 PM

I was talking with the architect. She said she wanted to come up with a contextual design. When my eyebrows went up she added, "You know, like Nova, The Crest...."

Posted by: altervoce at March 16, 2009 2:31 PM

The SCA is not up to the creative tasks some are calling for.
All one can realistically hope for is that the roof of the new school will not start to leak as soon as it opens. As has happened in other new schools in the City.

Posted by: Mrs de Dough at March 16, 2009 2:58 PM

Say, everyone, go to the architect Robert A. M. Stern's site and check out a charter-school renovation/expansion project in Brooklyn done by his firm and completed just a short while ago. (It was featured on Brownstoner, if I remember.)

You'll find before and after photographs and a concise description of the effort and outcome.

The results are nice, and the original, 19th-century public-school building isn't nearly as good as P.S. 113! (And part of the building was burned out, making the project pretty tough.)

Here's the link:

www.ramsa.com/project.aspx?id=215

If that doesn't work, go directly to the firm's website and scroll down "academic projects" to find it.

Charter-school facilities are reviewed by the SCA, and as far as I know, the City and DOE pay for them, so there's a precedent for some creative work at P.S. 113. (I'm sure there are others. It may be worth researching these!)

And here's something I didn't know: The SCA's head of facilities, a Ms. Greenberger, is from Park Slope, where she lives with her husband and two kids who attend public schools! (Just like their father, the SCA notes proudly.)

Use whatever leverage you have -- including guilt!

NOP

Posted by: NOP at March 16, 2009 3:05 PM

I worry that my comments will read like I have taken a side, and I really haven't. One of the other goals of the current scheme is to not have to send students to another school during construction. Building on the school yard and community garden allows students to stay in the current 133 until the new building is completed, when they can just move next door.

I appreciate Red's comments above and wish all stakeholders luck expressing their needs and desires. The school siting review process makes ULURP look like the poster child for democratic decision making.

Posted by: g man at March 16, 2009 3:26 PM

I am a gardener of the community garden mentioned in the article. I am personally in shock... and know that other gardeners are feeling the same way. We understand the situation, but are very sad about our plants, and years of many people's work put into creating our garden.

We've been talking among ourselves since we heard a rumor about the plan in Dec., and have attended D15 Community Education Council in Dec, and the School District meeting in Jan. But we ourselves just learned that the new school would house 900 children and the new garden on the site plan is much smaller than what we have now. It will of course take many years to start from scratch, and we might not be able to save our beautiful trees.

How we can be part of the new plan should be on the agenda at the March 18 meeting and March 26 public hearing and our members are planning to attend. I am glad to know that many people are talking about this issue now.

Posted by: balticgardener1 at March 16, 2009 4:59 PM

Thanks, NOP, for the great link showing that it is possible to preserve old structures while accommodating new functions.

With respect to the idea that a value in this plan is that the kids can stay in school while a school is built around them, you really have to look at the site plan – the new school structure pretty much abuts the existing school

Posted by: Brooklyn Red at March 16, 2009 5:42 PM

gman- I don't think anyone took it that way. You always seem fair and balanced on the issues.

Posted by: bxgrl at March 16, 2009 6:08 PM

NOP, just what we needed, a great example of an adaptive restoration and reuse. I remember seeing this great Bed Stuy building empty for years, and I'm really glad to see what they did with it. Robert M. Stern is also one of the greats in today's architecture world, and his firm did a great job. I took one of his classes in college. He and another architect almost had me in the profession. If only my drawing skills had been better, in those pre-CAD days. I hope someone sees this link and brings it to the attention of the powers that be in Cobble Hill/Park Slope.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at March 16, 2009 6:12 PM

This news leaves a huge lump in my throat. There has to be a creative way of retrofitting or adding to this building rather than taking the easier/faster/cheaper way out. As long as we're going along with that train of thought, why don't we just feed the kids in the new school the worst junk food we can find just because it's easier/faster/cheaper??? I know! We can send them across the street to the lovely chain-food pizza place that recently went in...how convenient! But hey, let's look on the bright side, I'm sure whatever goes up in it's place will perfectly mimic that eyesore as well as the many other eyesores that have gone up along 4th Avenue in the last couple of years...and isn't there something to be said for visual continuity???

But at the end of the day and in all seriousness, If you cannot preserve a beautiful old building in New York City, where can you?

Posted by: chagen at March 16, 2009 6:38 PM

My daughter graduated a couple of years ago from PS130 in on the corner of Baxter and Hester Streets in Chinatown (formerly Little Italy--north of Canal, between Mulberry and Centre Sts.) a couple of years ago. In 1992, that school building was 364th of the 365 schools in NYC. The building was completely renovated and an extension almost the same size as the original building was constructed, with the students in place. It's a beautiful renovation--hard to tell where the old building ends and the new building begins. This was done on what has to be one of the narrowest streets in the city (Baxter) with parking on both sides--truly an alley, backed up to Mulberry Street which is also not spacious at all. It must have been quite an ordeal, but the results are lovely.

Posted by: rf at March 16, 2009 11:11 PM

Just look at what the smart folks over at Poly Prep Lower School in Park Slope did, when they renovated their historic school building and had a modern addition built. It was also the first school in New York City to achieve LEED Green Building Certification. Why not do this again?

This is precisely the same architectural approach that should be employed over at P.S.-133. Even with a modest budget, a clever mix of old and new could surely lead to the optimum win-win solution. What a great opportunity...

Posted by: soleman at March 23, 2009 2:16 PM

« Vox Pop Teeters On The Edge Where Is The New Brooklyn? »

March 16, 2009

SCA To Build New P.S. 133, Tear Down Old Building

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions