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 in response to Public Hearing on Future of Admirals Row Tonight

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 in response to Public Hearing on Future of Admirals Row Tonight

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 in response to Public Hearing on Future of Admirals Row Tonight

Yeah, the Pope is the Pope... The former Hitler Youth and head of an organization which encourages the spread of AIDS by opposing the use of condoms in Africa, seeks to limit womens' rights, and condemns gay folks to an eternity of flame. I *totally* like seeing my tax dollars go towards his visit rather than the preservation of historically significant, and architecturally impressive, structures...

Posted by: kingstonlounge at July 18, 2008 12:32 PM in response to Pratties Have 'Cake-and-Eat-It' Design for Admiral's Row

Considering the fact that an optimistic pricetag on preservation is a mere $20 million, and a pessimistic one is still only $40 million, there's no reason these buildings should not be preserved.

Especially when you consider that the city has recently:
- dumped 15 million dollars into artificial waterfalls
- spent millions of dollars on the Pope's visit
- pledged hundreds of millions in subsidies to rich developers
even $40M seems like a drop in the bucket when contrasted with losing a valuable part of Brooklyn's heritage.

The Pratt design is elegant, and should provide a blueprint for a fair compromise between preservationists and residents. Although the exact plan might have flaws, it shows feasibility, which is the first step towards actual preservation.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at July 18, 2008 11:42 AM in response to Pratties Have 'Cake-and-Eat-It' Design for Admiral's Row

I like how this is scheduled such that employed people cannot attend - anyone else find this a little fishy?

Posted by: kingstonlounge at June 3, 2008 9:53 AM in response to Rally Round the Mega-Project

12:44 is exactly why I rarely bother reading comments or commenting myself.

Instead of having rational, informative discourse, the majority of comments are a mess of ad hominem attacks and lame bickering.

Removing the cover that full anonymity provides would be a step towards the amelioration of this state of affairs.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at May 30, 2008 12:55 PM in response to Taking the Pulse on Anonymous Commenting

As of right now, I rarely comment on Brownstoner due to the fact that there are so many morons on here hiding behind guest accounts.

I've noticed that, in general, named posters are less likely to troll, to post racist / homophobic / sexist etc and ad hominem attacks, and to spend more time defending their points of view, as opposed to merely running their mouths. On the other hand, anonymous posters tend with much more frequency to post garbage.

I think that requiring registration would lead to a lower volume of higher quality discussion. In other words, quality over quantity.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at May 30, 2008 11:28 AM in response to Taking the Pulse on Anonymous Commenting

The majority of these anonymous posts make one thing very clear-

The fact that Ratner's cronies enjoy spending their free time browsing Brownstoner.

Unless of course they're paid shills, like the counterprotesters on Saturday.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at May 5, 2008 12:00 PM in response to Atlantic Yards or Atlantic Lots?

Amen Sam.

There is plenty of space, for example, the tennis court and the space between it and Quarters J (which is not mentioned in the Beardsley / Crawford & Stearns report due to the fact that it is nonhistoric and mostly collapsed) for a very large supermarket - much larger than a Met Foods or a Key.

The National Guard should be evaluating all options, including giving the entire parcel to a private entity who will agree to preserve the residences. The wanton destruction of the AR houses by the BNYDC without any nod to history is absurd.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at April 16, 2008 5:24 PM in response to Guard Starts Talks 'To Come Up With Alternatives' For Row

11:30, I was at the protest. Check out my blog, the url for which is kingstonlounge.blogspot.com, and take a look. While there is only one photo of gala attendees from this set (more on the way), the one photo is very characteristic of a very undiverse crowd. On the other hand, there were protesters of all ages, colours, shapes and sizes.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at April 4, 2008 11:40 AM in response to 'Angry' Anti-Ratner Protest at the Brooklyn Museum

Actually, blustering troll hiding behind guest status at 10:08 AM, our Governor's mansion is currently occupied by a gentleman who has repeatedly come down against eminent domain. Fort Greene representative Letitia James, whom the community spoke through by electing, has vocally denounced the project.

Your argument does not hold water.

Posted by: kingstonlounge at April 4, 2008 10:21 AM in response to 'Angry' Anti-Ratner Protest at the Brooklyn Museum

There has certainly always been complicity between cultural institutions and corporations with various levels of moral questionability.

Where the Brooklyn Museum crossed the line was in specifically honoring a man who is anathema to the community the Museum is supposed to be serving. Nobody argued that the Museum shouldn't take his money; the argument was that, for a Brooklyn cultural institution to support and legitimize someone like Ratner, a man poised to toss homeowners out of their dwellings to build his team a stadium, was a betrayal of Brooklyn.

Here's a link to my photos of the protest last night: http://kingstonlounge.blogspot.com

Posted by: kingstonlounge at April 4, 2008 9:42 AM in response to 'Angry' Anti-Ratner Protest at the Brooklyn Museum

Nice photo!

Posted by: kingstonlounge at March 20, 2008 5:00 PM in response to Thursday Links