Admiral's Row: "Extremely High Level of Historic Integrity"
A tipster who must have a day job as a stenographer passed along some highlights from the “Assessment of Admiral’s Row” report that was prepared by Beardsley Design Associates and Crawford & Stearns for the National Guard and was made briefly available for public viewing on Tuesday night. One of the main aspects that the…
A tipster who must have a day job as a stenographer passed along some highlights from the “Assessment of Admiral’s Row” report that was prepared by Beardsley Design Associates and Crawford & Stearns for the National Guard and was made briefly available for public viewing on Tuesday night. One of the main aspects that the consultants were charged with evaluating was the “historic integrity” of the site as a whole and the buildings individually. Bottom line: If the results were a report card, Admiral’s Row would have Straight A’s.
After application of the aspects of historic integrity to the collective Admiral’s Row district with due consideration of existing deterioration, it is apparent that all seven aspects of historic integrity are strongly present. The Admiral’s Row district retains an extremely high level of historic integrity to the historical significance of the BNY…After application of the aspects of historic integrity to the individual buildings, with due consideration of existing deterioration, it is apparent that all seven spects of historic integrity are strongly present in nine of the ten Quarters.
The report goes on to say that Quarters B and D are “exceptional and retain an extremely high level of historic integrity” while H, K, L and I retain a “high level” of historic integrity. Only Quarter C doesn’t make the grade with the consultants. And what kind of shape are the buildings in structurally? “In general, the structural integrity for the original 19th Century portions of the buildings’ superstructure appear to be sound, level and plumb.”
p.s. Readers may be interested in checking out Gowanus Lounge’s take on the situation this morning.
Officers’ Row: Let’s Have Our Cake and Eat It Too [Brownstoner]
Officers’ Row Preservation Coming to a Contentious Head [Brownstoner]
For Officer’s Row, Supermarket All But Certain [Brownstoner]
Admiral’s Row Fixup to Cost $20M [NY Daily News]
Real Estate Round-Up [Brooklyn Eagle]
Photo from Officersrow.org
1:03 PM,
“No. Pony up out of your after-tax income if you care so much. Public funds should be spent on the basis of the greatest common interest, not the whims of society’s highest earners.”
ok, by your word here there should absolutely be no tax money for Atlantic Yards and there should be no money for parking lots. do you really think that the greatest common interest here in NYC would be to tear down historic structures and build a parking lot?? guess again!
i actually think the “greatest common interest” would scare you if you could actually see it. i think you may be referring to your own greatest interest in your posting.
Oh, this is classic Brownstoner.
Ella is clearly not to be trusted because she’s TOO WELL INFORMED.
LOL.
Yeah, Ella, if you want to do research instead of pulling wishful thinking out off your ass, you don’t belong in our discussion!
Actually, i’ve seen absolutely no evidence that the Navy Yard is doing anything for or with the community, not in the 11 years that i’ve lived in the Navy Yard area. The only place that has included the community at all from what i’ve seen is Steiner Studios and they aren’t really part of the Navy Yard IMO.
From the Daily News:
“If the federal government…requires that some or all of these structures be rebuilt from the ground up…neither the City of New York or the [Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.] are interested in acquiring and developing the site and it will continue to lay fallow for years to come,” wrote Navy Yard Development Corp. President Andrew Kimball yesterday in response to the report.”
Multiple Anon
“11:47 – the problem with your argument is that the ideas that have been put forth are not in fact “good ideas” they are very bad ideas that are masquerading as good ideas but will in fact lead to a complete waste of time and money and not put us any closer to doing anything (either preservation or development) with this important property for many years to come.”
So says you, Ella. And you are?????
Now would be a convenient time to reveal your connection to the project and/or the Yard, because, as 2:07 states, you obviously are not impartial. Otherwise, your opinion about other people’s ideas and comments being worthless, are just your opinion. That and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.
11:47/Preservationista
Ella,
While many of your points are valid, you’re clearly associated with the BNYDC somehow and aren’t exactly impartial.
The references in some posts here and in various press releases, etc. to “twenty years of the Navy Yard working with the community” on this plan is a complete joke I’m afraid. It would be generous to say two years that the Navy Yard has sincerely made an effort at reaching out to the “community”. And they’re clearly only reaching out to those community members that agree with them, and then saying “the majority of the community wants…”. And if this were a 20-year-old plan, then it’s clearly out of date, so the Navy Yard shouldn’t be standing by it anymore anyway.
I believe the Navy Yard wants to do good by the community, and clearly preservation costs money, but I think the Navy Yard should have been more honest and upfront about this whole process, and should not be doing its best to drive yet another racial and class divide into this community. If it continues to do so, it will lose all credible standing as a true community partner. A compromise solution can be found if people are willing to talk and allow everyone a seat at the table, instead of presenting their plans as a done deal.
I don’t know how it can be said, “BNY has hunkered down on this issue and does not want to examine it any further,” when they have announced that there will be a design charette. I consider this just the pep rally before the big game.
Ella,
re: The Walter connection – could be. As I said, the newest report does date the buildings to earlier than previous ones, so it’s obvious that there is room for more research to be done on them. And wouldn’t be a crying shame if the research turned up something very significant and the buildings were gone?
about the tax dollars, this is all being based on decisions that were made by officials from 1996; none of whom are in office any more. at the time, there was a economic rationale for the decision to demolish – whether or not I agree with it is beside the point – that is no longer valid. BNY has hunkered down on this issue and does not want to examine it any further. I disagree with their stance. You don’t.
However, the Feds pursuing due process for environmental review (which plenty of flks on this board are familiar with) and they might not come up with the answer that the Navy Yard wants to hear.
Anon 10:24/11:54/12:58
I want the government to spend money on something like this instead of more defense spending!