Admirals Row House Collapses from Water Damage
[nggallery id=”33365″ template=galleryview] One of the ten former officers residences along Flushing Avenue known as Admirals Row began collapsing from water damage yesterday, and the fire department was brought in for safety reasons to finish the job. Luckily for those concerned with preserving the group of historic structures, the house affected was Building C, which…
[nggallery id=”33365″ template=galleryview]
One of the ten former officers residences along Flushing Avenue known as Admirals Row began collapsing from water damage yesterday, and the fire department was brought in for safety reasons to finish the job. Luckily for those concerned with preserving the group of historic structures, the house affected was Building C, which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recently reported “does not appear to retain historic integrity to the historic significance of the BNY.” (You can see a pre-collapse photo of Building C here—it’s the one on the right.) Here’s what happened: A pedestrian walking down Flushing Avenue in the late afternoon called the Brooklyn Navy Yard headquarters saying that is looked like pieces of Building C had fallen. BNYDC called the Feds, DOB and FDNY. When they got down there they discovered that almost the entire building had detached from the facade and collapsed; DOB determined that the remaining facade itself did not pose enough of a safety risk to take it down. FDNY also determined that there had not been any homeless people in the structure at the time of collapse. The collapse is certainly a reminder that, however many buildings ultimately get slated for preservation, it’s time to get some resolution.
It’s Curtains for Most of Admiral’s Row [Brownstoner]
Ugly Politics May Trump Reason in Admiral’s Row Saga [Brownstoner]
Admiral’s Row: Up Close and Personal [Brownstoner]
MAS Floats Plans to Preserve Admiral’s Row & Build Market [Brownstoner]
Public Hearing on Admiral’s Row Held Last Night [Brownstoner]
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]
Officers’ Row Supermarket Not Happening Anytime Soon [Brownstoner]
Admiral’s Row: Feds Must ‘Consider’ Preservation [Brownstoner]
Admiral’s Row: “Extremely High Level of Historic Integrity” [Brownstoner]
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]
But bxgirl – in none of your arguments have you ever taken financial feasiblity into account. You just dismiss with an “i’m sure it can be figured out” kind of attitude.
I don’t think you characterize my viewpoint correctly on severl fronts. I actually came to this project from the position of “How could we save these buildings and turn them into something cool?” I really did. But after spending some time trying to figure that out, I realized that it wasn’t possible for all the reasons I’ve mentioned before. So then I moved on to “OK, the buildings aren’t saveable, what’s the best thing to do for the site?”. The problem for us (you and me) is that you don’t accept that the buildings aren’t saveable, whease I have. And since i think that saving the buildings is a moot point I’m more focused on what happens next. I’ve tried with all my might to help you see why I am so thoroughly convinced that they are not saveable, but none of it is convincing to you. Either because I am not explaining myself clearly, you’re not open to hearing what i have to say, or some combination.
Also I never deneigrated you for having ideas. When we first started getting into this I listened to your ideas and patiently tried to point out to you why those ideas were not realistic. Rather then describe how you could turn those ideas into reality you decided to tell me that i had no imagination. I also have worked in non-profit and have several times accomplished things that others told me were impossible. I think it’s great to have ideas, but the next step is to figure out how to make those idea a reality, which is what I was challenging you to do, and what you’ve never actually done.
I’m not sure exactly what point you were trying to make above about the supermarket and what relevence to this discussion the demolition of the supermarket on Myrtle street has. But, like I’ve said the reason the i believe the buildings need to be demolished is not to build a supermarket, it’s because they are too far gone. The supermarket is just what comes next. Kind of like the Brooklyn Flea under the brooklyn bridge. The flea was not why they demolshed the purchase building, it was just what comes next.
And finally (because I need to go home) i don’t think it’s right to say that the buildings were left to rot intentionally. If you’ve ever had any interaction with the National Guard or the Army Coprs, you will not find it hard to believe that there was not evil intent or forthought that went into this. It was just complete incompetence on their part.
“I still believe this is the best one-sentence summation of the disagreement:
“In short, the preservationists acted as if the issue were about layout of the site and not about [a] financial[ly] feasibility end use – which is what it’s always been about.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at April 1, 2009 1:19 PM”
Again- i want to stress, that’s an assumption. I know of no preservationists (unless they have bucks to burn) who don’t take financial feasibility and use into consideration. But this is what anti-preservationists always claim.
MMHTPH- it’s a little hard to incorporate the points made by someone who insults your intelligence or blows off a discussion of ideas (feasible or not) on a blog where discussion is the driving engine by denigrating someone for even having any ideas. I worked in the non-profit sector for many years and I have seen people accommplish great things that you would be the first to put down as impossible.
The supermarket is essentially a red herring. The original one was torn down before whats-his-name began construction and he was the one who promised to build a new one. So suddenly its a flogging point against preservationists. And there were other plans offered that did may space for a supermarket. For the record- I believe there was a way to accomplish a great mixed use site – I don’t think a Williamsburg-type restoration is always the way to go. But you started your supermarket argument from the point of view that the buildings were unsalvageable anyway- so in terms of preservation, there’s no point I can debate about or for you to compromise on.
As for Admiral’s Row- I have to agree with streber. Its disengenuous to talk about the condition of the building now when it was intentionally allowed to deteriorate to this degree. It’s like punching holes in a foundation and then acting surprised when the building collapses. I have the feeling there is no useful discussion we could have because I go into them thinking what are the possibilities? How can we save something and do more with it- your approach seems to be, We can’t save or reuse it. Throw it out and go from there.
But let me also say- I am not saying I find nothing useful in what you say, because I do. I even understand why you take the position you do and I hope you realize I am in no way trying to insult you by saying we don’t seem to be able to have a useful discussion. I’m simply saying we seem to come from mutually exclusive viewpoints.
Streber – I agree with your last comment. The fact that the National Guard and Army corps have left them to rot for the past 30 years is idiotic and borderline criminal. I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever argued anything to the contrary – so i’m not sure what your point is.
It is unfair to blame the Navy Yard though, because as has been pointed out many different times by several posters (really you got work on that reading comprehension) the Navy Yard doesn’t own Admirals Row.
I still believe this is the best one-sentence summation of the disagreement:
“In short, the preservationists acted as if the issue were about layout of the site and not about [a] financial[ly] feasibility end use – which is what it’s always been about.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at April 1, 2009 1:19 PM”
Decided to work on the grammar this time around.
Fair enough bxgirl. We’ve gone at it enough times and there’s no need to rehash that again. But i take issue with you saying that I don’t listen to to the other side. I listen very closely and often give point by point refutations. It’s you who repeats the same arguments over and over without incoporating the points that i make.
For example, on the supermarket. As i’ve said before, this was never a discussion of “where could we put a supermarket”, It was always a discussion of “what can we do with this site?” And once you realize that rehabbing the buildings doesn’t work and that they need to be demolished then you start looking at what you can do on this site that best serves the community and the navy yard, and in this case a supermarket is a good answer to that question. Are there other places to put a supermarket? yes. But for some reason, that hasn’t happened.
Finally, as you’ve often said the world is full of impossible things. I fully admit that. There are things out there that some have claimed are impossible that were somehow made to be. But that doesn’t change the fact that many of the things that people said were impossible NEVER came to be because the naysayers were right. All I’m saying is that just because sometimes people who claim something is impossible are wrong doesn’t change the fact that often times those people are exactly right. So in the end, “the world is full of impossible things” adds nothing to the discussion. Because the crux of the issue is “Is this one of the cases where the naysayers are right or where the dreamers are right?”. Well let’s take a look. The naysayers said these buildings were too far gone – about to fall down. The dreamers said “nonsense these buildings are in much bette shape than you are making them out to be”. Now one of the buildings collapsed under it’s own weight. To me that starts tipping the scales to make me thing “hmmmm maybe the naysayers are right about this particular instance”.
MMHTPH- I’m not bothering to get into it with you because you basically love your ranting- discussing- not so much and hardly bother to listen to the other side in ant case. However- the supermarket that used to be in the area was torn down, with a promise of being rebuilt with a new housing complex. So claiming they need a fairway now is true- but not because of trying to save Admiral’s Row.
There were other plans put forward, quite a bit could have been done to stablize the buildings but never was, and there are some that could be restored, even now. You may not agree with my opinion (you never do), you may not like it (your privilege)- I simply have no desire to enter into a discussion with someone who long ago decided anything I had to say was wrong, stupid or impossible. Well, the world is full of impossible things.
“the suggestion to leave the building alone is idiotic.”
Go tell that The National Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Navy Yard Corporation who have done just that for the last 40 years.