James Opens Door to (Partial) Admiral's Row Preservation
Coucilmember Letitia James has modified her position on the preservation of Admiral’s Row, the group of ten historic houses along Flushing Avenue, according to an article in The Brooklyn Paper. James had previously advocated razing the structures to make way for a supermarket, but the councilmember is now saying that “some” of the houses could…
Coucilmember Letitia James has modified her position on the preservation of Admiral’s Row, the group of ten historic houses along Flushing Avenue, according to an article in The Brooklyn Paper. James had previously advocated razing the structures to make way for a supermarket, but the councilmember is now saying that “some” of the houses could be preserved and some kind of balance struck between preservation and addressing the lack of supermarket options for nearby residents. James told us that “the key to preserving some of the buildings is money. If the economics are resolved, we can move forward on preserving some of these buildings, but, my first priority is to meet the immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Vinegar Hill.” A formal public review of Admiral’s Row redevelopment plans begins next Tuesday at a meeting at Borough Hall (209 Joralemon Street, 7 p.m).
James gets in middle of ‘Row’ [Brooklyn Paper]
Guard Starts Talks ‘To Come Up With Alternatives’ For Row [Brownstoner]
Photo by SmithersJones.
This property does not belong to the Navy Yard. There is a fence behind the houses separating this parcel from the Navy Yard. It is owned by the US Army.
The Army wants to get rid of it by selling it to the City of NY. Who only wants it if it is completely wiped clean of any buildings. They will then convey it to the Navy Yard who will, God knows, probably do nothing with it for another twenty years. If you have followed the history of this parcel, you will uncover all sorts of chicanery, cheating, lying, corruption, and stupidity on the part of government officials at every level. It isn’t a conspirancy, nothing that intelligent, it is just a comedy of errors and breathtaking lack of vision.
I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, bxgrl; I was just pointing out that I have not seen any indication that anyone is prepared to allocate millions of dollars to restore/re-build some or all of Admiral’s Row. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. cannot afford to fix up the buildings, the income stream from the redeveloped properties won’t sustain financing, Councilwoman James does not have that kind of discretionary funding…. Maybe the mayor will find the money, or maybe not.
Sorry – I got a little verbose there and the end of my comment got cut off. Anyway to finish that thought:
The Navy Yard plan wanted to accomplish 3 things: (1) build more industrial space (2) provide better services to the surrounding community and (3) increase revenues of the development corporation so that they can afford to maintain the whole yard in a state of good repair without relying on subsidies from the city every year – subsidies that will no doubt dry up one day. It’s important to realize that the navy yard campus is 150 years old and that for a long time, no money was spent keeping it up. The development corp is in the middle of digging themselves out of a huge “deferred maintenance” hole. So while it’s easy to be a consipiracy theorist and paint the dev corp folks as greedy, I think their desire to maximize revenue from this site is rooted in good intentions. I think that’s why they’ve been unwilling to compromise to date. But with Tish Jame’s softening, they may not have any other choice at this point…
I agree that the zoning reg that requires that much parking here is stupid, but there’s no getting around the fact that it exists and any development plan for this site needs to deal with it. We should all pressure City Planning to make update the parking requirements in this city to something more urban and transit friendly, but that’s a separate fight that will likely take a long time.
I don’t think a shuttle would be very feasible for a development of this size. Remember, IKEA is a huge international corporation with a store that is 4-5 times larger than what we’re talking about here – so I don’t think that’s really a comparable situation. The Navy Yard has a shuttle that runs in the AM and PM rush hours – that would probably be your best bet.
As for Mr. Porter – all I can say is that i’ve dealt with many architects in my lifetime. Some are very practical and deal in the realm of the “possible”, some are egg-headed intellectuals who feel that real world concerns like making a project economically feasible are beneath them. I don’t Porter personally but from his position as a professor at Pratt, and from what I’ve read of his proposals for this site, I’d say he falls into the second category.
And Montrose Morris – I agree that there is a creative compromise that could be worked out – but it’s important to understand that that compromise would no doubt involve something (reduced parking, underground parking, reduced supermarket size, requirement to preserve all/some houses) that would make the site worth less money to the Navy Yard. At the end of the day, this whole development (and their whole development plan) was about 3 things: (1) creating more industrial space (2) providing services
When I see the decrepitude and abandonment of these old mansions, I associate it with the ineptitude and wastefulness of the Federal Government and the people who run the US Army.
What organization in its right mind would allow this to happen to its valuable, historic properties?
Let these houses be a reminder to all of us of the low esteem in which the Boro of Brooklyn is held by our elected and non-elected officials in Washington DC.
The condition of this Federal property is a disgrace and an insult to the people of Brooklyn and New York.
The only hope for these houses is for them to be separated from the rest of the parcel and sold off individually with preservation covenants, to private citizens. The private owners would do what responsible citizens have done throught the boro, they will restore them and live in them.
No other solution, including any that involves the brain-dead bureaucracies or the Yahoos at the Navy Yard will work.
This is a disgrace and an affront. We should make that clear to our so-called leaders.
Can anyone tell me why the enormous vacant lot between Park and Flushing at Clermont isn’t a viable candidate for a new grocery store?
g-man, if the row took up a major part of the Yard it would be one thing. But there is nothing wrong with working out a solution to please everyone. The Navy yard is a huge, proud part of our history- that has impact, our history is what shapes us as a nation and we need all the proud history we can get at this point. It always seems to be that preservation and finance are seen as adversarial, but that isn’t always the case. Usually those who want fast and cheap advocate for demolition. And that is not always the best way in the long run. And sometimes it turns out to be the most expensive.
qis4quincy- that would be awesome, especially if they can save several of the houses and maybe use them for offices, and as part of the museum. I’m all for living history, is it were, but I’m not willing to lose all of them. Not that it’s my decision- but I have seen that historic districts tend to remain stable and valuable. Maybe it’s because of their cachet? Of course, and their beauty. those aren’t financial tangibles although they often translate into such.
I’m helping a friend who is moving her family’s century old store as the building was sold and is to be torn down. For the last 10 years I have archived materials for her and we are now in the process of moving it but my hope is to have her create a museum because the history of that store is the history of the garment center and it also relates to the military since they used to be suppliers to the military for uniform trim and accessories. Yet she has another friend who would have simply thrown it all out or sold it. So some people really just never get it.
“If the economics are resolved, we can move forward on preserving some of these buildings….” That’s a mighty big “if.” Of course, if the preservationists get the upper hand in this fight, and they have been gaining strength for months, the mayor might find the money needed to keep the project from collapsing completely. Or not; real potential for a pyrrhic victory here.
Also, whenever people discuss what should be built at the corner of Flushing and Navy, some of the comments are, ‘we can both save Admiral’s Row and build a supermarket.’ Not mentioned is the other building planned for the site. Since I have not read any comments stating, ‘we can have all three uses,’ I assume that people either have forgotten or don’t know about the new industrial building or are expressing a preference for preserving Admiral’s Row.