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 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.
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…
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.
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?
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.
gman- I don’t think anyone took it that way. You always seem fair and balanced on the issues.
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
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.
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.
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:
http://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