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.
Brownstoner:
Here’s a building worth preserving, as most of this thread’s posters so far agree. My 19th-century public school, P.S. 41 in Crown Heights where I grew up during the 1950s, was demolished for a “modern” apartment building, and the surrounding historic district suffers as a result.
P.S. 41 was actually older than this one. But the ceilings were high, the construction solid, and the mansard roof and brick tower made it a fanciful place to go to school. There were nice interior details, too. Heavy wood desks. Pendant lamps. And lots of wainscotting.
Because the building was on a street corner (Dean Street and New York Avenue), all the rooms got great light. And, yes, the play yard was small, but that didn’t stop us from running around and screaming our heads off every recess.
My favorite rooms were in the basement, off all places. This is where they stashed the kindergarteners. But the ceilings down there were high, too, and light came through the playground-facing windows and splashed against our rooms’ white-washed brick walls. The combination of light and texture made the experience especially tactile.
Can’t bring buildings like P.S. 133 up to snuff technologically? Tell that to private schools, colleges, and universities who revere — and retrofit — their old buildings. Can’t combine new and old construction for educational purposes? Check the Berkeley-Carroll School nearby.
We’ve seen SCA buildings. You simply don’t get the high ceilings, generous proportions, and big windows of buildings like the old ones. And there may be others like P.S. 133 throughout the city, but that may be an additional reason to save it. Why shouldn’t a system of fine public-school buildings be preserved, when a system of fine buildings was their point? When walking through distinctive neighborhoods, they remind us that we’re part of a larger city with shared values and aspirations, expressed through the education of our kids.
Nostalgic on Park Avenue
I think it sounds like they just want to take the quickest, cheapest route. I think its wasteful and shortsighted myself. And they will wind up with a building that may have amenities but is ugly and certainly will not be nearly as well built.
actually, steve, i don’t think it’s true that all of our elementary schools are overcrowded. the “good” ones may be, but as the DOE has repeatedly stated, there’s capacity in lots of brooklyn elementary schools. the problem is in improving the quality of the undersubscribed schools, and it seems to me the money and time involved in building a new school would be much better spent on bringing up the quality of the existing school that is right around the corner.
Some of the initial post is incorrect. PS 133 is in CSD13 and will remain there. However, two schools are proposed to be built in a single building. One will replace the exisiting school. The other will serve the reported need for additional capacity for the northern part of CSD15 and administratively be part of that district. Funds from both districts would pay for construction.
Sharon Greenberger has stated that the current building is at the end of its useful life. A lack of amenities (air conditioning) and features (gym, auditorium, both–I don’t remember) were cited. I’m not expressing an opinion, just sharing her comments. As I am sure most of you know, listing on the state and national register provides no protections against demolition.
Thanks to all the new multiple unit buildings that have gone up all over the area, all of our elementary schools are overcrowded. We desperately need new seats in all of our neighborhoods, not just Park Slope, but Fort Greene, Boerum Hill, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, etc.
I’m not saddened if this building is lost beacuse there are dozens more just like it all over the city. It’s not unique and therefore, not worth of landmark status.
What’s more important, saving a building that doesn’t not meet the needs of a 21st century student body or creating a modern building that can cater to 3 times the number of students and adapt to changing technologies over time?
i’m all for less crowded, more efficient public schools, but this seems a pretty ridiculous way of getting to the goal. why do they need to expand this school anyway? are they planning on rezoning district 15 to relieve some of the pressure on 321? if so, my understanding is that ps 282, which is a couple of blocks away, is undercrowded. wouldn’t it be a better use of resources to rezone ps 282 cachement to include some of these people?
If someone wants to start an online petition, we will post the information…
So Mr Brownstoner, and brownstoners, what needs to be done to organize against this? Is there any reasonable hope to keep the building? Seems like if this readership is against it, we should at least figure out a way to be heard as a large group.
what a lovely building. a shame to tear it down. surprised it’s not landmarked!