shoprite-close-up-042710.jpg
Nine months after issuing an RFP, the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. announced the development team selected to build three new buildings at the southwest corner of the Navy Yard where Admiral’s Row currently stands in a state of shameful neglect. The headline-grabbing news is that ShopRite will be the operator of the 55,000-square-foot supermarket. (The lack of fresh food options in the area has been the card played by everyone in favor of tearing down the historic buildings for some time now. “This area is like a food desert,” said Council Member Letitia James, a fact somewhat mitigated by last week’s news that an 11,000-square-foot market would be coming soon to Toren. To be fair, though, the Toren market is likely to be geared towards the more affluent residents of the new buildings in Downtown Brooklyn rather than the public housing residents. ShopRite, on the other hand, has an extensive circular at its one existing store on McDonald Avenue.) ShopRite’s development partner, PA Developers, will also build 125,000 square feet of industrial space on top of the supermarket and erect a two new buildings on either side of the Timber Shed; the Timber Shed plus two adjacent building will provide a total of 30,000 new square feet of retail. (Click on the rendering above to see a bigger pull-away of the entire Admiral’s Row makeover.) The project won’t break ground until late next year, since the city still needs time to take possession of Admiral’s Row and the project will also have to go through the ULURP process. That’s Building B, the one officer’s residence to be saved, right next to the market; in all likelihood it will become the headquarters for a non-profit.
Brooklyn Navy Yard To Open New ShopRite Supermarket [NY Post]
ShopRite to Open on Admiral’s Row [Crain’s]
ShopRite Coming to Navy Yard [Curbed]
Navy Yard Kicks Off Supermarket RFP Process [Brownstoner]
It’s Curtains for Most of Admiral’s Row [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. The parking is there because Tish James and friends were convinced, beyond all reason, that no full-size supermarket could survive off of the 40,000 potential customers within walking distance. It was an act of faith, with no empirical basis, that the store had to have several hundred parking spaces.

    That is the only reason why Admirals’ Row is going to be torn down. For 300 parking spaces.

  2. I’m in favor of historic preservation as well, but like everything else, it should pay its own way. Good intentions are fine, but in absence of a realistic, financially viable plan to rehabilitate the Navy Yard (which there certainly may have been), I’m glad to see that there is something positive happening there.

  3. TD, I beg to differ. We’ll never know what could have been done had they decided to rebuild the Row, but even I, as an ardent preservationist, never thought they would simply build “faux-historic versions”. I hoped for one, perhaps two restored houses, the best preserved of them, but the rest used in different ways, perhaps offices, learning centers, preservation skills workshops, retail, whatever. There are a lot of alternatives which would have kept the facades intact, so that a street view would look very historic, but inside could have been whatever worked to best utilize the space in an economically viable, yet historic way, much like in any historic district. I never expected a Disneyland on the River, frozen in time area. But now, we’ll never know.

  4. I disagree, TD. They could have been restored, and better yet, put to good use. The Navy Yard is not only a great commercial district but a historic one. Why not a museum/historic center, not only preserving them but integrating them into a feature that could actually make money? I’ve been shouted down for suggesting this before but I still stand by the idea. Other places have done it and successfully.

  5. I disagree that preservation is taking a hit. There’s nothing left to preserve. “Preservation” in this context would essentially mean rebuilding to historic specifications, which is unnecessary and disingenuous in my opinion. Preserving something that has been maintained for all these years is valuable, but restoring them to new from the condition they are in would make these buildings nothing more than a faux-historic version of their former selves.

1 2