Another Old Burg Beaut Biting the Dust
As we’ve long feared, Con Edison is demolishing the beautiful old power plant on Kent and Division that was built in 1905. Echoing a post put up last month on I’m Not Saying, I’m Just Saying, this morning AM New York has a story on the demolition, which sure isn’t sitting well with preservationists. The…
As we’ve long feared, Con Edison is demolishing the beautiful old power plant on Kent and Division that was built in 1905. Echoing a post put up last month on I’m Not Saying, I’m Just Saying, this morning AM New York has a story on the demolition, which sure isn’t sitting well with preservationists. The sprawling industrial building once helped power the BRT, and Con Ed bought it in 1950 and kept it running until 1999. The utility company wouldn’t comment on what it has planned for the site. The LPC rejected a push to landmark the structure last year. Preservationists argue that the demolition will result in the loss of a crucial piece of the area’s—and Brooklyn’s—history. “Large buildings like that are great adaptive reuse projects,” says Lisa Kersavage, director of advocacy for the Municipal Art Society. “The industry on the waterfront is really what saved Brooklyn, and that is going to be forgotten.” The most disappointing quote in the article comes from Evan Thies, a CB1 member who is campaigning to replace David Yassky. “Right now it’s an eyesore that’s way out of context for the neighborhood,” says Thies. “This is the 100-year-old problem of New York, that we don’t have access to the waterfront. … We can move industry and utilities to other parts of the city and the borough that are much less desirable.”
Historic Kent Ave Power Plant: Are Renovations Prelude to Demolition? [INSIJS]
Community Shocked as Plug Pulled on Historic Power Plant [AM New York]
Proactive on Kent Avenue? [Brownstoner] GMAP
Photo by i’m just sayin
Rear view
11:58 – Con Ed does NOT generate!! It is not allowed to under state regulations. The locations leased and sold to other power generators were mandated by Albany. NYPA, Powergen etc. have absolutelty nothing to do with Con Ed.
11:08 – uhh you are wrong – Con Ed still has subsidiaries generating power – further Con Ed has leased and sold numerous locations to power generators (like NYPA). This site is perfect for one of the NEEDED small power plants in NYC
10:03 & 10:21, I hate to break this to you but Con Ed does not generate it’s own electricity and has not done so ever since the industry was deregulated in the late 1990’s. Con Ed is a distributer of electricity generated by others. It makes sense for them to get rid of this building since it is surpless to requirements
I congratulate Con Ed on this move. I congratulate that they saw fit to exercise their right as a property owner. I especially congratulate them that they exercised their right in a straight-forward manner, without trying to waste their money on items such as “community consultations”, which in such manners only empowers the NIMBY/comminity “activist”?presrvation at any cost crowd. Well done!!
I compare this scenatio to that of Clarett’s ongoing experience at 340 Court. Here is a situation wherein they can build as-of-right, yet they have tried to “engage the community”. What have they gotten for these efforts, but endless grief from this crowd, who has not the least concern for the time and money wasted. At the same time, they’ll engage in endless hand-wringing about the need for “affordable housing”, and will lobby for Byzantine laws and set-asides to accomplish such. And who is going to administer these laws? Why, the very same crowd of “non-profit” agencies, community activists, etc.
Once again, I heartily commend Con Ed for standing up for their property rights- a fundamental value of this country, and one of the foundations of liberty. Let’s hope that others will do so in a city where all too many socialist losers are ready to trample on them.
Benson.
not all 10:39
see the big red building on the gowanus down the street from what was washington park (where the dodgers played before ebbets) and is now a con-ed yard.
BRT was Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company – they operated the surface rails (trolleys), for which this plant provided all of the power. Eventually BRT was reorganized into BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corp.).
More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Rapid_Transit_Company
Thies was instrumental in Yassky’s efforts to de-designate 184 Kent. I guess he just doesn’t get it (maybe he doesnt need the brownstone Brooklyn vote).
And given what has been constructed nearby, he also has a pretty warped view of what constitutes an “eyesore”. (Not that a bunch of beaux arts decoration makes for a beutiful building, but between the other old buildings and the new buildings in this area, the bar is pretty low.)
“BRT”??
I think you mean “BMT” or “IRT.” There’s no “BRT.”
“We can move industry and utilities to other parts of the city and the borough that are much less desirable.”
Yeah, I wonder where he thinks that is, too. Even so, those parts of the borough, cuz you know he’s probably thinking ENY, Flatlands, etc, are notoriously inaccessible without a car, and hard to get to with public transportation, so in the name of impressive everyone with the Wmsburg waterfront’s shiny new look, he’s going to add more pollution, and cause already strapped blue collar workers to spend more time and money trying to get to whatever jobs are left.
This WOULD be a great building for adaptive reuse, and what is more Brooklyn than our historical industrial past. Any city can have mediocre shiny condo towers. Which leads to Button’s remarks – preserving the past in “some rust belt city” is akin to only having park land in Idaho, because it takes up too much room in New York. We preserve it here, because it is here, and the people here can reuse and appreciate it. Obstruct someone’s view? Ahhh, the rich, who really NEED another condo tower in Williamsburg. Somehow I doubt you are thinking about affordable housing, or even a public park.
What a wasted opportunity.
Preservationista