Stay of Execution on MacDonough Street
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block: The Judge called in the lawyers and…
The second hearing about the future of 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, the two Stuyvesant Heights brownstones threatened with demolition after the collapse of a party wall last week, was held yesterday afternoon at 360 Adams Street. Here’s a report we received from a resident of the block:
The Judge called in the lawyers and engineers leaving the public in the hall to wonder what was happening. After an hour the public was allowed in and told that the engineers would have until Wednesday Jan. 27th to present a plan to save the properties. Mrs. Prince, the owner of 331 MacDonough St., has retained a lawyer and engineer in the hopes of saving her property. The Judge has told the public that he is aware of their concerns but, the issue will be resolved by the engineers and our presence in court on the 27th will not be necessary.
Meanwhile, we also contact the Landmarks Preservation Commission to get a better sense of their position and ability to act as advocates for preservation in this case. Here’s the response we got:
Members of our staff have visited the site, and are communicating extensively with the Department of Buildings about these important buildings. Under the Landmarks Law, no Landmarks approval is needed for measures the Department of Buildings must take to address public safety issues. We are advocating for saving as much of the buildings as is safely possible, while deferring to the Department’s engineering knowledge and experience in public safety matters. Landmarks and Buildings have a long history of working together to save historic buildings, and this case is no exception.
We’re also curious to hear how active a role (if any) Councilman Al Vann, who owns a house on the historic block, has taken in the situation. Can anyone tell us?
MacDonough Street Update 1/25/10 [Brownstoner]
Wall Collapse, Vacate Order, Maybe Demo on MacDonough [Brownstoner]
Pig three;
I don’t know what the heck you are talking about. Nowhere in the thread above do I present myself as a structural engineering expert. As I’ll say for the umpteenth time, my objection was with those who want to politicize a safety engineering process.
However, if it somehow gives you a thrill to know that I am not a structural engineer, then I’m happy to oblige you. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
The community rallied in support of the homeowners, benson.
From the tone of your original posts, why should the homeowner be at all allowed to question the authority and the decision of the DOB????????
Oh Benson, I thought you left. Was it hard to get your foot out of your mouth? Just don’t want to clarify your “expert” knowledge i guess.
LC Arnett;
Now your’re talking! I don’t disagree with your set of questions. If I were the property owner, I would ask exactly these questions. These are reasonable questions in the property owner’s interest. That is a far cry from trying to make this a political or “community” issue.
Your post is well-stated. I disagree about the “imminent” issue, but whatever.
These buildings are strong if they are not undermined. If they are undermined all bets are off. Landmarks has not been much of a help here but the close-knit community has been. Tomorrow the judge will either accept or deny the owner’s plans to stabilize the party wall. It is entirely in his hands. It must be awesome to be a judge.
Human life and safey must be placed above landmarks and possessions. If the severe structural damage that has been inflicted on these buildings can be repaired, then terrific. If not, they will be leveled, and eventually the site will be redeveloped with new houses, approved by the LPC, perhaps designed by a young talent as gifted as the celebrated M. Morris.
fsrq,
The basic structural standards applied to the way these homes were build still applies to residential building today. Could you please site some specific examples of the modern structural engineering advances?
I think the best way to think about this is from the perspective of the 2 homeowners whose homes are adjacent to the houses where the party wall collapsed. If I was them and DOB knocked on my door and said “You have to get out, your home needs to be demolished immediately due to a shoring problem with your neighbor’s party wall not adjacent to your home”, I’d want answers to the following questions
1) Did you observe any damage to my party wall?
2) If the neighbor’s house absolutely has to come down why can’t my wall be shored to save my house?
3) Why can’t I have my own engineer take a look at the property and give me a professional opinion?
4) Why can’t I have my insurance company inspect the property to help me determine what my options are with respect to rebuilding?
5) How can you make a determination about my property without coming into my home and inspecting it as well?
I don’t think that the knee-jerk reaction is best, but I do think that the people effected should have a chance to protect their homes. Benson, your analogy to a fire is probably not the best one. If reasonable people can disagree, the word “imminent” is probably an improper one to use. I’d compare this more to a doctor who gives a terminal diagnosis and recommends a radical course of treatment, while a patient wants a second opinion.
fsrg- do you mean in general, or for structures of their size and purpose? Yes, modern structural engineering allows us to build ever bigger and higher, but if you compare the average townhouse structure of today vs those of the Victorian era, I don’t think they are less strong.
“I am appalled at those who would run roughshod over the proper process for making such a determination.”
that’s EXACTLY the issue. The “process” is NOT TRANSPARENT and the DOB “engineer” failed to make his case in court, in front of an impartial judge.
If it were all that aparent, these buildings would be gone.
Let this be a lesson for anything else the DOB is involved in like a crane. There was an example just last week where an OP stated that there was an illegal structure adjacent to his property and the owner got a $1,000 fine. There’s just no transparency and, because it’s run by the govenrment, no logic to the process.