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]
Not to mention, but the DOB has been exposed for some of its shady practices. It isn’t like the DOB has a good reputation. Who’s to say, he didn’t want the buildings demolished, anticipating a developer would snap up the property and build there? For a fee, you understand? It’s happened.
I’d assume that between the contractor’s insurance, and the individual homeowners insurance policies (not to mention remedy through civil courts against the negligent homeowner) – there is more than enough liability coverage to fix the issue (if it can be fixed)
Montrosse: this isn’t a $10,000 fix. This will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to shore and rebuild the partywall. The cost of the repairs may exceed the limit of the homeowner’s insurance policy. It is a nightmare. all because people do not realize that these buildings sit very gently on the ground. They do not have footings like modern buildings. You dig an inch too far and the whole house will collapse. At least no one was hurt or killed here. The wall that toppled over could have easily killed the workmen and if the house had given way then, everyone in both houses at the time would probably have been killed.
I think the concern is more for the 80 year old homeowner and her tenants than for the people doing the gut rehab that started this whole thing.But beyond that, fsrg, what is the public good? Because the public is made up of individuals, and just as we expect our tax money to be put to use for the greatest good, why shouldn’t a taxpayer get help when it’s needed?
It’s bad enough our tax money is used inappropriately (al la A-Y, which you so strongly defend), but if you can advocate throwing money at a rich developer, why not toss a little toward this 80 year old homeowner, and to the homeowners next door (stupid as they may be)? Because if that building isn’t stabilized, it causes a domino effect that will effect the entire row. Even if one doesn’t care about the buildings, how about the people who live in them?
benson, here are the two comments from people who have had experience with the DOB guy….
Yes, i realize this is a blog and people oftentimes post inaccurate crap but accounts from the first hearing seem to support these comments…
Tim Lynch is the forensic engineer who controls this situation. I have had personal experience with this little man with a very large ego. He will spend his time on site looking for someone to have arrested. He also encourages the regular DOB trolls to bury buildings in any and all violations to further justify knocking them down.
Posted by: modsquad at January 24, 2010 1:57 PM
I see. So Tim is in charge. His ego is much much bigger than his own self (he is not so little)
Posted by: brooklynexpediter at January 24, 2010 3:19 PM
Yeah, but the homeowner who hired the incompetent contractor is not the only one suffering here. His neighbor, who’s only fault in the matter is that she lives next door, is equally in danger of losing her home, and after owning it and living there for over 30 years, has a far greater stake in it than her neighbor. Why should she suffer, or the block in total, if tearing down both houses structurally compromises other homes on the row? This isn’t just one homeowner, it’s now turned into many. How many people do you need before the situation qualifies? I’m not saying Marty drives up with a check, I’m saying if low interest loans, or grant programs exist that can help, then that’s gov’t money well spent.
In the end, in our imperfect world, it will come down to dollars. Who will pay for the expensive shoring scheme? Will the insurance company pay or will they refuse payment due to the illegal nature of the excavation work?
The bottom line is this: never never do illegal excavation work in the cellar of your brownstone. Don’t let inexperienced contractos anywhere near your foundation walls.
The owner of 329 did a brilliant job of destroying his home and his investment and tragically, taking his innocent neighbor down with him.
Benson,
The definition of imminent is: close in time; about to occur. Question : how many days, I repeat, days have past since the collapse of the foundation wall?
As far a risk and safety, there is always someone willing to take on the challenge. And, as home owners, are we really willing to allow the government complete control of what happens to our homes?
If tenants are out and safe and there are qualified engineers saying the buildings could be saved, the owner should have the right (does anyone remember individual rights?) to try to save his/her home. Then the dob can do their measuring test to check if the building are safe for the general public they are claiming to protect.
Local politicians are the direct voice of the people they represent! Being active and accountable is part of the job! Notice what happened in Mass! The needs of the many do not out weigh the needs of the few!
I will wait to see how this turns out before commenting on Landmarks. This is an important case because of future legal precedent. Interesting.
Re: Montrose’s 10.48 AM
I’m sorry, but this is why I have an axe to grind with the preservationist community.
We’re told that the DOB’s inspector is a flak who just rolled in. Really?? So in other words, you have no confidence in the authorities who have responsibility for making this important safety determination? This should be a big issue: equivalent to the crane scandal at the DOB.
Has the preservationist community joined with other forces to do something about it? Have you collected any data to show that the DOB is sleeping on the job in this regard? How long have you been on this issue? Have you advocated for folks whose non-landmarked home is torn down in such a fashion (as happens almost monthly in this city)?
Or is the reality that you don’t like what they did in THIS situation, because it is a landmarked home, and therefore would be willing to politicize the building safety determination?
All I can tell you is: get used to it. These homes were not “built for the ages”, and you’ll be seeing more of this type of thing.