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]
Its certainly not scientific but it is worth noting that their appears to be no change in these buildings condition after yesterdays torrential wind and rain (if anything will cause a collapse its high wind and heavy rains)
I agree the DOB should be doig what it can to cover its ass, but it looks as though they can be too proactive. the easiest thing was to say, tear them down. But when yo are dealing with people’s homes and lives, the DOB should take a closer look.
In a fire there is no time to discuss anything. You have minutes to save lives. In the meantime, no one is in the buildings, they are still standing, and 3 other engineers agree they can be saved. I am sure no one would have fought this if the buildings were leaning, or the centers were sinking, bricks falling, etc. One of the owners is an 80 year old woman- she certainly deserves a better hearing than a 5 minute look-see from the city inspector and a demolition notice. She can’t even get her belonging out of the house.
“On your other point, I’d much prefer some of my taxpayer money going to the preservation of these buildings than to many other things, including schools, as I have no children.”
Well thankfully [generally] stupid and completely short-sited and selfish individual views such as this are not ordinarily applied to our tax and spending policies.
Benson – if the homeowners, contractors (and/or their ins companies) are willing to pay for the outside experts and the maintenance of temp safety provisions, and the delay is not dangerous; I am not against (within reason) a 2nd opinion given that these buildings are landmarked. (Engineering in these cases is generally not exact in terms of “imminent”) and it seems to me that local politicians get involved in all sorts of issues like this (potholes, Landlord tenant disputes, etc) – so if they can get the DOB (a city agency) to consider and outside engineer thats ok [as long as they do NOT try to dictate the outcome]
Yes, it is a legitimate concern. It’s also a matter of odds.
On your other point, I’d much prefer some of my taxpayer money going to the preservation of these buildings than to many other things, including schools, as I have no children.
DIBS;
Are you really being serious in your comments? Get a grip on this one. Everyone hopes that these buildings can be saved, but let’s put it in perspective.
“If it is found that the buildings are not in imminent danger of collapse”
That is what the independent engineers seem to be saying, per the reports from the courtroom.
There is some danger that the DoB engineers could just have said ‘pull ’em down’ as that makes their life easier, regardless of whether they would be salvageable or not ultimately. The politicians and media had a role in making sure that this did not happen, and there is some chance to evaluate alternatives.
DIBs – “The issue that the DOB is trying to cover its ass on is whether or not anyone may get injured doing the repairs.”
That seems to me to bae a VERY VERY legitimate concern – no?
FSRG;
Have you been reading the other threads on this issue (not just today’s)? Folks have been advocating that outside engineers be brought in to overule the DOB, and even in this thread, advocating that the politicians be brought in to push the DOB. They are trying to politicize a safety decision.