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]
I live on Macdonough not this block but just one block away. I have friends who live on the block. It would be devastating to lose the brownstones and our neighbors, but it would be so much worse if someone were hurt or killed.
This is a very serious and tenuous situation that called for serious and thorough consideration. It is appropriate for the neighborhood to rally around their fellow homeowners and friends. It is also appropriate (not political)that we call in the local politicians and the LPC whose job it is to give strong voice to the locals concerns.
The neighborhood will abide by whatever is the safest and best decision. The city engineer’s first conclusion may very well be the only alternative. We just want to make sure that the city has truly given due consideration before permanently destroying someones home and forever altering a neighborhoods identity.
Benson, invoking Al Vann as your example of the situation being “politicized” is laughable at best. He has had absolutely nothing to do with the process thus far, he’s not here. As for his future involvement, and/or the involvement of Tish James and other politicians, well – what else are they here for? They were elected as advocates for their constituents. If they are not holding bureaucrats, or agencies to higher standards, then they are not representing us. That’s what the power of politics is supposed to be for. Representing the people.
As to your scenario, for the last time, NO ONE is advocating an unsafe situation. No one said to ignore the DOB’s recommendation, only get a second opinion. No one, not a homeowner, tenant, or contractor or engineer is going to stay in a building that they do not think is safe. No one wants to die here to prove a point. HOWEVER, if several independent structural engineers have poked around down in the basement and throughout the house, and have determined after much inspection and calculation, that the houses are repairable, then why not believe them, over a 5 minute inspection by someone else? If the situation had been reversed, and the DOB said save, and three engineers said demolish, I’d still have to go with the three engineers. That is all there is to it, and if a judge backs the engineers up, then I look forward to posts showing the houses being repaired.
In the case of your building, perhaps complaining to electeds, and voicing your concerns on blogs is a viable option to get the ball rolling, along with whatever else you are doing behind the scenes. The squeaky wheel, and all that. There is nothing wrong, or dishonorable, or unfair in getting whatever help you need to aid your cause. You all have much invested in it, and it is not a situation of your making, as the destruction of the party wall was not Mrs. Perry’s doing. That doesn’t mean she, or your building’s occupants don’t have the right or the opportunity to do whatever you can to save your homes.
fsrg- I think it is when you state that new construction is inherently stronger by virtue of new techniques. Yes, it’s stretching the point to include them, but it proves that not all new construction ideas are better. The WTC was constructed to pancake down, was built to be lighter and flexible. In several discussions with engineers at the site one thing we did note- the towers were constructed to fall. Other buildings are constructed to stand and endure. Perhaps that was the basic philosophical/design flaw. While masonry walls are load-bearing, they are also braced with heavy crossbeams as well. Another thing engineers said was that it was the newer construction that saw the most damage in the surrounding buildings. Buildings, like Verizon, did not see nearly as much damage because of the way older buildings were constructed.
I’m just telling you what I heard from engineers, both independents and from DDC
See dave’s response re your point about the 80 year old lady. it would be nice if everyone had insurance or that it is current, but I wouldnt assume as much in this case.
benson, I think your thought experiment will end at the DOB not bending. I am sure that they are thrilled that no matter what happens now, it will be the judge’s responsibility. For that reason alone, I think we will never see the DOB back down in this case. They will fight this through to final judicial disposition. They lose nothing if the owners successfully preserve the buildings – they will simply move on to the next case; and they will say they are vindicated if the judge approves a plan that later results in a collapse. Either way, their ass is off the hook now that a judge has the responsibility to decide the case.
benson, many people are not that savvy and have old, outdated and underinsured policies without such amenities. I hope this woman is not one of them.
“being put out on the street with nothing but the clothes on your back at 80 years old ”
Could we please make this a rational discussion? If this woman has insurance, it will compensate her for “loss of use” and personal belongings. She is not “put out on the street”.
My folks, at age 82, were burned out of their home a few years ago. They were not “put out on the street”. The insurance company made immediate provisions for them to have the use of a local hotel, dinner money, clothes money, etc.
benson- yes I was, tacking onto pig three’s posts with fsrg.
And as far as Al Vannished- no need to worry about him. He’s a do-nothing. More to the point- could the DOB have been stopped long enough to let the homeowner bring in her own engineers if the pols (who were looking out for their constituents) and the community not spoken out? This isn’t politicizing what the DOB does- it’s demanding accountability, as someone else said earlier. Does the DOB make mistakes- very much. I can give you a detailed first hand account of the DOB and the construction of the Brooklyn Law Dormitory. Had we not pushed back, and had the Pols to help, there would have been more than one collapsed building.
Like slopefarm says, I find the most incredulous part of this to be that benson is taking something a branch of the city government says as sacrosanct. And a branch of the government that has historic, deep rooted problems.