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]
Despite the shouting, I think there is an easy common ground.
1. DOB’s decision on imminent harm needs to be the final word.
2. Affected owners and concerned neighhbors have a right to advocate to make sure DOB’s decision is a considered one and not rash. [No one is seriously making a corruption charge here — the concern is whether ACS will be too quick to order demo out of greater fear of a wrong decision not to than a wrong decision to go ahead.]
3. In other words, govt need to do its job but people have a right to try to hold it accountable.
4. DOB’s professional judgment should not be compromised to community or political concerns, but neither should it cause unneeded harm to owners and neighbors if not actually necessary.
Some interesting hats in this debate — benson as a defender of govt employees and bho as a preservationist.
fsrq,
I was not trying to pick a fight with you. I wanted more specifics regarding the advances you were referring to.
By framing, do you mean steel construction with poured concrete floors? If this advance is studied in great detail some might say it is not necessarily better or stronger. In certain fire situations steel may fail quickly and because of less structural material used (because it is stronger) the whole building may fail and collapse. Where in a wood structure (I know what you are thinking – wood burns easier and faster than steel) the entire structure may not fail if part of the wood framing is compromised.
But really, just wanted more specifics.
Far more serious than having your house destroyed with all your belongings in it? I hardly think so. The woman is 80 years old- what is going to compensate her for the loss of the home she loves and the loss of personal belongings, which would include old family pictures, documents and other items deemed precious for their personal meaning to her. At 80, if her house is destroyed, compensated or not, being able to move into an expensive condo is not going to compensate for her losses.
Montrose;
Well, I guess I can say that we have different styles.
Some folks on this blog know where I live (the condo complex) and know that it has a VERY serious issue with the DOB, going on for 5 years now. I can tell you in all honesty that the issue that my complex faces with the DOB is far more serious than what these owners face. Simply put, my complex has not yet received its C of O, and if we don’t get it, our property will be worthless, in a literal sense. No matter what happens in this situation, the owner will be compensated for their loss.
You won’t see my complex taking to the blog or politicians anytime soon.
benson, like I said above, there’s no “transparency in the process” for making the safety call AND, the DOB engineer did not sufficeintly make his case for it in front of the judge.
It’s not politicizing, it’s logical questioning, which it seems, has been the correct approach here.
Just because a politician got involved as a concerned voice doen’t make this whole thing “political.”
Is there a Democrat vs. Repblican issue here?? No, there is not, therefore it’s not political per se.
Etson and DIBS;
It certainly is possible that the DOB is in error here (given their track record). However, we are talking about a safety decision, which is necessarily a judgement call. If there is an imminent danger of collapse, that decision will necessarily be made with imperfect data. Do you think it is wise to diffuse this critical responsibility? I think not.
If folks are calling for an improvement in the caliber of the DOB, I’m there. If they are calling for an improved process for handling these tough calls, I’m there.
I draw the line, however, at politicizing a safety call, and that is what I think is happening here.
Benson, if the DOB condemned your building and told you to get out without allowing time to pack or get important items, you’d be the first one out there demanding a second, third and fourth opinion. You’d be at your Councilperson’s door along with the rest of your neighbors, and you’d make sure there was a hearing and that you were heard. That is all these people have asked for and received.
This opinion is not just mine, but has been stated by many others here who have no preservationist axes to grind. Could it be that in this case, this is the right stance?
pig 3 – what the hell are you talking about – Brownstones are typically masonry construction, while a modern townhouse would almost always be frame construction with poured concrete floors
Pig three.
You are being childish now. Ohhhh, I’m so scared that you are going to cut and paste my comments!!!! Oh my goodness!!
Once again, I stand by my statement: “Nowhere in the thread above do I present myself as a structural engineering expert.”