Update on MacDonough Street
On Friday we reported that cement trucks had appeared in the morning outside 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, suggesting that steps were being taken to save the two landmarked brownstones. Later in the day we were able to confirm with DOB that the engineers for 329 had submitted, and had approved, plans to pour concrete…
On Friday we reported that cement trucks had appeared in the morning outside 329 and 331 MacDonough Street, suggesting that steps were being taken to save the two landmarked brownstones. Later in the day we were able to confirm with DOB that the engineers for 329 had submitted, and had approved, plans to pour concrete to stabilize the compromised party wall; evidently the contractors had originally dug some kind of trench in the floor of the basement. This week the engineers are expected to submit plans to shore and brace the buildings. In addition, there will be another hearing tomorrow to discuss how to proceed. Update: The hearing is tomorrow at 360 Adams Street, Room 438 at 2:30 p.m.
Salvation on MacDonough Street? [Brownstoner]
Stay of Execution on MacDonough Street [Brownstoner]
MacDonough Street Update 1/25/10 [Brownstoner]
Wall Collapse, Vacate Order, Maybe Demo on MacDonough [Brownstoner]
IMBY is correct about the adjacent property. They have been slapped with numerous “Fail To Maintain” and other violations.
The DOB, in their automaton methodology will slap violations all over as a matter of course. This is typical of this sort of beauracratic action where meatheads have a certain amount of power that they do not likely have in their personal lives.
Preface this post by saying I’m no fan of the DOB.
I see no fault in the DOB erring on the side of caution in this case. They deal with landlords who neglect their properties to the point of collapse all the time… Nothing like lighting a fire under a property owner to get them to jump and take the necessary actions to prevent any further damage to neighboring properties.
That said, my prayers go out to the families faced with cleaning up after this shit storm. Nothing like having the chair pulled out from under you.
My guess is that the legal bills, private engineering reports, and remedial construction work done immediately after the accident cost as much if not more than the demolition would have cost. The underpinning and bracing will cost a small fortune.
To add insult to injury, often in these cases when an adjacent building is damaged, the “innocent” homeowner is also given a violation for failure to maintain their property. The burden rests on their shoulders to pay out of pocket, up front, and make the repair before any legal settlement can even begin to be heard. Failure to make these repairs in a timely manner can bring additional violations and fines. They can even be held liable for any additional damages that result after the fact because they did not act diligently to mitigate the problem.
“In case you haven’t noticed, this issue got alot of press on Brownstoner and other similiar publications (as Bob Marvin, who does not live in BS, pointed out).”
Did I Benson? I only recall quoting one item from the HDC’s newsletter. I DID see an article in the NY News, but I don’t know that that’s a very “similar publication.” or that the News has ties to any preservationist community. My only comment on THIS particular thread was to express gratitude to those who, quite properly, questioned DOB’s authority rather than blindly accepting it (like certain others).
I look at your posts Benson and your choice of words (“in case you haven’t noticed”) and think, you must be such an anal di*k. (again, perfect for fringe slope)
The people who were influential in this house being saved from the DOB’s incompetent on the spot judgement were the owners lawyers and engineers. The preservationist community in the room with the judge was who? The LPC took the sideline and only stated they were for “saving the facade” if at all possible. The support from the local community is what stirred the interest on this blog and would have been the same if the house was on a land marked block or not.
You are welcome.
Pig three.
The constituency to which I was referring was the preservationist community. In case you haven’t noticed, this issue got alot of press on Brownstoner and other similiar publications (as Bob Marvin, who does not live in BS, pointed out). The LPC got in on the act too.
Once again, thanks for your substantive contributions.
Only because you are not a “powerful constituent”. That is the best description of Bed Stuy residents I’ve hear to date. I’ll add that your neighbors in the fringe slope probably love you. Keep up the good word!
Pig three;
Thank you for that rather substantive comment.
Benson,
I’m sure the owners of 329 and 331 MacDonough are thrilled you are not their neighbor.
Benson, if the political/community process is merely asking that the DOB’s position be tested by independent qualified structural engineers, I cannot disagree with you more. That is what happened here.
The DOB is free to maintain a steadfast belief that the buildings must be torn down (frankly I thought they would stick to their guns on this). However, it seems that the DOB now agrees that the buildings can be saved. This change of heart would probably not have happened without the owner getting the court to force the DOB to stop long enough to hear independent structural engineers on the matter. Thats all that I observed the community and political leaders asking for. I dont see how their involvement was improper.