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]
Minard;
Touche’! Sorry, I always slip up on that word.
Guvna,
yes, that is how it works, the city, I think through HPD, demolishes the building at the order of DOB and then a lien in placed on the property. Whether this lien gets first position, I don’t know.
In this case there is little equity, the bank is holding a note for more than the vacant lot is worth. How will the lien be satisfied? It can’t. At the end of the day the judge can do what he will but the shoring contractor is not going in there without a substantial payment up front. Who will pay to save this house if the owner can’t or won’t? It is an interesting question.
PS: benson, your argument would possess more gravitas if you learned to spell “judgment”.
Minard, if the owner cannot pay, it puts the DOB in an odd position if, as you say, the demo costs more than the shoring up. They cannot tell the judge that it has to be knocked down, when it would be cheaper to fix it. This is assuming that the owner gets stuck with the bill in either case.
My understanding is that at the outset the DOB was going to demolish the houses and bill the owner(s) for the demolition. Anyone know if that is indeed how it works?
DIBS and Guvna;
Not to rehash the whole thing, but my major point was that it is a bad precedent to have a political/community process interfere with the on-the-spot safety judgement that the DOB inspector must make regarding an imminent collapse.
When all is said and done, it is better that someone has the responsibility for this judgement. I emphasize the use of the word “judgement”. There is no exact science in judging the probability of an imminent building collapse and one can always second-guess it in hindsight.
We all know that the caliber of the DOB can be improved, and I’m all in favor of doing so. I’m all in favor of advancing the practices by which these decisions be made. That is not the same as second-guessing a safety decision in real time, just because the buildings in question happen to be favored by a powerful constituency.
Buildings are torn down for safety reasons all the time in this town, and nary a peep goes out. When it is”historic” buildings, it’s a different story.
No, mopar…the brownstone at the end of this row of houses…the one on the far right with the scaffolding in front of it.
The house with the Volvos in the driveway, the mansard roof, and the porch is for sale? That’s curious because the owners bought it only a few years ago, intending to restore it themselves. I don’t know how far they actually got. For a while there, it looked like no one was living in the place — or maybe they were living on one floor. There was a write up in the NYT about it.
I’m sure the demolition would be much more expensive than shoring up the cellar and basement levels. But what if the owner is underwater and can’t pay?
The house to the right, on the end of the row & next to the driveway is for sale, apparently needs a total renovation. I’m pretty sure they’re asking more than $700,000 but I’ll find out.
Minard is right. The shoring project has not been started, and it is not likely to be cheap. My guess is the judge wants to see a plan that can work and be safe, plus be within the owners financial means.
Makes you wonder the cost of demolition at this point, compared to the cost of shoring it up. Anyone know?