Bklink: Power Plant

A couple of weeks ago, INSIJS exclusively reported that Con Ed may be preparing a power plant on Kent Avenue for demolition, but what about turning it over to the Brooklyn Navy Yard for preservation? "The hulking Renaissance Revival structure borders the anticipated Navy Yard annex on two sides, and fits perfectly within the wide range of existing industrial buildings on the former Naval base. The huge, high-ceilinged turbine room could host a set-building business or serve as an additional soundstage for Steiner Studios. The plant is also filled with smaller-scaled industial floors perfect for warehousing or light manufacturing. And the street side fronts directly on the sidewalk, meaning it works with the Navy Yard's proposal to include some retail frontage along the desolate stretch of Kent Avenue."--INSIJS

Bklink: Inside Admiral's Row

Photoblogger Nate Kensinger celebrates the first anniversary of his blog by going inside Admiral's Row and return with superb photos of the wrecked state of the historic buildings at the heart of a development controversy. If you haven't seen them yet, check them out as they are very cool.--Kensinger Photography

Bklink: Unprepared on Flushing

Here's an interesting question: Why are they rebuilding the sidewalk on Flushing Avenue in front of the Brooklyn Navy Yard without planning for the Brooklyn Greenway? "Seems kinda silly." Indeed.--Brownstoner

Pratt Students Trying to Develop Admiral's Row Compromise Plan

Some Pratt professors and students are trying to come up with plans for Admiral's Row in the Brooklyn Navy Yard that would allow for both preservation of the Historic Structures and development of a supermarket on the property. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reports that "City planning and architecture students have come up with a number of ideas that they plan to present to community groups and, ultimately, the Navy Yard itself." A Professor involved in the exercise says "We’re trying to please, I think, everyone, as much as possible." One design involves "restoring the houses and reusing them for businesses like a bakery, a bookstore, a daycare center and cafes, with a green roof uniting the entire site." The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. has insisted the only way to go foward with the supermarket project is to demolish the historic buildings. The Federal Goverment estimates that preservation would cost about $18 million. The disupute has become heated at times. Here is how one of the students put it:

“We found that the Navy Yard’s proposal is quite heartless and doesn’t really do anything for the rifts in the neighborhood,” said Kuz, who assigned the project to her students. “We are keeping the Admirals’ Row houses in our designs because we think it’s a good reference in terms of scale and history. But we also incorporated a big shop, like the Navy Yard wanted.”

The full story is quite interesting.

Bklink: Another Way at Admiral's Row

Despite claims that the only options at the Brooklyn Navy Yard are preservation of Admiral's Row without a supermarket or demolition of the historic buildings for the store and parking, the Fort Greene Association is trying to show that the community can have its veggies and eat them too, so to speak. It would be possible to build a smaller grocery with less parking and preserve and restore the landmark buildings.--Brownstoner

GL Analysis: Produce Versus Preservation on Admiral's Row?

The Times City Section, the part of the paper to which many good Brooklyn stories are relegated, finally paid attention yesterday to the issue of Officer's Row, the historic buildings in the Brooklyn Navy Yard that the city wants to demolish to make way for a supermarket and its parking lot. We don't usually critique print media stories--and we'll ignore the bigger issue that the Times can't spare a few inches of print space for Admiral's Row in the Metro section but can find room for a car chase that ends on Smith Street--but we can't resist some editorializing in this case. The article, which weighs in at less than 500 words, unfortunately casts the issue as one of groceries for low-income public housing residents versus vague historic preservation goals. The story does mention both sides of the issue, and support for both preservation and demolition, but one can't help but come away with a sense the writer was spun by the pro-demolition side.

Here's the crux of the Times treatment:

“Those things there? They’ve been there forever,” said Elijah Knox, a resident of the Farragut project who was hurrying across its wind-swept courtyard the other day. “They need to tear them down.”

That is precisely the thinking of the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, a nonprofit group that oversees the Navy Yard. The city is asking that the National Guard, which owns the property, give the land to the city so that the corporation can demolish the houses and replace them with a supermarket of roughly 60,000 square feet and a large industrial building. Residents of Farragut and two other public housing projects nearby would be given preference in hiring.

Although preservation groups, including the Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic Districts Council, have publicly attacked that proposal, it has met a mostly warm reception among Farragut residents, who regard the vacant town houses as neglected eyesores.

We've made our position on Admiral's Row clear and even gone so far as to suggest that it would be a good thing if the Navy Yard Development Corp. followed through on its threat to walk away from the project if historic preservation is part of the deal. The truth is that it may be more difficult to develop a supermarket and to preserve Admiral's Row, but it is entirely possible and it is totally desirable. The attempt to cast the issue as produce vs. preservation is as divisive and cynical as it is misleading and unfortunate. Brooklynites can have their broccoli and fix up a piece of history at the same time, and it is important that we do both.

It's a sad day when one has to count on the Federal government doing the right thing and protect Brooklyn history and American history from New York City's own political leaders and economic development officials. Yet, that is truly what we hope happens in this case. Admiral's Row deserves to be saved for future generations and local residents deserve their supermarket. Both goals can easily be accommodated.

Federal Goverment Not Rushing Admiral's Row Decision

Proponents of the plan to tear down the historic structures on Admirals Row in the Brooklyn Navy Yard are upset that the Federal government will not be making a quick decision about the property. The National Guard Bureau of Cultural Resources is required by law to review whether the mansions can be preserved or whether they can be turned over the city for demolition and it says it won't start holding a series of meetings with officials and preservationists until March. Preservationists are cautiously optimistic that the agency is considering saving the buildings. The Brooklyn Paper reports that the tear down has been "delayed indefinitely." Here's an excerpt:

A plan to tear down 10 historic houses at the Brooklyn Navy Yard and replace them with a supermarket has been delayed indefinitely thanks to a decision by federal officials to review whether the dilapidated 150-year-old mansions can be saved.

“There is absolutely no way we can give any sort of end date at all … there is no mandated time limit,” said Kristin Leahy, the manager of the National Guard Bureau Cultural Resources Program, which is investigating the mansions’ historical integrity — to the frustration of those eager to see the run-down buildings torn down.

Leahy said the earliest that she could hold a meeting with the city, area residents and preservationists is March. And that meeting would be just the first of a series.

Supermarket supporters say the need of local residents for a supermarket outweighs preserving the buildings and that they are working behind the scenes in Washington to try to speed the process of turning over the land to the city for development.

GL Analysis:
We have said before and we will say again that if Brooklyn officials can not be entrusted with the proper stewardship of an important historic asset, preferring to bulldoze it and build a supermarket and parking, then we would prefer the Federal government to hold on to the property until public officials take office that see the value of Admiral's Row. The National Guard Bureau's approach would indicate that they are interested in helping to work out a compromise that would accommodate the interests of all sides or, at least, that there is some interest in having a public process that appears to be fair.

Admiral's Row is not just a piece of Brooklyn history. It is part of American history, and as such, part of the decision rightly rests with the Federal government. We are not particularly big fans of Federal interference in local affairs or believers that Federal bureaucrats possess wisdom that local officials do not. Quite the contrary, in most cases. Yet, the sad plan to demolish Admiral's Row, which could be an asset for future generations, needs to be stopped.

We believe that any transfer should include a mandate to preserve these historic buildings and that a compromise that would allow for the preservation of Admiral's Row and the construction of a supermarket for residents can be developed. All it requires is the willingness to do so. It might not be the most expeditious or inexpensive solution, but it would be the right thing to do. Much of the historic Navy Yard is slowly falling to the wrecking ball, with photos and pieces of buildings to be displayed in a new historical center. In a city that thought creatively about preserving and capitalizing on the past, parts of the Navy Yard would be an asset that could be preserved and re-purposed.

The least we could expect, though, is that this small and important piece of our heritage be saved so that our children's children can go there someday and understand that something very, very important to the country's history once took place at the Navy Yard. And, that they be able to see some evidence of it that is more real than pictures hanging on a wall in a historical center.

We hope the Federal government brokers a compromise that saves Admiral's Row.

Navy Yard Ghosts: A Look at Building 128

Of all the place in Brooklyn harboring industrial ghosts, we find the Brooklyn Navy Yard one of the most riveting. Photographer Nathan Kensinger, who has been inside many old industrial structures, offers up a look inside Building 128, most of which will be replaced by a food processing facility. Building 128, which dates from 1899, was used to build "large boiler engines and fabricated sections of naval vessels." Mr. Kensinger's photos are probably the last look inside the huge, century-old building before it comes down. It would be great if the Navy Yard Development Corp. allowed photographers and others inside to document the history that is there for future generations. There had been some discussion last year when a tour of the facility was rapidly filled leaving dozens of frustrated people unable to get in of organizing regular visits for the public. We wonder what the status of that is. It's a great idea, a way for the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp. to generate good will and a way to share the history of an important Brooklyn place with many people.

Bklink: Inside the Navy Yard

Go inside Brooklyn Navy Yard Building 1. It "was formerly a barracks, complete with movie theater, laundry and rifle range. It has been empty for years, with paint peeling off the walls and broken windows throughout."--Nathan Kensinger Photography

GL Analysis: What is a Fair Price for History?

Saving a slice of Brooklyn's and America's history, we are learning, may have a very small price tag. Yet, it's one that a host of local officials seem unwilling to pay. The report that was delivered to a public meeting about Officer's Row at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on Tuesday night said that the buildings can be saved and put the cost at about $20 million. In a city where the cost of projects now reach into the billions of dollars and public subsidies to corporations and developers run into the hundreds of millions, it is rather hard to keep a straight face when public officials protest that $20 million is simply too much money.

Why the rush to destroy a small, yet important, piece of our history? One would have to ask Councilman David Yassky, who had appeared to have shed his anti-preservationist skin after helping to de-landmark 184 Kent Avenue in Williamsburg but appears to have relapsed, or Borough President Marty Markowitz, who has been pro-demolition all along at the Navy Yard. Why is preservation of an asset for future generations less important than building a supermarket parking lot especially when some thoughtful planning and architecture could achieve both goals? It was rather disheartening, to say the least, to watch so many officials--including several that we respect--cast the issue in terms of jobs and groceries for low-income people vs. preservation.

We rarely say this, but in this case, we may be lucky that the decision about whether and under what conditions to turn over Officer's Row to the city rests with the Federal Government. Perhaps, some Federal officials will see the value of preserving historic assets rather than turning them over to a local government that wishes to destroy them. One can easily see many creative solutions that would result in saving Officer's Row and creating a supermarket. One can see these buildings being used creatively and serving as a major community asset rather than being turned into a depressing parking lot. Frankly, $20 million is a tiny sum for a city willing to put out hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize Atlantic Yards. (One wonders, for instance, what the total subsidies in terms of grants, tax breaks and indirect benefits have been to businesses working in the Navy Yards.)

On Tuesday, Navy Yard Development Corp. President Andrew Kimball repeated his "threat" to the Federal government that if the buildings don't come without strings attached, then the city has no interest in the land and it might end up sitting empty. To which one is tempted to say: So be it. Perhaps the next city administration will find a creative way to use that corner of the Navy Yard to serve the community and to preserve history if the current crop of elected officials lacks the imagination and the willpower. It's not hard to imagine, given the role of the Navy Yard in American Military history, that some private patrons might even be enlisted to help save these historic buildings and write down the cost to taxpayers. (Brownstoner's analysis of the press conference and the meeting is especially worth reading as he hits many of the most critical points in a very insightful way.)

Brooklyn has lost too much history because it's more expedient to tear things down than to find creative solutions and we have lost patience with the elected officials who, in effect, push the start button on the wrecking ball. We hope the Federal government requires the city to find a way to save Officer's Row as a condition of giving away the land for development.

Officer's Row should be a line drawn in the sand, and if our own elected officials aren't responsible enough to be caretakers of our history--and it really pains us to say this--the Federal government should do for them. Enough is enough. Save Officer's Row so our children and grandchildren can enjoy this little piece of Brooklyn and American history instead of parking their cars on it.

[Sketch via Brownstoner]

Feds Say Admiral's Row Homes in Better Condition Than Thought

In what could be good news for preservationists and bad news for advocates of tearing down the buildings on Brooklyn's Admiral's Row, a Federal study has found that the historic buildings still have "an extremely high level of integrity" and that they could be saved. The price tag, however, could be up to $20 million. The Daily News has an update:

The historic Admiral's Row mansions are in better shape than they appear and could be saved, a federal study has found. A report commissioned by the National Guard - which owns the 10 buildings in the Brooklyn Navy Yard that housed naval officers and their families for nearly a century - found that eight are "structurally sound" and in no danger of collapsing.

"Admiral's Row district retains an extremely high level of integrity," stated the draft report, which was expected to be presented at a public hearing last night.

But renovating the homes would come with a high price tag, according to the report - an estimated $20 million.

Navy Yard officials, who want to tear down the houses and build a supermarket, were angry about the report's findings - and immediately started playing hardball.

"If the federal government...requires that some or all of these structures be rebuilt from the ground up...neither the City of New York or the [Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.] are interested in acquiring and developing the site and it will continue to lay fallow for years to come," wrote Navy Yard Development Corp. President Andrew Kimball yesterday in response to the report.

Even if the city retains ownership of the property, it cannot go against the final recommendations of the report, which are yet to come, National Guard officials said.

We will post updates later as they are available about last night's meeting.

UPDATE: Brownstoner has a full report on the press conference before the meeting at which City Council Members Letitia James and David Yassky and Borough President Marty Markowitz all called for the demolition of the historic buildings, casting it in classic inner-city jobs versus costly preservation context. Mr. Brownstoner's analysis is insightful and cuts to the heart of the matter.

Admiral's Row Houses Get Their Hearing Tonight

Given that the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corp.'s president, Andrew Kimball, has already publicly stated a commitment to tearing down the historic buildings on Admiral's Row (saying he doesn't want the property with any conditions attached), tonight's meeting about the buildings will be interesting. The city is planning to demolish the buildings to make way for a supermarket and parking lot while preservations are trying to save them. The meeting will take place today from 7 to 9 pm at PS 307, located at 209 York Street (2 blocks north and 1 block west of the Navy Yard). An Army Corp of Engineers consultant will present a formal report on the condition of the buildings. The estimated rehab cost is about $18 million. A variety of groups and activists from the community are expected to make a case to the Federal owners of the property that the historic buildings should be saved.

Bklink: Navy Yard by Night

Photographer and photoblogger Nathan Kensinger visited by Brooklyn Navy Yard the other night for a cool reading put on by writer Gabriel Cohen at PortSide New York's Mary A. Whalen which is now at the GMD Shipyard. The pics he has posted are very cool.--Nathan Kensinger Photography

Brooklyn Navy Yard Historical Center Coming

The city unveiled a $15 million Brooklyn Navy Yard Historical Center yesterday that will go into a renovated historic building on Flushing Avenue in the Navy Yard. (Brownstoner covered the announcement and has additional photos and renderings.) There is also a short item about the plan in today's Times. The 25,000 square foot building will also house the Brooklyn Center for the Urban Environment, whose tours and other activities are superb. The facility is scheduled to open in 2010.