« A Productive Sunday in the Garden HOTD: Does Not Compute on Union Street »
April 11, 2006
What a Difference a Week Makes on Washington
The Pratt Area Community Council demolished another floor of this old brownstone on Washington Avenue between Fulton and Gates last weekend. At the current pace, the whole thing should be gone by the end of the month. Kinda makes you wonder how much of a priority the group really places on the architecture of the Fulton Mall.
What's Happening at 483 Washington [Brownstoner] GMAP
Comments
in their defense that building was pretty far gone do you think it was possible or efficient for them to restore it?
Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at April 11, 2006 11:31 AM
PACC = ugly, awful, poorly-maintained buildings. They need to put their money behind all that talk.
I'd like to be enlightened about all the 'good' that they're doing for the community. It seems to me that all they're doing is buying and 'hording' derelict buildings and then keeping them decrepit for 'yearrrrrssss'. How is that helping the community?
Look at all the beautiful row houses that flank the institute. The majority of them have been abandoned and in disrepair for years. And let's not even begin to talk about the dorms. Ever been into the dorm that's on willoughby. Yuck!!
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 11:35 AM
It was restorable. It would have cost a pretty penny, but it was doable. The main part of the building, as shown in the first shot, looked fixable to me, and I've seen that building for years. The addition had to go. Unless it had severe structural problems seen only close up, I think it could have been saved. It would be very expensive, more so than building anew, but they, especially being affiliated with a world class architecture school, should have tried harder. Shahn's house looked to be in worse shape, and he is saving that.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 11, 2006 11:38 AM
Pratt Center for Community Development and Pratt Area Community Council are two totally different groups.
#1 is affiliated with Pratt Institute.
#2 is not.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 11:39 AM
Well, in my opinion, they both seem to be in the business of keeping the area sub-par. And Pratt should be a bit ashamed because they're an art and design institute after all. Really blows the conception that 'artists' and creative types improve the community.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 11:43 AM
Why should Pratt Institute be ashamed of a group that has no affiliation with it?
Note the name- Pratt "Area" Community Council.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 11:48 AM
To further clarify: the Pratt Center for Community Development did the Fulton Mall preservation study which is in no way related to the brownstone demolition that the Pratt Area Community Council did.
Posted by: pmck at April 11, 2006 11:54 AM
Another clarification for 11:43--While the Pratt Center for Community Development is located out of Pratt Institute, it is a separate non-profit organization of urban planners and architects that is completely separate from the real estate dealings of Pratt Institute.
http://prattcenter.net/
Posted by: someone who works at the Pratt Center at April 11, 2006 11:58 AM
Pratt Area Community Council is a nonprofit community group that creates and manages low- and moderate-income housing funded by government grants and subsidies.
HPD frequently gives them condemned properties to rehab or tear down and build new housing. They have done a terrific job on several developments (especially the on Gates bet. Classon & Franklin which has set-asides for people who are HIV+).
They are NOT run by Pratt Institute.
They are NOT a historic preservation group.
Their aim is to help maintain diversity in the neighborhood by creating affordable housing and helping long-term residents stay in the neighborhood when housing values and rents increase.
I know that many brownstoners are not down with poor and moderate income people or even long-standing residents but that's a whole other issue.
It's so easy to make harsh comments, but please try to know something about what you're attacking before you do. Brownstoner even provided a handy link, please click on it before you go off again.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 12:18 PM
Okay, if PACC is committed to creating affordable housing, where are they? I've heard about that project on Gates which was a great idea and a lovely restoration project but what else has PACC done. It seems that everytime I inquire about an great looking abandoned building that's in disrepair I find out that it's owned by PACC or Pratt. But these buildings remain in disrepair for years. I don't see how that's helping the community or the poorer residents in need of affordable housing.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 12:25 PM
I know that PACC did a very nice apartment building (moderate-income) on the corner of Gates & Franklin and 105 Quincy Street, another apartment building.
Rather than casting aspersions, you should call PACC and ask for a copy of their annual report or check out their website. I'm sure that will list all of their projects. Since PACC is not affiliated with Pratt Institute you can't blame them for rundown properties owned by Pratt Institute.
I imagine there are a lot of stumbling blocks for communty development (especially when competing with for-profit developers) and it can take a long time to complete a project.
For example, PACC owns 2 of the three derelict properties on Classon between Gates & Quincy. Some guy bought the third one (with the huge For Sale by Owner Sign) and is basically trying to extort them to buy it from him. He paid about 300K and is trying to get over a million from them. So this turkey is holding up the entire project.
Please do some research before passing out the haterade.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 12:47 PM
My apologies in assuming that PACC was connected to Pratt. I should have checked.
Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at April 11, 2006 1:01 PM
haterade? (: >, LOL
Okay, why buy the building then if it takes you 6 years to complete development when it takes other developers 2 years to complete the project? Especially, when these business are an eyesore and blight on the neighborhood and they will end up knocking down the building anyway.
Why not focus on acquiring vacant land? Why 'horde' beautiful derelict buildings (like the one on washington and the 2 'on Classon between Gates & Quincy') and let them stay vacant for years only to knock them down 6 years later. I pass by the Washington Ave building and always hoped that someone rich would have bought it and converted it to a fab mansion. It would have maintained the historic character of the block/strip.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 1:13 PM
Oops, meant to say 'especially when these buildings' instead of 'business'.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 1:15 PM
That guy on Classon is a turkey. We called him last summer and he wanted something like $1.1 million. Guess that explains why he hasn't lowered the price. Those two buildings that PACC has control of are absolute treasures, albeit shells. They better not f*#@ them up.
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 11, 2006 1:18 PM
Anon 1:13:
When you refer to 'vacant land', how big is it? Most groups like PACC need to get vacant land that is considerably bigger that a lot size for a brownstone to make the development economically viable. And, there's not a lot of vacant land left. Also, they take longer to develop properties because of numerous factors like community approval, any environmental issues, raising financing, etc. If groups like this didn't persevere, we'd only have developers who do Fedders buildings in the blink of an eye.
Posted by: tmm at April 11, 2006 1:53 PM
The fact is that they're destroying historically significant buildings. Someone out there would love to buy it, rehab it and make it a home. And I think that if given a choice the community would vote for keeping the historic building over a new mega development (affordable housing or otherwise). Aren't there lots of contiguous vacant spaces in bed-stuy, prospect heights, crown heights, ocean hill, east new york, brownsville, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 2:08 PM
Why not focus on improving the borough as a whole? Why do their efforts have to be focused on Clinton Hill specifically. My objections are that they're taking great properties offline only to destroy them many years later. In the mean time, the residents have to deal with an eyesore, poorer street lighting, deserted rat-infested buildings, etc.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 2:12 PM
PACC is a grassroots organization with a mission to help a specific neighborhood, that's why they don't focus on borough- or city-wide projects. I personally welcome their efforts to maintain ethnic and economic diversity in Clinton Hill and Fort Greene.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 2:29 PM
Aren't there lots of contiguous vacant spaces in bed-stuy, prospect heights, crown heights, ocean hill, east new york, brownsville, etc.
You mean places where you don't live?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 2:33 PM
Nope, I would object to destroying historically/architecturally significant buildings in those nabes as well. I was simply pointing to the fact that other nabes have a greater percentage of contiguous vacant lots that are begging to be developed.
I can appreciate your commitment to PACC, clinton hillbilly. You're entitled to your own opinion. I'd like to hear from the other residents of fg and ch. I personally think that PACC has 'back-sliden' a bit from it's original grass-roots beginning. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 2:42 PM
If you are the same Anonymous from 11:35, 11:39, 11:43, 12:25 etc., you don't seem to know anything about PACC at all so how do you know they have 'back-sliden [sic]'? You thought they were the same as Pratt Institute and you seem completely unaware of any of their projects.
I hope other residents of FG and CH will take the time to enlighten you. You don't seem to want to listen to anything that doesn't support your misguided beliefs about PACC.
Maybe you can start your own grassroots organization that buys historic buildings all over Brooklyn and restores them to their former glory at great expense and really fast. Now that's a noble cause.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 3:03 PM
Fort Greene and Clinton Hill no longer require their assistance; not even Bed-Stuy for that matter. They should move on to Ocean Hill, Brownsville and East New York. Twenty years ago they filled a vacuum. Today they're doing more harm then good. Warehousing so much property for years and years only serves to stifle the natural growth and development of a community. FG and CH no longer need PACC's training wheels to get ahead.
Posted by: BrownBomber at April 11, 2006 3:09 PM
Okay, can you tell me why PACC bought those buildings on Classon? Don't you consider them to be beautiful buildings (albeit shells)? What is their fate? Won't they also get demolished like that other building on washington?
I'm ranting a bit because I've grown annoyed with all these so called grassroots organizations that appear to me to be more self-serving and overtaken with nepotism. It seems to me that the only ones who are 'benefitting' from PACC and other similar organizations are close relations.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 3:15 PM
I'm curious because I don't know really anything about PACC. From their website they seem to be mostly a tenant advocacy group. What other types of projects are they involved in and where do they secure funding? Thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 3:21 PM
Brownstoner--
You should really invite Deb Howard the director of PACC to comment. This thread is so full of baloney it's ridiculous. And you started it with your misleading post. Please back this up with some real information. I realize that you are NOT a journalist, and really have no accountability, but I hate to see a well-respected community group get it's name dragged through the mud by a bunch of knee-jerk, know-nothing morons.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 3:35 PM
CH - please simmer down.....the name calling is highly inappropriate....
Posted by: Anon at April 11, 2006 4:00 PM
I agree with BrownBomber.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 4:03 PM
Sorry about that. That nepotism comment really made me see red. them's fightin' words...
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 4:08 PM
Sorry about that. That nepotism comment really made me see red. them's fightin' words...
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 4:09 PM
We may have mixed up PACC and PACD but we rectified it as soon as it was pointed out. The fact remains that this building is being destroyed and, it sounds from some of the comments that this isn't the first time the group has torn down an old building in pursuit of its agenda. We'd like to know for sure the extent to which this has happened--hopefully not as much as it sounds. All we can say is if the two buildings on Classon get torn down we're going to have a cow. The "warehousing" effect is also disturbing at first glance, but once again we don't know the facts to put such claims into perspective. BTW, we're going to send an email to PACC to ask for their input and perspective right now.
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 11, 2006 4:21 PM
For what it's worth, there are several examples on the PACC website of derelict buildings that were rehabbed rather than torn down...
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 11, 2006 4:24 PM
I am sure we will all welcome hearing the truth from the organization itself vs. people who know nothing about it making all kinds of outrageous charges with nothing to back it up.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 11, 2006 4:26 PM
it's 'PCCD'not 'PACD'.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 4:31 PM
I don't know much about PACC, except that they did the rebuild on the Gibb Mansion (218 Gates) which I love! They kept the original building rather than tearing it down and putting up some new crappy housing. So, there is at least some past history of keeping historic and unique housing stock in the area. Prior to the renovation the mansion was a low cost hotel that catered to working girls, their clients and the crackheads that loved them. The current usage is much more in keeping with the neighborhood. Contrast that with the other mansion that stood next door that wsa torn down and replaced by psuedo-Fedders housing. Here's hoping the folks at PACC can be pursuaded to keep the Classon property as well
Posted by: Oh Lord! at April 11, 2006 4:34 PM
The building at Washington Ave is gone as of this morning (just basement and rubble left). The neighborhood, and the future residents of the new condos to be built there, deserves better. Especially in light of the building being approx. 20 feet outside the historic district. Granted, it was derelict and rat-infested, but to tear it down? I'd love to hear PACC's views on the new building's design and welcome a commitment from Ms. Howard to maintain continuity with the surrounding neighborhood.
Posted by: alex at April 11, 2006 4:40 PM
Off subject, but given what's erected there now, I'd prefer PACC over the developers of the Classon Twin Towers anyday! What a monstrosity! How could these guys get it SO WRONG! What a waste of a prime location. The project could have made a meaningful impact in the area and jump started the entire Fulton Renaissance! >;-o
Posted by: BrownBomber at April 11, 2006 4:49 PM
I think there's a general confusion between Pratt, PACC and PCCD. With respect to 'warehousing', I remember hearing that one of these organization owns the buildings on myrtle (close to adelphi). Some of these buildings have been left in a half-demolished state for over a month now.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 11, 2006 5:52 PM
So, all you Brownstone owners and wannabes--are you interested in renting the apartment in your carefully restored historic site to families that have lived in Clinton Hill for generations but can't afford to live here anymore because they make the median family income in NYC (less than $50k for the household) and feed and clothe their families? PACC is interested in those families--working people who want to live in a neighborhood that is safe and has schools where their kids can be safe and learn how to be good citizens.
The Wash. Ave. building was a squat for quite some time before it was emptied out a year or so ago. There was a guy living in a car in front of the building for the next year until they started preliminary work a few months ago (starting with the rat removal and tons of crap that had been dumped out the windows into the yeard).
If the building had been in the historic district, that would have been another story. But it was not. And I don't think there was much to preserve.
Posted by: Roberta at April 12, 2006 11:03 AM
Didn't somebody mentioned a few weeks ago that at the Clinton Hill society meeting they talked about the development of this lot, maybe we should ask them what is going to happen to it, hopefully Mr Brownstoner you will get some answers from PACC.....
Posted by: Anonymous at April 12, 2006 1:52 PM
We've had no response to our email...
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 12, 2006 5:19 PM
Hi Everyone- I am the Executive Director of Pratt Area Community Council and a friend forwarded me this website conversation. Hopefully I can clear up some confusion but wow, where to start. PACC is a community-based organization in existence since 1964 serving Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Bedford Stuyvesant and preserving and developing affordable housing since 1980. We are not affiliated with Pratt Institute or Pratt Center. We have two offices located at 201 Dekalb and 1224 Bedford Avenues.
Since 1980 we have developed 62 rental properties and 19 homes as well as sponsoring 430 units of NYC Housing Partnership Homes, 8 low-income tenant cooperatives (71-73 Clifton, 126 Cambridge are examples) and a 12 unit condominium project at 233 Greene. We began by gut rehabbing vacant city-owned buildings as rental properties for low-income tenants and then occupied city-owned buildings, temporarily moving the tenants out and moving them back. Some examples of these buildings in Clinton Hill are 41-43 Clifton Place, 236 and 250 Greene, 501 and 155 Clinton. We also have renovated HUD foreclosed properties an example being 218 St. James and 277 Gates and previously city-owned homes at 241, 282 and 288 St. James and 55 Putnam.
Until now, we have never torn down a building and in fact we have renovated buildings with no back wall, no roofs etc. For example, 218 Gates Avenue which was mentioned, the whole facade fell down two weeks after we bought it and we restored it to its former glory, winning the NYS Historic Preservation Award in 2005. We have always believed that low-income and mixed income housing should look as beautiful as any other and that our architectural heritage should be preserved.
Now as to our plans for 483 Washington which has been torn down. This property was foreclosed on for real estate taxes owed to NYC through the Third Party Transfer Program. Neighborhood Restore, a holding corporatiion for the city, assumed ownership in 2002 and PACC as the designated transferee began to manage it in 2003. What we found were 4 SRO tenants living in horrible conditions. There had been a fire on the top floor so the roof was open, refrigerators, toilets and tubs had fallen through to the floors below. No heat, jumped electricity, and garbage filled the basement and first floor. We therefore moved the tenants to fully renovated studio apts. in our management portfolio and sealed the building. Yes, there was one individual living in the SUV out front whom we tried to convince to move to proper shelter, had neighbors speaking to him and social workers from Black Vets for Social to no avail. The actual purchase of the property was delayed until late last month but we are now in a position to move forward with the project.
It was a hard decision for us to tear this building down but in this market of escalating prices and mounting development costs with very little available land, we made the decision to maximize the use of the 50' x 135'property. With the onslaught of gentrification, we are trying to provide housing for existing residents to remain in this community many of whom are seeking affordable homeownership opportunities. We therefore are building a 16 unit comdonmium in partnership with a private developer using no government subsidies, eight units will be affordable and eight units market rate. We will begin marketing soon and have two community information sessions which will be posted on our website. The building will be a six story brick construction which we believe will fit well architecturally with the other apartment buildings on the block.
Regarding 418 to 422 Classon Avenue. We successfully completed the purchase of 422 Classon Avenue last month. The three buildings will be preserved (not torn down)and by utilizing several sources of grants and subsidies including the NYC Landmarks Conservancy will become 12 affordable condominium units with all the historic detail restored. We are very excited about having this opportunity to preserve these wonderful buildings which were HUD foreclosed properties and should begin construction in July or August. 418 and 420 Classon were part of a cluster of 13 HUD and HPD brownstone properties purchased by PACC in April 2005 (not six years ago) which will also be substantially renovated as affordable homeownership opportunities during this coming year. Again, please check our website for marketing information at www.prattarea.org or call (718) 522-2613 x 10 to get on our mailing list for affordable homes or apartments.
Lastly, thank you to those who have supported PACC in the above dialog and I hope I have responded to all of the comments and issues raised. If you have any further questions please feel free to email me at the above address.
Deb Howard
Posted by: Deb Howard at April 12, 2006 11:10 PM
Thanks Deb for the response. Great news on Classon. Can you describe the building to be built on the Washington lot? Please tell us that your development partner is not a fedders brick box specialist...
Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 7:10 AM
Brownstoner,
I hope you will point out this message (maybe repost it?) in a subsequent posting on your site. This whole thread will disappear into the archives in a day or two, but it deserves to be read widely, imho.
Posted by: Roberta at April 13, 2006 8:51 AM
Deb's message deserves a front-page mention. I was thrilled to learn more about PACC's affordable housing initiatives and their desire to preserve buildings whenever possible.
PACC owns a lot across the street from me and I look forward to seeing what they do there. I also live right around the corner from 418-422 Classon which should be an incredible boon to the area once completed. I only wish PACC could get control of that Salvation Army parking lot/eyesore on the corner.
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 10:26 AM
Thanks, Deb, for the response. We'll highlight this in the beginning of next week. Not publishing anything tomorrow.
Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 10:40 AM
Here are some links to what 483 washington will look like when it's completed.
http://www.cplusga.com/cgahome.htm
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5736&page=6
Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 3:12 PM
Re: the last post,
http://www.cplusga.com/cgahome.htm
click on 'multi-family residential' link on left. Then click on 483 washington ave link.
The second to last link 'Pratt Area N.R.P .....' also provides a look at the historic buildings in the area that PACC is helping to gut-renovate/rehab.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 3:16 PM
It looks like PACC does good work. Telling, however, of PACC's view of the changes in the neighborhood is the following sentence: "With the onslaught of gentrification, we are trying to provide housing for existing residents to remain in this community many of whom are seeking affordable homeownership opportunities."
It clearly makes it sound like gentrification is a bad thing, an "onslaught", that must be fought against. If property values and development costs are so high, PACC is not needed to ensure that underutilized properties are developed. They therefore become more of a social welfare organization designed to preserve socioeconomic diversity in a gentrifying neighborhood. I think this is a worthwhile goal if the residents/owners of the mixed income units can sell their properties at market rate after some future date.
Is this permitted? To me, that would go a long way to helping break the cycle of poverty for such persons.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 14, 2006 12:59 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.