admiralsrow-07-2008.jpg
Coucilmember Letitia James has modified her position on the preservation of Admiral’s Row, the group of ten historic houses along Flushing Avenue, according to an article in The Brooklyn Paper. James had previously advocated razing the structures to make way for a supermarket, but the councilmember is now saying that “some” of the houses could be preserved and some kind of balance struck between preservation and addressing the lack of supermarket options for nearby residents. James told us that “the key to preserving some of the buildings is money. If the economics are resolved, we can move forward on preserving some of these buildings, but, my first priority is to meet the immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Vinegar Hill.” A formal public review of Admiral’s Row redevelopment plans begins next Tuesday at a meeting at Borough Hall (209 Joralemon Street, 7 p.m).
James gets in middle of ‘Row’ [Brooklyn Paper]
Guard Starts Talks ‘To Come Up With Alternatives’ For Row [Brownstoner]
Photo by SmithersJones.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Continued again:

    That’s why your idea was a bad idea. While it may lead to preservation of the houses, it doesn’t respond to the development corp’s mission of maintaining the yard. A really creative “out of the box” solution would be one that would provide for some level of preservation of the some of the houses, and respond to the Navy’s yard need to fund their core mission – providing space for industry.

  2. Continued:
    You may come along and say “it would be great if the new shelter could be environmentally sensitive – if you use recycled floor tiles it’ll only cost you $5,000 more”. Since it’s only a little more expensive – I might be inclined to do it. But if you said “You should put solar panels on the roof – it’ll cost $200,000 more” then I’d probably shy away from it. The environment is not my issue, and I’d rather use that $200,000 to run my homeless shelter. Let some environmental non-profit spend $200k on solar panels.
    Same thing here. The brooklyn navy yard is a non-profit whose mission is to operate and maintain the navy yard in a way that will maximize their ability to provide space for industrial businesses. They will do what they can to provide cultural or educational uses and also to achieve historic preservation goals when they can. They have already renovated and put back into use many old warehouse buildings from the 1800’s and there was just an article in brownstoner yesterday about the historic dry dock 1. They are also taking another building in the yard that can’t be re-used for industry and with some cooperation with other non-profits, turning it into a historic center. But at the end of the day, they need revenue to maintain the whole yard. When you look at admirals row, the cost of renovating the houses starts to be so huge that it starts to get in the way of their core mission, which is providing industrial space. So as important as preservation might be – they can’t afford it here and would rather use the site as a way to earn some cash to subsidize the rest of the yard. That’s why your idea was a bad

  3. Oy. Ok – I’m going to give this one more shot – because you seem earnest:
    First of all – on behalf of everyone who doesn’t have as much non-profit experience as you, I apologize for sam’s insults. I thought that I had already indicated that I thought sam had gone over the top in his insults, but in case it wasn’t clear, i’m saying it now. I wasn’t trying to defend sam, just pointing out that you were not completely innocent here. Your whole attitude of “I’m a creative thinker and you’re all a bunch of boring business types” comes off as extremely condescending and more importantly is untrue. Maybe you didn’t mean to come off that way, but you should know that that’s how it reads. Take it not as an attack but as constructive criticism.
    Now on to my main topic. Everything I said before is not my real point. You keep on saying that you do in fact get my point, but then all you focus on is sam’s rudeness and how you know that the national guard is really part of the arms, etc and never respond to my actual argument. So let me lay it out for you in terms you’ll relate to.
    As a non-profit professional you know that every non-profit is a mission-driven organization that is usually organized around a single issue. To the extent that they can incorporate other issues into their work, that’s great, but if other issues get in the way, they will always refocus on their core issue. FOr example – let’s say I ran a non-profit that was focused on providing temporary shelter for the homeless. Let’s say I’ve got a project to build a new shelter. You may come along and say “it would be great if