admirals-0209-01.jpg admirals-0209-02.jpg admirals-0209-03.jpg
admirals-0209-04.jpg admirals-0209-05.jpg admirals-0209-06.jpg
Over the weekend, Gothamist’s Jake Dobkin photographed the interior of the Admiral’s Row houses inside the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The shots are incredible so we encourage you to click on each one above to see the full-size version. We also thought the commentary he provided on his personal site, Bluejake, was worth repeating here:

I was surprised how messed up these buildings were on the inside. The rear ends of many of the houses had collapsed, leaving a tangled mess of wood. Interior staircases were hanging a few feet off vertical, and large holes dotted many of the floors. Almost all of the windows were open or blown out, and the wind and rain had taken off most of the paint on the inside walls. Still– some romantic details were still extant– dozens of fireplaces and cedar-lined closets, handsome plaster work and ornamental detailing, and one enormous, empty ballroom. It’d be a shame if we let these buildings get demolished. I know the neighborhood needs a supermarket and more jobs, but there’s got to be a way to bring that stuff without destroying the past.

There’s also a related post on Gothamist from Monday. Incredible. Wish we could take photos like these.
Admiral’s Row Photos [Bluejake]
Inside Admiral’s Row [Gothamist]
Admiral’s Row Archives [Brownstoner]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. I give up.

    I guess I’m a 9 year old, Sam, because I see the possibility of saving at least the ones that aren’t as far gone. I also see the viablility of adaptive reuse. Most preservationists are not going to quibble over having to have handicapped entrances, or being up to code. Projects far older than this are adapted for tourists and adaptive reuse all across Europe, Asia, the Middle East. If they can put a ramp on a frigging pyramid, or get a Norman castle up to code for tourists, I would think we could manage to fix up a couple of mid 19th century brick houses.

    I also disagree on their visibility. From a car, or across the street, even in the middle of summer with all of the vines and vegetation, those houses are quite visible, like seeing ruins in a jungle. I can’t think of a trip in a cab, or with friends where someone hasn’t commented on the houses. They are too big to miss.

  2. MM, for once I disagree with you. First of all the houses may be on Flushing Avenue, but they can barely be seen. Some are behind a tall brick fence and the rest are entirely covered in vegetation worthy of the rain forest. secondly, the Pratt designs are very nice, very green, very trendy, but utterly impractical. As someone who has tried to adapt old buildings, let me assure you that the DOB will throw every possible roadblock in your direction from seismic codes to handicap codes to egress codes. These old buildings break every single modern building code imaginable. So if you can stay under the radar, keep old houses as houses and not try to rebuild them too much or convert them to other uses, you will be OK. These buildings? Forget it, the codes will kill you if you try to turn them into public uses. The fantasy is to preserve them as quaint Mom and Pop stores or Bed and Breakfast, alas cruel reality, in the forms of codes and economics, make this fantasy unlikely to be anything but a dream.
    These houses are toast, a ten-year-old can tell you that. Can you build replicas? sure! But why? Are we lacking nineteenth century houses in Brooklyn?