MacDonough St. Houses Report
From the Landmarks Conservancy comes some details about the battle to save 329 and 331 MacDonough St. in Stuyvesant Heights. The owner of 329, an attorney, quickly sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the DOB from tearing down both houses in the aftermath of his workmen causing the collapse of the party wall in…
From the Landmarks Conservancy comes some details about the battle to save 329 and 331 MacDonough St. in Stuyvesant Heights. The owner of 329, an attorney, quickly sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the DOB from tearing down both houses in the aftermath of his workmen causing the collapse of the party wall in the cellar. Through the auspices of the Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic Districts Council (HDC), several engineers were brought in to assess the damage. The Conservancy then brought in expert shoring contractor Richard Mugler in the next Tuesday, along with representatives from the DOB, who all sat down to plan the saving of the houses. The following Friday, concrete was poured into the trenches the workmen had dug, as well as elsewhere in the cellars, and plans are being enacted to further build the party wall back up, and stabilize the floors in both buildings. It was the concerted efforts of the homeowners, the community, the Landmarks Conservancy, the HDC, and the sympathetic ear of the court that made it possible for these houses to still be standing, now three weeks after the initial collapse.
Unfortunately, many preservationists and supporters of this cause feel that the Landmarks Preservation Commission did not come forth with the kind of help or support they should have. The LPC advocated for the preservation of the facades, after the inevitable tear-down, but did not come to bat for the homeowners and tenants by vigorously trying to find a way to prevent that destruction, as did the Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic Districts Council. Preservation should be about saving real people’s homes, as well as preserving pure architecture. Hopefully the bad press they received on this issue will resonate, and their stand in the future will be more far sighted.
Conservancy Fights to Save Historic Brownstones [Landmarks Conservancy]
Bed Stuy Residents Fight to Save Houses [The Brooklyn Link]
Update on MacDonough Street [Brownstoner]
Salvation on MacDonough Street? [Brownstoner]
Stay of Execution on MacDonough Street [Brownstoner]
MacDonough Street Update [Brownstoner]
Wall Collapse, Vacate Order for Bed Stuy Houses [Brownstoner]
If it’s true that “The owner of 329, an attorney, quickly sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the DOB from tearing down both houses in the aftermath of his workmen causing the collapse of the party wall in the cellar,” then the judge who signed the restraining order put his neck on the line. If the buildings were to collapse and kill people, the judge could easily end up on the cover of the NY Post with some sort of sensationalist headline. That would be doom for the judge. I’m glad the judge had the courage to sign the order, and I’m glad it seems to be working out.
And, thanks, Montrose, for the interesting update.
guvna- wouldn’t the neighbor whose home was damaged be able to collect from the homeowner whose contractor it was? The new homeowners seem to be financially well off enough to do a gut reno, so I think they won’t have a problem, but the neighbor, an elderly, long time resident may not be in as good a financial position. And its awful for her- none of this was her doing.
bob- you might be right. I was interpreting it to be that the LPC wasn’t willing to stick its neck out that far. And that bothers me- it was almost like saying that historic neighborhood are little more than elaborate stage sets, and that was all they really cared about. Just doesn’t sit well with me.
Minard, good points. although they should be thinking about the historical/landmarked nature of the homes instead of whether they feel sympathy for the owner’s choice of contractor, there is no denying that non-profits are hurting in this market and would be hesitant to lend if the home(s) are underwater.
i guess we’ll have to stay tuned. maybe the owners have it covered and arent worried at all. at least thats how it sounds in that press release.
guvna, i think you are correct, and I hope the owner is speaking with the conservancy about a loan, however seeing as this whole debacle was his fault -excavating without permits- he may not be the most sympathetic person to lend a lot of money to and he may be underwater meaning that a lien would not insure repayment of the loan. non-profits are suffering too from the downturn and probably do not relish the thought of lending money that will probably never be repaid.
bxgrl & legion: Absolutely right regarding the restraining order. The DOB could not be stopped by protests and banners. They were moving quickly towards demolition. Only the TRO stopped them in their tracks. It wont work in all cases, but in this case where no further sinking or cracks were seen, the judge was willing to let the owners get their own structural engineers to see if they could devise a plan to save the houses.
bxgrl: after the restraining order stopped the DOB and shoring plans were devised, the next worry is the cost of the shoring. Thats where the conservancy and/or LPC should be of help. As noted above, no insurance will touch this, assuming the contractor worked outside the scope of the permits. That leaves owners on the hook. If cash is short, grants or loans are their only hope. Otherwise the judge will eventually lift the restraining order and allow the DOB to demolish the houses. It is not enough that the houses may theoretically be salvagable. They must actually be saved sooner rather than later, and that costs lots of money.
Having had a look at their website, the conservancy would seem like the obvious place to get funding. They have loans from 20k to 300k for structural repairs to residential homes in landmarked districts. should be right up their alley, although looking at their list of properties they have helped, it seems they have never lent any money to folks in Bed Stuy! interesting to see how these things work.
Maybe we’re being unfair to the LPC. Perhaps attempting to preserve the facades was a bureaucratic way to address the whole demolition problem. After all, with row houses, how would you perform a demolition WITHOUT destroying the facade? I don’t think heavy-lift helicopters are usable in an urban setting.
OTOH I might be expecting too much of LPC which IS, after all a City agency. Still, whatever I might think of DOB, bureaucrats aren’t always the bad guys–at least, after a career as one, I’d like to think that.
bxgrl,
maybe this case can be used as an example for future cases.
it certainly shows that a Restraining Order is the fastest and best way to preserve your home from a decision by a city agency, whether it was right or wrong, the homeowner should have some way to get answers.
Were the contractors really un- or underinsured? Shouldn’t the neighbor be able to get restitution from both the contractor and the homeowner?
Guvna- neither the LPC no the Conservancy are tolling in dough although they both have some helpful programs. But in this case it isn’t even a matter of whether or not the buildings are beautiful or landmark worthy. It’s a matter of holding the DOB accountable for its decisions and making sure they don’t simply run roughshod over people. They can’t seem to get it right- if they are not looking the other way with big developers, they are overreacting in the other direction.
I’m really disappointed in the LPC however. The idea of caring only if the facades were preserved is pretty disgusting. It wouldn’t have killed them to take a more activist stand to support the homeowners.
bedstuy11216, I remember having to stop one guy going batshit, doing demo in my house, throwing his whole Hulk Hogan self behind the sledge hammer blows to my kitchen wall. My next door neighbor was freaking out as his building shook — one of those bulging eyeball moments and treasured construction memories.