What's Doing at the PS 133 Site?
There hasn’t been much visible progress on the demolition of P.S. 133 in the past couple of months aside from workers installing a new fence outside the site last week. According to a construction guy on the job, the project is currently consisting of asbestos abatement and real demolition isn’t scheduled to start for another…
There hasn’t been much visible progress on the demolition of P.S. 133 in the past couple of months aside from workers installing a new fence outside the site last week. According to a construction guy on the job, the project is currently consisting of asbestos abatement and real demolition isn’t scheduled to start for another month and a half or so. The city says the new school that will be built on the site, which is on 4th Avenue between Baltic and Butler streets, is slated to be finished in January 2013.
SCA Marks Its Turf at P.S. 133 Site [Brownstoner]
City Council Vote Seals P.S. 133’s Fate [Brownstoner]
Council Subcommittee Hears Case of PS 133 [Brownstoner]
PS 133’s Most Desperate Hour [Brownstoner]
New PS 133 Plans Revealed [Brownstoner] GMAP
SCA To Build New P.S. 133, Tear Down Old Building [Brownstoner]
Proposed School Replacement Facility for P.S. 133 [DOE]
The demolition of this building was certainly a case of giving the SCA everything it wanted – and rushing the process of approval, only to virtually bring things a halt once that approval was gained.
Solidola12 – Those who opposed the plan were never in favor of keeping the school as it was, but argued that it could be renovated and expanded at virtually the same cost – which turned out to the the same belief the SHPO had, although the the SCA lied through their teeth and said that the SHPO had approved the demolition plan.
While the new school has “some” of the same design on the 4th avenue side, the back of it (facing the adjoining blocks) is just one big box – nothing like what could be seen from far up Park Slope with the original school, which gave character to the blooks and a larger neighborhood.
I don’t know what is happening with zoning at this point, but neighbors who were against the plan (and I obviously was one) were very upset that that original plans called for seperate entrances – one for district 13 and one for district 15 and, when the plan was being presented to district 15 parents, there was emphasis on how the school kids would not intermingle. We felt, and I think rightly so, that this was an affront to the district 13 kids who originally were at the school and were concerned about the enshrinement of separate but equal.
Perhaps one of the saddest facts is that the school was allowed to fall into the state of disrepair it was in (and, again, it was a school in a poorer district) – the building was landmark worthy, was a community anchor, was one of the best examples of architecture on an increasing dreary 4th avenue, and was deemed by the State (and neighbors) to have historic value.
It’s also a huge school for a small block with very limited drop-off and pick up space for children – poorly thought out all around
The demolition of this building was certainly a case of giving the SCA everything it wanted – and rushing the process of approval, only to virtually bring things a halt once that approval was gained.
Solidola12 – Those who opposed the plan were never in favor of keeping the school as it was, but argued that it could be renovated and expanded at virtually the same cost – which turned out to the the same belief the SHPO had, although the the SCA lied through their teeth and said that the SHPO had approved the demolition plan.
While the new school has “some” of the same design on the 4th avenue side, the back of it (facing the adjoining blocks) is just one big box – nothing like what could be seen from far up Park Slope with the original school, which gave character to the blooks and a larger neighborhood.
I don’t know what is happening with zoning at this point, but neighbors who were against the plan (and I obviously was one) were very upset that that original plans called for seperate entrances – one for district 13 and one for district 15 and, when the plan was being presented to district 15 parents, there was emphasis on how the school kids would not intermingle. We felt, and I think rightly so, that this was an affront to the district 13 kids who originally were at the school and were concerned about the enshrinement of separate but equal.
Perhaps one of the saddest facts is that the school was allowed to fall into the state of disrepair it was in (and, again, it was a school in a poorer district) – the building was landmark worthy, was a community anchor, was one of the best examples of architecture on an increasing dreary 4th avenue, and was deemed by the State (and neighbors) to have historic value.
It’s also a huge school for a small block with very limited drop-off and pick up space for children – poorly thought out all around
Coming from an architectural background I do understand why some people are upset about the demo of the existing building. But this is a school for children. I would prefer if my children did not have to go to a 100 year old building loaded with ACM and lead paint, no elevator for disabled children or employees, overcrowded and frankly quite lacking in interior planning. The new building will look beautiful; it follows the same façade design and much better laid out plan. I don’t understand why there will always be people against progress. Again this is for the children. In 100 years when they demo they new school people will be opposed to it as well. I hear that there were also some racial reasons why “some” people were opposed to the re-zoning of the new school. I just hope that that is not true.
Sometimes I think its more than that- it’s an in-your-face, I can do whatever I want attitude that comes with having money and connections. Not saying that is this particular developer’s attitude, but I think the idea, especially under Bloomberg, has been to give the developers everything, at the expense of the neighborhoods.
The brooklyn contractor who got the job is a long time, professional with a much experience. They own a building which they keep very very well, which says something to me.
I imagine they are going through the process of environmental clean up which if done right is expensive and slow and has to be monitored carefully. Which is what we all want…..
It’s psychological warfare, Iron Maiden. It takes away hope, and lets you know that the site is theirs, and there is no chance of saving the building. They did the same thing at AY, and at several churches and other buildings that have been demolished, only to sit as empty lots with a couple of bricks in them, for months, and sometimes years.
I lived right next to this nice looking school. Glad I moved so I don’t have to watch them tear it down. The first they did when they got access to the site was bulldoze the gardens. I don’t see any reason why except to be dicks because nothing was done on or around the gardens for months after.
I agree, MM. Really dumb. It looked for a while as if it would be saved.
I think the bigger waste is that the city did not sell the sight to a developer, and then use the proceeds to build a school in a less expensive location. I think they could have fetched a pretty penny for that site, given the 4th Ave Upzoning and the lot’s large size, and then use the money to buy a site between 3rd and 4th Ave. Or, they could have reached a deal with the developer to use the first 4 floors for the school, and give him a zoning bonus (like the deal in Dumbo with Walentas). More housing, a new school to take care of the growing population – win, win.