WGPA

By a vote of 30 to 20, the Council today approved Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. This sets the stage for a state approval, hopefully within the next six days.

Locally, CM Yassky voted in favor; CM Reyna against.

In today's Times, architecture critic Nicolai Ourousoff has a piece critical of the St. Vincent's/Rudin plan for the St. Vincent's Hospital site in Greenwich Village. The hospital and developer plan to demolish as many as eight buildings, none of which would necessarily rise to the level of landmarks in their own right. But for Ouroussoff, all are part of the eclectic fabric of the city, and in their own way contribute to the character of Greenwich Village. Ouroussoff's points points are particularly cogent in relation not only to historic preservation but also to issues such as neighborhood preservation, neighborhood character and the like.

Sadly, the hospital’s application reflects the pernicious but prevalent notion that any single building that is not a major historical landmark — or stands outside the historical mainstream — is unworthy of our protection. Pursue that logic to its conclusion, and you replace genuine urban history with a watered-down substitute. It’s historical censorship.

This perniciousness will be all too familiar to North Brooklynites - it is the notion that we hear when Council Members refer to landmarks as a "piece of trash", or when developers use demolished icons as a reference point for banal condos. It is the notion that the fabric of neighborhoods have no meaning beyond their base economic value.

Its a short article, as much news as critique, but it is a compelling argument for the preservation of neighborhood character beyond just great buildings. All the more interesting as it comes from a critic - not a fan - of Jane Jacobs. We'll leave Mr. Ouroussoff with the last word:

This is not simply a question of losing a building; it’s about masking [a complex historical narrative in which competing values are always jostling for attention] and reducing New York history to a caricature. Ultimately, it’s a form of collective amnesia.

Great news - the NY State Assembly has refused to hold a vote on congestion pricing. This guarantees that congestion pricing will not be coming to a congested downtown near you anytime soon. So we can all go back to sitting in traffic, wasting time and money and energy. Our deliveries will continue to take that much longer (and cost that much more). Our bus rides through midtown will continue to be slower than the average walking pace. Our city, which has the greatest public transportation system in the world, will retain its car-centric transportation policies. Its in the constitution, or something.

Oh, and all that money that was going to go toward improving our transportation system? Hello, Peoria:

After Mr. Silver announced the plan’s demise, a statement was released by Mary E. Peters, the federal transportation secretary, indicating that her department would now seek to distribute those funds ($354 million) to traffic-fighting proposals in other cities.

The Mayor is not pleased (we share his displeasure):

It takes a special type of cowardice for elected officials to refuse to stand up and vote their conscience on an issue that has been debated, and amended significantly to resolve many outstanding issues, for more than a year. Every New Yorker has a right to know if the person they send to Albany was for or against better transit and cleaner air.

Congestion pricing may be dead, but you can still do something positive for local transportation. From the Save the G Coalition, a group of civic organizations dedicated to the restoration of full service on the G subway line:

On Tuesday, April 8th at 1:00pm, the NYC Council Transportation Committee will hold an oversight hearing on G train service. The Council would especially like to hear from the G train's riders about their own experiences. We hope you can take the time to appear at the hearing, and speak out.

If you can't attend the hearing in person, please consider submitting a written statement to us. Save The G will print and submit your statement on your behalf. Remember, in order for it to be official testimony for the record, you must include your full name and address. (We won't share this information with anyone but the Council members and their staff.) Please send the statement by midnight tonight to make sure we print & submit it on time for you.

Time/Date: Tuesday, April 8 at 1:00pm

Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, Manhattan

Oversight: What is the MTA doing to improve service on the G line?

Resolution #1262 Calling upon MTA to immediately improve service on the G line and to not implement any service cuts.

This is a major opportunity for G riders to speak and be heard; let's make the most of it!

Roger Lang died last Monday after a brief bout with lung cancer. Roger was the Director of Community Programs and Services at the New York Landmarks Conservancy, which really meant that he was the voice and public conscience for the group. Roger was also an ardent supporter of many of our neighborhood preservation causes, most importantly the restoration and reopening of McCarren Park Pool (an issue I first heard him speak about 15 years ago). The pool is finally being restored, though Roger will not see it. He was also instrumental in the designation of the Austin, Nichols & Company Warehouse.

In other words, he was a good friend of our good causes. And a good friend.

Proposed view of Flushing Avenue, with Greenway installed.

Community Board #1 will be voting this evening on a proposal to put a Greenway along Kent Avenue and West Street in Williamsburg and Greenpoint. This plan, part of the larger Brooklyn Greenway Initiative, would establish a protected bike and walking path along these streets, providing easy access to the planned waterfront esplanades and parks along the East River. To the south, much of the Greenway would run along the waterfront.

As Teresa Toro, a strong advocate for the plan (and sane transportation policy in general) points out, this more than just a bike lane:

...a greenway is not the same as a bike lane, although it has a bike lane element... The greenway will provide a safe, designated walking lane for people who wish to take a nice walk; it will provide critical traffic calming along Kent Avenue, which is also a truck route (and will also provide critical air quality mitigation -- also important because of the truck route). It is more of a linear park, than a bike lane; and the green/planting and walking elements make it all a genuine benefit to the community.

The Greenway will also bring hundreds of new trees to the neighborhood. And we will not lose parking spaces as a result - the car parking that would be displaced by the greenway plan has been replaced elsewhere, and DOT is moving right now to make those parking spaces available now.

When: 8 April 2008, 6:30 p.m.
Where: Swingin' 60's Senior Center, 211 Ainslie Street (corner of Manhattan)

An update on CB 1's Greenway Initiative vote this evening - APPROVED!. Congratulations and thanks to all of the people who came out tonight (and over the past two months) to support this project.

GWAPP is sponsoring a Push for Parks status meeting on Thursday, 17 April.

From the inbox:

"Find out what’s been happening with the newly formed parks groups and find out how you can get improvements on a park near you.

Updates on:
Million Tree Project
Barge Park
Cooper Park
India Street End
Greenpoint Ave/Transmitter Park
UFMP (United Friends of McCarren Park)
Bushwick Inlet Park
Greenway
State Park
And much much more…

April 17th
7PM
WARSAW (aka Polish National Home – 261 Driggs Ave)
info@gwapp.org"

Town Square is putting on a Go Green! Greenpoint! Earth Day event this SAturday at McCarren Park. The day features "enviro-friendly vendors, food, music, art contests, recycling stations and much more", with schools, companies, government agencies and community groups showcasing educational displays. There will also be live music throughout the day, wellness classes and chess stations.

(Town Square is also looking for volunteers - if you are interested in helping out, contact caroline_nasson@hotmail.com)

BRT Kent Avenue Powerhouse, scaffolded and ready for demolition
Photo: INSIJS

Friday's amNY broke the not-very-surprising news that Con Edison is going to demolish the former Brooklyn Rapid Transit power plant. Con Edison had claimed earlier that it was only cleaning out the plant, located on Kent Avenue, just south of Division Avenue. That assertion came in response to some very nice reporting by the local blog I'm Not Sayin', I'm Just Sayin', which first noticed the work and was able to unearth some old photos and history on the building.

The building, which sits on the East River facing the Brooklyn Navy Yard, had already been nominated for Landmark designation by WGPA member Mary Habstritt. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the request at staff level and decided that the building did not meet the Commission's "current priorities". In the amNY article, a Landmarks spokesperson said that decision could be revisited, but with demolition now underway, it seems a bit late for that.

In addition to the amNY article, there was a lively discussion in a related post at Brownstoner, as well as an earlier article in the Brooklyn Papers (in which Con Ed asserted that the work at the site was "just cleaning up"). But the best source of information (including some great historic images) remains INSIJS's original post and his follow ups.

Newtown Creek
Photo: GowanusLounge

Last week we posted a notice about the Go Green Greenpoint Earth Day event, which was held in McCarren Park this past Saturday. At the time we posted, we were not aware that the events sponsors included ExxonMobil (among other corporate sponsors). As it turns out, no one knew about this sponsorship - word somehow leaked out Friday evening, and in response a group of local activists staged an impromptu protest.

As reported here, there was some back and forth between organizers of the event and organizers of the protestors. From what we say, the event itself was well attended, and by all appearances a great success. And the protest was theatrical, effective and respectful of the larger event (if not the event's sponsor).

And the protests did not stop ExxonMobil from handing out glossy folders full of "fact sheets" extolling their great work in ridding Greenpoint of the largest oil spill in American history (they're a third of the way there, and its only been 30 years!). The glossy flyers even imply that the spill itself was not entirely ExxonMobil's fault (so we're lucky that they are cleaning it up at all). Its nice to see that ExxonMobil is sponsoring worthy local causes (there is a word for this: greenwash). It would be a lot nicer if they put a little more time and effort into cleaning up our environment.

Restored interior of the Eldridge Street Synagogue
Photo: AllWaysNY

This month's issue of Metropolis has an excellent article on the economic and sustainable benefits of historic preservation. Written by Roberta Brandes Gratz (herself a NYC Landmarks commissioner), the article takes as its example the recent restoration of the Eldridge Street Synagogue on the Lower East Side. As Gratz points out, the restoration was a largely local effort, using local talent and local materials. This benefits both the local economy and the earth:

For those who think of localism as a basic tenet of green design, consider this: three firms—the Gil Studio, of Brooklyn; Bill Butt, of Staten Island; and Mel Greenland, of Manhattan—restored the 66 stained-glass windows and the multipane Rose Window in the 1887 Eldridge Street Synagogue, on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Aurora Lampworks, a historic lighting and replication company in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, with about a dozen local employees, worked on the 237 intricately detailed brass fixtures and the 75-bulb chandelier...

Gratz goes on to talk about the pressures that development have put on local artisans like Aurora - which "has shrunk both the supply of industrial space and housing opportunities for the skilled workforce these companies depend on".

Unfortunately, the sustainability community (including both LEED and PlaNYC) have yet to embrace preservation as a viable part of sustainable growth. Which is surprising when you consider that both preservation and environmentalism came out of fundamentally aligned movements. Even more surprising if, as we do, you subscribe to Carl Elefante's dictum that "the greenest building is one that is already built". Gratz says it better than we can:

Preservation is fundamentally sustain­able. Given the impor­tance green-building experts place on “embodied energy,” it’s curious that the industry standard barely acknowledges preservation. LEED for Existing Buildings emphasizes main­ten­ance and upgrade but not restoration; LEED for New Construction awards just three points out of 69 for “building reuse,” with all sorts of caveats attached. In contrast, providing bike racks and access to public transit earns one point for each. No penalties accrue for demolishing a viable structure and sending it to a landfill. You even get points for recycling elements from that lost building.

Last weekend, the Williamsburg/Greenpoint community celebrated the rejection of the proposed TGE Bushwick Inlet power plant. Not surprisingly, last week, TGE announced that it plans to appeal the siting board decision. Our sources tell us that the siting board's decision is pretty definitive, but that doesn't mean Adam Victor of TGE can't keep his project alive in the courts a while longer.

Historic drawing of the Kent Avenue BRT plant.
Courtsey of INSIJS

Today's issue of the Brooklyn Papers has some more information on the impending demolition of the Kent Avenue BRT power plant. As we learned last week, Con Edison (who now owns the former plant) has finally admitted that they intend to demolish the structure. But they still won't say what they will do with the site. Will it be residential (the odds-on favorite), or go some other use?

As with many older buildings, the opportunities for adaptive use here are many. But without an idea of what is planned for the site, its much harder to make that case. And surely, Con Ed knows this. Surely, too, Con Ed will cite all sort of factors as to why the building cannot be saved. But most of these are likely to be red herrings. Take the most obvious - environmental remediation. Con Ed will say "well, the building is full of toxins, we have to take it down". But whatever toxins are in the building (asbestos, PCBs) can be removed with the building in place. The incremental cost of remediation is not likely to be significantly higher, and either way, the toxins within the structure will have to be removed and safely disposed of.

From a sustainability point of view, it makes far more sense to leave the building in place and adapt it for a new use. Throwing away the whole building is a waste of the resources and energy that went into the construction of the building in the first place. In the past few years, there have been at least two local projects that have proposed the reuse of large shell structures such as this. One is the Domino refinery, where CPC resources is proposing a building-within-a-building solution. The second is the Powerhouse condos in Long Island City. There, a former LIRR power station (a building with a very similar history to the BRT power station) is in the final stages of conversion to housing. The sensitivity of the conversion from a historic preservation point of view leaves much to be desired (to put it gently), but its not a total tear down.

Put very simply, under just about any development scenario, this building could be cleaned up and reused. The building could be adapted for housing (luxury, affordable or otherwise). It could also be adapted for industrial use and incorporated into the Brooklyn Navy Yard (which has clearly sghown that there is a demand for good industrial space). The only development scenario that would not be feasible with the building in place is if the site is turned into a waterfront park. But that is the only development scenario that "requires" that the building be removed.

[Updated with links.]