Op-Ed: Landmark All of Admirals Row!

Currently there is a fervor of interest in Admirals Row. 

A press release and letter dated March 3 with the Secretary of the Army for the early involvement of New York City in the remedial repair of the Admirals Row.

I read half of this press release thinking that a serious concern for the disposition of the entirety of Admirals Row was finally at hand. (I have long been vocal for congressional review prior to title transfer). 

“Admirals Row is a national landmark,” Sen. Charles Schumer said. 

“This now faded jewel deserves to be saved…restore these historic grounds,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said.

“[Prevent] these local treasures from deteriorating further,” Rep. Nydia Velasquez said. 

Then Rep. Ed Towns hit the nail on the head. “Time is of the utmost importance to perform emergency repairs and stabilization of the historic and severely deteriorated Timber Shed and Building B.”

For nearly four years the National Guard Bureau has reduced the “preservation” of the six- acre, 11-building Admirals Row compound to five old-growth trees and two buildings. 

This National Historic Preservation Act 106 process, designed to facilitate the sale of Admirals Row to New York City, should not be conducted by the owner of record, but by a neutral third party.

The integrity of the 106 Process has been compromised due to this conflict of interest. Military law requires that surplus property be maintained in a state of readiness. The deterioration and dilapidated state of Admirals Row has occurred entirely on the Army National Guard Bureau’s 40-year watch. 

The New York State Historic Preservation Office wrote in December 2007 that the nationally significant buildings at Admirals Row remain eligible individually and as a historic district for listing on the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places.

Yet there are major hurdles if the entirety of Admirals Row is to be landmarked:

1. Mayor Bloomberg has muted the New York City’s landmarks commission. The Bloomberg administration is an unfit custodian to receive the Admirals Row property, in that it’s sole aim is to raze the entire site for new development. The Admirals Row property can graciously accommodate both restoration and development.
2. The Bloomberg/Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation plan calls for a supermarket, the largest in the city. The supermarket also comes with a vast parking requirement (comprising nearly half the site), pollution and congestion. A smaller neighborhood supermarket would require little on-site parking.
3. Where does the money come from? By law, the Admirals Row property must be sold at a yet-underdetermined fair market value. Its six acres are equal to two and a half city blocks of downtown development land worth in excess of $250 million. If expenses (including the $30- to $50 million restoration of Admirals Row) are deducted from the purchase price it’s a no-brainer: include the landmarking and restoration as terms of the sale. That way the city won’t be left footing the bill for the dilapidated structures.

A solution for the disposition of Admirals Row is to first landmark the entirety of the Admirals Row site and then determine how to best include retail and commercial development.

Building B and the Timber Shed are definitely in need of remedial repair and weatherization, just like the entirety of Admirals Row. But more importantly, Admirals Row belongs not just to Brooklyn but to every citizen of the United States. It is an indispensable part of our nation’s heritage.

Had Mayor Bloomberg allowed the Admirals Row to be landmarked five years ago, the site might now be sold, the grocery store selling fresh produce and the historic buildings restored. Landmark Admirals Row!