MEX Exhibition Proposal

495 Dean Street update

Today I went to the Department of Records to see if a 1940s tax photo is on file for No 495. It is and I've placed an order for a copy to arrive in 4-6 weeks. But, after looking at the blurry microfilm, I do not believe the wood cladding is original. To me, the facade appeared exactly the same-- same window covering shapes, etc., aside from the fact that it appeared to be brick covered. The photo will confirm. But nonetheless, I still feel like the footprint is significant. The assistants at the Dept of Records were somewhat rude so I am planning on just using Pratt Library's sanborn map to investigate this further. If I can remember correctly from today the 1929 Sanborn map that I looked at indicated that there was a weird interruption of the common yard between the Pacific Street and Dean Street properties from 6th Avenue. See here:



I suppose the DoF would be another option to investigate, in case someone with more notoriety lived there in the past that would bolster the building's significance.

However, notoriety is subjective. I think it would be equally significant to study a building, the history of its past and present owners and map out all the connections and networks built around that single building and those particular occupants-- where they worked, their own personal milestones, where they went to school, where they came from. It would be too daunting a task though.

Critique of the 2004 Downtown Brooklyn Plan

The Downtown Brooklyn proposal prepared by the Department of City Planning and the New York Economic Development Corp stands out as problematic marketing material. Approved in 2004, it double-handedly convinced state and city officials to allow for massive changes to occur in Brooklyn while angering small business owners, residents and igniting a network of informal news/activity watchmen. To critically evaluate it in January 2009 is difficult for it appears to lack currency and substance.

Data for the Downtown Brooklyn plan stems from information based between the years 1990 and 2000. This period belongs to the dot-com era which was directly related to the internet and the advancement of internet based technology. The need for spaces wired and built with modern internet cabling may have led companies to seek locations outside of New York. However, while the Downtown Brooklyn Plan can be seen as providing startling figures regarding the loss of jobs to New Jersey (9,000 is the figure given) (slide 5), there is no statement about how many of these jobs still existed prior to the economic collapse of this past year which would have been a fair question to ask in 2004. In addition, the Plan’s figures in light of 2009, during a post-recession period is invalidated when unemployment across multiple sectors is rising. The most recent assessment can be found by the same commercial real estate services firm that was hired to provide statistical data for the Downtown Brooklyn Plan. In their 2008, Fourth Quarter issue of MarketBeat - Manhattan Office Report, Cushman & Wakefield write:

“New York’s commercial office market began to feel the full effects of the financial crisis in stages during 2008. Vacancy rates began to increase across the market during the first half of the year. As more financial firms came under pressure the amount of sublease space on the market rose sharply. By the end of 2008, sublease space on the market had increased by 4.7 million square feet or 132% and accounted for 25.8% of all available space…. Total available space, at 31.8 msf, grew by nearly 43% in the past year, driving the overall vacancy rate up 8% from 5.7%.

The increase in sublease availabilities began putting downward pressure on rents in mid-2008. By year-end, overall Manhattan asking rents had fallen $3.95 per square foot or about 5% from their peak. In Midtown, class A market rents in December were $6.99 psf below the August level.”*

To claim that a space is available for subleasing suggests that that it is “ready to be occupied in a short time frame” (slide 5), which is exactly what the NYDCP/NYCEDC stated as a goal in re-developing and re-zoning the downtown area. In addition, oddly enough, the amount of square footage now available due to the economic turmoil exceeds the targeted square footage of 4.5 million.

Another issue that makes the presentation slides highly visible as marketing material is the choice of words to describe the New Jersey construction: low-cost, inexpensive, ready-to-go. These terms do not suggest high quality, good design, and fail to evoke concepts of sustainable construction practices, terms that might help convince critics that the proposed permanent structures will be good for the community and last 100 years. With no architectural or environmental review of the processes that occurred in New Jersey or the quality of future development that may occur in Brooklyn to add, the Plan lacks authority.

One surprise discovery in reviewing the approved plan is that the nearby Atlantic Yards is technically not within the boundary lines of this re-zoned area. However, visual imagery of a partial city map suggests that Downtown Brooklyn is influenced and connected to eight different surrounding neighborhoods (annotated slides 5). Not many of these areas (if any at all) are connected to the Atlantic transit hub or can be reached on foot. Only a car or circulatory trolley/shuttle would feasibly connect these areas’ cultural resources, some of which are indicated with arrows out of the zone. But new connection techniques aside from sidewalks are not mentioned in the presentation.

While the varied urban environment is considered appealing and an existing asset to Brooklyn, the presentation slides also state that “building on the success of previous development efforts that have retained and attracted companies in NY, the plan would create new retail and housing and foster expanded academic and cultural facilities” (slide 1). The development that qualifies by city standards as “success” is not developed convincingly or backed visually to give viewers/readers proof of this statement. There are no images of existing conditions at street level that city planners consider successful or unsuccessful. In fact, what many critics consider successful pockets of the downtown areas are listed as blighted by city officials. Viewers are expected only to relate to a disconnected architectural street/block & lot map, which requires practice and mental associations to be made in order to understand. Indeed, the most recent large development may have been the MetroTech area. However, it is doubtful that MetroTech is the success which defines this part of Brooklyn as an appealing 24/7 community. Furthermore, simply the name of one promised academic institute would suffice as proof that the education sector is interested in the development and expansion. or whether certain steps would be taken by developers to cater their spaces for the provision of proper class rooms.

Another issue is the assumption that back-office workers, who are projected to be the new inhabitants of these office spaces, are going to want to engage in Brooklyn’s cultural venues that are relatively nearby. This thinking is incomplete in two ways: one is the assumption that they will engage in these forms of art/culture; and second is the assumption that workers will not simply flee/commute out of Brooklyn at the close of the work day as workers in Lower Manhattan do. Lower Manhattan suffers from its looming structures; the office buildings harbor no feeling of wanting to stay at the end of the day. It is doubtful that “a 5-foot sidewalk widening” is all that will be required to enhance the pedestrian experience (slide 22). My only engagement among these buildings is to cross them on the way to South Street Seaport, Bowling Green and the waterfront, or the transit hub around the World Trade Center. There is no guarantee that a 24/7 community will be created in the Downtown Brooklyn area with the addition of office towers, grounded with banks/chain stores that can be found elsewhere. The city’s own presentation can be used against them to reinforce this point: the Plan indicates that after the July 2001 approval of the “Special Downtown Brooklyn District”, which allowed for “more flexible height and setback controls and several upzonings,” there was an increase in the “construction of new apartment houses” (slide 2). The statement is problematic because “apartment houses” signify small sized, less invasive construction and because developers are tending toward the construction of condominiums, in lieu of office space against the goals established in the Plan.

Finally, another poor marketing tool included in the presentation is the use of Rockefeller Center to create a visual suggestion of what a new center would be like. The only commonality between the two is that the Downtown Brooklyn Plan is as speculative in the current economic crisis as Rockefeller Center’s construction was seen during the Great Depression. RockefellerCenter’s situation in Manhattan is entirely different from Downtown Brooklyn. The center caters to tourists who can afford to go to the theaters, go to overpriced restaurants, museums, and do not need grocery stores or mom-and-pop hardware stores. In its entirety, Brooklyn is considered a residential “city”, juxtaposed against the working city that Manhattan is. To ignore its past history and viable usage may cause existing residents or critics of the plan to feel frustrated. More importantly, Rockefeller Center is near both official and unofficial landmark, including St. Peter’s Cathedral, Saks Fifth Avenue, Radio City, Times Square and the jewelry district. To build upon the handful of landmarks with the addition of more to this area is one technique overlooked by the plan and city starting from the neglect and subsequent demolition of the old Atlantic Terminal.

Bibliography

*Cushman & Wakefield 4th Quarter Report 2008

NYC Department of City Planning - Downtown Brooklyn Plan (Full)

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/dwnbklyn2/dwnbklynintro1.shtml

NYC Department of City Planning - Downtown Brooklyn Plan (Annotated)

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/dwnbklyn2/dwnbklyn.pdf

From Forest City Ratner site

http://atlanticyards.com/graphics/photos/existingsite_slides.gif

no. 491-495 Dean Street

The buildings shown in the above picture (from left to right) are 491-495 Dean Street. While documenting the structures along Dean Street, 493 & 495 stood out to me because of their use of wood materials (neither brick nor brownstone which is prevalent along the majority of the other building facades in the area). I also noted that 495 is significantly misaligned among the other street-facing facades. This seems minor, however, I think that it is highly likely that it pre-dated the establishment of the boundary lines of the sidewalk, street, building lot or the construction of the surrounding buildings. It also is significantly shorter than all of the other short buildings.

It is difficult to see, but up until recently, there had been a building to the left of 491 which has since been demolished for FCR. These three structures fall within the lines of the Atlantic Yard plan. They are currently privately owned by one individual whose family has collectively owned it for approximately 50 years. In order for the lots to be transferred to Bruce Ratner, the area had to be deemed blighted. The owner however, has informed me that the condition of the interiors is perfect.

During my interview, I asked the owner also whether there has been any attempt to have these structures landmarked or researched the history behind 495. He informed me that he has been told that No 495 is from 1825 and 493 is from 1827. He admitted that he did not have information on the history behind the properties aside from knowing that there was a stoop or staircase in the front of one of them. He also believed that over the years, owners added to the facade, rather than removing the initial old facade layer and replacing it. So its history may be intact. I mentioned that tax photos from the 40s could be found from the Department of Records if indeed he wanted to restore the facades to be granted landmark status. He informed me, however, that it would be pointless to go through the effort of restoring the facades if the city is going to demolish them anway.

Proposed Prospect Heights District

What I gather from this proposal is an attempt to cement a boundary line of protection for the old versus the new construction. I haven't found whether the proposed district has been denied or a decision is pending. As far as I know, the district hasn't been created yet. Unfortunately, it does not include much of Dean Street.

why does Forest City Ratner need so many pseudonyms?

The function of the stoop

Excerpt from John F. Freie's Counterfeit Community: The Exploitation of Our Longings for Connectedness. Published by Rowman & Littlefield, 1998

"While children received an education at the neighborhood school, the recreational center was the alley in the back of the house or, when adults were not around, the front stoop and front street. Thus, children played within the neighborhood, well within sight of adults who did not hesitate to help form character through the use of discipline even if the child involved was not one's own.

On summer evenings the front stoops became informal meeting places where neighbors carried on conversation well past dark. Even places of business were extensions of the web of relationships that existed in the community."

Signage on Dean Street

There are multiple forms of signage available to experience when walking along Dean Street in Brooklyn. With the exception of political signs protesting the Atlantic Yards project (a), most of them have been designed and placed with discretion (b); they require up close observation in order to read their messages (c).

Some signs are clearly of a past era (d) and are incomplete (e). Others, like at No. 636, are inaccurate all together, as the contractor left the property 13 years ago (f).

New signage i.e. for No. 618 is fitted to the width of two rows of brick by one wythe of brick (g).

There is a familial, hand-made feel to the collection of signage at No. 640 as well. The fairly standard typography of the Mandalay So sign along with the taped-down IPod Repair sign (h) gives the door and building a sense of utility that is not claiming to be more than it is: a commercial space along a half-residential/manufacturing street.

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) <-link
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

mapping in progress

Dean Street features in greater detail

Traffic _February 2, 2009

While the footage was taken at different hours of the day, the point was to get a sense of vehicular traffic flow and ambiance on Dean Street as compared to Atlantic Avenue.

graphic design as a tool

Norman Oder at Atlantic Yards Report found a drafted web page for one of the Ratner's developments, which has since been removed, that is telling.

attitude towards illegal parking on along north side of atlantic

I bet they can't wait for what's to come.

(p.s. I double parked to take this picture)

Past & Current Downtown

Week 2 Assignment

Course Syllabus

Throughout the 20th century, Downtown Brooklyn has served as a laboratory for experiments in architecture and urban design....The area around Atlantic Yards once served as a manufacturing center, and may now become home to one of the country's most dense developments, Atlantic Yards, generating controversy and counter-proposals.

Such change in Downtown Brooklyn is driven by agencies (developers and government officials) that are typically outside of but dependent upon the design community. Examining the history and present of Downtown Brooklyn, we will interrogate and clarify the roles of design in inventing a more just and creative means of "developing" Brooklyn. What will a dense regional center look like? Who will go there, what will happen there? And how will it be designed?

To respond to these questions, we'll explore techniques for researching and exhibiting changes in urban areas. With Downtown Brooklyn as a site, we'll examine how architecture and urban design have transformed the city's downtown, and how these transformations relate to the politics of race, class, and development in New York.

For our final project, students will collaborate to produce a small exhibition of our research, which will be shown in the storefront gallery at the Metropolitan Exchange in May 2009.