LEAVING SOON

7_Buildings-B-and-D
Share on Twitter

This is Building D on Officers Row along Flushing Avenue in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Barring any further inertia, it will be torn down by NYC soon. The US  Navy allowed it to fall apart to the point of no return over the decades.





Share on Twitter

Categorized in: One Shots Tagged with:

14 Responses to LEAVING SOON

  1. BILL says:

    DURING WORLD WAR TWO, SO MANY SERVICE MEN LEFT FOR WAR FROM THE BROOKLYN NAVY YARD. THESE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE PRESERVED! OR MOVED TO ANOTHER PLACE.

  2. Old Skool says:

    Kevin, FYI The Navy moved out in 1966. Whatever space they used between then and the time they finally left the yard property was leased by the government, either federal or city. When I went thru there in 1985 on my first ship the yard was run by Coastal Dry Dock and the Navy was using the former communications center across from the Navy Yard Bar as its headquarters building.

    • AlC says:

      Brooklyn Navy Yard was my last station in the USN in Feb 74. The ship I was on was being deployed and it would be at sea on my last day so I got them to send me TAD to BNY.

  3. Tal Barzilai says:

    I am surprised that the Navy couldn’t take care of their own buildings, and this was our federal tax dollars at work.

    • Rick says:

      Tal, the Navy hasn’t owned that property since 1966.

    • I think this is more of an example of our federal tax dollars not being spent rather than wasted. One could argue that this neglect saved tax money, since it’s pretty obvious that nothing was spent to preserve or maintain these buildings. I don’t fully understand the motivation of the Corps of Engineers, which owned the land, to neglect these historic treasures, but my best guess is that these old, outdated structures and the land they sat on had little use to the Navy, which abandoned the site in the 60s, or the CoE, which probably had higher priorities.

  4. Roger_the_Shrubber says:

    Lots of money for corporate bail-outs and foreign aid to countries that hate us but the government suddenly gets thrifty when it comes to maintaining a gem like this.

  5. Dave C. says:

    That’s old school military housing for officers, brother. There are similar cribs all over the world, including Philly and Pearl Harbor, also San Diego. When they are gone, that’s it.

  6. c. says:

    I always thought that the feds sold the yard to the city in 66 for $1.
    So the city most likely trashed it,since that their area of expertise,trashing stuff.
    Im sure we all know tons of examples
    Fye!

  7. Joseph says:

    Part of the issue raised was that the majority of the locals in the community support the space being used for a supermarket. The people who would really like to see it preserved (myself included) don’t have to live there.

    I went inside last winter (I’ve visited several times) and besides Quarters B, the rest of the houses are in terrible state. Entire roofs are missing with stuff piling on the floors and seeming on the verge of collapse. The city reports that they are beyond saving (although I’ve read the Army Corps of Engineers dispute that claim,) but my personal experience at least has to side with the city on this one.

  8. The Federal govt, – specifically the Army Corps of Engineers – owned the land after the Navy abandoned it. I don’t yet understand the motivations of the CoE to so-aggressively neglect these architectural relics over the decades, but they did until this past year, when an agreement to hand the property over to the city, and ultimately to developers, was completed.

    Since the transaction was complete, an analysis by the CoE found that while the brick exteriors were in salvageable shape, external wooden porches and internal structures had deteriorated to such a degree that they’d require total, and extremely expensive, restoration. Sadly, it’s difficult to justify spending tax dollars in a bad economy restoring these buildings.

    Regardless of whether they should or should not have been preserved, the buildings for the most part will, sadly, be demolished, and a neighborhood-changing large supermarket will be built. Given the current reality of the site and its surroundings, which has no significant grocery stores, this result is unfortunately, as Sen Schumer said, win-win-win for everyone except preservationists. Building the store will increase neighborhood property values, attract new residents, and make the neighborhood less of a ghost town.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>