Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Photographs by Nathan Kensinger
It's unclear what the fate of 19th century rowhouses near the Brooklyn Navy Yard, originally built for high-ranking officers of the U.S. Navy, will be, as some are looking to demolish the historic but dilapidated homes while others are hoping they can be saved and preserved. Photographer Nathan Kensinger headed in for a rare look inside the homes and wrote:
This strip of six buildings was abandoned by the Navy in the 1970's and left to decay. Today, the interiors of several buildings are in a state of irreparable collapse. Fires and rain have destroyed roofs and floors while squatters have left mountains of debris. Vines and trees have moved indoors. Windows and walls have exploded inwards. Entire floors are missing.
However, some of the buildings are in remarkably good condition. Their staircases, light fixtures, plasterwork, shelves, mantlepieces and wood floors are only in need of polish and paint. The beauty of these architectural details, when compared to the complete devastation in other buildings, is a stunning indictment of the Navy's neglect.Photoblogger The Kingston Lounge also has interior photographs, showing decaying beauty.
More information at Officers Row.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
nice pics
its such a disgrace, the way we let historical buildings fall into ruin in this country.
I passed these houses everyday when I worked in nearby DUMBO and was unsure what they were. Thank you for the pics. However, I'm still fascinated that these could be so overlooked for so long. For a city that prides itself in architecture and history, its a bit embarrassing. Also, how were these photographers allowed in? There is a double-sided barbed-wire fence blocking them.
why is it so historical? just cuz its old? NYC doesnt really have much of a history of preserving old buildings. That's just how it is...we like new new taller and higher.
andorman is correct. just look at the cacophony of architectural assemblage on any avenue or street...nyc=tear down and build anew...this isn't always a bad thing though...but often it is...
wandererofsorts - I have taken a lot of photographs in abandoned buildings. I have never actually asked permission, I've just snuck in carefully, but I have never vandalized or otherwise damaged anything I found. Just taken photographs.
These are amazing shots. The sad thing is seeing something like this demolished to make way for more housing without personality designed to cram as many people in as possible and afford the landlord the largest profit possible.
The new housing has personality! Sure its expensive but some of the new buildings are really beautiful, I don't know if you've looked up lately.
Ok, I concede that not all new buildings are devoid of personality, but I'd still venture to say most. I have seen some nice looking buildings, but it just seems to me they tend to go for quantity over quality. I just hate to see historical places swept aside. Even if the historical aspect isn't as fascinating as other places.
The superstructures of the buildings are most certainly salvageable, with the possible exceptions of Quarters K,L,H,C and the stable; J's a total goner (the groundskeeper's building back by the NYPD impound lot) but for the most part, the exteriors are sound.
The interiors on a couple of the buildings - B and D especially - could be rehabbed with some serious effort and thoughtful planning.
The Navy isn't exactly the best agent for preservation, it just isn't in their job description. I'm sorry these houses fell into such disrepair but what would be the purpose of rehabbing them at this point? Who would pay for it and how would they be repurposed? The houses are on government property, surrounded by other decaying industrial structures and across the street is, well, not a nice neighborhood. If this fuss had been made 5-10 yrs ago, maybe it would have been worth it, but I think we have to let these ones go.
Oh? And why do we 'have' to do that?
The buildings are not in as bad condition as you'd be given to believe if you listened to the crap that Andrew Kimball regularly spews.
Who would pay for it? This city is happy to spend six times the amount of money it would take to rehab those buildings to build a tunnel from Jay St / Borough Hall to the G train. Not that I'm not in favour of that plan - I certainly am - but if the city has money for that, they can certainly come up with the money to save Admiral's Row.
Finally, how is that "well, not a nice neighborhood"? You sound like one of those assholes who're always busting on neighborhoods like Lefferts Gardens and Crown Heights. Park Slope or Bust is it? Or are you on the upper East side?
Hey Kingstonlounge, bite me. I happen to live just a few blocks away from Admirals Row:IN BROOKLYN. Your argument is ridiculous and doesn't address any point anyone has made. Extending the G line would benefit thousands of people and you support it yourself. Rehabbing a bunch of dilapidated houses for the amusement and satisfaction of a much smaller, much more elite group of architecture enthusiasts is more worthy of $20 million? How about they put it towards making Flushing a drivable road? A good grocery store, while not historically interesting, is sorely needed in that are.That would do the community a bigger service. Nobody has stated they want to do anything with the houses other than just fix them and have them sit there being pretty and preserved. I'm all for preserving historical buildings, but not always at any cost and at the sacrifice of community development. And yes, it's not a great neighborhood, the projects that surround the Navy yard are the real deal.