I am a New Rochelle resident and I feel very strongly that the Armory should be preserved. Instead of viewing the Armory as problem that needs to be dealt with, we should view the Armory as an opportunity and a central focal point of our city. Forest City and New Rochelle have it backwards: rather than building newer and newer commercial facilities hoping to spur prosperity, we need to encourage unique, historical, and civic facilities that will make people want to visit and ultimately invest in New Rochelle. The proposal for a Monroe College facility is a step in the right direction. Other avenues should be considered as well, such as a performing arts center. Implicit in any facility should be the history of the Armory and the needs of our servicemen and women.
Preserving the Armory is sound city planning. A number of urban planners and historians concern themselves primarily with the plight of first tier suburbs. These scholars uniformly believe that the key to revitalization is an emphasis on a place’s distinctive history. For example, Yale professor in architecture and urbanism Dolores Hayden writes in Building Suburbia: “Local history can help to define a positive sense of place in older suburbs by identifying important local victories and establishing landmarks…” In particular, she notes how one of our neighbors (Irvington, NY) repurposed an abandoned factory to house a library and affordable housing, all the while spotlighting a site with important historical implications.
Similarly, one can find clear support for saving the Armory in the virtually canonical “Death and Life of American Cities” by Jane Jacobs. Jacobs is known for identifying four conditions essential to successful neighborhoods. Indeed, Jacobs’ core principles in theory underpin developments like Echo Bay: high density and mixed use communities based on short interconnected blocks. However, many “new urbanist” developments, including Echo Bay, flat out ignore one of her principles: “The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield they must produce. This mingling must be fairly close-grained.” Here, Echo Bay would be starting from scratch without varied types of buildings. Saving the Armory, of course, would go towards fulfilling this principle.
Further, I am not convinced that Forest City’s arguments in favor of razing the Armory have much merit. In their explanation to the public (which differs from their explanation to city council, discussed below), Forest City states that while it was a tough decision, the only workable option is to tear down the Armory. They state: “[i]ts present location and size make it impossible to open up access to the shoreline for all New Rochelle residents to enjoy.” They further state: “the Armory site is at the heart of the Echo Bay development and the project is not viable with the Armory in its current form or location.” Finally, in probably their most concrete explanation of the problem, they state, “[l]eaving the Armory as it is severely undermines the development potential of the entire Echo Bay shoreline and it would require a substantial increase in the density of the remainder of the project, with ten story structures instead of five. It would also eliminate much of the project’s parkland and open space.”
First, it is not clear that the Armory’s present location would interfere with views to the Sound or access to the shoreline. From my review of the current maps of New Rochelle versus the proposed site plan, it appears to me that there is a larger and more disruptive building planned for the current site of the Armory. In fact, I am at a complete loss to understand how the Armory, as currently situated, would affect ANY of the vistas contemplated by the project. The Armory does not play any part in the most difficult problem for access and flow from downtown: the New Rochelle Chevrolet and the CVS are the real culprits on that front.
Second, Forest City argues that keeping the Armory would increase density in the rest of the project from five stories to ten. Let’s grant that argument on its face: why is that a bad thing? New Rochelle clearly doesn’t have a problem with allowing tall buildings. Trump Tower is tallest building between New York and Albany, notwithstanding the Avalons and the proposed LeCount Place. In my opinion, a line of ten story buildings, if tastefully done, would make a striking waterfront skyline. Not an issue.
If these reasons do not hold water, why then would Forest City and New Rochelle go out of their way to raze the Armory? The answer, I believe, is found in Forest City’s presentation to city council. Forest City’s explanation to the public in the FAQ’s leaves out that the Armory is an “inefficient use of valuable land” and has “no viable end user” (read: fewer tax dollars to New Rochelle if the Armory stays where it is). To the extent that these factors are the true motivating factors, then Forest City and New Rochelle need to be straightforward with its citizens and say that this is the case. Further offense taken insofar as the new community center is shunted to the absolute corner of the property and would probably never be used by anyone in the community.
Everything above being said, I still do believe that the Echo Bay project is a good one. New Rochelle’s waterfront is an asset that we need to utilize. The environmental reclamation would confer a huge benefit to the city and even the region. However, any plan that does not involve the Armory as is would be a huge mistake. City leaders need to understand that the Armory is a long-term asset that needs to be saved.
viewpoints
The armory is an architecturally insignificant structure, both in terms of its design and also in terms of its functionality. The value of the armory site far surpasses any sentimental value that might exist for a select few within the community.
The Forest City/ Echo Bay development project is the first “real” plan for redefining and renewing this large section of the city’s waterfront that has been unappreciated, misused and truly neglected for so many years. The potential results are too great to ignore. The city will benefit economically from increased tax revenue. New greenspace and parkland will become available for residents to use. There will be greater availability for waterfront access by the general public (a truly significant gain – most waterfront property is privately owned by individuals and shore/yacht clubs).
The armory was closed by the government because it no longer served a functional purpose. The sale price of $1 was a great deal for the city who most certainly would have not been able to acquire such a property otherwise (ie. from a private interest).
The city has no need for a facility like the armory. Its parks and recreation department is impressive and serves the needs of the community very well (especially with the overhaul of City Park that will occur). If it becomes a sports venue for Monroe college then the building/land becomes private. The importance is to open up the bay area to the greater public and make it easily accessible from all angles. To do so successfully and with the greatest impact & best results, the armory, along with the city yard, the automobile dealerships and businesses, and even the McDonalds restaurant all need to go.
Echo Bay and LeCount Square are two of the most substantial projects pursued by the city in decades, therefore the energies & attention directed towards them are understandable. If the city had the resources or energy to devote towards another community development issue, the armory would still rank way down on the bottom of the list…..as opposed to the redevelopment of the Lincoln Avenue area and housing projects for example (which in my opinion surpasses Echo Bay in terms of importance and necessity).
Baxter, your “viewpoints” are based on misinformation
Let’s put aside the true benefit a restored Armory would bestow upon the city and look at your comments. The forest city plan is not only completely out of scale, but neither you or I or anyone other than Forest City knows just what they intend to put there. Originally, in the concept stage, presentations were made that stressed over and over how the “plan” should be in keeping with the scale and fabric of the surrounding community. The project should be “seamlessly woven” into the community. Hardly the case. Traffic engineers already realize the plan,as proposed, will more than likely force the removal of parking along Stephenson Blvd. That’s just the begining. What if YOU lived near there? AFTER the plan was submitted, a 300 room hotel complex was added. In conversations with Abe Naperstek (from Forest City) he admitted that the hotel might just as easily become “large scale” retail. Also when asked point blank “if the city required Forest City to adapt the Armory, would Forest City have walked away?” he said no. So, how can you even begin to support a plan so undefined? You can’t. Your two biggest mistakes are in thinking there will be any “increased tax revenue”. Have you been on this planet long? The very reason the Echo Bay project has the mixed components it does is to make it qualify for huge tax abatements or PILOT programming. How’s that been working for New Rochelle so far? The biggest projecte in New Rochelle barely, if at all, cover the costs of services rendered to those properties. Secondly, Monroe College will not own Echo Bay , or the Armory for that matter, but I can tell you Forest City WILL own every square foot of the project area, period. “Greenspace” and “parkland”, as you call it, is not the same as public space. Forest City could, if they needed, close, or strictly limit, all public access for a myriad of reasons. That, my friend is the definition of private property in a nutshell.
If you want to talk about the green aspect of the equation, nothing that will replace it will ever recoup the loss of the embeded energy. That being said, why not take advantage of that and make it a world class example of leading edge technology for energy conservation? This type of platform exists anywhere around here. There’s plenty of high density development though.
Echo Bay, and New Rochelle deserve better not bigger. So I would suggest really trying to see how Echo Bay AND the Armory would support and help each other grow in a way that truly brings not only change, but a natural improvement to the quality of life for all of New Rochelle (including the surrounding neighborhoods). If you really want what’s best for this city, you can’t simply jump onto the bandwagon of the latest developer to put his notion of what we need in front of us. In doing so, the only one who benefits will be the developer.
Baxter,
Not a
Baxter,
Not a sentimentalist, are you?
That’s fine. Sentimentality doesn’t have a place in any of my reasons for saving the armory. As I have tried to demonstrate, much urban planning literature supports the idea of saving the armory, wholly apart from any sentimental reasons.
Why do you think the Armory is incompatible with waterfront development access and development? Wouldn’t it be nice to take in an exciting basketball game at the Armory and then stroll down to the water to get a bite to eat at one of the restaurants on Echo Bay. On game days, I wonder if more or less people would frequent the restaurant? And I wonder if someone who was grabbing lunch at a restaurant or doing some shopping wouldn’t mind taking in a ball game once in a while. Or seeing an exhibit in the Armory at an art or museum space? I know I would.
Now imagine that instead of the Armory, we have another row of stores fronting Main Street. Exciting stores, like J. Crew and Banana Republic that would complement that GAP and Brookstone that are already part of the Echo Bay development. So — we could either have an Armory that actively draws another segment of the population of the area and mutually reinforces Echo Bay, or we can have more stores that will not.
Consider again, Jane Jacobs “Any primary use whatever, is by itself relatively ineffectual as a creator of city diversity. If it is combined with another primary use that brings people in and out and puts them on the street at the same time, nothing has been accomplished. In practical terms, we cannot even call these differing primary uses. However, when a primary use is combined, effectively, with another that put people on the street at different times, then the effect can be economically stimulating: a fertile environment for secondary diversity.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities.
These are exactly the alternatives we are considering here. Will more J. Crew stores put people on the street at different times as the Banana Republic? No — the same exact times as the other stores. Will a multipurpose Armory put people on the street at different times from the J. Crew. Absolutely! That is the point. We need a true mixture of uses.
Again — please let me know why you think the Armory would be incompatible with the rest of Echo Bay. Forget that some people have a sentimental value for it. Why, in terms of the development, would they not work together?
comment
the armory is indeed a historic building in the sense that it was built in the early 1930’s to serve a specific military function that was more relevant to that time period. Looking at the armory today it isnt hard to grasp that the building no longer serves a necessary function for the New Rochelle community. I am sure that the structure began falling into disrepair way before the city purchased it from the state for $1. The city intended to use the building for recreational purposes but it doesn’t seem to be the optimal site for such activity. New Rochelle isnt an evil or greedy entity looking to destroy valuable historic sites without blinking an eye, nor is it a power hungry force out to ignore the will of the people who live there. They need to redevelop the waterfront and working to create a new echo bay requires alot of time, energy and dedication from community leaders in order to move it from a ‘plan’ to a ‘reality’. These things aren’t easy and development and planning often requires tough decisions be made.
More importantly it must be reiterated that the city is not made of money and its resources are most wisely appropriated to: schools, parts, recreational facilities, natural areas, affordable housing, emergency services, cultural programs & events and youth programs (just to name a few).
Discussion of the need for “maintaining historical sites/resources/structures” etc. does not really help to support the “save the armory” cause. The city has a number of landmark structures on the National Register of Historic Places and it actively promotes the recognition and preservation of additional structures with programs such as the Heritage Awards. Plus there are several buildings in the city that are currently in need of financial resources for necessary structural improvements & restoration etc., such as Wildcliff. The building is architecturally and historically significant on multiple levels, it is a national landmark site, and it is fairly decent condition at the present time…. It is surely of greater historical value and overall importance than the armory.
The armory building undoubtedly has a unique history that is significant and important to individuals from the community, however, this view is not shared most new rochelle residents.
The Park Avenue Armory was
The Park Avenue Armory was to be knocked down so that it could be developed into residential buildings.
Smarter heads prevailed as that building is now used by the community for shows and recreation purpose. In fact it is considered to be a jewel.Thousands of Armory buildings are used all over the USA for things like community, skating rinks, basketball,track and field for the good of the people.
When NY State wrote the deed they intended the public good not the good of Forest City. It was not any Politicians, to horse trade with. The building is owned by the Citizens of New Rochelle and NY State. Mayor Bramson did not own it he was only charged with its maintanance. The City of New Rochelle failed to maintain it and it fact they self blighted it by trying to have it ruined by the weather. They allowed it to be further damaged for Police and Fire Training. We already have Police and Fire Academy’s in Westchester County. I say they planned willfully to harm the building as a means of self blight. The Mayors Political asperations were attached to his grandiose dream of Echo Bay. I bet his political career gets buried on site right next to the Sewer treament plant.. They both pretty much smell alike.
Thanks for your response. I
Thanks for your response. I whole-heartedly agree that Armories across the nation have been put to new uses. They have been quite successful and there is no reason to believe that the same would not happen here.
Response
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You raise many good points.
As I understand your argument, you believe that New Rochelle would be justified in tearing down the Armory because: (1) it no longer serves its original purpose and it is ill-suited for other recreational purposes; (2) the overarching ends of making Echo Bay a reality outweigh any benefits that preserving the Armory may confer on the community; (3) New Rochelle lacks the resources to preserve the Armory; (4) a preservation-based argument does not support saving the Armory because (a) New Rochelle already has a number of historic sites, (b) New Rochelle actively promotes preservation, (c) other historic sites of greater historical value deserve those resources; and (5) the Armory matters to only a minority of New Rochelle residents.
It may be true that the Armory no longer serves the same purpose that it did when it was first constructed. The goal here, however, is to find a new purpose for the Armory while still acknowledging that it plays an important part in the lives of a number of individuals.
You also argue more or less that “you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet” (a saying often used by an administrator who broke quite a few eggs, Robert Moses). In other words, the concern is about how to make Echo Bay a reality. I share this concern — I would like nothing more to see Echo Bay as a reality. And as I noted in my post, it does not seem that the Armory should in theory stand in the way of Echo Bay. In fact, my concern is that without the Armory, Echo Bay will fail.
How’s that? For a development like Echo Bay to work – and, I mean to really work, not just bring in some tax dollar revenue in the short term – it needs to be anchored by a building of landmark stature. In many instances, these are community and civic centers. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are two giants in the field of New Urbanism. They’ve won every award that you can win. In their, “Traditional Neighborhood Development Checklist” they ask, “Does each neighborhood reserve at least one prominent, honorific site for a civic building, typically at the neighborhood center?” Doesn’t it make more sense to conserve what we already have, what some people (even if a minority) hold very dear, and what will ultimately contribute to the success of the entire development?
You note that it may be ill-suited for recreational purposes, because of its site, and/or its physical condition. My guess is that the Armory appears under-utilized because no one really tried to put it to its broadest use. Also, if no one would use the Armory because of its current siting, than it seems even less likely that anyone would use the proposed community center tucked in at the edge of the property. It goes without saying that updated physical conditions would encourage its use. I wonder how much it would cost to build the new community center?
You also argue that New Rochelle lacks the resources to rehabilitate the Armory. I do not doubt that this is the case. However, I am not sure New Rochelle would be the party who would necessarily have to pick up that tab. In a best case scenario, multiple interested parties could defray the cost. There might be grants available as well depending on the nature of the new purpose. Perhaps I am naive.
I love the fact that New Rochelle is a community that takes its history seriously. And I am with you on the fact that there are more historical sites than money to do them justice. But my reasons for saving the Armory really are not founded in the historical preservation angle as I note above. Sure, the Armory is an impressive building that has much to teach us about a time gone by – obviously in tearing it down we lose the ability to teach generations to come about the time period when it did actually serve its original function. But what I really want is what is best for New Rochelle — which is, in my opinion a forward-thinking and soundly-planned waterfront community with public spaces actually used by the community. We have a better chance to achieve this with the Armory than we do without.
WildCliff & The Armory – Need to be Vaible
First let me say I am impressed with the Jane Jacobs and Robert Mosses mentions. Seems like we are doing are necessary reading.
But, and there is always a but, in regards to WildCliff and the Armory let me state this. Calling for a community center is easy but making it a worthwhile enterprise is the hard part. I have heard some say make the Armory another County Center but when was the last time anybody was at the County Center? For me it was 1986 to see New Ro play Mt Vernon for the Section B-Ball championship and 3 years ago for a NY state political seminar. I have no need for the same stamp and computer shows that play there every year.
If you can achieve a “viable” (viable being the key word) use for the Armory then so be it. Let the building live! But another white elephant New Ro cannot support.
As for WildCliff, it was a museum when I was in elementary school and its only exhibit was the metric system display that NEVER came even though they tried to scare it into us. That is not the buildings fault but it has been dormant not just from disrepair but from no real useful purpose.
I am not against history nor am I against progress but if we are going to preserve these building they have to have a real purpose and community center is just too vague of a term.
New Rochelle News and Views Radio Program
Thursday Nights at 8pm
WVOX 1460 am or http://www.wvox.com
Agreed
Bruce,
I agree 100%. This is what I want to focus on over the next few weeks: i.e. developing a compelling vision for the Armory which would be viable and which would enrich the community. Stamp shows and computer shows (you forgot “starving artist” shows) are really not what I have in mind. We need to develop a vision not only to avoid a white elephant, but more urgently, that without such a vision, the Armory is lost anyway. The only way to save the Armory is to develop a coherent idea about its use (ASAP) that stimulates the imagination and gets people excited (especially those with deep pockets). John D has provided a number of great examples of other armories repurposed as arts spaces. The Torpedo Factory in Alexandria is another great example (not an Armory per se).
Thus, I currently lean towards the Armory as an arts space. I am vaguely aware that the New Rochelle performing arts council is looking for a space and that they were pitching for a vacant church on North Avenue. I think the Armory is a better location. I see the Armory as a combination theatre, music, film and arts space. I also see the Armory drawing on New Rochelle’s history (1920s, 30s-ish) as a center for the arts. This gives the perfect entre to the folks who currently use the Armory to keep using the Armory. How great would it be to have this in the middle of a revitalized waterfront? Again, I hear you, easier said than done — the first step is developing a vision, the second step is drawing up a plan with concrete steps.
http://www.armoryonpark.org/
http://www.armoryonpark.org/
http://www.redbankarmory.com/
http://www.armoryarts.org/
http://ny.milesplit.us/
http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/parks.detail/object_id/a2a37d39-6ce4-4113-a5eb-0147d8567e5c.cfm
http://www.sfarmory.com/
http://www.ourarmory.org/
Google brings so many Armory’s being used for the public good. How come New Rochelle’s only bright idea is to use it for the good of Forest City.
There is a lack of foresight, a great deal of shortsight, and very little insight. And in the end what the Mayor has brought is a good deal of Blight.
I urge Citizens of New Rochelle to use their Electoral Might when it comes to Property owned by Citizens being commingled with developer assets. What do we get in exchange. Nothing but a bonding for a moved City Yard. Not all that bright.
Vote the Democrats out!!!!
They have destroyed New Rochelle over the last 50 years. They have no one else to blame. Let’s get some people in there with business sense and common sense and much less corrupt.