Challenges for the Southern Area

Over the past half-century, the flight of industry and subsequent loss of jobs have resulted in a host of issues that challenge preservation of the Southern area’s important historic built fabric.  This set of circumstances has spawned a variety of other issues, such as building neglect, vacant structures, lots built well under the allowable FAR, and a lack of recreational space, all of which significantly impact efforts to preserve the industrial buildings and historic residential structures found on either side of the river.  Recent interest in reinvestment in Mott Haven and the Bronx Terminal Market in particular, although promising for the area’s long-term economic health, acts as a double-edged sword for preservationists, as eager developers and uninformed new residents threaten historic buildings with demolition and insensitive alterations.

But before we can consider a potential influx of new residents, we must analyze the existing communities in the Southern area to reveal several issues endemic to the region as a whole.  The neighborhoods of Mott Haven and Bronx Terminal Market are not primarily residential, and research suggests that there are few local resources for supporting or restoring existing historic buildings.  In Harlem, on the other hand, the far more residential character of the neighborhoods, as evidenced by building type and relative population figures, also does not appear to support a population for whom preservation is a top priority.

The considerable challenge of housing affordability and availability is reflected in the percentage of renters versus owners in the Southern area, particularly in Harlem.  In 2000, only 8.5% of residents own their dwellings in Mott Haven, Harlem, and the Bronx Terminal Market area, as compared to 30.2% citywide.  Ownership issues are aggravated by an unemployment rate of 16.8% in the Southern area, which is nearly double the citywide rate of 9.6%.  Median income and the percentage of households that fall under the poverty level also reflect the larger economic issues that impact the community’s ability, willingness, and interest in preserving their built resources.  Median income in the area in 1999 was just over $10,000 per year, less than half the citywide average, and nearly one third of the Southern area residents lived below the poverty level (Refer to Appendix II: Demographics for additional information).

Social challenges attendant to the economic ones detailed above include public safety, poverty, teenage pregnancy, and substance abuse.  Although social challenges do not necessarily impact preservation efforts directly, they do tend to overwhelm them when it comes to allocation of often-scant community resources and attention.  Addressing some of these demographic issues – particularly home ownership - can lead to a greater awareness of preservation priorities in the area.  While the specific application of existing preservation tools, laws, and the implementation of new programs will be covered in the subsequent Recommendations section, an overview of the challenges that impact Harlem, Mott Haven and the Bronx Terminal Market area must first be considered.  

Harlem:

Housing

For many years Harlem has been characterized by its high percentage of public housing projects, and the negative connotations associated with these structures.  The general public often views residential complexes in Harlem, like the Harlem River Houses, Abraham Lincoln Houses, Riverbend, and Riverton, in a negative light, even though they were designed to improve living conditions within the city. Currently many of these developments are experiencing a rebirth as property values rise in Harlem and city management agencies increasingly work with tenants to resolve problems with crime, maintenance, and vandalism. These buildings are now increasingly seen as quality, affordable housing, and in the case of some, the negative associations with their past are quickly dissipating.

Despite the presence of these large residential structures, the Harlem portion of our study area continues to suffer from shortage of affordable housing. To the west and south of the neighborhood, in Central Harlem, new development has already taken place. Big box retailers such as Pathmark and Old Navy have moved in and the price of residential real estate has risen. Dozens of vacant tenement buildings in Central Harlem, which could have been used for lower and middle-income mixed housing units, have been subjected to serious alterations, including cornice removals, window replacement, and gut renovations. The recently renovated historic brownstones are selling for a minimum of $500,000. These nearby development projects have raised issues in our study area of gentrification; rehabilitation projects may attract new tenants into the area, but only those with the funds to undertake such expensive renovation projects. Meanwhile, much of the existing housing stock remains vacant, left vulnerable to deterioration, and in dire need of positive development. 

Vacant Lots

The high visibility of vacant lots in Harlem is indicative of a lack of investment in the area. These voids in the streetscape also contribute to negative perceptions of Harlem. Frequently, these vacant lots have become glutted with refuse and developed into dangerous places where local residents feel unsafe. Although some have been converted to community gardens, parks or playgrounds, vacant lots are generally fenced off and inaccessible. Lots that have not been developed along these lines need to be developed in a manner sensitive to their surrounding environment. 

The new developments should not only be sensitive aesthetically, but socially and economically as well, incorporating existing architecture into overall design schemes. In Harlem, there exists a strong need for public space and social programs for the community, which could be provided through a revitalization of the vacant lots. Some programs are already underway, and suggestions for expansion of these services are described in the Recommendations section.

Social Challenges

In addition to the social challenges mentioned above, which are present throughout the Southern area, there is the problem in Harlem that most of the residents are renters. This becomes a challenge when residents feel they can do little to initiate rehabilitation of the buildings in which they live. As a result, the responsibility belongs to building landlords, many of whom have perpetuated the neglect of their buildings or do not live in the area.  With greater attention focused on Harlem through revitalization programs, increased pressure could come to bear on negligent landlords to improve their buildings.  In the grand tradition of Harlem social support systems, the impact could conceivably ripple outward, helping to alleviate social issues along with the built landscape.

Mott Haven:

Vacant Industrial Buildings

Neglected buildings, vacant lots, and absence of street life all contribute to the perception that Mott Haven is an undesirable area of the Bronx. But these biases overlook the potential inherent in the infrastructure that has served the area throughout its history. Mott Haven’s abundance of warehouses and factory buildings offer both an opportunity and a challenge to the ongoing preservation of the area. What was once considered an industrial foothold is now an area in dire need of repair and revitalization.

Much like the Bronx Terminal Market area, Mott Haven’s image and health of its built fabric has suffered considerably by the evaporation of the industrial economy in New York City during the mid-twentieth century. However, Mott Haven is currently the target of residential and commercial development due to its proximity to the East Side of Manhattan, good transportation and abundance of underused, historic industrial buildings, which could be converted to residential lofts.

Preservation and reuse of these former piano factories, metal working shops, and light industrial facilities hinges on stabilization and application of proper conservation and maintenance programs. The predominant structural system in the area are load-bearing masonry buildings, which were generally built in the period between 1880 and 1920. Structurally sound, these buildings suffer from a number of conservation-related issues stemming mainly from willful neglect, inappropriate maintenance, and insensitive alterations. These challenges also affect the windows of many factories, which were either wood framed in the late nineteenth century or steel casements in the later daylight factories. While these are an important architectural element to the buildings, many have been lost. This issue is examined in more detail in Appendix I: Conservation.

Unsteady Economic Opportunities

Mott Haven faces a lack of both economic investment and initiation of historic preservation programs. It is a neighborhood that contains a variety of structures that once successfully operated together to generate economic vitality for over a century.  Although these issues remain extremely important for the promotion of civic pride in the area, about half of Mott Haven’s community lives below the poverty level, which results in more pressing and immediate social concerns. Due to the lack of funding for the revitalization of the Mott Haven area, the situation has generated and exacerbated more problems such as vacant lots, illegal dumping, and a lack of recreational activities. Mott Haven seems to be on the fringes of the city’s consciousness, and its buildings are the recipient of abuse, neglect, and in many cases, grossly oversized billboards. 

Despite these challenges, there seems to be hope in recent developments in Mott Haven.  Slowly, some real estate development has seen the conversion of factory spaces into the coveted artist’s loft, and a small-scale economic revitalization program has given birth to “Antiques’ Row,” a row of shops that specializes in used furniture, along Bruckner Boulevard.  Yet, presently, theseare very small aspects of what could be a significant development. The area’s excellent transportation links to Manhattan, including both rail and auto, along with its low rents are attracting the attention of developers, renters, and professionals alike, as all of them are seeking the “next big discovery” in New York neighborhoods.  Planning for this kind of development with preservation in mind will only enhance its long-term chances for success, revitalization, and maintenance of this community’s distinct industrial character.

Redevelopment Plans

A number of potential “soft-sites” in Mott Haven are currently threatened by demolition and new construction due to existing zoning regulations, increasing pressure on historic structures from real-estate development, and housing demands. Adapting current structures for housing and introducing new zoning with commercial overlays and residential districts could encourage a mixed usage of the neighborhood. This would increase investment to the area and create an influx of residents and businesses.

Some reinvestment of this type has already begun in the area. As this continues, owners must be educated about how to properly care for their historic buildings and how to adapt them sensitively to new uses. Many of the factories and warehouses have already been converted into illegal residential lofts, and others serve as support for large signage or billboards. Neither of these practices is appropriate for the historic structures in the area nor do they provide a long-term community investment. It is essential that new development is regulated and modifications and alterations be monitored. The fundamental goals of preservation in an area on the brink of renewed interest, like Mott Haven, should be to try and make the area economically self-supporting while preserving its architectural fabric.

Finding suitable uses for the existing historic buildings as an alternative to all-new construction remains a pressing issue in the area. The situation is further hampered, by the legacy of the industrial era and the presence of Brownfields on some of the neglected industrial sites (See Appendix V: Ecological Concerns for more information on Brownfields). Although, because of existing federal and state programs, sites such as the Mott Iron Works could yet become prime candidates for developers taking advantage of tax credits on these polluted lots.

Bronx Terminal Market:

Underused, Under-built Historic Industrial Sites

The diminished industrial economy in New York City has negatively impacted the area of the Bronx Terminal Market in much the same way as its neighbors to the south and west. The phenomenon has left many of the buildings underused and neglected, and as a result, many of the lots are significantly under-built due to the current allowable FARs. Such soft sites include the Bronx Terminal Market complex itself, and its attendant piers and slips, where as-of-right redevelopment could add up to a total of two million square feet.

Many of the industrial buildings in the area have been subject to insensitive alterations and willful neglect by absentee landlords. Although the buildings for the most part are structurally sound, insensitive modifications have been made in many cases to accommodate new uses.  The Cashman Laundry Building, for example, in its conversion to a school, lost its original windows and other Moderne details that had distinguished this important historic structure. 

At the Bronx Terminal Market itself, new wholesale market tenants have blocked up windows, punctured walls, and modified the exteriors of the original concrete facades.  The larger Cold Storage Building has suffered a worse fate, with the removal of its rooftop towers, damage from arson, and structural destabilization through neglect.  Other more mundane maintenance issues, such as graffiti, the presence of billboards on historic building facades, and the improper maintenance of materials, have also resulted from the under-utilization of these once busy structures.

Due to the aesthetic conditions in this area, that have resulted from neglect and under-use, the Bronx Terminal Market has been unfairly characterized as a blighted district with few redeeming qualities. This attitude, when combined with negligence on the part of property owners, feeds a negative perception of the South Bronx, which is frequently viewed as one of the city’s most stagnant and economically depressed areas.  Shifting economic circumstances, particularly the departure of industry from New York, have impacted many other areas of the city over time; neighborhoods, such as Soho, Williamsburg, and DUMBO have all been affected by these changes, but their communities and historic built fabric have managed to bounce back and find new uses. This type revitalization could also occur in the Bronx Terminal Market.

Threats from New Development

Despite the threats that underdevelopment and under-use pose to the historic built fabric of the Bronx Terminal Market area, future development, particularly at the Terminal Market site itself, presents an equally challenging issue.  For nearly thirty years, the City and the Terminal Market’s leaseholder, Strategic Development Corporation, clashed over the future of the site and its buildings.  In March of 2004, however, the stalemate was broken when the lease was sold to the Related Companies, the development corporation behind the new Time-Warner Center on Columbus Circle. The Bronx Terminal Market area is now set for development as a retail complex.  Among the early announced plans are razing the 1925 Cold Storage building, which was once the centerpiece of the bustling market complex.¹

The significantly under-built lots, particularly the two-story concrete structures and refrigeration plant, are at immediate risk of demolition by developers eager to take advantage of the sites’ potential. The political players involved in the future of the site seem to share the developers’ apparent disregard of existing historic resources. Also of concern is the impact on the surrounding industrial built fabric if the Terminal Market site is razed in favor of new construction.  The goals of developers and preservationists do not have to be mutually exclusive in the Bronx Terminal Market area, and the Recommendations section details a plan for taking advantage of the sites’ obvious development potential along with its significant historic resources.

Although the existing Bronx Terminal Market businesses employ about 500 people, the buildings remain an underutilized resource for an area in need of economic stimulation.² The adjacent residential community is underserved by the nearby riverfront and the lack of a year-round connection between the Market and Yankee Stadium misses an opportunity enjoyed by the surrounding areas of major sports complexes in other cities.  These issues should be combined with the goal of preserving the locally, regionally, and nationally significant resources in the area.

Bridges and Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation has always been a key feature of the Bronx Terminal Market’s built environment. However, the area faces the challenge of meeting modern traffic demands while maintaining the historic integrity of the infrastructure. As noted previously, six bridges, constructed between 1895 and 1954, span the Harlem River in the Southern section; these are the Macomb’s Dam, 125th Street, Madison Avenue, Park Avenue, 3rd Avenue, and Willis Avenue Bridges.  Of these, all but the Park Avenue railroad lift bridge, are swing bridges. Their construction represents an important engineering development of the late nineteenth century that was perfectly suited to the low elevation banks of the southern Harlem River. The conservation issues of the bridges in this area are similar to those discussed in depth in the Central Section of the Preservation Plan, please refer to this portion of the text for more details.

The Bronx Terminal Market area, and indeed the entire Harlem River waterfront of the South Bronx, also faces difficulties due to the presence of the Major Deegan Expressway. This presence of the elevated roadway casts a long shadow over large sections of land, which creates a psychological and sometimes physical barrier to pedestrian traffic. As will be discussed in greater detail in the Central section of the preservation plan, the presence of the Major Deegan Expressway is an asset and liability to the study area. It simultaneously offers easy automotive transportation access while casting a pall over the waterfront area. The Metro North tracks and other freight lines in the Terminal Market Area also complicate preservation and development by cutting access to the waterfront.

¹ Charles V. Bagli, “Developer Buys Faded Market In the Bronx,” New York Times, (April 3, 2004), B1.

² Article from local Bronx paper.