View Static Version
Loading

Navy Yard Houses Brooklyn, NY

Unique and challenging projects are viewed as opportunities at Martina Bacarella Architect (MBA). Choosing complicated projects has enabled our designers to gain valuable experience in building a foundation of broad technical expertise. Projects requiring technical complexity and innovative thinking are a welcomed challenge for us. A strength of ours is the ability to focus on projects requiring one or more of the following attributes: Technical Complexity, Innovative & Creative, Proactive Project Management, High Quality Services, Teamwork & Leadership, Significant Capacity and Resources. Below is an example of a project that highlights our ability to problem solve design solutions.

Also known as Wallabout Houses, the 13-story building was built as a WPA public works project during the Great Depression to house naval soldiers that were stationed at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Today it is affectionately referred to as the “Eagle Building” because of the large limestone eagles on the buildings’ corners that can be seen from throughout the surrounding historic Brooklyn neighborhoods that date back to the 17th century. It is now a government subsidized residential co-op building.

MBA has been the architect of record for the building for more than 10 years. In 2007 we prepared technical reports after hands-on investigation from swing stage scaffolds. We worked closely with the building’s shareholders and New York City’s Housing and Preservation Department (HPD) in developing a scope of work, drawings and specifications for replacing the slate sills with cast stone and stainless steel pans; replacing spalled brick at the facades and parapets; resecuring, and re-caulking the aluminum coping covers at the parapets: repointing the brick and limestone; applying a waterproofing clear coating; pinning back the parapets with helical anchors and replacing the built-up roof membrane with an SBS roof system and stainless steel flashings and PMMA flashings at roof penetrations. The project was publicly bid and we successfully worked with the lowest bidder.

There were numerous site conditions that made the job challenging. The work had to be completed while the building was fully occupied. The building is 13 stories tall, 156,000 square feet and has 158 residential units. Additionally, there were other capital restoration projects going on at the same time (window replacement, chimney flue repairs and elevator upgrades). In short, some of the parameters for the masonry restoration included the following.

1. All facades had to be investigated from hanging scaffold prior to repair operations. We documented all existing masonry conditions from the scaffolds. We offered design solutions for protection at the street level for pedestrians and residents. Sidewalk bridges and fencing were used selectively and cost effectively throughout.

2. We developed an innovative detail for the new sill detail. We replaced the existing bluestone sills with more affordable custom designed cast stone and had a unique method for anchoring it and flashing it with stainless steel pans.

3. Prior to masonry work, the existing windows had to be removed (under a separate contract). This entailed removing the asbestos containing sealant at the window surrounds, too. We were responsible for overseeing the asbestos abatement contractor’s work and the air monitoring by an on-site testing agency.

4. Throughout construction we had weekly field meetings with representatives from HPD, managing agency, the cooperative’s shareholders and the contractors.

5. After masonry repairs were completed, we had to sign-off on the work by visually inspecting it again from scaffold. We had to set up parameters for keeping masonry dust from infiltrating the building and keeping residents safe. We specified specific paints so as to minimize scraping of steel lintels and to keep lead paint dust down to a minimum.

6. Based on our investigation from scaffolds we were able to use the money allotted for the whole project on areas that really needed it. For example, less brick replacement was needed than originally thought and we were able to use those funds for repointing areas that needed it.

7. There was money left over from the original contract and we were able to use if for additional required work –replacing roof membranes at the egress stair bulkheads and repairing spalled concrete at the water tower.