Riverside Trees in Their Youth: Early 1900s

By on October 16, 2011 12:40 am in History, Landmark Preservation, Legal, Nature

To counter allegations by Pinnacle Group, which seeks to remove the trees in the courtyard between the A.T. White Riverside Apartments and the BQE to build an underground parking garage, that the trees are of recent growth, Bill Ringler, President of the Riverside Tenants’ Association, has done some sleuthing and found this photo, dating from the early 1900s and published in Hayes Historical Journal — A Journal of the Gilded Age, Volume IX, Number 1 (Fall 1989).

According to Mr. Ringler:

The photo was taken from the South of the fountain facing North to the rear of 24 Joralemon Street. The buildings on the left were demolished in the 50’s to construct the BQE. These trees are the same ones that exist today. It is evident by the limbs on the trees.

The photo is of the teachers and students of the Willow Place Chapel Kindergarten of the First Unitarian Church.

Addendum: Below is another photo taken at the same occasion, as it appeared on the cover of the Journal:


The flag has 45 stars, a configuration which lasted from 1896 to 1907.

Share this Story:

, , , , , , , , , ,

  • Bill Ringler

    These pictures were taken after Utah became a state in 1986. Oklahoma became the 46th State in 1907. Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona were still territories when these pictures were taken and our current trees were here.

  • stuart

    the bottom line is that trees on private property are not protected in any way. There is no “Historic Tree and Shrub Preservation Commission”. If the owners wished to take them down for any reason, they could. Same as brownstone owners with trees in their backyard. If the rent regulated tenants of this complex wish to fight the improvements proposed by their landlord, they need to come up with a better argument.

  • Bill Ringler

    The Riverside Tenants have service reduction issues with the NY State Division of Housing and Community Renewal regarding service modifications in the courtyard. The DHCR has issued 3 orders denying the removal of the trees and the construction of the proposed parking garage.

    The tenants have a decision from NY State Supreme Court Judge, Hon. Bernadette Bayne, barring the removal of the trees. Mr Fisher has filed a notice of intent to appeal the Supreme Court decision to NY State Appellate Court, but has not submitted documents yet. If the landlord does remove the trees at this point, he could be held in contempt of court.

    The Judgement was entered at an IAS Term, Part 18 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held at the courthouse, at Civil Center, Brooklyn, NY of the 15th day of April 2011. Index # 15842/10.

  • stuart

    so the tenants claim that the loss of the trees would amount to a reduction of services from the landlord? That’s amazing! Only in New York as they say. What if the trees fall on their own? Do the tenants get a reduction in rent?

  • Bill Ringler

    There is also a contractual consideration involved here. None of the tenants was notified that their peaceful courtyard (a required service) would be removed and replaced with a commercial parking garage which would be operated 24-hours a day, 7-days a week, when they signed their leases. There is a lot involved here besides the trees, which are protected by law at this point.

  • stuart

    Bill, but as I understand it, the garage would be underground and therefore not visible or audible by the tenants, also a new, very nice garden would be built over the garage with trees and shrubbery placed so as to better block out the noise and pollution from the BQE, which was built right through the complex.
    I understand the tenants’ concerns. A new capital improvement may result in rent increases. A nice new garage and beautiful new garden would increase the value of the building.
    This debate reminds me of the uproar over the new Brooklyn Bridge Park, which some said would destroy civilization as we know it.

  • Bill Ringler

    It is not an improvement, the increased noise will still be in the courtyard, the danger of moving cars is still in the courtyard, the air-pollution will still be mitigated into the courtyard. The landlord does not have all the necessary permits, and the garage can not be built.

    The illustrations presented are the the LPC are unobtainable. They don’t show a docking area for cars to be moved, they don’t show an attendants booth, they don’t show the fence the landlord says he will build, they don’t show the ventilation or exhaust system. The 2011 garage proposal is a sham.

    Stuart, I hope the landlord is giving you a nice check for your services. You earned it.

  • stuart

    LOL!
    I have no idea who the landlord even is. I do know that many fine residential buildings have garages in them. It is generally considered a plus not a minus.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com Claude Scales

    Stuart: if you don’t know who the landlord is, you didn’t read the top post.

  • Eddyenergizer

    stuart, the addition of a parking garage will not transform the Riverside Apartments into “fine residential buildings” Not to put them down but they are not what one would call luxury apartments.

  • stuart

    Claude, yes, sorry, the pinnacle group, but I have no idea who they are.

  • stuart

    Eddy, are you saying the complex is too crappy to even try to improve?
    That’s cold.

  • http://selfabsorbedboomer.blogspot.com Claude Scales

    Stuart: here’s some information about Pinnacle: http://tinyurl.com/3p4b8ee

    Unfortunately, you’re right when you say, “There is no ‘Historic Tree and Shrub Preservation Commission’.” Still, a legal scholar has raised this question: http://tinyurl.com/6d99r4b

    And, I can’t resist the quotation from Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax at the head of the linked review: “I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.”

    Neither do underground parking garages, but to which would you rather listen?

  • bklyn20

    Pinnacle’s pretty pictures are just that and nothing more. Trees of the species and sizes shown cannot grow in that depth of soil above the garage roof. If every picture tells a story, then this one is a malevolent fairy tale.

  • Eddyenergizer

    No stuart, I am not saying that. There is plenty of room for improvement, to the buildings. I know someone who lives there and I have seen the shoddy level of maintenance that Pinnacle provides. Perhaps if they gave everyone in the building a new bathroom or kitchen, Pinnacle would get their garage.

  • stuart

    new bathrooms and kitchens would mean hefty rent increases, be careful what you ask for on behalf of the residents.

  • Eddyenergizer

    Not necessarily, not all types of improvements are eligible for an MCI rent increase. Besides, what I said was a hypothetical way of saying; if Pinnacle took better care of the residents they might have less resistance to their plan. I know they would never actually replace all the kitchens and bathroom in the entire building.

    How do you imagine a garage would improve the building, anyway?

  • bklyn20

    The garage wouldn’t be for the residents. It would be for Pinnacle. I believe that most of the tenants have signed a document stating that they have no interest in using the garage.

    This discussion also ignores the historic importance of the building, which has been discussed in earlier posts on the topic. Given another landlord, this building would be an individual landmark all on its own.