house
We just got word that the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously this morning to designate 70 Lefferts Place. Here’s a detailed account from the comments of yesterday’s post:

LPC unanimously approved designating 70 Lefferts Place a NYC individula landmark today. The developer even said, at the public hearing, that he was willing to work within the existing structure to develop condominiums in an adaptive reuse manner. That made it easier for the LPC, I’m sure, but don’t think it was the dispositive factor in their decision. They held that it was architecturally significant, historically significant due to the heritage of owners such as father divine, and in a good state of repair considering its age.

The turnout was large: Lefferts Place Civic Associatoin representatives spoke in favor of designation, CB2 representatives supported the designation, as did Tish James, another gov’t representative whose name I missed, the Clinton Hill Society, and numerous residents of the street and nearby areas, old and new, spoke to the history and significance of the home historically and personally

The LPC commended the developer’s (Chris Morris) statement that he is willing to work with the community and stated that once his work is finished within the LPC guidelines, he should be held up as an example of a good developer who worked with the desires of the community and with LPC in preserving the heritage of the area while helping to provide more housing.

The Clinton Hill Society representative noted that next quarter the change in zoning of residential blocks such as Lefferts Place, in both Clinton Hill and Fort Greene, from R6 to R6B is on the calendar. This would prevent towers from being built on residential brownstone blocks. The logical correlation (or compromise) to that is that commercial streets such as Fulton and Myrtle could be built more densely (read taller), thereby providing more residential density above businesses on those commercial streets, while preserving the attractive historic residential blocks.

Additionally, next year, the Clinton Hill Society (and Fort Greene Association) will be presenting its application to expand the landmark district to those blocks (such as Lefferts Place and other blocks between Fulton and Atlantic) that were not designated landmarks 20 years. From what I’ve heard, the lack of designation years ago was rather arbitrarily based on the fact that Fulton Street is a commercial street that divided those blocks from the rest of FG/CH. That’s ironic since some of the non-designated blocks have older homes than the designated ones and are almost fully intact.

In any event, now developers are fully aware of the issues, and future plans of the neighborhood and can plan accordingly and prevent unnecessary headaches when looking at opportunities.

All in all, a good deal for Lefferts Place and Clinton Hill. I’m sure Chris Morris is not thrilled, but the goodwill he will generate if he plays this correctly may go a long way not just with this property, but with the other 3 or 4 properties he said he bought (recent NYT article) in neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed AY project.


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Anon 3:35 PM: The developer still owns the property, and has the Landmarks Commission’s active support in finding a way to make it a profitable venture without demolishing it. Not such a bad deal for a guy who told the NY Times he has $15,000,000 worth of property in the area. I suspect, if he renovates it well, people will spend serious money for units in a historic house like that. And he can gain priceless good publicity as a developer who does the right thing, a rarity in this grab-what-you-can market.

  2. how does the developer get compensated for this? will the community or city buy back the property from him? this doesn’t seem much different than eminent domain. i can’t imagine how any property owner would be supportive of this.

  3. This really is a victory of preservation over willy-nilly development. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that the preservation of the past is important? This decision should give hope to anyone or group in NYC who are trying to protect a single building in danger of being destroyed, especially in an historic neighborhood.

    I fail to see how that makes supporters and neighbors of this building “nimbys”. Let’s just throw names around, shall we? And to use the needed affordable housing argument is also specious. No one has/had any plans of building affordable housing here. The house would have been replaced by unneeded lux condos of some sort. Let’s hope the owner and LPC can continue a dialogue that results in something everyone can be happy about.

  4. I was hoping they’d turn it into a Key-Food or a parking lot. Furthermore, with the apparently desparate need for housing for everyone at the expense of an example of what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place, could we raze the Brooklyn Museum of Art and dig up Prospect Park. Just think how many extra houses we could put in there.

    I do feel truly sorry for the altruistic developers though, as many people have inidicated, they are really only try to help us. I mean help themselves.

  5. I find it frightening that a poster suggests the developer should want to harm anyone. Also, the individuals who viewed this development as some kind of plus for lower income people, you should have been at the hearing and made that point. I think you need to be enlightened as to how much the units were going for. And I question your description of an eighty-something African American follower of Father Divine ,who travelled from Philadelphia to ask that this significant home where she once lived and served food during the depression, as a “Wealthy elitist.”
    Again, might have helped if you were actually there.