LPC Calendars Two Brooklyn Buildings
Two Brooklyn buildings are set for a public hearing at Landmarks on March 22nd. The first is 2307 Beverly Road, the Sears Roebuck building in Ditmas Park Flatbush. According to this Forgotten NY article, the “huge Art Moderne monolith” was built in 1932 and was the first Sears retailer in NYC. Back in 2007, FNY…
Two Brooklyn buildings are set for a public hearing at Landmarks on March 22nd. The first is 2307 Beverly Road, the Sears Roebuck building in Ditmas Park Flatbush. According to this Forgotten NY article, the “huge Art Moderne monolith” was built in 1932 and was the first Sears retailer in NYC. Back in 2007, FNY wrote, “Sadly, it appears that Sears is only doing the bare minimum amount of maintenance to the store. I’m guessing that its days are numbered.” Hopefully not anymore! The other is the Public National Bank of New York Building at 47 Graham Avenue. According to the LPC, it was built in 1921-23 and designed by Eugene Schoen. “Designed in the form of a one-story temple, and clad in terra cotta or cast stone (now painted), it features rusticated columns and corner piers on both principal facades that frame rectangular and round-arched fenestration. Panels and entrance surrounds display a combination of classical and Secessionist ornament.”
Photos by Forgotten NY and Emilio Guerra
There’s a very good reason why all the landmarks are in the central core areas that are best served by public transportation – that’s where they built the old buildings! And when they built the subways, they put service to those areas with a lot of people first – the same areas that had been well served by trollies, horse cars, els and other mass transit (and then kept going, which led to more development).
City Planning has jurisdiction over 100% of the buildings in the city. So too does DOB; HPD has jurisdiction over far more buildings. There are many agencies that severely restrict what you can and can’t do with your property. It is part of how we function as a society.
Landmark neighborhoods do tend to be more stable, real estate-wise. They retain property values better than adjacent non-landmarked areas in downturns and and appreciate better in upturns (granted, I’ve seen no data on the latest boom and bust). Whether that is a result of landmarking or not is open to debate, but the trend holds in well-to-do and less well-to-do nabes.
Personally, I think some landmark regulation needs to be rethought – I am much more disturbed by the increasing jurisdiction of LPC on the regulation side than I am on the designation side. In other words, I’m fine with LPC designating more buildings and regulating the big picture issues, but wish that the burden on property owners for the small stuff was less.
But I would make that same assertion about DOB and all the others.
“this guy has been making the same arguments for years”
So what? He believes in his cause and continues to make his case, as you, Montrose and Bxgrl do.
“always based on a very narrowly-selected bunch of statistics – which can be made to say whatever one wants.”
You make this statement, yet offer no proof or citation. How are his statisitcs narrowly-selected? If you believe that they do not tell the whole story, show us some statistics that state otherwise.
Is he incorrect when he states that more than 20,000 buildings are under the LPC’s jurisdiction? Is he incorrect when he states that 15% of Manhattan below 96th Street is now landmarked?
Thank you bxgrl and babs for eloquently speaking for the cause.
I don’t see landmarking, eminent domain, or zoning issues as all or nothing.
I think all decisions need to look for the proper balance between landowner rights, the good of neighbors, and the greater good of the city.
In the case of Atlantic Yards, I am generally in favor of the eminent domain needed for the arena, since that is a building with public good that could not be reasonably be built only by piecing together private land.
(Note, I think the AY project as carried out has been an abortion of good government for many other reasons)
I am against eminent domain when used for almost all commercial and residential projects.
I think the wholesale demolition blocks in the Lower East side and other areas of the city for private apartments was the worst land use decision in the history of the city.
No saying anyone is lying, just that this guy has been making the same arguments for years, always based on a very narrowly-selected bunch of statistics – which can be made to say whatever one wants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
I agree, Sparafucile- but I also believe in compromise and working together, not having one member of a community thumbing his nose at the rest. And the city is large enough that you could find a place with the flexibility and little liberty you want.
A neighborhood is a community, and in my opinion the people are more important than the buildings. If doing something that I find aesthetically unpleasant is what makes my neighbor happy, then I’ll wish him well and just have to live with it. I don’t want the power of the state invoked to impose my, or anyone else’s, preferences in matters of taste.
The possibility that landmarking might increase my property values doesn’t impress me. I’m willing to lose a few dollars at resale in order to live somewhere where people have a little liberty to pursue their own vision of home.
Part of being a human being and making a city livable is respecting your neighbors enough to adopt a live and let live attitude even when the results are not to your liking.
BHS- property rights is an interesting subject. I wonder what did you think about the use of eminent domain ( At least the very real threat) for Ratner, a private developer? Or the Kelo decision? I’m curious how property rights are defined because landmarking lets you keep your building and does improve the neighborhood. If you support Kelo or the use of eminent domain to give property to a private developer under the overly vague “for the greater good” label, then your definition of property rights is a little confusing.
My neighborhood is not rich, and no one is going bankrupt because of landmarking. The LPC is not a monolithic, forget about the homeowner type of organization. They do understand the impact of landmarking and try to find solutions to mitigate or ease that impact. But a neighborhood is a community, and as someone said, we hold our architectural and historical heritage in trust for future generations. Maybe that heritage isn’t important to you, but it is for a great many people. It’s part of being a human being, and making the city livable.
Babs;
The article I cited was from the most recent issue of Atlantic Magazine.
I think you would do well to make a reasoned argument, rather than just stating that a person with an opposing POV has an “ax to grind” and is lying.