Developers rarely seek out landmark status — often they run the other way. But according to a story in The New York Times, the developer of 910 Union Street in Park Slope is hoping to get the building landmarked (though the commission has not received an application yet). American Development Group added five floors to the original two-story Elks Club building. The developer did make an effort to maintain portions of the original structure, including a limestone entryway and cornice. It also used brick color-matched to the original for the five-story addition. Says Perry Finkelman, a partner with the firm, “what I wanted was for the average person to look at it and think it was created during that historic time period.”

Commenters were lukewarm on the building when we wrote about its reveal in October: “from the sidewalk in front that leaves me saying ‘what could they have been thinking?’ Still, it could have been much worse, if the original renderings from 18 months ago were anything to go by. With this reveal, my final verdict would be ‘meh!’” What do you think? Is this building worthy of being landmarked? Should buildings that have been so drastically altered be considered for landmark status?

910 Union Tops Off, but Not Much Else [Brownstoner]
910 Union Starting to Rise [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: 910 Union Street [Brownstoner]
Condo Coming to Union Street in the Slope [Brownstoner] GMAP DOB


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. In a neighborhood where “Landmarked” is a coveted title, trying to spread talk of “applying for landmark status” is a marketing gambit, and nothing more. If potential occupants care about such things a broker can say the developer “applied for landmark status” which may sway the truly g`ullible, but it really means nothing. There is no way in hell this bastardized, brutalized, and metastasized form could ever be considered for landmarking. It s a grotesque and cynical ploy.

    Oh, and thanks for the quote! 🙂