wallabout-vanderbilt-072710.jpg
Big news for the Brooklyn preservation scene: Yesterday the Landmarks Preservation Commission calendared two new historic districts in the borough, Wallabout and Park Place; though relatively small, both districts contain some very important 19th century architecture. The Wallabout Historic District is actually just one block of Vanderbilt Avenue between Myrtle and Park Avenues (pictured), where 55 pre-Civil War buildings stand, including many frame houses. (Some preservationists, including the Historic Districts Council, have been advocating for a much larger swath of Wallabout to be protected.) The proposed Park Place Historic District includes 13 Romanesque Revival row houses with Queen Anne style details on Park Place between Franklin and Bedford Avenues in Crown Heights. Built in 1894, these buildings are are thought to be designed by Walter Coots, the architect of the homes in the recently-landmarked Alice and Agate Courts Historic District. The dates for the hearing are unknown as of yet, but along with the push for the Bedford Historic District, it looks like LPC is paying greater attention to more areas around Brooklyn.
New Historic Districts Proposed for Brooklyn [Observer]
Neighborhood at Risk: Wallabout [HDC]


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

  1. Oh, and Brownstoner got the neighborhood right, although the Observer did not. The Park Place houses are in Crown Heights North, in the Crow Hill section of the neighborhood. Prospect Heights does not extend to Bedford Avenue, no matter how badly real estate concerns want it to.

  2. Perhaps with more areas being landmarked, the city will realize that the LPC is an important department that needs more funding and more staff. Budget, smudget, the city spends money on what it deems important, and can find the money if it wants to. Landmarking and the LPC are important agencies, and should be properly funded. People act as if we’ve gone and landmarked the whole city. Nothing is farther from the truth. Only 3% of the building stock of this city is landmarked.

    Carol Gardens is exactly right.

  3. benson,

    You know I tend to disagree with you on landmarking and I favor landmarking of buildings of a certain age with architectural detail and significance. But I would not be in favor of landmarking, for example, large swaths of 19th century housing in S. Slope/Greenwood. Row after row of low rise 19th century frame houses with very little architectural detail on the facade.

  4. That block of Vanderbilt is unique and home to many exceptional buildings. No one is saying that every single block with 19th century buildings should be landmarked! And although one house at the end (at Park) is still exceptionally dumpy, there has been some renovations on the block recently. What makes you think that most people in the new district aren’t for the designation? It requires a great deal of work to organize and approach the LPC–this does not happen unless the majority of owners are on board.

  5. Since I avoid the BQE mostly it could have worsened at a greater clip than it used to.

    I lived in the grey one 3 buildings in. You could see the eye to eye with the drivers from the bedroom. You could also see thru the siding on the BQE side. To combat that we would leave the doors open going upstairs and steal the homeowner heat. If they were gonna rent a wind tunnel we were gonna share the chill.

    The best part was that the windows couldnt take the normal plastic covering and hair dryer homeowner stuff. needed 5 mill plastic from home depot(in flushing no less) because it would billow in and out like a sail.

    Had some spectacular era wallpaper in the tiniest bedroom ever(really a closet).

    Then the B69 to high street at 5AM to catch the early McBurney hoop runs.

    The things we did for off street parking in those days.

    God that all sucked. And I miss it.

1 2