Turrets Galore

Don't know if you made it to South Midwood, but there's a house over there on Bedford with a fabulous Italian Campanile style turret that you have just got to see. Nothing like it in all of Victorian Flatbush.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 11:17 AM

The turret on the left is the house that was used to film Sophie's Choice. It was painted pink for the film - the Pink Palace.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 11:19 AM

That house also was built by the last direct decendant of Sir Francis Bacon. Supposedly his armor and other notable belongings were displayed in the foyer until the house was sold in 1956. LOVE that house.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 11:26 AM

Was it the last descendent of Bacon or of Shakespeare?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 12:00 PM

Where is that information from? The house on the right was built in the early twentieth century. Do you ean it replaced/incorporated sections of a previously existing home from 1754? I've not heard this. I was under the impression PPS was all farmland when it was purchased by Dean Alvord, the developer of PPS.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 12:47 PM

Yawn...keep your day job.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 12:48 PM

I think the person was attempting to make a joke...again yawn!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 12:54 PM

Victorian Flatbush is indeed a modern term used to group the rather small developments of freestanding wood frame Victorian houses that were constructed in Flatbush around the turn of the last century. Several neighborhoods which were built at this time in present day Flatbush no longer survive. It is a useful real estate term, but also for designating the modern day community that inhabits this area. Some of the original developements, such as Beverley Square West is only 1 x 5 blocks; most are 2 x 5. Ditmas Park is just a tiny little grouping of homes (albeit with their own architectural history). However, Ditmas Park, like other sections, has no real commercial hub, and community extends to all the neighbrohoods more or less. Ditmas Park also has no schools, by the way. THey are in neighboring BSW, Ditmas Park West, and South Midwood... oh and Caton Park. I think you are using "Ditmas Park" to define all of what we call Victorian Flatbush, which many RE types have done for several years now. It is inaccurate. Ditmas Park is an entirely residential group of about streets, each two blocks long. In itself, it is not self sufficient. None of the Vic Flatbush neighborhoods are. They are however, taken together, the largest surviving neighborhood of freestanding Victorian homes in the country.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 4:14 PM

Yes, Ditmas Park has been called Ditmas Park by us Brooklyn people for a long time, but, you know, until pretty recently, people called everything Flatbush--as in, the Dodgers played in Flatbush, there are fancy houses in Flatbush, The IRT goes to Flatbush, everyone's moving out to Troy Avenue and elsewhere in Flatbush, and just past Flatbush is Marine Park. When houses cost a lot less than a million dollars, people were a lot less obsessed with what general areas were called. So, yeah, Sunset Park was always Sunset Park, but sometimes people called everything past the cemetery Bay Ridge. And below Park Slope was downtown Brooklyn. What part of Flatbush, or downtown Brooklyn, or Bay Ridge was always a follow up question, and only if you cared because you had cousins who lived there.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 6, 2006 7:03 PM

I live in Ditmas Park West....yes it is Flatbush to me and my house while considered "victorian" to most passers-by is definitely more Edwardian....but to explain that to most is too much work...so I settle for Victorian....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 12:06 AM

bkborn, I hate to quarrel with you,but if you think that the name Ditmas Park is anything more than a real estate term, you are mistaken. Like all the other developements built at the turn of the century, it is an artificial term created by real estate developers at the time, reflecting that the group of houses (all 5 x 2 blocks, with one church, no schools, and no commercial district), just as Prospect Park South, Fiske Terrace, Beverley Square West are real estate creations. The area is FLATBUSH. Period. East 19th Street is Flatbush. Get out your 18th century maps. Flatbush was composed of farms, and maps actually show who owned what and where it was. Victorian Flatbush just happens to be a convenient and more accurate reflection of the community that currently inhabits this section of Flatbush. Call it West Flatbush for all I care. Call it Flatbush. But when speaking of more that the 2 x 5 streets that compose the area, don't call it Ditmas Park. It's inaccurate, and confusing when there appropriate times to designate individual neighborhoods within the community. I attended a Beverley Square West meeting last night. Does that mean I don't also live in Victorian Flatbush, and value that community. Hell, no.

As far as "Edwardian architecture" vs. "Victorian architecture" goes. Architectural historians use the terms
"Victorian" to loosley define homes built in both the Victorian and Edwardian periods (none of which actually ever happened in the US). In fact Queen Anne was the big style in ENgland during the reign of Victorian - named after a long dead queen (long story). Victorian architecture is an architecural term - not an historical one. Many of the homes in "Victorian Flatbush" are actually transitional (between Victorian and arts and crafts), Colonial Revival, Queen Anne (in the American not British use of this term) and other period revivials. There are a few examples of what architectural historians term "folly and "eclectic" as well as some great a&c architecure on East 16th street in Ditmas Park Proper. This rich architecural history of the neighborhood as a whole is what gives it a lot of its architectural value.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 9:35 AM

OK - other than residential, please tell me:

A) the streets that you consider your Ditmas Park to encompass

B) and what is so historically important (not architecturally) about the actual 5 x 2 that IS Ditmas Park, and which is not of equal or similar value to the other contempoary Victorian neighborhoods in present day Flatbush.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 12:40 PM

And remember, we're not talking architecure. We're talking social and political insitutions, such as the Midwood Club, the COlonial CLub, the Knickerbocker - to which residents of all these neighborhoods belonged. Also political groups, such as the TaxPayers association, another early 19th century institution which was pan Flatbush in its membership.

I am really intersted having a better understanding of what it is you are trying to say, because it is not at all clear from your previous posts.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 12:44 PM

Back when Cortelyou, Church, Flatbush and Newkirk were shopping hubs for all of this part of Flatbush - how were these developments very different from say, neighboring gated communities built by different developers that use all the same transportation/shoppping/educational/recreational services in a greater given area?

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 12:47 PM

You have not answered my questions. And furthermore, the boundries in terms of residential developement are very well defined.

For the person who brought up the issue of landmarking, this is one of the areas where I argue that the original development names are important, as they reflect a specific architectural history.

Calling Victorian Flatbush precisely that is a way to distinguish several planned developments that have melded in terms of community. Brownstone Brooklyn is a vast and sprawling enterprise which comprises MANY sizable, distinct neighborhoods, each with their own infrastructure. Like I said, if you don't like Victorian Flatbush, call it Flatbush. That's what it is geographically. But the whole area isn't Ditmas Park. However, I'm still eager to hear how you define Ditmas Park.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 4:04 PM

NPer--I always heard Ditmas Park was around Ditmas between Ocean and Coney Island Avenue. I've heard people refer to it that way for ages.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 4:51 PM

That isn't technically true. You are in South Midwood, which is still part of Flatbush, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 7, 2006 6:36 PM

Bbborn - your definition of Ditmas Park is pretty much the same as my definition of Victorian Flatbush,so I am not trying to suggest that other neighborhoods (except perhaps South Midwood, which is Flatbush) should be just tacked on to it. However, there is the fact that the "real" Ditmas Park is only 2 x 5 blocks of this vast tract. How do you distinguish between the real Ditmas Park (which is of its own unique architectural importance) and the larger area which is erroneously although popularly known as Ditmas Park? I live in Beverley Square West, not part of the strict, landmarked boundries of Ditmas Park, yet according to you I live in a section of Brooklyn known as Ditmas Park. It's very confusing, and there are more than a few DP residents who don't like the fact that the name of their (special)residential section is applied across the board to neighborhoods with a slightly different architectural aesthetic. The problem with the area I'm calling Victorian Flatbush is that it seems people just haven't figured out what it actually is over the years, and there has been a desire/need to distinguish it from other sections of Flatbush (which is quite large) and have an extremely different residential feel. I just happen to think Victorian Flatbush or even West Flatbush is the most accurate term.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 9:16 AM

I am siding with renaming the neighborhood because Ditmas Park is inaccurate. Period. You refuse to explain your position (what are all these references on your side - I'm dying to know, but you refuse to elucidate). This whole dialogue with you is tedious. You may be Brooklyn Born, but you don't have any understanding of architecural history. Which, frankly, I do, and I have the doctorate to prove it.

I have stated repeatedly that I would be happy to refer to the neighborhood as Flatbush, which is what it is, technically, historically, culturally, municipally, etc... And if you want to refute, it provide a few footnotes, please.

Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 6:42 PM

And I am not trying to "rename" the neighborhood. I am supporting a campaign to give the neighborhood an historically accurate designation which relfects the fact that it is in fact part of Flatbush.

You may have grown up calling the entire area Ditmas Park, but that doesn't mean that's what it actually is. Yes, I am boiling mad. I just wish you would provide accurate grounds for your arguments (which I have requested repeatedly - who knows, maybe you could sway me or actually prove me wrong), but you keep refusing to do this and instead keep reiterating the same tired statment, It's Ditmas Park because that's what I've always called it.... Engage in the debate with actual concrete fact or don't bother!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at March 8, 2006 6:48 PM

this is so silly.....

Posted by: Anonymous at March 9, 2006 11:16 AM