« BSA Denies Vesting App for Minerva Building (Ugly) Development Watch: 190 Franklin Avenue »

September 13, 2006

Movement to Preserve Lefferts Place Gem

house
When 70 Lefferts Place finally sold last summer to a developer, there was a sense of sadness in the community and, especially, on the block that's been home to the 1860's Italianate villa-style home for a century and a half. The developer, Christopher Morris, is planning a 7-story, 25-unit condo development for the site. Although neither the block nor the house is landmarked, the block association is making a push to prevent the demolition by spear-heading a last-minute letter-writing drive to LPC. Instructions and addresses for those wishing to participate are on the organization's website on the link below. Time is of the essence. We're going to write our letters tonight.
Help Save 70 Lefferts [LeffertsPlace.org] GMAP P*Shark
Civil War Era Gem Facing Wrecking Ball [Brownstoner]




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:00 AM | Comments (40)
Categories: Preservation

Comments

what a shame! i remember wishing i had enough money to buy that place and fix it up, when we first moved to lefferts place. and then someone did, and now... i'll definitely write a letter.

Posted by: sylvia at September 13, 2006 10:25 AM

Leave the guy alone.
Yes it is a nice house, but it borders a rat-infested lot, a white castle, busy atlantic ave, and creates a long dark walk at night. The house is a monster white elephant, and that land would better serve the community and the city by being more productive as a condo complex.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 10:26 AM

I think that this house certainly qualifies as a landmark. But this becomes a mess for buyer and seller now, doesn't it? I think they already closed, didn't they? What is the process for becoming a landmark anyway? Shouldn't the Landmark Commission have been brought in sooner? Or shouldn't the Landmark Commission have initiated the process themselves? Especially before this late date? As much as I think this house is gorgeous and should be saved, I cringe to think of the financial mess in the making.

Posted by: donatella at September 13, 2006 10:41 AM

I (poster of the white castle comment) think that it is a nice house.
HOWEVER:
I also think that my taxes are way too high, and building a set of condos/coops on the property will generate badly needed housing units for the community while also broadening the tax base.

This house is not that nice -- there are other ones like it (e.g. corner of vanderbilt and lafayette), and the purpose of landmarking is to preserve notable examples of unique architecture, not to preserve every old house that has outlasted its useful

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 11:02 AM

why not replace the white castle with condos?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 11:02 AM

It's a little too late to stop it now..

Where was the Lefferts group when the previous owner SOLD OUT for a paltry $150 a buildable sq ft?(Profiting herself almost $2 million in 5 years)

Why is there this movement afoot to punish the Buyer for exercing his legal rights?

Blame should be squarely laid at the feet of the previous owner. For a mere $2mill in profit, this building will be lost forever. I hope it was worth it for the previous owners. The loss is on their hands...

Posted by: PlayaHater at September 13, 2006 11:04 AM

I just sent an email to James and Tierney of LPC.

www.forgotten-ny.com

Posted by: Kevin Walsh at September 13, 2006 11:07 AM

Granted that this is not my neighborhood, I'm with PlayaHater and donatella. More power to anyone who wants to landmark properties worth preserving before the fact. But assuming you have a closed deal here, you're essentially talking about assessing the buyer a fine of millions of dollars for legally buying a property that was for sale.

You've got every right to petition the LPC, but IMHO this is the sort of thing that sours people against preservationists (and I have nothing to do with the development business).

Posted by: linusvanpelt at September 13, 2006 11:59 AM

better to focus efforts on victorians in crown heights, prospect heights, flatbush and midwood. this looks like, as they would say, a done deal.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 12:08 PM

one of my best buddies lived here for years. from what i hear from him, the developer sent the buildings dept after the former owner. piling up tons of violations that she didn't have the resources to remedy, forcing her hand towards selling. i've never understood how that would work since the building always seemed to be in relatively great shape. but that's the story.

the lot next door was not owned the owner of 70 lefferts. a perfectly fine multi-unit building could have gone there without knocking down one of the prettiest houses in the neighborhood.

Posted by: benno at September 13, 2006 12:30 PM

should also be noted that the former owner was not a "flipper". she seemed like a nice person who was raising a family there.

Posted by: benno at September 13, 2006 12:34 PM

that an old practice that developers use to scam property owners and force them to sell their homes.
it happened all throughout bed-sty. a lot of elderly, retired folks had to sell because someone called the bldg dept and reported a lot of outdated/obsolete violations that are still on the books.
These violations were for ridiculous things that no one would notice except someone with a desire to see the owner go into foreclosure.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 12:42 PM

The house dates from 1853 I believe. While I signed the petition for landmarking it, I doubt it will have an effect (and am somewhat ambivalent on whether it should after the fact, unless just compensation is provided to the new owner).

I think Lefferts Place and the entire Clinton Hill South Historic District, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, should be the focus of the landmarking drive so as to prevent future issues like this.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 1:13 PM

"White Castle Poster" is clearly out of his or her mind. First, the area is not desolate. It's a beautiful brownstone, tree lined neighborhood. Lefferts Place is only three blocks long (gives it a very private feel) with two of those streets being in Clinton Hill and the other in Bed-Stuy.

The yellow house is on Lefferts Place between Grand and Classon Avenue (much closer to Grand). White Castle and Atlantic Avenue is around the corner and has absolutely no adverse impact on this brownstone block. Your point is immaterially as to whether this house should be destroyed.

The Classon side of Lefferts has large Second Empire Style five story brownstones with intact mansard roofs. The Grand side of Lefferts (across the street from the yellow house) is comprised of huge 22 foot wide, four story Italianate Style brownstones on extra deep lots (140ft). To the left of the yellow house are two beautifully maintained Renaissance Revival limestones. To the right of the yellow house are two grand Queen Anne Style brownstones with projected bay windows and L-shaped stoops. All the townhouses on this block have set-back stoops with large front gardens.

The point is the community takes great pride in the neighborhood's rich architecture and have worked extremely hard to improve the quality of life of neighborhood residents, e.g., closing of Lefferts Hotel, renovation of Cripus Attucks Park, etc. The homes on Lefferts Place are beautiful. 15 Lefferts Place and 63 Lefferts Place both closed this summer for over $1.49 million. 63 Lefferts Place is directly across from the yellow house. I'm sure the buyer had no idea that the beautiful yellow house across the street would be torn down and replaced by a 7 story condo building. Further, given the horrific caliber of recent condo projects in the area (e.g., Fulton and Classon), I do not blame residents for being extremely concerned about the impact that this development will have on their community.

There are three lots on Lefferts Place slated for development: 70 Lefferts (65x120 ft), 86 Lefferts (165x119 ft) and 96 Lefferts (58x123 ft). That's almost 300 feet of frontal space that will be developed. These developments will forever change the character and feel of this brownstone neighborhood. These will not be Richard Meier caliber projects but rather the cheap pink brick whack construction job of most novice developers. Though condos, the quality and form of construction will undoubtedly ruin this section of Clinton Hill. The LPC has to stand up and do something. The entire stretch of Lefferts Place needs to be landmarked and preserved. The area is already designated the "Clinton Hill South Historic District" and is included in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the area needs LPC protection in the form of the currently proposed expansion of the Clinton Hill Historic District or a designation of its own. Any way you slice it, the yellow house and the other historic homes on Lefferts Place need to be saved from unscrupulous developers.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 1:13 PM

and for the record, it is a quiet street. the reference to White Castle is to a White Castle on Atlantic Avenue behind the empty lot adjacent to this property.

It is too bad the condos are not being built on the empty lot, that would make sense.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 1:15 PM

when my husband and I saw this house several years ago, the broker told us it was the "farmhouse" in pre-civil war Brooklyn. It was built before the brownstones surrounding it were built. It was literally built on a farm. While the exterior was really ugly, the inside had beautiful original murals on the walls and ceilings, one of the bathrooms had the original gas light fixtures and original tiles, tub, chrome shower enclosure, etc. The winding staircase was original, there was a cupola with what must have been great views. In short, the interior details were gorgeous. While we could have afforded to buy it back then, the cost to restore it, especially, the exterior was beyond our budget. It definitely should be preserved. I loved this house and thought about it often these past few years.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 2:24 PM

It was built before the rowhouses. The oldest house on this block of Lefferts Place is on the other side of the lot, #96 if I remember the number correctly, the frame house with the semi-circular front porch.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 2:36 PM

The huge empty lot at 86 Lefferts Place has its own problems. The property is presently being litigated in the courts on a breach of contract claim (CNR Health Care Network v. 86 Lefferts Corp.). The owner of the property granted CNR an "option" to lease the land in the early 1990s for a period of 40 somewhat years. The option to lease or purchase (another contested issue) the land expired after a few years unless it was expressly extended by an amendment to the contract. CNR intended to build and operate an enormous and clearly out of context nursing complex for the elderly on the property site (seven stories/80 units). CNR extended the "option period" a few times in the mid and late 1990s. In 2002, CNR attempted to purchase the property for the meager sum of $2 million. By this time the real estate boom in Clinton Hill was in full swing. Needless to say, the owners of 86 Lefferts Place refused to sell CNR the lot on the grounds that the option period had elapsed. The parties are now in court.

The property at 86 Lefferts with a FAR of approximately 50,000sf is clearly worth $7-$10m. The owner of the property, who happens to also own the huge White Castle lot in the rear (WC's lease expires in two years), plans to sell the property for big bucks to a major developer (perhaps it's Ratner who plans to develop Atlantic Avenue well past Vanderbilt). Whether CNR gets the property or the owner keeps it and sells it to big developer it doesn't bode well for Lefferts residents in either case since any proposed project on the site will tower over and suffocate the surrounding historic homes. The LPC seriously needs to landmark and protect this section of Clinton Hill. The area is often forgotten because it sits on the other side of Fulton Street but it is just as lovely as any other prime brownstone community.

Area residents are closely monitoring the CNR/86 Lefferts case because the development of this property which sits on a 165 x 119 ft plot of land will arguably have an even bigger impact on the area then the proposed development of #70 Lefferts Place, albeit no historic home will be torn down. Whether it’s the yellow house or the empty lot, a nursing home or luxury condos, area residents are simply looking for in-scale development that comports to the common scheme and development of the surrounding residential community. Neighborhood advocates are all for building additional housing, expanding the tax base and bringing in "new money" into the community but not at the expense of long-term residents and the neighborhood's rich architectural history.

For those interested, the case index number in the CNR/86 Lefferts case is 30856/2002. Trial dates and case decisions can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/s6j4v

Posted by: SuzyQ at September 13, 2006 3:18 PM

Thanks SuzyQ - that's helpful and very informative.

As far as the size goes, the proposed new zoning changes to R6-B would help this block in terms of height limits. In any even, seven stories not too bad considering that there are five story brownstones and a few taller apartment buildings on that block of Lefferts Place. If it is developed, my major concern would be that a quality job is done that is attractive way, not some cheap fedders type job. Even if it was modern in design, but well done, it would be ok with me. Best case scenario, the blocks are landmarked and the development of the lots is in accordance with landmark standards so it is all contextual.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 4:24 PM

the attitudes of some of you are so exclusive. while its duly noted that people don't want crap construction going up on their block for the most part all new construction is frowned upon in neighborhoods like this. I agree that the building on classon and fulton isn't a looker but it also serves to diversify the neighborhood. poor people want to own something too damn them to hell that they can't afford a beautiful brownstone in this neighborhood. when people say things like "the building will change the dynamic of/ ruin the neighborhood" or something similar they're essentially saying they don't want people who can't afford to pay the ridiculous price tags for brownstones in these neighborhoods to stay there. I believe a little change is quite alright and after a while the entire city of new york will be landmarked. its becoming ridiculous, for the most part I don't even believe people care about the architecture of the buildings they're more concerned about how much it will impress others that their house is landmarked because that inevitibly makes it even more overpriced. get over yourselves. why don't we just throw everyone who can't afford to buy a brownstone to the farthest most corner of the earth? this person bought this house fair and square what right does anyone have to come and swoop down with their cape and stop him from doing what he wants to do with a piece of land that he legally owns?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 4:38 PM

more so, I agree with a previous poster who said landmarks is not to preserve every old building in NYC. where are they supposed to build condos anyway?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 4:42 PM

Actually, Anon of 4:38 and 4:42, if you actually read the lefferts place civic association letter, part of the concern is the displacement of middle and low income families and renters. The proposed condo building will serve to speed this process up even more, so your anger is misplaced. Lefferts Place is a tight knit three blocks where most people, new and old residents, know each other by name, or at least by sight, say hello to each other and generally watch out for each other. Prior to selling the house in question, it was used by multiple renters in the various units it was divided into. They were not the rich brownstone owners you are complaining about, and now they no longer live on the block because they were kicked out to make way for new condos.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 4:47 PM

I never said that brownstoner owners were rich, its just a simple fact that everyone can't own a brownstone and there should be accomodations for those people too. however, what I find most interesting is the arguement that middle and low income families will be misplaced by these condos. how is that even remotely possible? they couldn't be anymore expensive than owning a brownstone in that neighborhood so what exactly is the argument?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 4:55 PM

Anon 4:38, let me try to understand your point. Are you saying that the new owner of #70 Lefferts place is totally within his right to knock down a beautiful historic home to build cheap condos but the brownstone owners from across the street who have to live and look at this soon be developed POS everyday have no such right to complain and perhaps protect their community from the onslaught of shoddy condo development that's presently engulfing their entire neighborhood? If you lived in this community you'd be doing everything in your power to save this house. It is the jewel of the neighborhood!

Mr. Morris, at the last LPCA meeting, made various promises to incorporate the façade into the new building. IMHO, his statements were patronizing and disingenuous. Mr. Morris, as the novice developer he is, has absolutely no intention of preserving anything. AND HE KNOWS IT! According to Property Shark, the guy owns a few modest townhouses in the area. He doesn't have the experience or resources to do this property any justice. He's simply going to knock it down and build a square POS without any character or redeemable qualities - the type of new condo development that's sprouting up all over Clinton Hill and Bedford-Stuyvesant. Why should the community stand idle as its most beautiful treasure is destroyed by some rookie developer aimed at squeaking out as much profit as possible from his blind investment? To destroy this home is immoral and I would not trust this man to build a sound and safe building, up to code, that would in any way shape or form live up to the memory of this beautiful house or the community in which it exist. Residents are within THEIR RIGHT to be outraged!

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 5:29 PM

5:29 you're right, it is their right to complain its their right to be outraged. that's their rights, they may exercise them and they have. its HIS right to demolish this building, or save it or sell it for a dollar to a crackhead, he may exercise his right to demolish and he probably will.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 13, 2006 5:42 PM

Right on, Anonymous 4:38. The elitists who comment on this blog--and the one who runs it--never hesitate to side with the developers if they want to toss low-rent paying PEOPLE out of their homes, but let them try to tear down an empty house...and we're all supposed to start writing letters.

Don't be so mad at the developer. What about the people who sold the place to the developer? And why didn't someone besides a developer buy it, and, like, put their money where their mouth is?

Posted by: TheRabble at September 13, 2006 6:28 PM

TheRabble, the place is now empty because the woman who sold it did not renew the leases of the people renting the aparments inside the house so she could sell it to a developer and recognize a huge profit. Get your facts straight.

You obviously do not understand the motivation of those living on this street in the protest over this demolition.

I think it will happen in any event, it's too late, so we should focus on landmarking the Clinton Hill South Historic District and hope the proposed zoning changes for residential blocks in Clinton Hill and Fort Greene go through too. That way people can feel comfortable with more contextual development on the empty lots while preserving the 19th century streetscapes.

Posted by: lp at September 13, 2006 6:42 PM

i looked at that house when it was on the market 6 or 7 years ago. it was a legal 2 -family at the time. making it into multiple units should not have been alllowed by the building code...did someone get away with something? should that be allowed or condoned?

Posted by: anonymous at September 13, 2006 9:31 PM

We are facing a rash of demolitions here in new Orleans. The house we are trying to save are not grand homes but small shotguns. It is uphill all the way as the word preservation seems to conjur up hysterical connotations

Posted by: Karen at September 13, 2006 9:48 PM

Jobs! Affordable Housing! you're all NIMBY scum! we're in a land of skyscrapers! go back to the sticks! welcome to the hood!

oh, sorry, wrong discussion. preservation is good! appropriate scale! save the neighborhoods!

-r

Posted by: AY All The Way at September 13, 2006 9:50 PM

I do not understand the motivation for this even from a profit point of view. The sell out on this site at $550/ft (Current Condo Prices in Clinton Hill)… about $8.8 which leaves this guy in debt for $172,000 after working on this for 3years. At best.. is the market goes up he makes $500K.
With 25 units he is building something like 622 sq ft 1 beds.. they will go in the $300’s.. about $350K… in a really strong market $385K.

There is no viable rental option.. He would have to rent the 622 sq ft units at $2000/mo just to cover the interest and bills (not making any money). I rent a 1000 sq ft beautiful one bed plus den across the street and it’s $1500/mo.

If two houses across the street just sold at $1.5… he could just get a letter of no action and sell two 4000 sq ft townhouse condos with minimal investment and get out of this deal at in a few months with a reasonable profit… few hundred thousand.

There is no way this is going to work even from a financial point of view. They are going to tear that beautiful building down.. get in the ground.. . And figure out that to build anything these days it’s running close to $300/ft. And then they will abandon the project. And we will have a gaping hole in the ground.

Who is advising this guy? I looked at this site. I ran the numbers. They just do not work as a condo project.

Posted by: lefferts at September 14, 2006 8:33 AM

Answer: Mr. Morris has no intention of developing this parcel of land. He simply purchased the property with the expectation that 86 Lefferts Corp. will prevail in court against CNR Network and eventually sell the 86 Lefferts lot to a big developer who would certainly seek to purchase the two adjacent lots #70 and #96 Lefferts Place as well. Mr. Morris is simply looking for a take out bid from either 86 Lefferts Corp or a bigger developer who has grander plans for the three lots.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 10:01 AM

Lefferts and Anon at 10.01, if that is true, then that is a real problem - and I would have no sympathy for the developer in that case.

If your numbers are correct, then my fear is that 10.01am's theory is correct, or the developer is going to cut a lot of corners to save on costs. All the more reason to get these blocks landmarked, not single buildings here are there. These blocks were built from the 1850s through the 1880s, with most of Lefferts Place completed by the early 1870s.

Posted by: lp at September 14, 2006 11:43 AM

Enough said. All the talk in the world will not save this house or protect the architecture and streetscape on Lefferts Place. It's time to put our words into action. LP, 1847, Lefferts, BrownBomber, et al, we need to follow the example of the Crown Heights North Association and organized quickly before all of these development projects begin to take form. Time is indeed of the essence. Let's plan on meeting at the next LPCA meeting on Weds, Oct. 4th, at the Outpost Cafe on Fulton to organize an action committee. If people are interested in meeting earlier, then they should write to the LPCA and provide their information so an earlier meeting can be planned.

The LPCA email address is: mail@leffertsplace.org

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 1:24 PM

sounds good.

Posted by: lp at September 14, 2006 1:50 PM

Actually, the next LPCA general meeting is scheduled for November 1st.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 7:10 PM

I thought the meetings were held on the first Weds of every month? Not?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 14, 2006 8:45 PM

lp, SuzyQ and others: I recommend keeping a close eye on the FG/CH re-zoning that will probably hit the community board, borough president, etc. later this fall. Don't be surprised to see an up-zoning between Atlantic Avenue and Fulton Street. Not Atlantic Yards-like scale, but enough added development rights to prompt speculation, tear-downs and mid-rises.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 15, 2006 7:38 PM

That rezoning, as I understand it, will reduce the max. building height on residential blocks to 50 ft, and raise the limit on commercial strips like Atlantic and Fulton. This might be to the disadvantage of small business owners on those streets, but it might be a necessary trade-off given the political climate. Tish James has said she's working to making sure development on commercial avenues includes affordable housing. In any case, the rezoning is still pending and wouldn't take effect for another year, so it won't affect the current situation at #70 Lefferts.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 16, 2006 9:42 AM

any pending zoning change has the potential to affect a current situation. if the current zoning is more advantageous for a particular building design, there is the risk of a rush to get a foundation in the ground.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 22, 2006 2:04 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions