« Linking the Promenade and Brooklyn Bridge Park BREAKING: Broken Angel On Fire! »

October 10, 2006

Prospect Heights Vulnerable to Developers?

house
The post we did earlier today about the Park Place teardown got us thinking about how vulnerable this area of Prospect Heights is. It has some incredibly beautiful blocks of townhouses that have two attributes that could make them targets: They tend to be a little smaller than the brownstones of Park Slope and Fort Greene and they tend to be on extra-deep (usually 130-foot) lots. And, or course, they're not landmarked. The result is that many of these old buildings have unutilized FAR and no landmark restrictions to hinder a small developer who wants to squeeze out every last drop without concern for the aesthtic impact on the community. 273 Prospect Place is a case in point. It's 16.5 feet by 40 feet but sits on a 131-foot-deep lot, so there's 1,390 square feet of extra FAR kicking around. The deal just got a little more interesting, too, with a price cut from $1,650,000 to $1,575,000. Still a little pricey for the house that it is in this market but we fear that a developer could find a way to make the numbers work.
273 Prospect Place [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:48 AM | Comments (30)
Categories: Development, Preservation, Properties

Comments

Great, thanks for pointing this out to the developers. I am starting to get a little bit suspicious about your financial interest in these "new developments".

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 12:44 PM

I've been in this house. It is exceptionally narrow. What developer could possibly do something with a 16 ft wide lot? It is exceptionally claustrophobic even as a private home. Not gonna happen with this one methinks.

Posted by: west at October 10, 2006 12:50 PM

The calculation of potentially available FAR is more complicated than simple multiplication, so Brownstoner may be overestimating the development potential of this and other sites. When we purchased our brownstone, we thought we had a certain amount of FAR for a dream extension, but a building code consultant determined that we actually had much less FAR to work with.

Posted by: anonymous at October 10, 2006 1:13 PM

Could someone put me out of my misery and tell me what FAR stands for? Googling for it is hopeless since it happens to be a common word...

Posted by: M at October 10, 2006 1:32 PM

Floor area ratio. If a lot is 20x100 and the FAR is 2, the allowable square footage for the property, other restrictions aside, would be 4,000 (2 x 20 x 100).

Posted by: brownstoner at October 10, 2006 1:34 PM

Or put another way, it is the ratio of allowable building square footage to lot square footage.

Posted by: crouchback at October 10, 2006 1:38 PM

is this really worthy of a House of the Day? Sure the price was cut a little but this is the third time this property has been on your site, once a month for the last three months.

This house was way overpriced to start and with the cut it is still overpriced. There are other properties that are much nicer, wider, more detail, etc. in the immediate area that are cheaper.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 1:59 PM

Sheesh...you guys are a tough crowd.

Its a cute house and nicely redone - lets give brownstowner a break, shall we?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 2:53 PM

"Vulnerable to developers" ?

My God, next thing you know, we will be vulnerable to capitalist profiteers!

The vast majority of houses over there are pretty ugly and hopefully we will see some developers build something nicer.

Posted by: JoshK at October 10, 2006 2:54 PM

the majority of houses over there are pretty ugly? are we talking about the same neighborhood? i mean, i guess if by "ugly" you mean "charming old townhouses with loads of period details on quiet tree-lined streets" then yes, i totally agree, the neighborhood is beyond ugly.

Posted by: sylvia at October 10, 2006 3:41 PM

i agree with sylvia, "charming old townhouses with loads of period details on quiet tree-lined streets." does anyone know if there are any efforts to landmark the area?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 4:16 PM

there's a larger 2 family across the street listed on corcoran for 1.5m.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 5:21 PM

Yes, the Municipal Arts Society is supporting a local effort to landmark a substantial portion of Prospect Heights.

JOSH K: First of all, it's slightly absurd to call the "vast majority" of houses in Prospect Heights "pretty ugly." It's full of stunning brownstones, dating from the 1860s through the 1910s and representing every style from Italianate to Renaissance Revival to Colonial Revival. While I'm a big fan of innovative modern architecture, in truth most of the new construction in the neighborhood leaves much to be desired on an aesthetic level. The knee-jerk pro-development sentiments on this site sometimes leave me breathless!

Posted by: NeoGrec at October 10, 2006 5:25 PM

The house across the street is in contract. These two houses seem like a good indicator of where the market is right now --the great stuff sells right away, like the Corcoran house and the Warren Lewis listing on Berkeley that was a HOTD last week. The ok stuff like this place sits and has to cut prices. What have you guys been calling it --a "flight to quality"?

Posted by: west at October 10, 2006 5:28 PM


I'm starting agree with anon 12:44..there's a conflict of interest with respect to brownstoners house pics as well as other aspects of this blog. i think the house pics should be left to a lottery of sort, or to the readers ourselves.


Great, thanks for pointing this out to the developers. I am starting to get a little bit suspicious about your financial interest in these "new developments".

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 5:32 PM

Brownstoner should stick his FAR up his (f)ARSE! Zoning is meant to limit destruction to the context of the neighborhood. Not a blueprint for squeezing pathetic dollars from every stinkin' lot. Without literal landmarking much is at risk. You need to decide which side of the fence you are on.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 5:36 PM

Not sure how some of you are equating pointing out the potential for encroachment by developers with our advocating the maximization of FAR in these nabes. We're just sounding the alarm, you dopes. We can be accused of a lot of things, but questioning our pro-preservation credentials just seems silly. As for HOTD, anyone is welcome to shoot us an email with a suggestion and their thoughts on why the house would be an interesting pick. We just try to find things that are noteworthy, whether they are underpriced, overpriced, particularly beautiful or ugly. There's no agenda driving the picks, we can assure you.

Posted by: brownstoner at October 10, 2006 6:15 PM

I still don't understand why people that are so pro development, pro modern building, would frequent a blog who's mission statement is: An unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 10, 2006 7:02 PM

Will someone explain to me why a 'developer' will be interested in a significantly overpriced, narrow lot without the best frontage in a falling market??

Posted by: anonymous at October 10, 2006 7:35 PM

Why do you think there isn't there a call to landmark sections of Prospect Heights? Several blocks of Crown Heights are already in the process of being landmarked. Since they're right next door, why not bring the landmarks commission over for a walk through this neighborhood?

Posted by: mr underhill at October 10, 2006 8:09 PM

"We're just sounding the alarm, you dopes. We can be accused of a lot of things, but questioning our pro-preservation credentials just seems silly..."

Mr. Brownstoner, you sound the alarm, but as much as I enjoy your blog, I have to wonder how much "good" merely sounding the alarm actually does. I think (as I posted elsewhere today) people vent their ire here and it has zero impact WHATSOEVER in affecting the shape of the neighborhoods or how business will be done in the future.

I agree with a lot of what NGrec has been saying, but I'm not sure it's enough to simply ally with MAS and civic groups. That's important, but I also think that the local (lame ass) electeds want your vote and want desperately to hang onto their $$ jobs, and the more you bother THEM, they turn around and bother the civil servants at the city agencies who can actually possibly affect some change, even if it's only in the form of tweaks, because face it people, this is the BIG wave coming at us from the top (which erases all history/memory/what was dear) as so much sentimental horseshit.

It's not enough to "sound alarms." One has to provide - or link to, very very actively - strategies.

Posted by: anon2 at October 10, 2006 8:25 PM

"face it people, this is the BIG wave coming at us from the top (which erases all history/memory/what was dear) as so much sentimental horseshit."

Jesus, what in God's name are you talking about?

Posted by: west at October 10, 2006 9:34 PM

the neighborhood *is* in danger. a real estate agent (corcoran!) who lives at 313 park place is building a huge--25 foot--two story extension, ruining the light and gardens for everyone else. the block association opposed it but to no avail. the neighborhood has such lovely, large, peaceful gardens--hard to find that kind of space in NYC--and some folks can only see $$ instead of greenery and peace.

Posted by: anonymous at October 10, 2006 10:16 PM

I think the choice of that style range exhaust was a bad one. Totally breaks up the flow of the cabinets and just looks wrong. A hooded style would have been much better suited for that kitchen.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 6:16 AM

I'm not saying that most new development is that great, but I do think that to be fair, you have to admit that Prospect Heights pales compared to nice blocks in PS, almost all of Brooklyn Heights, etc.

Just because it is already there doesn't make it nice architecure. I think people are also skewed by a "hip factor". IMHO, Crown Heights has a lot nicer buildings, but the area is not as "hip", so people ignore it more.

Posted by: JoshK at October 11, 2006 9:17 AM

Look, there's no point getting into a bragging match about different neighborhoods. Personally I love all of brownstone Brooklyn, from Brooklyn Heights to Crown Heights. And while it's true that some blocks of PH are a bit scruffy, the irony is that this particular block (Prospect Place between Vanderbilt and Underhill) is one of the best in the area, as is the block of Park Place where that lovely old house with the big porch is being all but torn down to be replaced by a much larger condo bldg that will stick out like a sore thumb. So the bottom line is that this kind of speculative development is happening even on the very best blocks.

Posted by: NeoGrec at October 11, 2006 11:40 AM

Also, in defense of brownstoner, I have to add that it's silly to suggest that developers are getting ideas from this website. I assure you that as much as we may enjoy the site and feel it puts us in closer touch with local RE issues and trends, these guys have their ears MUCH closer to the ground than us and there's nothing we can discuss here that they haven't already thought of. So enough with the conspiracy theories already.

Posted by: NeoGrec at October 11, 2006 11:44 AM

I agree with NeoGrec on that one.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 11, 2006 2:23 PM

"Floor area ratio. If a lot is 20x100 and the FAR is 2, the allowable square footage for the property, other restrictions aside, would be 4,000 (2 x 20 x 100)"

Brownstoner, perhaps if you keep on repeating this fallacy it will BECOME true.

Posted by: Lawyer at October 12, 2006 12:23 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions