« Tuesday On The Record Wednesday Links »

December 12, 2006

BREAKING: 70 Lefferts Place Landmarked!

house
We just got word that the Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously this morning to designate 70 Lefferts Place. Here's a detailed account from the comments of yesterday's post:

LPC unanimously approved designating 70 Lefferts Place a NYC individula landmark today. The developer even said, at the public hearing, that he was willing to work within the existing structure to develop condominiums in an adaptive reuse manner. That made it easier for the LPC, I'm sure, but don't think it was the dispositive factor in their decision. They held that it was architecturally significant, historically significant due to the heritage of owners such as father divine, and in a good state of repair considering its age.

The turnout was large: Lefferts Place Civic Associatoin representatives spoke in favor of designation, CB2 representatives supported the designation, as did Tish James, another gov't representative whose name I missed, the Clinton Hill Society, and numerous residents of the street and nearby areas, old and new, spoke to the history and significance of the home historically and personally

The LPC commended the developer's (Chris Morris) statement that he is willing to work with the community and stated that once his work is finished within the LPC guidelines, he should be held up as an example of a good developer who worked with the desires of the community and with LPC in preserving the heritage of the area while helping to provide more housing.

The Clinton Hill Society representative noted that next quarter the change in zoning of residential blocks such as Lefferts Place, in both Clinton Hill and Fort Greene, from R6 to R6B is on the calendar. This would prevent towers from being built on residential brownstone blocks. The logical correlation (or compromise) to that is that commercial streets such as Fulton and Myrtle could be built more densely (read taller), thereby providing more residential density above businesses on those commercial streets, while preserving the attractive historic residential blocks.

Additionally, next year, the Clinton Hill Society (and Fort Greene Association) will be presenting its application to expand the landmark district to those blocks (such as Lefferts Place and other blocks between Fulton and Atlantic) that were not designated landmarks 20 years. From what I've heard, the lack of designation years ago was rather arbitrarily based on the fact that Fulton Street is a commercial street that divided those blocks from the rest of FG/CH. That's ironic since some of the non-designated blocks have older homes than the designated ones and are almost fully intact.

In any event, now developers are fully aware of the issues, and future plans of the neighborhood and can plan accordingly and prevent unnecessary headaches when looking at opportunities.

All in all, a good deal for Lefferts Place and Clinton Hill. I'm sure Chris Morris is not thrilled, but the goodwill he will generate if he plays this correctly may go a long way not just with this property, but with the other 3 or 4 properties he said he bought (recent NYT article) in neighborhoods in the vicinity of the proposed AY project.




Posted by Brownstoner at 2:55 PM | Comments (29)
Categories: Landmark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/146

Comments

What smart comissioners! Thanks to the neighborhood activists and neighborhood representatives, and elected officials who did what needed to be done. Your efforts are appreciated by all of us!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:19 PM

If I knew I'd be quoted, I would have checked my grammar and spelling!

To be clear, the owner was not advocating landmarking the building, rather stating he'd like to work with the community and even retain the external facade. Maybe he thought he could build above it too, don't know. In any event, the LPC approved it, even noting the lovely cupola on the roof that you cannot see in the pricture above, so I don't think they'll be approving any structure on top of the building.

Posted by: lp at December 12, 2006 3:20 PM

That said, I think the good will the developer generated at the meeting with the LPC and the community will make things easier for him when he is proposing his revised plans for adaptive reuse of the building.

Posted by: lp at December 12, 2006 3:23 PM

It nice to win one now and then, isn't it!

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:27 PM

Bad news, poor planning and yet another example of wealthy suburban elitists trying to keep Brooklyn as empty as possible.

The landmarking will undoubtedly radically decrease the number of units on the property, which is the real goal of the NIMBYs. Nobody cares about the architecture. The issue is stopping new multfamily housing from being built and ensuring the neighborhood doesn't grow.

I have no problem with a nice old (but not rare or significant) building being saved, but not at the expense of desperately needed housing and tax base. In a progressive city, the building might have been saved AND new housing would have been built, up to the maximum F.A.R. and free of any retrograde design criteria by the Disneyesque historicists at Landmarks.

Posted by: sthomas at December 12, 2006 3:30 PM

Credit also to the Historic Districts Council, Columbia historic preservation professor Andrew Dolkart, Ed Kirkland from Manhattan and other preservationists and organizations who testified.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 3:31 PM

There's no point in arguing about this now, but sthomas is off base in his description of the motivations of those who pushed for landmark status of this building (and continue to do so for this entire 3 block street). There is a veritable boom of condos on empty lots and derelict buildings in the immediate area. Preserving what makes the area attractive and unique, while developing empty lots and former warehouse space, makes sense, financially and from a community perspective. It was not just new comers who pushed for this, but old time residents who have lived here all their lives (some multiple generations).

If you want more luxury condos, there are 5 buildings or so within a three to four block radious that are going up on empty lots (three on Pacific between Washington and Dean, including Pacific Blue, the large lot being developed on Washington between Fulton and Atlantic, and the soon to be completed Washington Condos at Washington and Pacific). There are many more up Washington Avenue in Prospect heights within walking distance of Lefferts Place (and those lots are not part of a district of early, mid and late 19th century freestanding mansions and rowhouses). There are also the condos (all of which have sold I think, on the corner of St. James and Atlantic (the Faculty House). So there is no dirth of development. It makes sense to preserve what makes an area attractive while developing it at the same time. This is not a mutually exclusive concept.

Posted by: lp at December 12, 2006 3:41 PM

plus the Scarano Project on fulton between Washington and Waverly, plus the new hight rise condo on Clinton between Fulton and Atlantic...

There is plenty of luxury condo development in the immediate area. Want more of it, buy the derelict warehouses on the Prospect Height/Crown Heights border and develop them. Some are empty, and certainly weren't built in the 1850s...

Posted by: lp at December 12, 2006 3:47 PM

Hooray! Congratulations to all helped this happen. Hope springs eternal!

Posted by: SeamusMacD at December 12, 2006 4:39 PM

If I were this developer, I'd be pretty pissed at whomever started the initiative to landmark this building. Have you ever seen "A History of Violence"? I'd be William Hurt if I was this guy.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 5:29 PM

You'd be an eccentric Philly mob boss who lives in a really ugly Italianate mansion and wants to kill his own brother but fails and ends up being killed himself? Why?

Posted by: Anon at December 12, 2006 5:38 PM

Glad to hear the community's work has prevailed. Wish I could be there to clebrate.Thanks Chris Morris and Tisha James. I miss living in 70 Lefferts Place and always knew it was a special. I am glad that I can go back to visit.

Posted by: drew at December 12, 2006 5:40 PM

they have a name for this its called stealing. the developer didn't do anything wrong he bought a property based on a certain zoning to build it. then nimbys robbed him of his propertys real worth so they can keep the neighborhood the way they want it and to keep their own property values up. lets not forget the great victory to preserve vinyl and aluminum sided houses in the south slope. great architectural feats. i have a friend whos about to go financially under in the south slope who if the zoning regulation weren't changed walked away with about 400k instead of nothing. but nimbys love vinyl sided houses that look terrible. if it was really up to the nimbys they would have no new development and a moratorium on people moving in this way they could all have a parking place in front of their house and raise their own property values. of course they wouldn't want to pay property taxes over 1000 dollars on their 1.5 million dollar brownstones no that should fall to condo owners or the people who live in bay ridge or forest hills who have houses half the price of theirs with 4x the taxes. of course then you have the nimbys that make up things like beams falling off buildings or non union labor to furthur their cause. im not saying their shouldn't be any checks on new development but lets be honest what driving preservation is money not preservation.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 6:05 PM

This seems to be incomprehensible to some of you, but some people do defend old buildings for the beauty and character they bring to a neighborhood. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't true of others. Architecture and historical preservation are virtues in and of themselves, just like art.

Posted by: KM at December 12, 2006 6:25 PM

I'm glad to learn that the enclosed front porch - a major departure from the original design - did not prevent the building from being designated. I hope the Landmarking Commission takes a similar view when reviewing applications from neighborhoods in Victorian Flatbush which have yet to be landmarked.

Posted by: Erin Joslyb at December 12, 2006 6:30 PM

ha ha to the developer who purchased it for $2M!! bravo to the elderly woman who sold it for $2M!! finally, it it about time that tish james did something for the community, now if only she could do something about the drug dealers, now that would really be something.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 6:30 PM

Don't try to defend a developer on this board, it's useless. I love how people complain about landmarks when it prevents them from adding an addition but if it prevents an evil developer from doing his job then they're all for it. Look in the mirror people.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 7:16 PM

Kudos to Brownstoner, too.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 8:58 PM

I find it frightening that a poster suggests the developer should want to harm anyone. Also, the individuals who viewed this development as some kind of plus for lower income people, you should have been at the hearing and made that point. I think you need to be enlightened as to how much the units were going for. And I question your description of an eighty-something African American follower of Father Divine ,who travelled from Philadelphia to ask that this significant home where she once lived and served food during the depression, as a "Wealthy elitist."
Again, might have helped if you were actually there.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 9:51 PM

Hooray! This house is a pleasure to walk by every day in my neighborhood. Who needs more expensive condos?

Posted by: carla at December 12, 2006 10:20 PM

Thank you, Brownstoner! This is incredible news! Remarkable! Truly a blessing and a day to rejoice!

Posted by: BrownBomber at December 12, 2006 10:28 PM

I was hoping they'd turn it into a Key-Food or a parking lot. Furthermore, with the apparently desparate need for housing for everyone at the expense of an example of what makes the neighborhood desirable in the first place, could we raze the Brooklyn Museum of Art and dig up Prospect Park. Just think how many extra houses we could put in there.

I do feel truly sorry for the altruistic developers though, as many people have inidicated, they are really only try to help us. I mean help themselves.

Posted by: loser at December 13, 2006 9:31 AM

This really is a victory of preservation over willy-nilly development. Why is it so hard for some people to believe that the preservation of the past is important? This decision should give hope to anyone or group in NYC who are trying to protect a single building in danger of being destroyed, especially in an historic neighborhood.

I fail to see how that makes supporters and neighbors of this building "nimbys". Let's just throw names around, shall we? And to use the needed affordable housing argument is also specious. No one has/had any plans of building affordable housing here. The house would have been replaced by unneeded lux condos of some sort. Let's hope the owner and LPC can continue a dialogue that results in something everyone can be happy about.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at December 13, 2006 10:15 AM

I did NOT make the post at 10:15am.

Posted by: CrownHeightsProud at December 13, 2006 10:46 AM

Congratulations, Brooklyn! Unfortunately, we never get anything designated in Queens. Instead we get Queens Crap!

Posted by: C.M.W. at December 13, 2006 11:42 AM

how does the developer get compensated for this? will the community or city buy back the property from him? this doesn't seem much different than eminent domain. i can't imagine how any property owner would be supportive of this.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 3:35 PM

A lot of developers looked at this building when it was for sale, and they passed on it because they couldn't stomach tearing down a historic house. It's only right that the LPC validated those feelings and saved the building.

Posted by: Shahn Andersen at December 13, 2006 3:59 PM

Anon 3:35 PM: The developer still owns the property, and has the Landmarks Commission's active support in finding a way to make it a profitable venture without demolishing it. Not such a bad deal for a guy who told the NY Times he has $15,000,000 worth of property in the area. I suspect, if he renovates it well, people will spend serious money for units in a historic house like that. And he can gain priceless good publicity as a developer who does the right thing, a rarity in this grab-what-you-can market.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 9:38 PM

I dont Thing its fair what we did to the owner of 70 Lefferts Place.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 26, 2006 2:59 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions