« Rainy Day Rally to Step Demo for Yards Parking LPC To Calendar Cluster of Greenpoint Buildings »

April 16, 2007

Tonight: Extending the FG/CH Historic Districts

extendhd07.jpg
Tonight's joint meeting of the Society for Clinton Hill and the Fort Greene Association should be particularly interesting. Historian Andrew Dolkart will be giving a presentation about the number of historic structures in the area that aren't currently protected by Landmark law. The groups have proposed expanding the Fort Greene Historic District three blocks east as far as Ashland Place, to the far side of Fulton Street to the South and all the way to Myrtle Avenue to the north (see map on the jump). One of these structures is the Paul Robeson Theater (originally the Fourth Universalist Church) at 40 Greene Avenue, which happens to be where the meeting will take place at 7:30 tonight. Also on the agenda: Details on a plan put together by a coalition of community groups that DOT doesn't want to give the time of day.

Extension_Map5.jpg




Posted by Brownstoner at 9:28 AM | Comments (29)
Categories: Brooklyn, Clinton Hill, Fort Greene, Landmark, Preservation

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/950

Comments

This is great news, but why only Fort Greene and Clinton Hill? There should be a borough-wide effort.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 9:39 AM

About washington avenue all the way to atlantic av. if it was landmarked we wouldn't have lost the two buildings between gates and fulton, there are some spetacular houses between fulton and atlantic ????

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 9:50 AM

Wouldn't it be more effective if more than just two neighborhoods pursued an expansion of historic districts?

There are so many wonderful brownstone blocks throughout the borough that are unprotected. Maybe it's time to organize a coalition.

With Atlantic Yards looming down the pipe, it's time for neighborhood leaders to join together and preserve the entire area surrounding AY, as well as all Brownstone blocks.

Good thinking Fort Greene and Clinton Hill.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 9:52 AM

The cut off is Myrtle on the north expansion? I was told it would include the next block to Park as well.

Posted by: Girgis at April 16, 2007 9:56 AM

The proposed expansion covers Clinton Hill too. The map above appears to only be the FG proposal. Both should hopefully be discussed in the meeting this evening.

Posted by: lp at April 16, 2007 10:00 AM

does anyone know if they will have something similar for bed stuy?

Posted by: pietro at April 16, 2007 10:09 AM

do you have a map for the clinton hill proposal?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 10:17 AM

Not sure. This has been in the works in terms of research and studies for months, years. If you have an interest for portions of Bed-Stuy, it would probably be useful to attend the meeting and find out more about the process generally. I'm sure people would be happy to discuss the process and what is involved.

Posted by: lp at April 16, 2007 10:19 AM

Residential parking permits? Taxpayers should park wherever they legally can.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 10:28 AM

Yes--does anybody have a map (or at least a verbal description of the cross streets involved) for the proposed Clinton Hill expansion? Please? This is a hugely important effort, and these blocks definitely should be designated. To the posters who have called for something larger, borough-wide, I absolutely agree--but landmarking is (to my understanding) a very complex endeavor that requires a house-by-house research effort to make the case. Isn't that right? It seems that to get the effort going with enough energy requires localized, dedicated core groups of activism. Go for it!

Posted by: anon at April 16, 2007 10:47 AM

This has been four or more years of effort (so far) by the FGA and SCH. 10:47 is correct; people need to organize locally. The Historic Districts Council (www.hdc.org) is a good place to start, as are neighborhoods that have been through the exercise.

Posted by: g-man at April 16, 2007 11:05 AM

Who are the non-residents that are parking to cause such a problem? Where are they going? This seems ridiculous. Where am I, Jersey?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 11:29 AM

11:29, the non-residents are people who either drive to work downtown and then, unwilling to pay for parking, park on the street in the surrounding residential neighborhoods or drive from other neighborhoods, some with perfectly adequate public transportation, and then board the subway downtown.

Posted by: g-man at April 16, 2007 11:36 AM

Yes, we hope to have the map of the proposed extension of the district in Clinton Hill at the meeting tonight. We are all volunteers and there was a hitch in the printing. If not at the meeting, it will be posted on the web site, www.societyforclintonhill.org very soon. Getting landmark designation is a very local thing and many, many neighborhoods are working on it to save the integrity of their neighborhoods in the face of such intense development. In Clinton Hill the study area extended from Vanderbilt to Classon and from Atlantic to Myrtle. It would have gone to Flushing, but that area (from Myrtle to Flushing) is already being proposed as the Wallabout Historic District. The discussion tonight will focus on the sections in Clinton Hill within that area that are good prospects for inclusion. If too much questionable development, changed conditions, etc. are present, it is hard to get that block accepted as part of the historic district. This is a long and arduous process because so many districts want/need it, LPC is understaffed, and some developers and others resist it because they believe they should be able to do anything they want to a property they own. There is proof, however, that historic districts do better in the market place than those that aren't protected. Buyers want to be where they know their beautiful neighborhood has a better chance of surviving. Andrew Dolkart is a fascinating speaker and is in high demand. It is a real treat to have him speak.

Posted by: anon at April 16, 2007 11:36 AM

Re anonymous:


Taxpayers SHOULD be able to park near their homes. Unfortunately NYC car owners have abused residency status with regard to their auto registration--this deprives the city of auto use registration (in a word tax) revenues, and results in streets full of out of state tagged cars taking up limited parking spots. Residential permits are far from perfect but have worked well in communities with significantly more severe parking space shortages (like Cambridge Mass)

Posted by: pretzelgreg at April 16, 2007 11:46 AM

There are several residential blocks in Boerum Hill where only government workers can park. I galls me that people who work in buildings on top of umpteen subway lines need to be given free parking in front of other peoples' homes.

My block is packed with people working downtown or driving in and parking to take the subway into Manhattan. People are also driving in to conduct business or shop in the area. While I would love to have a residential permit, I can't come up with a rational argument about why I have a right to park free on my block.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 11:55 AM

OH MY GOD!!!!! People are driving to FG/CH to shop!!! What if they end up going to a restaurant?? How can we stop this?? I know someone had MY table last Friday!!
How could they!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 12:04 PM

I live in FG and wish parking was easier, but I don't think the problem is non-residents who work downtown. If that was the case, then there should be plenty of parking in the evenings when they go home and there isn't. If I can't manage to move my car in the evening, then sometimes I have to move it in the mornings before work and (I think) it gets a little easier after 8 am when a few residents leave.

Posted by: Lisa at April 16, 2007 12:24 PM

what about the area just beyond clinton hill (which many realtors are calling clinton hill) between classon and nostrand? (greene,quincy,gates, etc) i know that there's been a lot of talk about getting certain blocks landmarked as well, but can't figure out how and who to speak with. i'll be there tonight.

Posted by: anon at April 16, 2007 12:28 PM

I think historic designation scares many resident owners - because can make any work done on house more expensive and tedious and lengthy.
Would be nice if a 2nd tier designation to prevent Fedders and other gross out-of-context changes were available for less grand blocks, etc.
The parking permit thing is real turn-off and wish they would not mix the agenda. I do agree that gov't employee permit is seriously abused and needs to be curtailed but other than special permits for being resident doesn't work for me.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 12:35 PM

12:28, a good place to start is with the people working on the Bed Stuy house tour. Those people are generally in the know or are at least interested in such topics. The phone number for the house tour which is in Oct. is 718-574-1979 or 718-919-4509. And, yes there are some beautiful blocks in that area that need to be protected. I wish they could be part of the Clinton Hill district, but it seems to be technically part of B-S.

Posted by: anon at April 16, 2007 12:37 PM

Does anyone know what's happening on Myrtle Ave between Flatbush and Ashland?

Posted by: anon at April 16, 2007 12:40 PM

Anonymous 12:35, isn't sort-of landmarked kind of like being a little bit pregnant?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 1:00 PM

anon 12:40
This is what's going on.
http://belltellofts.blogspot.com/2007/03/avalonbay-communities-to-build-42-story.html

http://dbpartnership.org/lookingahead/development/residential

Posted by: GuyFromDoBro at April 16, 2007 3:20 PM


Residential Parking permits have NOT worked well in the communities mentioned!!!

Have you ever lived with Residential Parking!!! I have. It's the worst. Suddenly, you can't park in ANY other neighborhood!!

Residential parking is great for when you want to park near your house, after circling around a restaraunt in another neighborhood for hours, then deciding to forget about it and just going home.

If other people are parking in your neighborhood because you have such good public transportation, maybe you should get rid of your car!! (because you obviously have good public transportation).

I don't care how much you overpaid for your property. You don't own the street.

Posted by: anonymous at April 16, 2007 5:33 PM

12:35 PM,

as i understand it national and state landmarking are the first stages of landmarks process. they are not very strict in what they will designate as landmarked and they do not pose any restrictions on the homeowner, who can still do whatever he/she wants with their facade. they also often provide for tax breaks. city landmarking is a different story however, and it is much harder to get. city landmarking also restricts certain changes to facades, etc. so state and federal landmarking are good things for everyone and city may or may not be, depending on how you view things.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2007 6:35 PM

I'm with 5:33-
1. Went to DC; wanted to eat in Adams Morgan; drove around for half-hour looking for a non-resident space; found one just as we started considering Plan B.
2. Went to Boston; got overnight parking near hotel; had to move car before 9 am; even though it was the Friday before Labor Day, settled for a broken meter after twenty minutes; went back to hotel; told companion to pack fast.
Yeah, could of taken the train to both places but then couldn't have toured areas outside the cities. Yeah, could of paid for a garage, but I would have gone to another city if I had to.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 12:33 PM

Just a quick comment on the supposed elixer of the problems of urban "development" in Brooklyn and other areas - the expansion of Landmarks status of neighborhoods. As an architect with great appreciation for original and "contextual" architecture, the expansion of Landmarks status to neighborhoods that cannot afford expensive and lengthy repairs and maintenance, not to mention exhaustive reviews by "experts" without relation to a neighborhood, is a useless and I would argue a detrimental endeavor.

If a neighborhood is in the process of gentrification, money is flowing into the area and little to no regulation is necessary. How many times have you seen a recent renovation in Fort Greene with aluminum siding?

The Landmarks committee does not in fact have much to say about new buildings which is the real problem in my opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2007 4:30 PM

I beg to differ. I can site several examples (e.g. the recently landmarked mansion on Lefferts Place) where developers have planned demolition, or demolished, or destroyed the facades of, beautiful old buildings or built large, cheap, out of context, poorly designed buildings on random lots on otherwise preserved streets. I live in a transitional neighborhood (more gentrified than not in C. Hill now I'm afraid) and can say that even the old timers on my block are for landmarking the street to preserve its character, prevent demolition to put up multiunit cheap fedders buildings and to prevent out of context development on vacant lots. At least where I live there is consensus that landmarking is desired, and not just from the half of the residents that have moved here in the last 15 years but from old timers too.

Posted by: lp at April 17, 2007 6:28 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions