« Bloomberg Asks Spitzer to Veto Botched 421-a Bill Dumbo Pedestrian Plaza Project On Record Pace »
June 29, 2007
Piece of Historic Wallabout Threatened by Developers
The group of four large commercial properties that take up the entire western side of Hall Street (at left in the bottom photo) between Flushing and Park Avenues in Wallabout—two of which (30 Hall and 12 Hall, pictured at top) are of architectural and historic significance—quietly changed hands last December for $10 million. The new buyers, the team behind HK Management that includes Harry Kotowitz, Howie Klaus and Jeffrey Sitt, have been taking pains to keep a low profile as they seek the city's complicity in their plot to destroy a piece of Wallabout history.
Architectural historian and Columbia prof Andrew Dolkart discussed the buildings in his 2005 survey of the Wallabout area:
The buildings that survive on the west side of Hall Street were erected by two wholesale grocery businesses. E. Le Grand Beers, who also erected buildings on the east side of Washington Avenue, commissioned the large, seven-story, brick (later stuccoed over), cold storage warehouse at 30-38 Hall Street from George Chappell in 1898. This building was extended to the north (Nos. 24-28) in 1918. Charles Hutwelker commissioned two cold storage buildings to the north, both designed by C. E. Huntley & Co. Hutwelker was a meat packer who went into business in Brooklyn in 1884. The Hall Street warehouses were initially occupied by the Charles Hutwelker Beef Export Company. No. 14-16 was designed in 1909 and No. 18-22 in 1919. These buildings could be included within a Wallabout Industrial Historic District.
As some of you may be aware, earlier in the 20th century, the city's biggest open market used to be held across Flushing Avenue from these buildings in what's now the Navy Yard; as a result, the large buildings in the immediate area were home to many of the city's biggest grocery companies. In addition, as was pointed out to us by one of the preservationists working on the Wallabout Historic District application, the large awning (photo on the jump) that runs along the entire front of 55 Washington and 30 Hall, is also significant. These two buildings also sit directly across the street from the complex of reinforced-concrete buildings built for the Mergenthaler Linotype company in the earlt part of the 20th century. According to Dolkart, "The entire complex should be designated as a New York City landmark as soon as possible in order to preserve the original features of this architecturally and historically significant complex."
The ability of these buildings to be included in the Wallabout Historic District (which is still pushing to get in front of LPC) is now threatened by the recent assumption of ownership by HK Management, whose recent track record includes snubbing Dumbo preservationists and pulling the rug out from underneath buyers at 99 Gold Street. HK has already been taking the temperature of local politicians to see if they'd support an application to the BSA to tear down all the buildings to build new residential. What's interesting is that the four properties (2, 12, 30 and 40 Hall Street) are already overbuilt: Collectively they have about 200,000 square feet of interior space on about 70,000 square feet of lot space, well in excess of the 2 FAR for the area.
If the city does ultimately consider granting a variance for residential in this case, we sincerely hope it will look to the current Domino Sugar Factory situation as a model and insist on the preservation and integration of the buildings at 12 and 30 Hall into any kind of a proposal by the developers. If you have any strong feelings about the future of these buildings or what kind of neighbors these developers are likely to make, we'd encourage you to drop an email to Council Member Letitia James at james@council.nyc.ny.us. Maybe the spectre of this destruction will be enough to get Tierney et al to focus a little harder on designating the Wallabout Historic District. We do hear that Tierney's planning a tour of the area at some point this summer.
Wallabout Cultural Resource Survey [Myrtle Avenue] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1500
Comments
"what kind of neighbors these developers are likely to make"? Hah, that's a good one. like these guys give a s--- about wallabout or dumbo for that matter. don't they live in the land of teardowns and mcmansions in southern brooklyn somewhere?
Posted by: anon at June 29, 2007 10:02 AM
Don't know where the developers live, and I don't care. It's the city's job to prevent the systemic destruction of the very qualities that make this city appealing.
But it just goes to show that brooklyn has a slim chance of becoming as valuable as soho or tribeca. We just don't have the high-rolling masterminds who can see past an immediate profit -- no DeNiros, only one Walentas. I think Brooklyn is doomed to become Jersey and we'll be stuck clinging to the few blocks that still have any beauty left (Dumbo, Ft Greene, Clinton hill etc...)
Forget Wallabout, Williamsburg, Waterfront, Greenpoint. It's officially going to hell.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 10:10 AM
Brownstoner please STFU with your "Let's Preserve Every Piece of Shit Industrial Building Movement".
You whack jobs are taking things way too far.
If this was my property I would raze it all tomorrow and tell the Preservation Nazis to kiss my arse! Then I'd leave an ugly parking lot there for 10 years until more favorable zoning is enacted and sell it for $100 million if not more. If the property gets calendared by LPC, I'd tear it down anyway and tell you to kiss my arse! Then we can go to court and dook it out. I always wonder why adversely impacted homeowners (such as Chris Morris of the Lefferts Place mansion) do not challenge the LPC's authority in court. I bet you he, along with many others, would stand a fairly good chance at prevailing.
Lastly, it's so ironic that you preservation sickos are so against eminent domain but are so quick to use the unilateral power of the LPC to effectively limit the economic potential of private property. Like the saying goes, "it's always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" - burn the buildings down HK, burn them down now before it's too late.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 10:24 AM
um....who gives a shit if a couple of warehouses are ripped down. THese aren't historic brownstones....they are just warehouses!! Rip em down!!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 10:25 AM
We need the commercial space here more than the residential at this point. Myrtle will have plenty of space for teardowns and new residents. This block needs a facelift but if its already overbuilt it would be stupid to tear it down.
Posted by: Remistompa at June 29, 2007 10:30 AM
i can't believe the above posters can't see the beauty and potential of those buildings. you guys would probably want to tear down all those old messed up buildings in venice too....i bet you love carpet too.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 10:40 AM
Come on could one person tell me what is architecturally significant about these buildings? - yes they are slightly old - but buildings like this are a dime a dozen and certainly dont deserve protection based on some sort of architectural uniqueness or breakthrough
Posted by: David at June 29, 2007 10:56 AM
BEAUTY? you are high high high. the area looks like a blighted s***hole. anyone who has the guts to sink their money into this neighborhood given its proximity to those projects and the bad element around myrtle should be able to do what ever they need to do to make money.
Posted by: condo dweller at June 29, 2007 10:58 AM
I usually agree with bstoner but aren't these buildings in poor shape. Anyone know what could actually be done with them?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 10:58 AM
I say we raze everything downtown, including the Farragut, Ingersol and Whitman housing projects, the Navy Yard and everything from Myrtle to the Waterfront and from Flatbush to Kent (with the exception of new condo developments). Then build the equivalent of midtown Manhattan and give our borough a real downtown commercial district with 500 skyscrapers to pepper the Brooklyn skyline. Charge 1/2 the rent of Manhattan and Jersey City and watch corporations make their way to Brooklyn in droves.
The city and state should ED everything along this "not worth saving" section of Brooklyn and sell it to developers. Then they should use the proceeds to build subway transportation along the waterfront from the Verazzano to the Queensborough Bridge with various connections into Manhattan. Property owners would receive "fair market value" for their property and the borough economic future will be secured. We need grand, aggressive ubran plannng for Brooklyn!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:03 AM
I really hate to have anything in common, including part of a genome, with the "tear it down" crowd, but I have to confess that the clip from Dolkart doesn't make a convincing argument for the 'significance' of these buildings, on their own or contextually. The Domino building was a major employer until very recently and is an iconic emblem of Brooklyn's fast-vanishing industrial past. These look like...ugly old warehouses in a nearly deserted area. If developers had to tear something down that was somewhat old, these would not have me up in tears all night...or am I missing something?
Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM
People like 10:24 and 10:25 scare me more than some of the developers with no vision. You think if you insult preservationists enough, we'll go away? No way!
Why is it so hard for people to see that preserving those buildings of historic and architectural merit help make this city interesting and desireable both to those who already live here, and those who want to come? I don't see the reasoning for wanting to tear down everything. Especially since 90% of the replacements to those teardowns are architectually bland, uninspiring, and devoid of mentioning, except as future teardowns themselves.
Do we want to create a disposable city in an age where more and more, we need to start thinking about the consequences of what we do - to the environment, to natural resources, and to our populations? Preserving our historic buildings, with plans for adaptive reuse, makes environmental sense, and makes our streetscapes interesting and vital. Old buildings were built to last, the fact that we have so many is a testament to the superior building skills of the last century. Why not build on those skills, and keep NY alive?
Aside from that, look at the buildings that have been reused - they consistantly sell better than most new construction. The Board of Ed building at 110 Livingston, the old factory buildings in Dumbo, Belltel - all do much better than the nearby new construction. That's because people like living and working in a building with good bones and some history. When even luxury buildings today are reporting problems in shoddy construction only a few years after being built, is it no wonder people want older buildings, even with their own particular kinds of problems?
There is more to preserving Brooklyn, in particular, than just the brownstones. The people who lived in those brownstones also built and worked in the factory and warehouse buildings, and some of their names and legacies still pay salaries today. Even if those companies and the people who built them are long gone, they helped to put Brooklyn on the map, and helped it become the successful city it is. We owe it to them to try, whenever possible, to keep those legacies alive for the next generations.
Of course you can't save everything, and not everything deserves to be saved, and not everything can be saved. No true preservationist has ever advocated that, and no one has said that on this board, including Mr. B. However, I, for one, don't want to live in a city where there are no buildings older than I am. There are plenty of suburbs like that, and from what I can see, people are moving back from those places in droves, because living in a vital, thriving city means living in an architecturally vital city where old and new can be planned to enhance and complement each other. But only if we save those buildings that deserve to be saved. Andrew Dolcart has made a career of investigating and scribing the history of our borough's great architecture. If he says they are significant, that's good enough for me. Why not?
Posted by: Preservationista at June 29, 2007 11:07 AM
Brownstoner is smoking crack again...something he is doing with increasing frequency as of late....
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:10 AM
11:03, Thank God you're not in charge. That's the most horrific thing I've heard on this site in weeks. We have a Manhattan already, we don't need another one. What we do need is housing and industry. You've eliminated both for some futuristic, scary business hell. No thanks.
Posted by: Brower Park at June 29, 2007 11:13 AM
Preservationista, I'm not sure the extent of your bewitching powers but whatever black spell you have placed Brownstoner under, please release him immediately - RELEASE HIM NOW!!
If not, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:16 AM
I agree with Brenda.
These warehouses do not have the appeal (at all) of the warehouses in Tribeca or SoHo. They look kind of depressing actually.
I hate to see beautiful old brownstones and loft buildings demolished, but I have to confess, I don't feel like I would miss these. Dolkart's arguements are pedantic and unconvincing.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:21 AM
Sorry Brower Park. Big money talks and you NIMBYS are too powerless to stop the huge money machine that is descending upon Brooklyn! In twenty five years, downtown Brooklyn will look like Manhattan and I guarantee you those stinking housing projects will ultimately be destroyed and replaced with soaring skyscrapers. That's as given as death and taxes!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:23 AM
OK - I think this needs more explanation of charges and accusations.
Link to 'snubbing Dumbo' is either to wrong article or I can see no connection.
Then you claim "HK has already been taking the temperature of local politicians to see if they'd support an application to the BSA to tear down all the buildings to build new residential". So, how do we know this?
Many old warehouse and factories have been successfully converted to housing but not always viable (depending on condition and footprint, construction of orig structure). Maybe these could be (and just because don't look pretty now doesn't mean they are very structurally sound).
Would really need to know more. Can't automatically conclude they have to be saved at all costs or that they are POS that should be torn down.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:24 AM
oops, meant just because not pretty doesn't mean that are not structurally sound.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Cold storage warehouses are problematic to convert. They are actually giant refrigerators disguised as buildings.
Sometimes it is impossible to eliminate odors entirely because the concrete aborbs it. They have few if any windows too. I am guessing that is why the developers are actually giving up FAR, in terms of the current overbuild, for smaller new buildings. Not eberyone is dying to move into an old cold storage warehouse either. I think it would be a little creepy. One wants to put off the day one is placed in cold storage as long as possible.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:29 AM
remember the meatpacking district people? anything can be nice with the right vision. brenda! i expect more vision from you!!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:29 AM
Brownstoner = Save all old crappy buildings AND All overpriced FG/CH brownstones are a “good deal” and all brownstones in BS/PS/CrwnHgts/CG etc are overpriced.
And by brownstoner I mean the people who contribute to the trolling. I can’t wait for AY to ruin your quality of life.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:31 AM
To be clear, this is old in Venice:
http://home.nyc.rr.com/seyr/imgs/Venice2007.jpg
Posted by: Remistompa at June 29, 2007 11:34 AM
You only have to walk down Hall St & in the valley btween the old majestic hall st structures u quickly r embraced by the cloudy mist of the Brooklyn gritty past. U neednt smoke herb or b named prsrvtionista 2 take this trip. YEA LPC.
Posted by: A at June 29, 2007 11:37 AM
11:24, check out the new "snubbing" link (the original one was a cut-and-paste error). How do we know they been "taking the temperature"? We made some calls. Can't people see how beautiful those windows and the original brick facade are, especially at #30? As for the structure, at Domino there were similar issues and they are finding ways to upgrade the structure to preserve the facades. Where there's a will there's a way. It just takes a little vision.
Posted by: Brownstoner at June 29, 2007 11:38 AM
Oh boy, the CG troll is back!
Sorry dude, east of Flatbush is where all of the value and upside lies. AY will only enhance our property values moving foward. Get a life!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 11:44 AM
Don't mess with me, 11:16, or I'll have the ghosts of a million tenement rats run up and down your pantslegs.
Mr. B. and I happen to agree on this. I disagree with him on other things, it's his blog, I'm just glad to be able to put in my $.02. I'm just more comfortable living in his city than in the city created by someone like 11:03.
Posted by: Preservationista at June 29, 2007 11:50 AM
Why would anyone want to tear down any one of these buildings? They are built better than anything that one of these so called developers would put up. I lived in a building developed by HK Realty and it had more problems than I could count. HK's idea of quality construction is to skimp on the basics of construction like wood, nails, insulation, tar paper etc. For example my former apartment in DUMBO was in a redeveloped building that had been botched by HK. Brand new roof leaked, no insulation in floor of apartment located over an open air garage, warped wood floors because of moisture from open air garage, sliding glass door to patio was supported by 6 or 7 pieces of scrap sheet rock resulting in warped door. The list could go on but you all get the picture. Quality is not this developers strong suit. I mean this guy saves money on the cheap stuff, the basics of building and it's the same for people like Guttman. Ignore the laws and do whatever it takes to make a dime.
Yeah great idea to give these developers whatever they want without question. If they were building something that actually mattered or was made with quality in mind maybe they would deserve more respect but the simple fact is they don't.
Think about how Brooklyn is developed. Should it be the shoddy crap that's been going up all over the borough or looking at some of the buildings we already have and reusing them. I think the latter.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 12:01 PM
wwib,
i promise to work on my schtick if you promise to work on your writing. it pains me to read your posts.
am i the only one who finds wwib's prose convoluted and confusing?
brah, are you on crystal meth or something? jeesh!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 12:02 PM
Sorry 11:52, if you walked through SoHo or Tribeca twenty years ago, like I did (many times) you would have seen stunning architecture, beautiful detail, gem after gem after gem.
Nothing like Hall Street.
More like Venice, which is itself nothing like Hall Street.
Let's use a little bit of common sense here. Not all old buildings are equally important or equally worth saving.
Posted by: reality check at June 29, 2007 12:03 PM
"Cold storage warehouses are problematic to convert"
Developers of several Chicago projects, including those linked below, seem to find the process worthwhile.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=dearborntower-chicago-il-usa
http://newwestrealty.com/c/p/?cid=12&pt=4
Posted by: John Ife at June 29, 2007 12:09 PM
cold storage waehouses have been converted to residential uses, I know. The Atalanta building in Tribeca is an example. What I said in my last posting was that they are very difficult to convert. And I stand by that. There are all kinds of problems with these buildings. They are not just warehouses. For example, often the old freon pipes burst and soak the structure, and the old cork insulation, with liquid freon, which is a hazardous substance, these buildings are thier own brownfields. I'm not saying you can't do it, but you better be careful with these giant refrigerators because they are bears.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 12:19 PM
if you want to tear anything down,
TEAR DOWN THE F*CKING PROJECTS
Posted by: mojo at June 29, 2007 1:24 PM
Instead of the lame-o ineffectual "street art" that kids are so into nowadays, I suggest we start a new trend... breaking windows at luxury condos.
"New condo! Get the rocks!"
I'm so tired of arguing taste. Bean counters don't understand taste, they understand money. I'm not moving to Ohio.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 2:10 PM
I think the issue here is credibility. If you go around claiming every old building is 'historic' and 'significant' - it sort of undermines your credibility in future arguments when something truly is historic or significant.
Every old building has 'history' - in this case there history was as a grocery warehouse and a meatpacking plant - but those uses, business and architecture are far from unique or rare, so why expend limited resources fighting this battle?
Posted by: David at June 29, 2007 2:18 PM
David, you fail to understand that there, as in Domino, will be no fight.
The LPC will hold a public review hearing that will be attended exclusively by the Preservation Nazis and everyone will declare (especially Brownstoner) that a hearing was held and revealed wide public support for the landmarking of these buildings. In the end, the preservationist will prevail as they always do because the process is self-perpetuating due to the uniform of thought and biased objective of all participants and interest holders. Absent massive lawsuits, the LPC and their legion of Preservation Nazis will continue to operate and disrupt the free market with impunity and in the process strip away the most basic rights of property owners.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 2:54 PM
2:54, you like to throw the word "Nazi" around pretty lightly.
For your unenlightened information, preservationists lose more battles than we win. See original Penn Station, the Admiral's Row, the church in Bay Ridge, and countless buildings that fall everyday all over the country. If it weren't for preservationists, you wouldn't have Grand Central Station to look at, and most of the West Village would have been razed. You may not care about this one way or another, but many more people do. If not about the buildings per se, then about the city as a whole, and the planet we live on.
I'm really glad organizations like LPC, for all its faults, exists, as well as the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic Districts Council. More power to all of these groups for having some long term forsight into keeping our cities, towns and countrysides as places our children's children will be proud to live in.
You like to portray these battles as if preservationists want to keep every old brick in situ. Obviously, you really don't know what the real preservationist movement is about. How about getting your facts straight before calling people Nazis?
Posted by: Preservationista at June 29, 2007 3:12 PM
I agree with most of what you say Preservista, but what is the argument here - besides age (and these buildings arent even that old)
Posted by: David at June 29, 2007 3:30 PM
Ok. David, please explain how we can stop the preservationists from landmarking average industrial buildings unworthy of such special historic consideration and status? Just look to Domino. On every board there is wide condemnation for landmarking the sugar factory but very few will take the time to go to the LPC hearing as preservationist are much more committed (i.e., addicted) to their cause then the average person is to going out of their way to a LPC hearing simply to express reasonable judgement. As a result, a small, yet motivated minority of preservationist is able to impose their narrow view onto the entire opposing public with impunity. If there was a public referendum on the landmarking of the Domino Sugar Factory the measure would lose in a landslide of immense proportion, as would be the landmarking of the industrial section of the proposed Wallabout historic district. But there will of course be no public referendum and as such the preservationists and the LPC will undoubtedly win.
Why refer to preservationist as Nazis? Well, the proof is in the pudding. When you seek to preserve every industrial building without any architectural or historic significance, then you lose all credibility and leave the morally outraged public with no other choice then to stigmatized this wild bunch of crazies as an ideological bent group of Preservation Nazis. I stand by that statement until their actions prove otherwise.
I support preservationist in most cases, without their efforts most of brownstone Brooklyn would've been destroyed - though most of Victorian Flatbush and Bed-Stuy, areas of true archtectural merit, still exist without landmark protection. However, in the case of the Domino Sugar Factory and the Wallabout District, they are doing themselves, the preservation movement and the borough of Brooklyn a major disservice.
Again, the public is outraged and the LPC is losing crucial public support because the public sees all of the time, energy, money and resources being spent to landmark unremarkeable industrial sites with no architectural and historical merit to speak of while beautiful sections of this borough (such as Victorian Flatbush, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Midwood, Kensington, and Windsor Terrace) that are truly worthy of landmark status are uniformerly ignored or outright dismissed by the LPC.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 5:14 PM
Yes, Bedford-Stuyvesant has over 6,000 brownstones with the largest number of intact historic brownstones in the entire United States yet it has in the form of Stuyvesant Heights one of the smallest historic districts in New York City; less than 200 homes are protected. How in the world can someone please explain this to me or any other impartial observer?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 5:27 PM
These buildings are exactly the same as the ones that make Tribeca, Dumbo and Soho so gorgeous. It scares me how stupid you people are. I guess you weren't around when the industrial buildings of those now-super-exclusive nabes looked like hell. Oh well, your loss. Morons.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 5:32 PM
those buildings are istorical, beautiful, and deserve protection. bed-sty deserves protection more however. good point.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 5:38 PM
How does one go about hiring architectural historian and Columbia prof Andrew Dolkart to do a survey of for a potential historic district in Bedford-Stuyvesant? His report is well presented, quite substantive and very presuasive. I throughly support preservation of the Wallabout District. How much would such a survey cost? Who did the survey for Crown Heights North, Sunnyside and Fiske Terrace? How long does it take?
I represent a group that is interested in getting the Bedford Heights section of Bedford-Stuyvesant landmarked but there is absolutely no way that we could pull together such a report/survey on our own. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Bedford Wives at June 29, 2007 8:36 PM
you anti-preservationists have a good ally in mayor Bloomberg, he hates preservation. Not to worry, these buildings will never be landmarked.
Unfortunately, other buildings that are really impressive and beautiful will never be landmarked either. The rumor I hear is that before his term is up the mayor will merge landmarks with City Planning, which is like sending the hens to live with the foxes. The planners who have always been wildly jealous of the influence of tiny LPC will make sure that it puts that "little agency" in its place.
You heard it here first.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 8:40 PM
If you want Dolkart to work on your designation report you need to call him and negotiate a price. he is not inexpensive.
But forget that, the LPC has already done major studies on Bed Stuy. They have mapped out and surveyed every block. They will not designate for political reasons. If you get your political ducks in a row, you will get your district but you will need wide support. They will deny it but the commission is wary of designating a huge African American district. After designation they will impose upper class WASP standards of taste on any proposed changes. that's sensitive.
If you can convince them that the cmmunity at large wants white folks in Manhattan telling them how they can and can't improve their homes, then they will designate, But I think you will have a hard time because most folks in the community do not want that. that is why larger areas of Bed Stuy have not been designated even though the area contains the finest collection of Victorian rowhouses in the US.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2007 8:56 PM
Though not having seen the site in person, I can envision the preservation and conversion to residential... I think it would be beautiful. The facade would clean up famously -- in this regard, the earlier comparisons to SoHo, TriBeCa and the Meatpacking districts are apt.
That said, someone mentioned rasing it all - which I heartily disagree with -- except for two things. A subway line that ran from Verrazano to the Queensboro bridges would be lovely - there needs to be something to connect all the disparate lines in Brooklyn, to make it easier to traverse the borough.
Additionally, I think the projects aren't particularly pretty, but my larger issue with them is the way they are self-contained and thus isolating -- they, and their inhabitants, get cut off from the rest of the neighborhood. I'm all for low and middle income housing, but one of the points Jane Jacobs tried to make was that the greatest benefits exist in true communities, where people from all socioeconomic backgrounds are integrated in the same space -- almost forced to interact.. there is demonstrated social gain from such scenarios.
Mixed-use, mixed-income, mixed-age of buildings. Progress and stasis, but always mixing the two together. That's why the city is so amazing. It's a giant mixing bowl.
Posted by: paintingladyjane at June 29, 2007 9:06 PM
Wow! So it's about race, class and politics and not really about architecture? I'm not sure that is true since Crown Heights North (2006), which is a predominantly black community, recently received designation and Fort Greene (1978) and Clinton Hill (1981) received their designation when both neighborhoods were greater than 95% black and poor. Race and class didn't matter then and it shouldn't matter now.
Further, I think the LPC would only have to look at Stuyvesant Heights (1971) which was landmarked prior to Park Slope (1973) to understand the great importance that designation would have on Bedford-Stuyvesant and the surrounding neighborhood. Stuyvesant Heights is the bedrock of the community; the most stable and well kept section of the neighborhood and its greatest pride and joy. Resident of Stuyvesant Heights are extremely proud of the area's landmark status; thus the reason why streets such as Bainbridge, MacDonough, Decatur and Stuyvesant routinely garners top honors in the Brooklyn Botanical Garden's annual "Greenest Block" competition. The homeowners take great pride in their homes and their community.
"I think you will have a hard time because most folks in the community do not want that." This statement is simply not true. The only people who have a voice in this decision are the homeowners of Bed-Stuy who pay real estate taxes and have spent their blood, sweat and tears in maintaining their homes through the decades when no one else cared for the area. Through all of my years in the neighborhood, I've never heard one person come out against landmark designation for the neighborhood. Everyone I know supports the expansion of the Stuyvesant Heights district and the inclusion of Bedford Heights as a new historic district.
For the most part, the homeowners of Bedford-Stuyvesant are comprised of solidly middle/working class families who (a) have shown to have the necessarey resources to maintain their homes; (b) understand the true value of their homes and (c) are very cognizant of the need to protect the value of their homes and community through landmark designation.
If the LPC is truly concerned with the preservation of significant architecture and they have done all of the requisite survey for most of Bed-Stuy because they understand and appreciate the areas architectural history and beauty then I don't understand the reason for further delay in expanding the Stuyvesant Heights district and creating an additional district for Bedford Heights. What more do they want other then what they already have? There is so much development occurring in Bed-Stuy that I'm afraid that without sufficient protection most of this architecture will be lost overtime. Yes, the City of New York made a horrific mistake with Penn Station. Shouldn't we be a little bit more proactive with Bed-Stuy before we lose another critical and significant part of our city's history? Who's going to protect the old Boys High, the churches and all of the fine apartment buildings along Nostrand Avenues if not the LPC? Who's going to protect the blocks and blocks of fine Victorian row houses on Hancock, Jefferson, Macon, Halsey, Greene, Madison and Putnam if not the LPC?
The Landmarks Preservation Commission was established by the Landmarks Law in 1965 in order to:
* Safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage.
* Help stabilize and improve property values in historic districts.
* Encourage civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past.
* Protect and enhance the city's attractions for tourists.
* Strengthen the city's economy.
* Promote the use of landmarks for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of New York City .
Why would the LPC spend thousand of hours on a survey of the largest brownstone community in the country and only landmark a small slither of the neighborhood and not fulfill their basic mission of protecting of our historical gems. It can't be racism and I'm not going to believe that because racism did not prevent Fort Green, Clinton Hill and Crown Heights North and it shouldn't prevent Bedford-Stuyvesant. I don't think that there is some covert conspiracy to to keep Bedford-Stuyvesant and its resident down at the LPC. Is there?
Posted by: Bedford Wives at June 29, 2007 10:03 PM
Bedford wives- you're right on target. I was speaking about this yesterday- I had thought Bed-Stuy was landmarked over a much bigger area and hadn't realizied it's not. You should contact Denise Brown of the Crown heights North Association- they have a web site-she can tell you how CHNA got the landmarking process to happen. I don't really know the workings of the LPC but my impression is that CHNA did the pictures and initial surveys and such and presented it to the LPC. CHNA took pictures of practically every house and every block- all volunteers. My impression from speaking with Denise is that it is persistence, and putting the evidence right in front of them. I can't imagine, like you said, how the LPC could spend thousands of hours on one neighborhood- they simply don't have the manpower. I think they wait for someone to apply to them, they do not go out and pronounce. they do research and surveys, but it will be neighborhood people themselves who do the legwork.
Posted by: bx2bklyn at June 30, 2007 12:11 AM
So the mission of the Landmarks Commission is to "safeguard the city's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage", yet deserving Brooklyn neighborhoods such as Bay Ridge, Bed-Stuy, Kensington, Sunset Park, Victorian Flatbush and Windsor Terrace remain unprotected? This makes absolutely no sense at all. I just checked the LPC website and I was shocked that such neighborhoods were not represented among Brooklyn's landmarked districts. However, the Commission and preservationists are exerting much effort to protect the nondescript warehouses on the blighted industrial waterfront from Redhook to Greenpoint. What gives?
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 12:55 AM
Let’s get a few facts straight here, OK?
First and foremost, LPC does not approve or reject a neighborhood’s desire to be landmarked because of the racial makeup of that neighborhood. That is absolutely not true, and ridiculous.
Since I know from whence I speak, let me give you the rundown on how to become an historic district.
First of all, remember that the LPC is a city agency. An understaffed and underfunded city agency. Apparently, like some here on this board, there are many in gov’t who don’t think preserving our architectural history is all that important. They are extremely understaffed when it comes to researchers and field agents, I believe they have less than 10 full time researchers for the entire city.
Here’s what we in Crown Heights North had to do to get designated: This process, by the way, took over 4 years, and the hard work of quite a few dedicated volunteers. Bedford Corners, or anywhere else would have to do much the same:
1. Submit a request for landmark status. It helped us tremendously that the LPC had their eyes on us since the 70’s, and there was a preliminary LPC report written in 1978, and some photos taken. As it happens, this early report team was headed by Andrew Dolkart, who was the head researcher and writer at the LPC at the time. By the time we started to work on designation, 30 years later, some of the earliest buildings in CHN, noted by the study, had been torn down. A complete photographic survey of the area would have to be done. We knew LPC did not have to staff to do this in a timely manner – we did it. This involved volunteers with digital cameras taking a single photo of each and every public, private, commercial, residential building and empty lot in the proposed district. These were all transferred to a single file, and each and every slide had to have a block and lot number printed on the photo, and then downloaded to disc. These files are available on our website: www.crownheightsnorth.org, if you want to see what is involved.
2. Since a majority of the people in a district have to want to be landmarked, we had to have hundreds of documents signed by homeowners stating their approval, and all of these were forwarded with our other materials. There is a name for this doc, but I can’t remember it. You can ask LPC.
3. Integral to this procedure is the endorsement by politicians, community leaders, police captains, community boards, business and church leaders, etc, etc. We managed to get written endorsements from every local politico from the mayor to Marty on down. This is important, because these people all have a vote in the city council or in some other part of the process, and you need for them to not only endorse your district, but to work hard to get it approved. There are a lot of people trying to get districts approved, and this is where political juice is important.
4. If Landmarks is a go, they then have to start to work. This involves mapping out the actual boundaries of the district, and getting their people in the streets. Every building has to be checked out, notes taken on the present condition of the building, and a very detailed and complex report is written. This report not only lists every single building within the proposed designation, it must also include a very detailed history of the area, from the Native Americans on forward, as well as an architectural description of each building. All of this involves a lot of research at the DOB, newspaper archives, libraries and other sources of materials to document the building’s architect, style, date, building materials, history and other information. Every cornice and crenellation, fenestration and ashlar stone is mentioned in exacting detail. Also noted are owners or tenants of note, and other historical tidbits. This is a lot of research, and takes a lot of time. Crown Heights North was so big a potential district, it was divided into 4 phases, as the amount of buildings was totally beyond the scope of one study. As is it, Phase 1 generated a report of over 330 pages of information. It must have taken at least a year or two to gather the information and write the report. (A copy of the report is available on the internet. Google Crown Heights North Designation Report. It’s on a PDF, and I can’t copy the link.)
5. After all this is done, the report is submitted to the committee at the LPC, and the public is invited to a series of hearings to add their voices yea or nay, and hear the recommendations of the committee. A vote is taken, and landmarking is approved. We got that this spring, but there are still more votes to be taken until the City Council finally votes later this year, and we are officially and forever approved.
In order to get our Phases 2 – 4 approved, we have to do this all again, and are still in competition with the other districts all over the city. However, it’s worth it, and anyone who is truly interested in being designated can follow in our footsteps.
Bedford wives, if you want more information, I would be happy to get in touch with you.
Posted by: Brower Park at June 30, 2007 12:56 AM
"Since a majority of the people in a district have to want to be landmarked, we had to have hundreds of documents signed by homeowners stating their approval, and all of these were forwarded with our other materials. There is a name for this doc, but I can’t remember it. You can ask LPC."
I was under the impression that the LPC could landmark a single property or an entire area with or without homeowners' permission and doesn't it sometime happens over their outright objection. Further, I thought that the LPC took on the initiative and unilaterally decided to landmark most of brownstone Brooklyn in the '60s, '70s and early '80s and only recently has moved the entire burden onto individual communities and have required so much work. Perhaps I'm wrong. In any event, Brower Park provides an excellent blueprint for pursuing landmark status in Brooklyn.
With respect to the Wallabout District, I just read the survey and it looks like the area is indeed worthy of designation. I can't believe the amount of work that has to go into these studies. If the entire area gets landmarked and zoning is changed, I think the area could indeed flourish as a mini-Tribeca/Soho. Those warehouses would make great lofts and provide large street level retail space. I think it would be a win win for downtown Brooklyn. I only wished there was a subway line to tie all of the waterfront communities together.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 7:17 AM
a bike path tying the communities together would also be awesom.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 9:18 AM
7:17, I think you are correct that the LPC doesn't need homeowner's permission. Especially for individual buildings' designation. The documents are really more to show the various committees, politicians, etc, that an area is eager for landmarking, and that there is someone, or some group getting the feel of the community. There is a lot of misunderstanding and outright wrong information out there regarding what landmarking means to an area and individual homeowner. Getting these docs signed and having a lot of meetings and community forums was an important part of the process. Thanks for your clarification.
Posted by: Brower Park at June 30, 2007 10:17 AM
Brower Park, volunteers? It sounds like a full time job! That's a lot of work. But I guess if the community really wants to create a historic district then they got to put in the work. However, I can't believe FG and CH went through such immense hurdles. I mean these were pretty tough neighborhoods with serious social issues back then. Were residents really that organized? If so, then they were the ones who saved these neighborhoods and not the gentrifies of the past 7 years who love to take all of the credit.
In any event, I would hire a consulting firm to organize and expedite the entire application process (e.g., complete all applications and paperwork, get all required signatures and solicit and organize the support of local officials and make presentation to the LPC) and an architectural historian such as Professor Dolkart to conduct the survey . Otherwise, you’re going to be held hostage by the tenuous schedule of volunteers and ton of consensus meetings and meetings in preparation of future meetings – that alone will add two years to the process. In my opinion, I think you pay someone like Professor Dolkart and a consulting firm about $50-$100k and you’d reduce the time of having the entire application package in front of landmarks within a year. However, since the LPC must conduct their own study and they are seriously understaffed, it might take them another year to complete their end. Bedford-Stuyvesant community and civic organization receive a ton of dollars whether in the form of grants or subsidies that could be tapped to pay for the survey and such. Surely funds can be sought from the Fulton-Nostrand United Merchants Association and the Bedford-Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation. Additional monies can be obtained through fundraising events hosted by famous Bed-Stuy residents. I mean the likes of Jay-Z, Chris Rock, Mos Def and Lil’ Kim can fit the bill on their own but I’m sure would be willing to assist with the preservation efforts in whatever capacity deemed necessary and most appropriate.
However, since the LPC already has conducted an extensive survey of the area then the first order of business would be to obtain a copy of this report and contact someone like Professor Dolkart to determine the scope of the project and provide some guidance on the process before implanting a strategy.
Good luck!
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 10:30 AM
This is the problem that I have with all of these preservation efforts. So much of it seems misguided and inappropriate. The LPC just granted Sunnyside, Queens landmark designation. Please take a look at the LPC Sunnyside Designation report. You call that a historic district? Where's the significant architecture here? Sunnyside, Queens is indistinguishable from the likes of East Flatbush and Canarsie and those nabes stand zero chance in obtaining landmark status. The landmarking of Sunnyside is a slap in the face to communities rich in architectural history and culture such as Bay Ridge, Bed-Stuy, Kensington, Sunset Park, Victorian Flatbush and Windsor Terrace. Take a look Brower Park, the LPC put Crown Heights North through 4 years of intense hurdles and they turn around and landmark Sunnyside, Queens but won't give Victorian Flatbush the time of day. I don't believe this. In my view, the LPC has no credibility to speak of.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 10:41 AM
Brownstoner: Your photos should show more clearly the so-called "Hall Street Complex" bldgs, which are more striking and could help some (but perhaps not all) of the people on this comment chain see what is at risk.
In terms of bldg style, the Hall Street complex is on par with some of the coolest of those Gair bldgs in the middle of Dumbo. Would be sad to lose any of them for another glass tower.
Posted by: Show the Hall Street Complex at June 30, 2007 10:49 AM
I have no idea if that would work or not, and getting funding may take as long as going out and doing the work. Writing grants proposals is also hard work, and trust me, the city does not hand out money easily. It also takes political clout. I've also found that celebrities don't get off of their money easily either, and I would imagine one would have to prove that your organization was above board, legit and was able to deliver.
The Crown Heights North Association was founded in order to bring about this landmarking. We are now reaching out into other community needs, but our volunteers knew that this was what the organization was about, and our founders, Deborah Young and Denise Brown were tireless in making this happen, and rounding up the troops.
I would strongly suggest that anyone who wanted to landmark their area form a non profit organization, with all of the forms, registrations, bylaws and other official documents and whatever needed, so that there is a legit entity for the city (and rich celebrities)to deal with. This also takes time, money and lawyers, but I would bet an attorney in the community would be willing to file the papers and join the board, as well.
I would also advise contacting the LPC and find out exactly how to fast track. Hiring Mr. Dolkart may be a way to go, or could just be a waste of money. Only the LPC could tell you the best way to go. They are very nice people to deal with, and are very helpful, as you both have the same goals.
Good luck. I would love to see Bedford Corners landmarked, as it is beautiful, a worthy district, and my old stomping grounds.
Posted by: Brower Park at June 30, 2007 10:52 AM
The reason that Sunnyside was designated and Bed Stuy is not, and Forest Hills gardens is not, is POLITICAL.
Architecture is for kids, the real game is politics. The last thing the LPC wants is to go into an area and have the likes of Councilman Barron injecting racial overtones into every shopefront or window application.
On the other end of the spectrum, the folks from Forset Hills just told the commission: "you try and make us a landmark and we will sue you" -result? they go for working-class Sunnyside instead in order to fill their "Queens quota" although Sunnyside is hardly a stellar historical poster child.
It is about class, race, politics, and political clout. PERIOD.
The folks from Crown Heights North did averything right but the BIG FACTOR there was that the LPC was afraid to designate Crown Heights proper. Why? Orthodox Jewishe people. Of all the groups that the LPC is TERRIFIED of it is the Orthodox and Hassids and Lubavs.
These folks have clout, like the WASPS in Forest Hills Gardens.
Preservtion = politics, Duh.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 30, 2007 10:02 PM
alrighty then.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2007 12:03 AM
"The folks from Crown Heights North did everything right but the BIG FACTOR there was that the LPC was afraid to designate Crown Heights proper. Why? Orthodox Jewish people. Of all the groups that the LPC is TERRIFIED of it is the Orthodox and Hassids and Lubavs."
Brower Park is this true? Why did your organization only petition for the landmarking of the section of Crown Heights north of Eastern Pkwy? What's your take on the role of politics in the landmarking or non-landmarking of neighborhoods?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 1, 2007 12:38 AM
No. Mr Anonymous is seeing conspiracies all over the place. That is patently untrue. The area of Crown Heights North that was in the original designation, which includes Phases 1-4, streched roughly from Atlantic Ave to Eastern Parkway, Rogers/Bedford to Albany. Of all of that territory, only a very small portion of one corner includes what is a part of the Lubabavitch community, and that is part of Eastern Parkway, near Albany, and a couple of groups of houses nearby. 90% of the Jewish community is on the other side of Eastern Parkway going towards Empire Bvd, or what is known as Crown Heights South. Crown Heights North is 80% Caribbean and African American. For the uninitiated, Crown Heights is a very large community, which streches all the way to East New York to Prospect Heights to PLG to Bed Stuy. The historic district, even in all phases, takes up about a quarter of the community.
We petitioned for this area to be landmarked because, like Stuyvesant Heights, and Bedford Corners, the largest concentration of important architecture lies in this area. That's certainly not to say that other parts of CH don't have great architecture, they do, and there are some amazing blocks like President St. in CH South, as well as some great buildings in the Crow Hill area, near Rogers/Franklin/St. Marks. But just as all of Clinton Hill is not landmarked, you have to draw boundaries somewhere. We worked from the original study done by Prof. Dolkart and the LPC and went from there. We actually added more blocks than the original study, in order to include Pacific Street, which wasn't included. As it turns out, Pacific has some highly significant buildings, and is important to the study of the area. We were not in lockstep with the original study.
Does politics influence the LPC? I have no idea. Since this city runs on politics, it would be naieve to assume that the LPC could always float above the fray. But as to the inner machinations of the agency, I have no idea, and will not speculate on something I have no knowedge of. All I know is that we in Crown Heights North worked tirelessly, with dogged determination and resolve until we got the job done. If politics helped us, we were glad to get the help.
We met some of the people from Sunnyside when both of our organizations received Grassroots Awards from the Historic Districts Council. They worked as tirelessly as we did, and are just as proud of where they live as we are. Historic doesn't have to mean Victorian or older. Their buildings are fine examples of their type, and are just as worthy as anyone elses.
Posted by: Brower Park at July 1, 2007 2:11 AM
"Comments made by Andrew S. Dolkart, James Marston Fitch Professor of Historic Preservation, Columbia University
December 5, 2006, Brooklyn, NY -- We are all here today to protect Brooklyn’s most valuable asset – what makes it unique among American urban communities – it’s extraordinary rowhouse residential neighborhoods. For reasons influenced by its singular urban history, Brooklyn retains the largest concentration of 19th and early 20th century urban residential architecture in America.
These are cohesive neighborhoods of low-scale buildings where the skyline is generally pierced only by church steeples, school gables, or decorative iron cresting. Nearby are Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Boerum Hill, Prospect Heights, Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights. Some of these neighborhoods are historic districts, some are not yet designated, but all have extraordinary urban architecture.
People of remarkably diverse backgrounds choose to live in Brooklyn because of its scale and sense of neighborhood intimacy. Brooklynites always tell you what neighborhood they live in."
Out of all the neighborhoods cited by Professor Dolkart, only Bedford-Stuyvesant is not designated as a historic district. Considering Bed-Stuy's significant contribution to the "city's historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage" this must indeed change. I'm very inspired by the efforts of the Crown Heights Association.
As a result, I'm going to assist area residents in Bedford-Stuyvesant in creating a not-for-profit organization to deal precisely with the issue of historic preservation in the community. The firs step will be to create an entity, e.g., "The Bedford-Stuyvesant Historic Preservation Society". The second is to solicit members to assist in the creation of by-laws and a mission statement for the group. The third is to create a 501(c)(3) organization. The fourth is to reach out to Deborah Young and Denise Brown at the CHNA and other preservation groups in Brooklyn for some much needed guidance on this process. The fifth step would be to have a consultation meeting with Professor Dolkart and then the LPC to determine the best course of action for the expansion of the "Stuyvesant Heights Historic District" and the creation of the "Bedford Heights (or Corners) Historic District." The sixth step is to get a copy of the LPC survey for Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Man, this is tough and I don't know where to begin. I need to create an email account, reserve a web domain name, and reach out to some bed-stuy blogs for assistance in getting the word out and soliciting nieghborhood support. An exploratory meeting has to be set up to see where we stand in terms of volunteers and to evaluate our resources and respective areas of knowledge and expertise. I must admit that I'm totally clueless on the preservation process with the LPC but I'm game and ready to learn. Brower Park, I will attend the next CHNA meeting and reach out to you. Perhaps there you can introduce me to Deborah and Denise. Getting a website up will be key as it's the best way to get information out and keep the pubic informed.
Wish us luck.
Brownstoner, as soon as we are able to get something set up and running, I will let you know. Perhaps you can write a piece on the BSHPS!!
Posted by: The Bedford Wives at July 1, 2007 8:43 AM
Of course. Keep us posted and we'll be more than happy to help coordinate and get the word out.
Good luck!
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 1, 2007 9:16 AM
Two points.
1. A poster wrote:
"I thought that the LPC took on the initiative and unilaterally decided to landmark most of brownstone Brooklyn in the '60s, '70s and early '80s and only recently has moved the entire burden onto individual communities and have required so much work."
It's almost NEVER been that simple. The designation of most brownstone Brooklyn HDs has been a struggle since, at least, the'70s. We in PLG had a relatively easy time, because LPC had a grant to identify potential HDs in Flatbush, but it STILL took three years of work. We (the PLGNA committee working on landmarking) still considered ourselves lucky, since we were aware of the long struggle of those working on the Ft. Greene designation, completed shortly before we started. The description of the process given by "Brower Park" is, unfortunately, typical--would that it were otherwise.
2. A couple of people have objected to the Sunnyside Queens designation. This is Sunnyside GARDENS, an unusual planned garden community which is certainly worthy of designation irrespective of the fact that the individual buildings (IMO) lack the beauty of many yet undesignated Brooklyn districts.
Posted by: Bob Marvin at July 1, 2007 9:30 AM
Bedford Wives, I am on the board of CHNA, and we will help you in any way that we can. We don't meet until next fall, so please contact us via email at your convenience. Our contacts are listed on our website: www.crownheightsnorth.org. If you email Denise, specifically, I will let her know who you are (please identify as The Bedford Wives somewhere in your letter). She reads Brownstoner, but not as much as I do, so she may miss this, otherwise. She'll pass your contact info to me, and I'll be in touch. Sorry for the cloak and dagger, but I don't want to leave my email address here. Good luck, this will all be worth it!
Posted by: Brower Park at July 1, 2007 10:11 AM
Thanks Brower Park. I'm excited and at the same time very scared and intimidated. But the way I see it, we can talk about preservation in Bedford-Stuyvesant until we are blue in the face but until someone takes the initiative nothing will get done. I'm inspired by CHN, Wallabout and Midwood. I'm going to put everything I have into this and I'm hoping for the best. Perhaps in 4 years Bedford-Stuyvesant will have two large historic district worthy of it's immense contribution to Brooklyn's rich architectural heritage.
I hope my husband doesn't blow a gasket over the next four years. He supports me but is weary of the commitment and personal sacrifice. Oh well, here's to faith.... :-)
Posted by: The Bedford Wives at July 1, 2007 5:06 PM
I grew up in Clinton Hill and Bed-Stuy Bedford Wives, albeit not in the beautiful section of the community that you are going to work on landmarking. What you are doing is so needed and do necessary & even though I am now very far from BK I wish you the very best luck. I speak about BK/CH/BS w/ my family all of the time and because I read this blog I know more about their neighborhoods than they do. WEB DuBois actually lived in the "not nice" section of BS at some point. There are so many artists and intellectuals who have called the neighborhood home. You are going to find such a rich history. Again, Good Luck & don't forget to involve the churches--they are often the true repositories of (documented) neigborhood history and if you can get a pastor on board--well, your voulunteer issue is, at least partially, settled.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 2, 2007 9:24 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.