« Today On The Forum Brownstoner's First Podcast »
July 27, 2007
Illegal Paint Job on Landmarked Block of Clinton Hill
We just got a tip that someone just started painting one of the brownstones on Grand Avenue between Gates and Putnam white this morning. (Yes, a certain blogger does live on this block.) Something tells us the Landmarks Preservation Commission didn't sign off on this. If any readers are nearby, we'd appreciate a photo asap. If anyone from LPC is reading, please get on the stick! Update 7/27: Here's the photo from about 11:20 this morning. The address is 373 Grand Avenue. LPC confirms that there are no permits out on this.
Update 7/29: As the Daily News article reports, it turns out that—luckily—the owner was only repainting the area around the door. While we understand that some people feel it was an overreaction on our part to post about this before all the facts were known, here's why we think it was warranted: First of all, had the painters been intending to paint the entire facade, every second counted when we got the tip (we were in fact in Dumbo, and not just across the street, when the tip came in, so popping over for a friendly chat was not an option); secondly, we were on the phone with LPC within five minutes of getting the tip, and LPC told us that (1) the owner had no permit for the painting and (2) that he had racked up, and failed to cure, several other landmark violations over the years. All these factors led us to conclude that, on balance, it was not worth taking the risk that something really destructive might happen. You know, better safe than sorry. With 20/20 hindsight, this was clearly the wrong call. Apologies to the owner—our obsession with historic brownstones may have gotten the better of us on this one.
Bottom photo by Rosier for the Daily News
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1717
Comments
...are you sure it's not primer?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:38 AM
primer?
Posted by: lou at July 27, 2007 11:39 AM
Oh the horror! THE HORROR!
Posted by: AJ at July 27, 2007 11:39 AM
OMG. Off with their heads.
Posted by: electricgreek at July 27, 2007 11:41 AM
i can't understand. the brownstoning looks so nice and new. why????
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 11:48 AM
The stone looks like it's in decent shape. Usually people paint these to cover up the bad stone? If it is primer, I hope that the top coat will be bright purple, pink or green.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:49 AM
I think that looks pretty sharp, actually.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:50 AM
it probably is just primer but it's still not allowed
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 11:50 AM
I hope it's primer and they go with GOLD.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:51 AM
Gold sparkles!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:53 AM
Mr B, Go kill yourself.
Posted by: The What at July 27, 2007 12:04 PM
OMG, it's the brownstone nerd nazi's...leave them alone...it's just plain boring white. leave them alone. if you've ever had a fight with Landmarks then you KNOW you don't want to sic them on anyone...shame on you for posting this.
Posted by: relaxitsfriday at July 27, 2007 12:05 PM
So you can't paint your own property? Isn't this still America???
After paying millions for it, shouldn't they be allowed to "make it their own"??
--Aside-- why isn't painting allowed?
Posted by: Maria at July 27, 2007 12:08 PM
No, I disagree, if the buildings are landmarked people should have to follow the rules. There are always people who think the rules don't apply to them and they ruin the common good of the rule for everybody.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:09 PM
Gold and fucsia horizontal stripes with blue metallic sparkles and pink faux fur trim and dingleballs (the 70s low rider kind)!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:09 PM
I would hate to live next door to that. I'm fine with sicking landmark on them. That's the whole point with having landmark, to keep the block preserved.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 12:10 PM
Well, if EVERYBODY on the block went with the gold and fuscia then it wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:11 PM
There is a purpose to Landmarking. One is to protect the historic BROWNstones. This is a disgrace.
Posted by: George at July 27, 2007 12:11 PM
I say go after the neighbor next door with the ugly AC units in the front windows.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:13 PM
It's going to be quite difficult getting the paint out of the agacantha carvings around the doorway. Ridiculous. Get the LPC on them. Fools.
Posted by: lp at July 27, 2007 12:14 PM
are you crazy!! of course post the information. Mr. B, keep it up.
White or not, it doesn't matter. Places are landmarked for a reason, so issues like this are avoided. This is a slap in the face of everyone else that abides by the rules and maintains the preserved beauty of an area. Let's not blur the line, the action is either legal or not.
Posted by: Adante at July 27, 2007 12:14 PM
Also, the next door neighbor appears to have painted the facade - the door frame is pinker than the rest of the building and there appear to be paint flakes below a few of the 2nd and 3rd floor windows.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:16 PM
Regardless of whether you like the landmarks regulations, they do apply and the owners in landmarked districts know this. It is what preserves the character, and property value, of the areas. Think it's ridiculous or wrong to have such restrictions? Then don't buy in a landmarked area.
Posted by: lp at July 27, 2007 12:17 PM
oh for crying out loud, is that you martha stewart...is it REALLY that bad?
excuse me, but who said the rule is good or even for the common good?? Honestly. Landmarks says a lot of things, and is - rightly - challenged regularly, and they aren't always right and they don't always win.
Posted by: relaxitsfriday at July 27, 2007 12:17 PM
Mr B. you are a snitch. Fuck off. Socialists like you want every building to be the same like in public housing. people in America appreciate the freedom to have their homes as they wish. You are a bully and should be ashamed of yourself
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:18 PM
Sorry for the dumb question (but at least it's sincere); if there's not central air and through the wall air conditioners aren't allowed, what other options (other than useless portable units and sweating one's balls off) are an option?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:19 PM
...last I checked, this property was in N.America and LPC was part of the NYC gov. Apparently, not everyone agrees.
---
The whole point is, there are rules and processes - don't blur the lines of responsibility.
Posted by: Adante at July 27, 2007 12:27 PM
the people who say it's fine to paint this place are the same people who would say they'd like to see velveeta served at per se.
ignore them. if it were up to them, they'd be proactively seeking a graffiti artist to spruce up notre dame cathedral.
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 12:29 PM
Not completely uncommon. Check out this bldg on Hicks St in the Heights.
featherednest.com/detail.aspx?id=1063402
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:34 PM
Paint is destructive to brownstone -- it degrades the stone by not allowing it to breathe. Not only is it against Landmark, regulations, there is a good reason not to do it.
Posted by: anon on Greene at July 27, 2007 12:36 PM
"There is a purpose to Landmarking. One is to protect the historic BROWNstones. This is a disgrace."
no, the war in iraq is a disgrace. the lack of affordable health care in this country is a disgrace. our dependence on foreign oil is a disgrace.
this is just someone painting their house white.
when you pick yourself off the floor after fainting, get over it.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:37 PM
painting brownstone bright white is a Landmarks mortal sin.
Hard to imagine what someone was thinking when they did this.
were they high, is it a political statement, or did they do it to someone else's house as a bad gag?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:38 PM
is it possible that they are just painting the archway? and is it possible that this is just primer?
i mean, if they were painting the whole house, why take such care to cut the archway so cleanly??
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:42 PM
MR BROWNSTONER IS A NAZI!!!!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:42 PM
I'm surprised at the hositlity to landmarks on this blog (of all places).
Most of the old houses in prime Clinton Hill and Fort Greene would be in the process of demolition right now and being replaced with bigger buildings if it were not for landmark protection.
How dumb to be questioning landmark regs at this stage of the game.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:44 PM
Wow, I just walked by this house as I was walking back home from Target. It's funny because I also wondered what were they doing with the white paint. And yes this is still America but the Historic rules are the rules. The only reason why a seller in the area can get over a million for one of theses properties is because NO ONE PAINTED THE FRONT OF THESE HOUSES WITH WHTIE PAINT!
Posted by: A Clinton Hill Lady at July 27, 2007 12:44 PM
Landmark rules or not, it is just plain tacky.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:48 PM
I'd do this myself if I live in the neighborhood...someone should print out this thread and give it to the homeowner to read. He/She might get enjoy the read.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 12:56 PM
A Michael Jackson archway, how cute.
Posted by: SMD at July 27, 2007 12:56 PM
Stoner, relax with your assumption that those of us that disagree with this posting are lacking education or taste or whatever it is that you are trying to imply with your "velvetta and graffiti" comments. You're just exhibiting what an elitist ass you are. Save it.
Landmarks does indeed serve a purpose, I'm not denying that. What I object to here is the knee-jerk reaction and this posting. I've lived in CH for 40 years now, and I've seen what Landmarks can put people through, and it's a little rough, frankly. Not everyone that owns a brownstone in a Landmarked area is wealthy. I suspect this very thought secretly offends you, but it's...gasp...true!
Do you know for a fact that the owner did this knowingly against the rules of Landmarks? Why the public flogging? I don't know this person, do you? - or is this some kind of personal vendetta? And at the end of the day - is it really that bad?
Going after developers is one thing, but going after an individual, a stranger, and siccing Landmarks on private homes and posting this is really taking it too far.
Posted by: relaxitsfriday at July 27, 2007 12:58 PM
Stoner, relax with your assumption that those of us that disagree with this posting are lacking education or taste or whatever it is that you are trying to imply with your "velvetta and graffiti" comments. You're just exhibiting what an elitist ass you are. Save it.
Landmarks does indeed serve a purpose, I'm not denying that. What I object to here is the knee-jerk reaction and this posting. I've lived in CH for 40 years now, and I've seen what Landmarks can put people through, and it's a little rough, frankly. Not everyone that owns a brownstone in a Landmarked area is wealthy. I suspect this very thought secretly offends you, but it's...gasp...true!
Do you know for a fact that the owner did this knowingly against the rules of Landmarks? Why the public flogging? I don't know this person, do you? - or is this some kind of personal vendetta? And at the end of the day - is it really that bad?
Going after developers is one thing, but going after an individual, a stranger, and siccing Landmarks on private homes and posting this is really taking it too far.
Posted by: relaxitsfriday at July 27, 2007 12:58 PM
12:37, I (sincerely) appreciated your rant. I wonder what your thoughts are on the very next post referring to the painting as a "mortal sin".
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 27, 2007 12:59 PM
I agree that this is a tragedy of gargantuan proportions. It ranks up there with AIDS, slavery, human trafficking, genital mutilation, ethnic cleansing, serial killing, famine, genocide, and child labor. I have just sent e-mails to my political representatives, demanding that they send in the national guard to correct this horrible violation of human rights. Thank you, people, for raising the public awareness so that the proper steps can be taken. Thank you.
Posted by: Crown Heights Proud at July 27, 2007 1:02 PM
I've had a tough time with LPC for minor changes to the back of my building. So I should be in favor of letting people do as they please. However, I think that painting this building is a crime and should be handled as such.
A building across the street from mine has been painted white, it is an eyesore. LPC knows about it for years and so far nothing has changed. I would love it if LPC forced the removal of the paint.
Posted by: Anon at July 27, 2007 1:10 PM
if you came on this board to discuss the war, aids or the environment, sadly google pointed you in the wrong direction.
to suggest that people liken this to such significant problems shows how truly ignorant you are. this is brownstoner.com. we talk about brownstones and brooklyn. not the war.
and to the person who was offended by by velveeta comment, a. it was meant to be funnier than you thought it was and b. i think your arguement is a bunch of hooey.
i have a feeling most people who live in a landmarked district (wealthy or not...it makes no difference) have an idea that painting their house white is a no-no.
come on.
you probably think the coke really WASN'T lindsay lohan's....
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 1:11 PM
I'm with RELAX! and 12:37. The owner is probably some poor schmuck who has owned the house for the last 60 years and doesn't have a clue that NY has become a Nazi state. And as 12:37 said, there are more important things in life.
Posted by: Yente at July 27, 2007 1:13 PM
Crown Heights Proud, please add "eyesore" to your list of tragedies.
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 27, 2007 1:16 PM
373 Grand Ave Housing Devp Fund Corp
is owner of 373 Grand Avenue.
Not a poor schuck who has owned for 60 years.
But probably some agency that can get around LPC
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:17 PM
I agree with some of the above posters. This is an inappropriate thing to "out" someone for. If you want to be a jerk call 311 and be done with it. But to publicly shame some poor (and I do mean poor, they probably really are poor) property owner for this kind of thing is wrong.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:19 PM
For those who are asking why you don't do this, it is because brownstone is the finished surface and is not meant to be painted. As a poster said above, paint degrades the brownstone physically. Is isn't the color that's objectionable, it's the paint itself.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:21 PM
Last summer you sent out a LPC SOS alert regarding the hot purple paint job on Garfield in Park Slope. http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/08/brownstone_not_1.php
I doubt the Garfield paint job was illegal as its still standing there in all it's violet beauty.
If hot purple is kosher with the LPC then surely white would be OK.
BTW, homeowners paint their buildings ALL THE TIME. Stucco is not MANDATED by LPC
Posted by: ItsAWrap at July 27, 2007 1:29 PM
I think 311 should be called on this. It's landmarked and if you don't like those rules move on to non-landmarked locations.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:33 PM
ItsAWrap,
That was not an LPC SOS, at all.
That house in Park Slope has been painted that way for a long, long time (due to some neighborly dispute, I think).
Brownstoner merely called to attention that it had a fresh coat of paint.
It was nothing like this case, and was not at all a call to arms for LPC.
Nice try.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:37 PM
Hot purple (or white or any other color) would only be kosher with the LPC if it was already that color when the area was landmarked.
Posted by: Amy at July 27, 2007 1:38 PM
There are a few key points here.
Should property be Landmarked and if so who should decide the guidelines? It seems easiest to stick with the original vision of the architect. I think that's what Landmarks tries to do.
Is white so bad? Not in theory but if you deviate from the guidelines, you are opening a Pandora's Box. Should white be acceptable? What other colors? Who gets to decide?
The last and I think the most interesting is the "outing" of the owner. It feels a bit wrong, but it is done all the time on this site to developers and no one runs to their defense. It would have been neighborly to contact them first.
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 1:38 PM
If we'd waited until we got home this evening to go knock on the door, the whole thing could have already been painted. Besides, as noted above, this isn't some old grandma who's been living here for 50 years and is unaware of landmarks law. this is a company called 373 Grand Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp that was deeded the property by the city in 1996. ACcording to LPC, the property has a series of landmark violations that it has made no effort to rectify.
Posted by: Brownstoner at July 27, 2007 1:51 PM
This blog never fails to entertain. I love it - I really Love It. Yes the white paint (if it is final) is NASTY. But it does not rise to the Level to cause such Public Alarm... Landmarks most certainly does don't always have the right answer. In the Grand Scheme of the Possibilities of Nasty Eyesores that Occur Daily on the Brooklyn landscape this hardly registers. Put the energy ino the Real messes - like the Horrible Infill Houses Being built all over BedStuy - Now those folks should be Subject to a Public Flogging!
Posted by: H at July 27, 2007 1:55 PM
i havr ead all your comments and brownnoser or stoner i am coming to your house to kick the shit out of you
you are an ass and will lick my white boots now
get a freaking life you self absorbed morons
Posted by: white house owner at July 27, 2007 2:04 PM
It seems like you have a greater responsibility than the average homeowner if you have an historic / landmarked property. If cared for properly, these buildings will long outlast all of us. And I would like to believe that Manhattan and Brooklyn's beautiful brownstones will be standing for many generations to come. If painting these buildings can degrade the stone aside from simply looking out of character, that is a valid reason to voice concern to your neighbor as well as the LPC.
It is incredibly difficult to remove paint from these buildings. An incredibly beautiful brownstone co-op designed by Frederick Clark Withers and Calvert Vaux (the architects of the Jefferson Market Libary in the West Village) in my old Manhattan neighborhood stood beneath scaffolding for ages while being soaked and treated in various test patches to remove its white paint. Much have cost a fortune to remove the paint, but it was well worth it in the end. The building is stunning in its original form.
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 2:05 PM
white boots are tacky.
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 2:06 PM
"If we'd waited until we got home this evening to go knock on the door, the whole thing could have already been painted."
Come, Mr. B. Don't tell me you thought you'd hit post and the wailing sirens of the LPC police would show up in 10 minutes to stop the painter in mid-stroke.
I will agree that if this is landmarked, they shouldn't be painting. But this is distasteful: using your publication to pursue your own beef to improve your block. Unless you plan on posting something equivalent about every Landmarks violation anyone sends you.
I think you're trying to have it both ways. Sometimes you want to be a professional journalist, running Brownstoner as a full-time job for money. And sometimes you want to be treated as a regular-guy blogger, doing a labor of love for which he deserves to get cut extra slack.
Ask yourself: would it be appropriate for the owner of a newspaper or a corporate-owned blog to do the same thing about an issue on their own block?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 2:11 PM
I've read today on this blog that painting is illegal, yet i see painted and repainted facades ALL THE TIME.
What is the specific LPC guidelines about painting facades? Furthermore, what does it say about color schemes?
I brought up the Garfield house because most people will agree that the painted hot purple color scheme doesn't 'fit' the surrounding brownstones. Yet, LPC has done nada over the years to address this.
I've searched the LPC site and haven't seen anything.
Posted by: ItsAWrap at July 27, 2007 2:15 PM
It does seem that you can paint in brownstone, the recently announced new color by Crayola, part of the Historic Home 8 pack.
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 2:20 PM
To all those who think this isn't important enough to care about, don't you both care about very major issues like the war in Irag and AIDS and famine, and ALSO care about things closer to home? It's not one or the other. If you spend some time today pondering what you are having for dinner, is anyone going to get on your case for not spending 24/7 thinking about political prisoners or something equally serious? If you are concerned about your neighborhood or in your family, is there no room left in the brain for "the big issues"? This is a blog about brownstones and interesting historic architecture. OF COURSE people will care about neighbors ignoring the rules of a landmarked district. Only a very small part of the city is landmarked--if you want to paint your house polka dot you would not want to own in a landmarked district.
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 27, 2007 2:26 PM
Moral of the story:
Pull stupid sh_t like that and someone's going to call you out on it.
Posted by: Jerry Springer at July 27, 2007 2:27 PM
Scores of neighbors in the Clinton Hill community worked hundreds of hours to secure this landmark district. We all have every right -- even obligation -- to assure that the integrity of the district is maintained. Starting with our own homes and then extending to our blocks then to the entire district. Thank you Mr. B for doing what a good neighbor in a landmarked district would and should do.
Posted by: GW at July 27, 2007 2:28 PM
That said, does anyone actually KNOW what the friggin' rules?
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 27, 2007 2:28 PM
There are several issues here.
1. Painting a stone facade is often, but not always, destructive to it, as most paints will trap water behind the paint. This trapped water ends up blistering the paint and decaying the stone.
2. Painting is often done rather than more expensive -- and more period-appropriate -- fixes. Sadly.
3. To my knowledge Landmarks view painting as the remedy of last resort, since (as other posters have pointed out) it is so difficult to remove. Landmarks will specifically approve repainting a facade if it is clear that stripping the paint will damage the facade. This is why you see some facades being repainted.
4. The Garfield Place pink house painting PRE-DATES the landmarking of Park Slope. It is therefore grandfathered in. If the owner wanted a different color, of course, he would be subject to LPC review.
***
I don't know Brownstoner himself from a hole in the wall, but I think it's clear this blog is his back yard. Short of the threshold of slander or libel (I wonder which applies?) it seems to me he may post anything he wants, enjoy any "double standard" he feels like, at the sole risk of damaging his site's reputation. This post is about a renovation that is both tacky and not allowed, in flagrant and full public view.
You may say that people should have the right to do as they please with their facades, in which case you should work to overturn the Landmarks Law. But for my money it is difficult to condone a facade treatment that so clear ignores the law while at the same time hastening the destruction of good, existing details.
--an architect in Brooklyn
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 2:29 PM
...the friggin" rule are?
Posted by: Carol Gardens at July 27, 2007 2:30 PM
The Garfield house was painted purple before the area was landmarked and therefore it was not illegal to keep repainting it purple.
Posted by: victor at July 27, 2007 2:32 PM
The hot purple under question was grandfathered in, as are many of the presently painted brownstones. If it was hot pink in 1972 (or whenever) then it can stay that color.
I thought we all knew this, but apparently not. Why's everyone jumping on Mr. B's back? This is a blog about Brownstone restoration. Go find some libertarian blog if you want to argue that a person's home is his castle and leave us alone.
Posted by: Get with the program at July 27, 2007 2:34 PM
One word: tattletales.
Posted by: North Sleeper at July 27, 2007 2:37 PM
From Old House Journal
Why Brownstone Fails
Brownstone is a medium- to coarse-grained red-brown sandstone, usually with noticeable mica content that gives the stone its characteristic sparkle. The stone is held together with silica and clay, and Myjer says it's the weaknesses of these elements that lead to most of the damage. These minerals swell after long periods of exposure to moisture and don't return to their original size when the stone dries. This action causes small cracks, usually along the bedding planes, allowing more water to enter. Then pointing may crumble between blocks of brownstone, compounding the problem; as these joints open up, they allow water to seep in. When the temperature drops, the water freezes, expands, and further damages the stone in a continuing freeze-thaw cycle. Crumbling architectural details on top of a building may also channel water in patterns that severely wear away the brownstone façade. Drainage problems such as this must be corrected before repairing the brownstone itself. Maintenance of mortar joints, flashing, roofs, gutters, downspouts, and coping stones limit the amount of water that enters the masonry wall.
Another reason brownstone fails is that it typically was face-bedded, with the stone's planes (layers) set perpendicular to the ground, rather than naturally bedded, with the bedding planes set parallel to the ground. This installation method allows water to penetrate through weakened mortar joints and flashing and into the stone's layers. Face bedding was fast, aesthetically pleasing, and less costly-but definitely not the way Mother Nature intended. The stone spalls or flakes off, roughening the once smooth surface. Although you can counteract some water problems, you're stuck with the original orientation.
read entire article
http://www.oldhousejournal.com/magazine/2002/June/savingface.shtml
Posted by: H at July 27, 2007 2:42 PM
CG@2:26, I appreciate that you're presenting the argument in a sane manner. To quote a few posts..."RULES! RULES! MORTAL SIN! IT'S NOT ALLOWED!IT'S A DISGRACE!" Honestly, don't you think people are getting a bit too dramatic here? Stoner, go smoke some more weed. The rest of you...chill!
Posted by: Yente at July 27, 2007 2:59 PM
Libertarian thoughts.
There are many promising ways of protecting the heritage left to us by our ancestors without resorting to threats of punishment and violence by the state. To cite just a few that spring to mind immediately: voluntary associations can purchase and preserve sites, owners can place covenants on their property to restrict alterations when selling it
I't is interesting to consider the grandiose assertions that a new law means some site now will be "protected forever." Even more damaging to the case for state-mandated preservation is the fact that the most egregious destroyers of treasures from our past have not been market actors seeking profit, but states pursuing power, engaging in wars, urban renewal projects, and eminent domain seizures of long-established and beloved neighborhoods for highways, airports, sports stadiums, and commercial developments promising higher tax revenues.
The crucial difference between the two approaches to preservation is that the path offered by the market, unlike the political process, prompts all interested parties to consider the costs, and not just the benefits, of their preferred use of some property. Those costs do not vanish when such decisions are reached by legislative or judicial decree, but only come to fall on the loser of the political battle, not because of any matter of justice, but merely because he proved to have less political influence than did his adversaries.
Haven't we witnessed exactly this with the Ratner fiasco?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:13 PM
"Chill" Typical yuppie suggestion. Chill is what happened in the 60's when the neighborhood was burning and drugs and crime and indifference were rampant. Then came the folks who came here in very risky times, who gave a damn -- concerned and active (not chilled). Now that the neighborhood has rebounded because of their hard work and dedication, it is not time to chill or we lose it again.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:15 PM
The neighborhoods didn't rebound because of the yuppies?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:19 PM
"we'd appreciate a photo asap. If anyone from LPC is reading, please get on the stick!"
Ew. The urgency in the wording of this makes me wonder sometimes why I continue reading this blog. With every post I am less inclined to read the silliness Mr B displays daily.
Frivolous!
Posted by: your mother at July 27, 2007 3:20 PM
Wow. this is the most awesome thread ever. You people are hysterical! this may be the equivalent of the winter-hat post on ParkSlopeParents.com.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:26 PM
"Then came the folks who came here in very risky times, who gave a damn"
Yeah sure. It's the yuppies that move in that care and do all the work. Right. With all that disposable income to buy multi-million-dollar brownstones you'd better damn well care. Oh the privileges of being a white high-wage earner.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:28 PM
"Chill" Typical yuppie suggestion.
Chill is what happened in the 60's when the neighborhood was burning and drugs and crime and indifference were rampant.
So "chill" is yuppie or criminal junkie arsonist?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:35 PM
What does this have to do with being white 3:28? Why the racism?
Posted by: Biff Champion at July 27, 2007 3:35 PM
Just took a gander at this home. AFter looking at several others in the area including BrokenAngel, all i have to say is to each their own. It may be an artistic vision in the eyes of the owners,their work in progress.
Posted by: whateverfloatsurboat at July 27, 2007 3:38 PM
3:28- What are you attempting to say?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:39 PM
Chill is indifference to what is happening in your neighborhood. Let someone else complain about the drug dealer on the corner. Or assisting the aging neighbor who needs help with her groceries. Let someone else advocate for better schools, police and fire protection. Good citizens volunteered to turn abandoned and garbage strewn lots into community gardens. Come on folks. Good citizens become involved, including vigilence of landmark rules and regs.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:46 PM
3:38- I'm not trying to be a smart ass. I just wonder where you would draw the line? Really, what ever floats your boat? Really? There is nothing that you can imagine your neighbor doing to their house that would be upsetting to you?
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 3:49 PM
land marks is the second dumbest thing to rent control and rent stabilization.
i hope they paint it hot pink.
Posted by: armchair_warrior at July 27, 2007 4:07 PM
"Let someone else complain about the drug dealer on the corner."
yes, a white house is almost the same thing.
excellent strawman. well done.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 4:08 PM
There are many levels of protecting a neighborhood.
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 4:11 PM
There are many levels of protecting a neighborhood.
Posted by: anonymous at July 27, 2007 4:11 PM
rent control and rent stabilization- now we're talking about things that really destroy beautiful buildings.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 4:13 PM
i'm stoned.
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 4:17 PM
Ok, so a brownstone getting painted white is not the end of the world. I think we can all agree that there are much more serious problems in the world.
But from a local perspective, this is an issue worthy of discussion. The lucky owners of NYC brownstones have bought properties with significant historical baggage and historical protection. That doesn't mean that every single change should be policed, but this is a pretty big move that will affect the character of the whole block.
There are rules in all sorts of communities about altering the physical characteristics of a property in relation to its neighbors - paint colors, satellite dishes, fences, etc. It would be nice if each brownstone neighborhood could work together to foster such community, not to be policemen, but to work together to preserve the character and integrity of their blocks.
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 4:19 PM
3:15, are you calling me a yuppie? Them's fighting words!
Posted by: Yente at July 27, 2007 4:27 PM
SWEET, A CATFIGHT!
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 4:32 PM
You heard me correctly 3:28..key word is "their" moron. I should get upset because my neighbor paid for his house and would like to decorate it to his taste? You jerk. Is he doing harm to my home? oh ok, then I would be upset. Last I looked this was supposed to be America,land of the free. Guess that freedom is going out the window like everything else. Next someone will want to tell us when and where to shit shower and shave.
Posted by: whateverfloatsurboat at July 27, 2007 4:52 PM
Landmarked is landmarked. Why don't we just paint the Chrysler building green? or the Statue of Liberty yellow? There is a reason they are called BROWNstones. The only excuse would be that this is some type of primer to prepare the surface for one of those fancy new breathable paint products that may be used in place of a true stucco. But even then, a landmarked property should remain true to it's historical form.
Posted by: Patrice Mersault at July 27, 2007 4:54 PM
painting gorgeous brownstown stone white is just plain wrong. this is what happens when filthy rich people with no aesthetic sense move in. if you must play with paintbrushes, please sign up for habitat for humanity - i think there are neighboring communities that could really use a coat or two of that fine, ralph lauren paint.
Posted by: puh-lease at July 27, 2007 4:59 PM
Has anyone walked over there and ASKED what's happeninf instead of calling 911 and the preservation dept? That would be very neighbour-ly
Posted by: Maria at July 27, 2007 5:05 PM
maybe it's being prepped to be lined with 24 Karat gold leaf!!!!
then you all will LOOOOVE it.
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 5:13 PM
Dear Whatever,
I guess that other's opinions do not fit into your narrow view of whateverfloatsurboat.
You didn't actually answer the question about the types of alterations that would be a problem for you.
I'm always concerned about people who resort to name calling instead of supporting their opinions.
I guess "free" could also mean that my neighbor does not have the right to let their life affect the quality of mine through misguided decisions that lower property values and destroy history. Guess it can go both ways.
I do see this as being harmful to the neighboring homes.
Curious about "like everything else". You seem to have pretty strong opinions. I like that when it's delivered thoughfully and respectfully- even when I don't agree. I'm always open.
Who you see as the person/people to blame for this attack on freedom?
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 5:14 PM
filthy rich people with no aesthetic sense.
Most filthy rich people do not live in Brooklyn and if they do, they really love it and the architecture.
The filthy rich people with no aesthetic sense wouldn't touch Brooklyn. They need things to define themselves that this borough does not offer.
Funny, I think that the same group is getting blamed for being too preservation minded and for the painting- the scapegoat for everything.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 5:29 PM
Maria, LOL...call 911...."It's an emergency! My neighbor is painting his house white!"
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 5:31 PM
Patrice Mersault...I agree with you 100%. The problem with your BROWNstone thinking is "why not paint the BLACKtop green!" Oh wait...they did that!
Posted by: GHB at July 27, 2007 5:34 PM
Oh, my goodness! I just walked by and the the entire house is 1/2 white. Call 911, 311, Help Me Howard, Shame on You, LPC, Extreme Home Makeover, Mayor Bloomberg...Hell, call OPRAH!
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 5:42 PM
Stoner,
Gilded rooms? 24k gold? Don't you kmow any people with money? Your comments are so prejudiced.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 5:43 PM
the landmarks commission relies on neighbors to tell them if violations are occuring in their neighborhoods. preservation is a grassroots movement, it is not something that is imposed from the top down. i do not think that rich Manhattan moguls or Albany pols give a rat's ass about preservation in the old neighborhoods of Brooklyn. it is the folks in the neibs who press for landmarks protection and who then have to be vigilant that the law is followed.
I for one go through the permit process, which can be rigorous, when I see someone else doing as they please, it steams my beans, you'r ecrazy if you don't think I'm going t o pick up the phone and report theor ass to the Commission. with pleasure. the nerve of some people thinking they are above the law or that they can ruin fine historic buildings which are part of our collective heritage,
there. that is the preservationist's
point of view.
Posted by: Stella at July 27, 2007 6:03 PM
Just wondering how many of the rabid, "we should all be free to paint our brownstones white!" commenters actually own a brownstone or an apartment in one. I would guess that not many of you actually do or you would have more respect for these structures. If you want to be able to paint your house any color under the sun, move to the suburbs where you belong!
ps; in defense of Mr. B., who is taking a beating in this thread, my wealthy aunt recently gilded the ceiling of her powder room... it's nuts.
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 6:12 PM
one final rant, if this were my block, not only would i call the landmarks commission, i would call the cops and then i would go there myself and yell at the painters.
Posted by: stella at July 27, 2007 6:15 PM
6:12
The suburbs? The rules are super strict in those developments. Paint, plants, mailbox, etc... Landmarks looks calm compared to those places. At least here we are driven by preservation. There it is some mall ideal, some Martha thing, status. I know someone that lives (unfortunately) in a place that dictates the brand of golf cart that you can own.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 6:25 PM
WOW !
"Illegal Paint Job on Landmarked Block of Clinton Hill"
109 posts in 7 hrs. Brownstoner, you should tell the American People that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (or what ever CNN calls it now) is putting our historic districts at risk and they would be home in a week!
tell em , tell em.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 6:28 PM
An entire day has passed and no one has cited the LPC regulations regarding paint and paint colors.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 6:32 PM
Not so impressive. At least a third were me. I'm home sick in bed. There may have been two or three other people.
Wish the Three Brownstonerteers could bring the troops home. Maybe tomorrow when I feel better.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 6:35 PM
LPC regs (condensed)
1.ou do not paint unpainted masonry, ever,
2. you may repaint masonry that is "grandfathered" as long as it is the same color, or the color of the underlying maasonry, ie: brick red, brownstone brown.
3. wood trim and siding has to be painted historically appropriate colors (there are books on the subject) some of these colors are surprisingly odd, and they are OK, but they need to be a traditional color scheme that enhances rather than detracts from the original architectural style of the building.
That's it,
is that rocket science?
and for all you fledling anarchists out there, you should not be afraid of the landmarks commission, you should be afraid of me, and the hundreds of battle-axes like me out there, male and female, who are your worst nightmare.
Posted by: Stella at July 27, 2007 6:41 PM
This is the most interesting chain of comments, you would think that New Yorkers have nothing better to do than write stupid comments that have NOTHING to do with the blog or the article. Remember folks that disagree with what Mr. B did - this blog is BROWNSTONER, if you are interested in commenting on the state of the world or life in America or your black-white agenda - do a search on Google - you can find a site or two that will give you that opportunity.
The reason America is the way we are (Wonderful and Free) is because rules are made and one must make a point of finding out what the rules are before jumping in. If a mistake was made, hopefully it can be rectified, but if this was done in disregard of the rules, they should be punished. Common sense folks!
If you do not like it - DO NOT LIVE or VISIT a LANDMARKED AREA!! You are free to live in an area that lets you do whatever you want - there are certainly more of those areas than Landmarked ones.
Posted by: I am amazed! at July 27, 2007 6:43 PM
Stella, does cement stucco qualify as unpainted masonry? There is a big difference between original Triassic sandstone and modern day pigmented cement stucco.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 6:53 PM
The comments re: the war in Iraq are totally obnoxious. Taking interest in a local issue does not detract from anyone's ability to continue to be aware of and extremely concerned about national and world events. Can we sic the LPC on W? Doesn't seem like anyone else is going after him and his administration.
---
After checking the LPCs site, I found the following info. It does not get into specifics like paint colors, but it does state that any owners of landmarked buildings must have a permit before they pick up a paint brush.
In a nutshell, what are the Commission's regulations?
The Commission preserves landmark buildings by reviewing and approving proposed alterations to the exterior of a landmarked building as well as the related features, such as fences and sidewalks. Approval must be obtained from the Commission before beginning work. Additionally, approval is required for changes to an interior if the interior is a designated interior landmark, the changes will affect the exterior of the building, or the work requires a permit from the Department of Buildings. Once the Commission has granted approval for a proposed change, a permit is issued. Finally, the owner of a landmarked building is responsible for maintaining the property in "good repair."
Type A violations include serious alterations to important architectural elements, such as cornices, stoops, windows, and storefronts; additionally, construction of rooftop or backyard additions may fit into this category. First-time type A violations are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $250 per day, with a minimum fine of $5,000.
Type B violations include all other, less serious infractions, such as painting a facade a new color, replacing a single window, or installing a light, sign, flagpole or banner. First-time Type B violations are punishable by a fine of up to $500; if a second NOV is issued, there will be a fine of up to $50 per day, with a minimum fine of $500.
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 6:54 PM
stucco is masonry, as is brick, and natural stone.
architectural stucco in NYC is usually pigmented and should not be painted,
It is possible that the doorway in question had been painted white before landmark designation, if so repainting it the same color, even though it looks fresher and brighter, is OK.
But if it was unpained stone or stucco prior to this, then the house will get a city violation that will stay with the property (and be a cloud on the title) until the paint is stripped off.
Posted by: Stella at July 27, 2007 7:03 PM
I work for the city and contacted a colleague at LPC about 90 posts ago. Typically polarized non-discussion above. How many of the dyed-in-wool preservationists called 311 when they read this post?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 7:24 PM
as obnoxious as this thread may have been (myself included) i think this is what living in brownstone brooklyn is all about.
while some of you might not think it a worthy topic, in which case i'm not sure why you aren't busy blogging away on cnn.com instead of brownstoner, but the issue at hand is one of the reasons why many of us live out here in these beautiful old houses. it's obvious that there's a tremendous amount of affection for these jems, for there to be such a heated conversation.
gosh, i think i'm comin down. need to spark it up again...
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 7:31 PM
OK, I promise this is my last post.
"There is a big difference between original Triassic sandstone and modern day pigmented cement stucco."
there is nothing particularly modern about pigmented stucco.
stucco was being used on buildings for a thousand years before the first brownstone was built. In Italy there are original stucco facades that survive from the 15th and 16th centuries. In the Mediterranian region as well as in central Europe, stucco facades are everywhere. In Buenos Aires, were building stone was scarce, most of the Beaux-Arts buildings that look like stone are actually stucco, so don't dengrate stucco. A well done, hand crafted, stucco front is a thing of beauty that will last a long long time.
Posted by: Stella at July 27, 2007 7:36 PM
I live in an historic district upstate where enforcement is lax, inconsistent and capricious ... As in the absentee slumlord with the worst building on the block can do whatever he wants to his already crappy facade, but the historic resources commission finds some small infraction to slam the 80-year-old lady who has lived in the same well-maintained house since she was 8.
I'd love to have more activist neighbors like Mr. B, rather than a bunch of do-nothing deadbeats who look the other way when the guy next door is installing vinyl windows, painting with a non-approved color, replacing original brownstone entry stairs with pre-fab concrete or committing some other sin against our historic architecture.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 7:38 PM
Landmarks was insisting I pait the wood work on my house on the same block and I had to take several trips with pictures of other houses on the block to prove to them why the wood should not be painted. Painting a brownstone or brick also causes the stone to decay prematurely.
Posted by: bedstuyagent at July 27, 2007 7:53 PM
"Can we sic the LPC on W?"
You're brilliant! His house is white too.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 8:05 PM
Wow. I'm all for history, design integrity, and good taste, but being that fanatic about 'rules' is reminding me of a certain Nazi policies.
Posted by: brklnheights at July 27, 2007 8:08 PM
Oh my god people: GET A FUCKING CAUSE!! Who gives a shit!! Of all the *important* things going on in the world this is what you choose to fixate upon?
Riddiculous.
Who. Gives. A. Shit.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 8:16 PM
at least some people are focussing on it in a positive way instead of you, 8:16.
you have focused as much energy (if not more) than most by posting something so hostile.
it's weird that you don't see that.
Posted by: stoner at July 27, 2007 8:18 PM
Yes, we are most likely all more than one dimension and capable of championing many causes. Leaving a comment here hardly constitutes fixation.
Is your cause "to wake everyone up". Thanks Dali Lame-a.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 8:26 PM
The pink/purple brownstone on Garfield Pl has been painted for the past 5 years. They put a fresh coat on a year ago. The people who own it have lived here for a long time, I assume before landmarking.
Out of curiosity, If your building is painted before landmarking can you continue to paint it after?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 8:28 PM
The pink/purple brownstone on Garfield Pl has been painted for the past 5 years. They put a fresh coat on a year ago. The people who own it have lived here for a long time, I assume before landmarking.
Out of curiosity, If your building is painted before landmarking can you continue to paint it after?
Posted by: yar at July 27, 2007 8:32 PM
So, are the plans in place? Did someone speak to them? Will all you concerned folks go over and help if the owner unknowingly did something that is very costly to resolve or gets buried in fines. How neighborly will you be? A $5000.00 fine can seriously f*** up a person's life. Is there any potential situation in which you would be empathetic or is it too late for this evil, bad taste-ite?
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 8:38 PM
I am contantly calling LPC to report losses to my property value by owners that would have our neighborhoods go backwards. These homes, these brownstones are single-handedly responsible for the revitalization of Brooklyn. They give us the sense of history and place that we've traded on to not just keep Brooklyn on the map but at its center! It is our duty to protect the buildings that define this place we love.
Posted by: Stuyvesant Heights Preservationist at July 27, 2007 8:57 PM
I am contantly calling LPC to report losses to my property value by owners that would have our neighborhoods go backwards. These homes, these brownstones are single-handedly responsible for the revitalization of Brooklyn. They give us the sense of history and place that we've traded on to not just keep Brooklyn on the map but at its center! It is our duty to protect the buildings that define this place we love.
Posted by: Stuyvesant Heights Preservationist at July 27, 2007 8:58 PM
This is a type B violation. The owner will be fined $500. If you own a building that is an historic landmark and you are foolish enough to undertake work without permission or that clearly violates LPC rules, a resulting LPC fine is no one's responsibility other than your own.
Let me ask you this question, 8:38, if you were the owner and your newly white brownstone singlehandedly devalued every property on your street by $5000.00 each how neighborly would that be? Would you be empathetic?
What I don't get is why so many people in this thread seem to think they're entitled to do whatever the hell they want. We have certain liberties and freedoms, but a lot of the crap in this thread smacks of an 'every man for himself' attitude. There is a reason why there are rules in our society. If you don't like this painting rule in particular, as many people have already written, go live somewhere outside of the historic zone. This is not just a question of taste or "decorating", this is an issue of preservation. It's very simple.
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 9:11 PM
Whew, what an idiot-fest this thread turned into. Thanks, Brownstoner, for so quickly drawing attention to a HUGE mistake being made on what used to be a gorgeous building. I think most of the anti-landmark ranting here was probably written by the same Limbaugh-loving fool, and a few others who can't seem to grasp the value of historic districts--not worth debating people that stupid.
People in this community worked SO hard and SO long to win the landmark designation that now makes this neighborhood so desirable, so valuable, and so bloody nice to live in. Thanks to them, to Brownstoner, to anybody who reported this to the LPC. If the owner of this building is so dense as to be unaware that he's not allowed to splatter paint on his house, he deserves all the fines coming to him. Dumbass.
Posted by: bob999 at July 27, 2007 9:19 PM
9:11- I don't think that the person should be painting it white for a number of reasons. I was just trying to make that point that I don't know the story. If a woman like my grandmother walks out of the house to a mob of people after painting her house white and says,"oh my, I've been here for years and all you youngsters are making your houses look so pretty and I don't have the money to fix the stone on my house, so I thought that I would paint mine to make it pretty," I would take a deep breath and say to myself, that is really sweet, what a mess.
I'm 99% sure that's not the deal, but...anyway, that was my point.
To answer your question, if it knocked $5000. off the price of my house and I knew that the person was not trying to be an ass by painting it and that they couldn't afford to fix it- I would most certainly help. I would help even if my property value wasn't an issue. I don't like to see people get screwed. I don't want this person or their neighbors to get shafted. I may help even though I am several neighborhoods over.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 9:28 PM
It's still a cute Michael Jackson reface. Brilliant!
Posted by: SMD at July 27, 2007 9:44 PM
9:28, you made your point much better the second time. I really don't know what to say about the relatively innocent scenario you posited. That's where a neighborhood LPC association should come in to make sure everyone is truly educated about the valuable and important buildings they own.
It's true that none of us know the story behind the paint job, but when you look at the picture above and you see how healthy the unpainted brownstone looks, it's pretty sad to see that it's going to be covered up and ruined.
If the owner were simply a kind old well-intentioned grandmother, I think a lot of us would want to pitch in and help her clean up the mess. The sad truth is that if it's an owner who should know better, or who does and simply doesn't care, I'd say they're on their own. And they'd better watch out for Stella!
Posted by: no paint! at July 27, 2007 9:48 PM
...for all those who want to know what the big deal is, obviously doesn't live in a brownstone and if you do, you must not own it!
Posted by: a Clinton Hill Lady at July 27, 2007 9:48 PM
There are a fair share of brownstone owners who have opted for the Rasta theme. I think that you are speaking of your kind of brownstone neighborhood. I wish that they were all historically correct and I own one of the most beautiful brownstones in Brookyn but find this kind of -you don't have money, so you don't know anything attitude disgusting and rude. I have to defend myself all the time because people like you create a stereotype that is hard to escape. People get carried away on these sites. I'm sure that you don't mean to sound like a ...
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 10:00 PM
I didn't take Clinton Hill Lady's post to mean that you wouldn't understand because you're poor, etc. But that kind of comment pops up all the time, so I get why you might read it that way.
I think she was implying that you simply have to own one of these buildings to know what it means to take pride in them and to maintain them. It's an incredible labor of love, not to mention a bottomless money pit.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 10:26 PM
Look at me jumping to conclusions. My apologies. So many reminders that we all have the same challenges. I am sorry.
Posted by: anon at July 27, 2007 11:12 PM
Can't believe I missed all the action yesterday...
I'll just sum it it up:
painting brownstone = bad
Brownstoner = good
Stoner = funny
Anon 2:29 = dead on
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 8:34 AM
AGAIN, did ANYONE asked the owners what they are DOING? We are assuming that they know that this is wrong... Is it really paint? Instead of blowing a person up like this...not neighbourly!!
Posted by: Maria at July 28, 2007 9:23 AM
The irony of it all is that 95% of the lowlifes who have posted on this comment board/gone up in arms about paint on the entrance to a brownstone do not own one themself and never will.
Get.
A.
Life.
Posted by: Justin at July 28, 2007 10:57 AM
"I'm surprised at the hostility to landmarks on this blog (of all places).
Most of the old houses in prime Clinton Hill and Fort Greene would be in the process of demolition right now and being replaced with bigger buildings if it were not for landmark protection. How dumb to be questioning landmark regs at this stage of the game."
Perhaps if the landmark law was applied equally across the 5 boroughs, it would be better accepted. But since it is only employed to retain the character of neighborhoods where the already well-to-do live, then it should be overturned. If citizens throughout a constituency don't have equal protection under a law and it is applied arbitrarily and capriciously, then it is unconstitutional and must be abolished.
Posted by: Queens Crapper at July 28, 2007 11:27 AM
Justin do you own one? And do you somehow feel superior to someone who does not?
Posted by: Maria at July 28, 2007 11:34 AM
I see 3 different houses in that photo and all three of have different-looking facades. So what is the big deal?
Posted by: Lila at July 28, 2007 11:40 AM
Maria (11:34am):
Yes, I do and yes, I do!
It almost seems I have a right to as well, based on the fact that regular readers of this blog, including the blogger himself will go to such great lengths to protect Brownstone Brooklyn from the evil people who put white paint on the entrances to their homes.
I am completely for landmarking and its benefits (obviously), but the entire thing has taken it just slightly too far.
Posted by: Justin at July 28, 2007 12:34 PM
your superiority complex, justin, is exactly what's killing brooklyn's spirit.
Posted by: stoner at July 28, 2007 12:47 PM
It's clearly evident that many poster here have used this locally important issue as a spring board for broader rants against the "rich", against "gentrifiers", against "preservationists" against whatever group they so happen to have an ax to grind against. The truth of the matter is that this is an important issue, we all know there is a war, and there are national healthcare issues and such. These do not go without notice and have any of you stopped to think that perhaps the folks who care about historical preservation also have the sense to commit to other larger causes as well? Because I myself can chew gum and walk at the same time! That being said, there is a fashionably ambivilent streak in many posters here who see nothing "cooler" than to lambaste those who would dare to set down roots in a place and actually give a damn. God forbid you should actually take pride in anything in this age of sardonic/ironic detachment. Why care for anything when it's so much easier to wear an old T-shirt with a catchphrase and smell of 3 day old cat litter. But I digress, allow me to point out one successful campaign against the so-called "small" infractions that occur in society, that ultimately led to the turn around of this entire city. That being the Giuliani administration's implementation of the comp-stat program in conjunction with the actual prosecution of fare-beaters and welfare cheats and thugs and muggers; turns out, that many of the same folks committing these "small" infractions were also the ones inclined to go on to larger infractions, in fact many had outstanding warrants or were previously convicted. Miracle of miracles, taking care of the small things led to a decline in overall crime and in particular murder rates from as high two thousand a year to less than 500 in a city of 8 million. And don't be a smart ass and try to say that I'm comparing housepainting to any serious crime, it is the larger issue at hand, a respect for community and society at large. Let me leave you with these two tidbits nonetheless, Hitler was once a housepainter and the Taliban had no respect for historical preservation either; witness their demolition of 2000 year old bhuddist statues in the mountains of Afghanistan. A world heritage site destroyed because nobody gave a damn, and our world's cultural heritage diminished further. I'm only half-kidding you folks about the Hitler part but then, I'm not the one calling preservationists nazi's.
Posted by: Patrice Mersault at July 28, 2007 1:17 PM
Are you the same people ripping out your plaster to put in central?
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 1:27 PM
get a life patrice.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 1:45 PM
i thought patrice was dead on.
then again, i don't really know where i am right now. still though...it made a lot of sense.
some of you all should start a bookclub and read the tipping point.
maybe they're just painting it white for the summer?? they'll change it back after labor day, i'm sure.
Posted by: stoner at July 28, 2007 1:58 PM
I agree with Patrice and it's refreshing to see someone make a comment that is both coherent and logical. She is correct that people should care about issues both large and small these days, and being that brownstones are particular to Brooklyn, this is a local issue that residents should care about, however, the reactions elicited from all of the people who commented on this are outrageous and show less care for actual preservation of brownstones than they do an inexplicable sense of pretention... That's what is so disagreeable about all of this.
Posted by: Justin at July 28, 2007 2:30 PM
There are communities all over the country right now, who are absolutely scrambling to try and protect what little historic character they have. Because earlier they failed to protect their historic houses and buildings. Just look at which towns outside NYC are attracting commuter residents. It's the older historic towns, with hip young homeowners. Look at what's not selling all over the country: the newly constructed suburbia strip-mall towns and subdivisions.
I didn't read all through this thread as there are so so many posts, but if somebody else didn't point this out already, people CHOOSE to buy in a landmarked district when they do so. They know what comes with it. If you don't like landmarking, then vote with your pocketbook and don't buy there. Thing is, that homeowner is going to benefit financially someday when they sell, precisely because their home is in a landmarked area and it's so attractive. And yet....they rail against the landmarking. This just sounds spoiled and whiney, like someone who wants cake and to eat it too, then not take responsibility for any of it. That's way more offensive to me personally, than a bit of pretentiousness. I'd rather sit and talk to a pretentious person any day than a whiney irresponsible baby. Prententious people are so much more interesting and entertaining.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 2:48 PM
The brownstone on Garfield has been painted awful colors going back to the late sixties early seventies... used to have aqua steps, and the building itself was pink... the owner had a feud with one of his neighbors and
that's what started the paint war of Garfield place.
Of course there are millions of things more important in this world... we all know this, but it seems sad to see the facades of the lovely old brownstones mistreated or bastardized... once they're destroyed, that's it... architectural history is lost or fragmented at best.
Maria brought up a good point... has anyone bothered to touch base with the folks who currently own the brownstone in question and inquire in a civil and neighborly way as to what their plans are for the facade of their brownstone?
maybe take the time to explain that the house is in a landmarked area to the owners, and to explain what that means?
I was drawn to Park Slope many years ago
because of the incredible architecture,
the brownstones... breathtaking and worthy of preservation, and it has warmed my heart to see so much energy being put into the restoration of these lovely old buildings over the past thirty years.
I can understand quite well Brownstoner's visceral reaction to the
sight of what appears to be white paint
being painted over the facade of that lovely old brownstone.
Posted by: bren at July 28, 2007 3:31 PM
Um anon 3:31 I think we have established early on that the house is owned by a corporation.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 3:57 PM
Yes, I knw... an H.D.F.C. .... there's a good chance that its an H.D.F.C. co-op.
Posted by: bren at July 28, 2007 4:21 PM
Um, Anonymous 3:57PM I have attached a link with an explanation of what an H.D.F.C. is:
http://cooperator.com/articles/928/1/Housing-Development-Fund-Corporations/Page1.html
Posted by: bren at July 28, 2007 4:33 PM
whatever. i suppose those posts that cited folks who have ties to the neighborhood before any landmarking or gentrification and have become property rich but remain cash poor as a result don't make a legitimate point (so what if that particular property is or isn't owned by a corp. prove it anyway). the bohemian bourgeoise love to talk the talk but as soon as someone can't afford to live next door in a manner they dictate for whatever reason it's time to call the authorities. nice, real nice. go help refugee babies with cash and screw your neighbor next door.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2007 6:37 PM
there have been waves upon waves of gentrifiers in Brooklyn going back to the 50's .... really, the most recent arrivals aren't "THE GENTRIFIERS"...
so silly.
Posted by: bren at July 28, 2007 7:27 PM
As I'm thinking over your response Anonymous 6:37PM, if I'm understanding what offended you the most, it wasn't
whether or not to preserve the integrity of the old brownstone facades really, it was what you had perceived as a snobby, monied "dictate" in Brownstoner's posting.
And you're correct...no one's neighbors deserve to be "screwed" or "turned in" because they can't keep up appearances with the new arrivals
and their renovated and restored homes.
Posted by: bren at July 28, 2007 7:39 PM
wow ... this is great. brownstoner, for all the flack you're getting, you've certainly opened a pandora's box of opinion.
keep up the good work !!
Posted by: brooklynite, until recently ... at July 28, 2007 7:54 PM
They should landmark clothing. Wouldn't it be cool if everyone in a given neighborhood had the exact same outfit on? Then we wouldn't have to deal with these quirky eccentrics with their "individuality".
Posted by: escap at July 28, 2007 7:54 PM
wow ... this is great. brownstoner, for all the flack you're getting, you've certainly opened a pandora's box of opinion.
keep up the good work !!
Posted by: brooklynite, until recently ... at July 28, 2007 7:54 PM
I think it's indecent that you would put this person's address on the Web for all to see. If you have a problem with it, why not simply ask the owner of his intentions? If you still aren't satisfied, then call LPC yourself.
Why point random strangers to a person's house? Like another reader commented, perhaps this person is unaware of the rules.
Consider yourself a poor neighbor who abuses the voice you have via this blog.
Posted by: rose at July 28, 2007 7:58 PM
in that case rose, we might as well shut the site down. every open house pick, new development, conversion and retail goings on have addresses attached to them.
perhaps we should also discuss the new restaurants and shops that open in brooklyn and keep their locations top secret.
Posted by: stoner at July 28, 2007 8:13 PM
come to think of it, that sounds rather fun.
no one tell me where the new traders joe's is gonna open. i've got a day right there killed with wandering around in a stuper looking for the place.
thanks rose!
Posted by: stoner at July 28, 2007 8:15 PM
While we are on the topic of the "small things"-well, sort of anyway, it would be nice if everyone cleaned up in front of their homes. Some are such a mess, garbage, etc. Come on folks, have some neighborhood pride. And it doesn't even cost anything other than the price of a broom. Thanks in advance for all your cooperation.
Posted by: small stuff at July 28, 2007 9:01 PM
i walked this block this afternoon and didn't see this place. was i just somehow looking in the wrong place or was the situation "corrected"?
Posted by: lemlar at July 28, 2007 9:16 PM
Landmarks actually makes painted brick and brownstone homes stay painted. Is it possible that this home was painted previously in a brown color and that they were repainting but needed to reprime first? Not many people get a landmarks permit to repaint their homes. I'm not talking about whether they should or not, they just don't. And honestly I don't think it hurts anyone if they are just repainting. Of course now with the Dept. of Brownstone Security happening in our midst I guess we all should think about getting permits for minor work when we used to not bother. Keep in mind that Landmarks significantly increased the costs to file an application for a minor work permit a number of years ago. This also discourages people from filing. Not to say this b'stone owner fell in to any of these categories. But the reason why calling landmarks to report this is that they will look up the history of the exterior of the building and then act accordingly. It's not a witchhunt like this blog is on this topic.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 12:30 AM
I live near Stuy-Heghts which is landmarked (and a real pleasure to walk past every day on the way to the subway). I have noticed that almost all of my neighbors are black - does this mean Stuy-Heights is gentrified?!?
Clearly, my neighbors are not super wealthy, but have pride in ownership which extends out to the other areas nearby that are not even landmarked. Maybe that's what the real fuss is about - narrow-minded apathy vs. people who care about the future.
Go Brownstoner!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 9:03 AM
Dear Assorted Jackasses,
You do not come off well here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/07/29/2007-07-29_help_police_its_white_on_brown.html
Posted by: Newsreader at July 29, 2007 9:39 AM
Brilliant, Newsreader! So, screw the 80 year old man living there. He's not worth preserving, but save the building (or rather, our property values)! Nice.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 10:05 AM
What the hell is that other color? That isn't right! LOL
So it wasn't the grandma I had envisioned. It was a grandpa. Someone should bake him cookies to thank him for two days of entertainment.
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 10:14 AM
Not promoting any action but don't you need a permit to paint in any color; to do work, period?
Why does the house come up as a corporation?
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 10:23 AM
my oh my... I just can't imagine how all the lovely old brownstones and pre-war brick buildings survived over a hundred years without the current crowd
around to save them.... obviously generations of folks have loved these
places, made them their homes, fixed them up, kept them up, then the places needed updating... why I just don't know how a brownstone could exist without track lighting and a high-end kitchen.... the previous owners had some nerve!
Every body should just take a deep breath and let out a big chuckle....
Get over yourselves! :)
Posted by: bren at July 29, 2007 10:31 AM
This "story" is in today's Daily News and the owner stated it was primer and it's already been painted back brown. He was also correct that some of you morons need to focus on more important things than his house and I whole heartedly concur, idiots.
Posted by: Yolanda at July 29, 2007 12:27 PM
Well, Mr. B...I think you owe your neighbor a big apology...jumping the gun like that...He's been living on that block for damn near 30 years..And, you come from Manhattan to Brooklyn just like 5 years ago, if that much, and now you think you're "God". By looking for the slightest thing, so you can condemn and/or criticize...which allows "hits/blogs" to your site. Understand one thing, Brooklyn is not just another borough it is a community...generations and generations have come waaaaaaaaay before you...So, in the near future, stop and ask a question... Also, this lets it be known that you are NOT familiar with your fellow neighbors in the first place. Because if you did, you might've known what your 82 year old neighbor was doing!
So, try saying "Good Morning" to your neighbors and put the LPC guideline book down and be part of the community in a "human-like" fashion.
If you were a true "brownston"er" owner", you would know the difference between primer and paint, and the process of painting one...Try checking out your own "Reno" section and get educated.
Posted by: MY2Cents at July 29, 2007 1:01 PM
Checking in again, I can see that there are a myriad of posters who have simply missed the point altogether. They continue to act like this single posting on a website specific to brownstone sales and renovations is the front page of the NYTimes. lol. They have wasted no time in taking the simple alert that a landmarked brownstone was in the process of being altered, and turned the posting into a referendum on class struggle in NYC and an indictment of all those who dare to take pride in ownership. They waste no time in namecalling and vitriol against people who take an active interest in what's going on in their neighborhoods. Even that marginally readable Michael Daly at the daily news has used this simple posting as the predictable springboard for a one sided story about how the evil brownstone preservationists are persecuting an old guy who lives in a brownstone. Give us a break. Perhaps it was a breathable paint material and primer as I posted two days ago, even still we have all seen how unscrupulous contractors will ignore law and chop down two hundred year old trees just to get a dumpster in and act with a total disregard for the community and history of a place. All I saw was a concerned post on Brownstoner about the possibility of damage to a landmarked property, I didn't see a crowd gathering with pitchforks and clubs. Stop the hyperbole folks and realize once again that preservationists, community activists and those who are simply intersted in maintaining a good quality of life are not the enemy here. If people were a little more civic minded years ago we wouldn't be dealing with things like a giant oil/kerosene and toxin filled blob beneath the streets of Greenpoint, or we would still have the now destroyed architectural gem once known as Pennsylvania station, we might even have saved the Bronx from the decades long decline that followed the ill-conceived highway that Robert Moses ramed through the heart of that great borough.
A good reporter might have placed the website posting in context to the community and not sought to make it another one of those old timers being pushed out sort of stories. Remember the old man is a millionaire after all. And many of you irate posters here might ask yourselves one simple question; what have I done to make my community a better place to live?
Posted by: Patrice Mersault at July 29, 2007 1:25 PM
Remember the old man is a millionaire after all. And many of you irate posters here might ask yourselves one simple question; what have I done to make my community a better place to live? 1:25pm
Regardless if he's a millionaire already or not, has nothing to do with knowing your facts before you start assuming...especially b/c the one that started the post lives on the block... You know the old saying "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me..":-)
No pitchforks and etc...just common courtesy. Not everyting is measured by who's a millionaire or who's not, is completely irrelevant...Just plain ole fashioned "COMMON NEIGHBORLY COURTESY"
Posted by: MY2Cents at July 29, 2007 1:36 PM
Agreed my2cents. Brownstoner lives across the street and a few houses down from said property.Just wondering why he hasnt posted that the white was painted over.
Posted by: getalife at July 29, 2007 1:48 PM
Agreed my2cents. Brownstoner lives across the street and a few houses down from said property.Just wondering why he hasnt posted that the white was painted over.
Posted by: getalife at July 29, 2007 1:48 PM
1:48PM...Perhaps he's drafting a big apology that he's going to post on tomorrow's site... And, he should top it off with some sort of "gift basket" to the 82 year old neighbor..
Posted by: MY2CENTS at July 29, 2007 2:16 PM
Brownstoner owes nobody an apology. He was absolutely right to raise the alarm about somebody who to all appearances was f-----g up a great block by stupidly painting a house that can't legally be painted *any* color. It's just a happy turn of events that the place was already painted, and that the guy was priming it to freshen the place up with an appropriate color. Anybody who can't grasp that must be posting here more than they're reading. All in all, it turned out nicely.
That said, it does merit a follow-up picture.
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 2:51 PM
My2cents...you are a poster after my own heart....
And will they post a photo of him and maybe 'stoner', too, delivering the gift basket? Oh sweet joy, such a moment, now that would be justice!
Posted by: relaxitssunday at July 29, 2007 2:52 PM
and so kidz... all's well that ends well... gift basket to the owner of "the house" sounds like a terrific idea...
Posted by: bren at July 29, 2007 2:52 PM
first of all...patrice...will you adopt me?
seriously though, i enjoy reading your posts. very eloquent.
secondly, unless you all plan to each hand over a gift basket that includes a rolex, range rover and first born son to ratner in 10 years when that project is completed and potentially a success, i suggest you shut your traps.
your gift basket idea is about as smart as britney shaving her head.
he's a grumpy old man. if you REALLY wanna get him something, how bout one of those lovely ladies i've seen hangin out down near hotel le bleu.
Posted by: stoner at July 29, 2007 3:13 PM
LOL...3:13 He'd probably enjoy that more than a gift basket...nothing beat a good piece of ass @ 82 years young!
I'd be grumpy too, if Im in working on my house and a knock @ the door is a reporter asking me questions about the "primer"!
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 3:52 PM
"And many of you irate posters here might ask yourselves one simple question; what have I done to make my community a better place to live?"
I got to know my neighbors, for one. I'm preserving my own house, number two.
It's not that I (or anyone condemning the landmark nazis) have a problem with preservation. I have a problem with this kind of witch hunt.
I think you should all go over and help this guy paint his house. No need for me to go since I was the one sticking up for the "poor schmuck" to begin with.
My 2cents, I can't tell you how bummed I am that you used the "assume" quote before I got to! I was just going to write that. D'uh!
Posted by: Yente at July 29, 2007 3:53 PM
LOL...3:13 He'd probably enjoy that more than a gift basket...nothing beat a good piece of ass @ 82 years young!
I'd be grumpy too, if Im in my house house and a knock @ the door is a reporter asking me questions about the "primer"!
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 3:53 PM
From the daily news:
The owner leaves us with a suggestion as to why people in this crazed and teetering world would concern themselves with a splash of paint on a brownstone.
"THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THE REAL PROBLEMS," he said.
Thank you, Mr. Wise 82 year old owner.
You could teach these people a lot, because it seems like they don't know jack about what's real and what the battles they should be fighting! Hmmm- shame!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 4:08 PM
From the daily news:
The owner leaves us with a suggestion as to why people in this crazed and teetering world would concern themselves with a splash of paint on a brownstone.
"THEY HAVE NO ANSWER FOR THE REAL PROBLEMS," he said.
Thank you, Mr. Wise 82 year old owner.
You could teach these people a lot, because it seems like they don't know jack about what's real and what the battles they should be fighting! Hmmm- shame!
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 4:08 PM
I feel like a celebrity quoting my "gift basket" quote:-) ...However, he's an old man..we should be blessed and grateful if WE can live to 82 years old and REALIZE we need to paint the front of the house! God Bless Him! Well, at least send a card :-)
Thanks, Mr. B
Posted by: MY2Cents at July 29, 2007 4:12 PM
How can an old man not be grumpy with such useless buttinskis for neighbors. Who would be stupid as to think it was anything but primer? Brownstone is a Triassic Age sedimentary sandstone, as such it is around 200,000,000 years old and will not be harmed by painting (It isn't very pretty, IMHO, and would seem to obviate the reason the buildings were clad with it in the first place.) The thing I find most depressing about this whole incident is the eagerness of some to "call the po-po", as it were, on one of their neighbors over someting that is not life threatening, hell, that doesn't even affect them in any way (except their sense of rich, New Yorker, entitlement.)
Posted by: l0b0t at July 29, 2007 4:13 PM
Oh God..... Suburbanites!!!! - RUN FOR YOUR LIVVVVEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
JeBus!!! ...Save us all
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 4:13 PM
Oh God..... Suburbanites!!!! - RUN FOR YOUR LIVVVVEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
JeBus!!! ...Save us all
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 4:13 PM
All the new Manhattan transplants and rejects from God knows where that are ending up in Brooklyn just don't seem to get it. You bring with you your elitist attitudes and snobby aspirations and miss out on what this borough is all about. Community!! Why is this even posted on a f'in blog? This man is 82 years old!! Brownstoner, even if you thought that this house might have been entirely painted, why wouldn't you approach this neighbor and inquire first about this?!?! Especially if you live on the same damn block?!?! This site has become a personal publicity whore for your personal interest and gain!! It's truly disgusting. So what he has outstanding landmark violations on his house, should he be crucified for that?!?! Obviously this gentleman is from a different era that most, let the man live the rest of his life in peace. And as someone else mentioned, it really doesn't seem like you are a part of the same community you are trying to protect, this could have been all avoided through friendly neighborhood conversation!!
Posted by: freeform at July 29, 2007 4:18 PM
"...This site has become a personal publicity whore for your personal interest and gain!!"
Ummm...I always thought that the whole idea of a blog in the first place. They are not meant to be an unbiased news source. It is you the reader who chooses to visit the site. If you don't like what is being said go elsewhere. I bet the content on this site won't bother you in the slightest then. Good job Brownstoner.
Posted by: Anon at July 29, 2007 4:32 PM
such a good point, 4:32 and i just had a light bulb moment.
this thread is a sign that this website has crossed the boundary between a personal blog and what people now perceive as a legitimate source of authority on the subject of brownstones in brooklyn. this to me means that JB has not only created an incredibly successful blog, but he continues to do so by providing content day in and day out which provokes such heated and interesting conversations on this topic.
it's pretty great, if you think about it. congrats, JB! this thread may have proved a very good point. glad you pointed that out, 4:32.
Posted by: stoner at July 29, 2007 4:39 PM
Mr. B that was a lame apology!!
I can't believe you DON'T KNOW YOUR NEIGHBORS. You assumed that this property was owned by some ominous corporation with bad intentions. When in fact an 82 year old man appears to be the owner.
"this isn't some old grandma who's been living here for 50 years and is unaware of landmarks law. this is a company called 373 Grand Avenue Housing Development Fund Corp that was deeded the property by the city in 1996."
Last summer around this time your frickin' block had barricades on the block to curtail the illicit drug trade. Now that things seem to have gotten better, residents seem to be doing their part to 'spruce things up'. From his perspective, the 82 year old man was doing what he could to spruce things up. The Daily News photo doesn't look soooo bad.
Which brings up a second point. The Daily News photo appears to have been taken yesterday afternoon. 100 posts have gone by since that photo. I wonder why i have to open the Daily News to see a photo when you live across the street. I know you don't work on weekends, but couldn't you have posted an updater sooner?
BTW, all of this could have been avoided if YOU KNEW YOUR NEIGHBORS.
Posted by: Ballin' at July 29, 2007 4:40 PM
Anon 4:32
To make my point clear. There are several brownstones in our Clinton Hill area that are painted or that have been painted recently and I can provide addresses. And there are much more severe atrocities being built in other landmarked areas, but let someone dare put up white primer on a brownstone on the site owner's block and that person's character is challenged, history questioned and background broadcasted. I just don't find that very neighborly, and it surely isn't Brooklyn!
I don't really care for cheerleeders, or d*ckriders, but to address your "blog theory", it's mighty funny that the Daily News chose to present another side and more accurate summation of the story. I don't think the way information is presented on this site is particularly limited to a blog style of writing. Brownstoner, I'm sure will agree that the site has to maintain a certain level of credibility, particularly with sponsors involved.
Posted by: freeform at July 29, 2007 4:50 PM
What my2cents and ballin' said.
Seriously, what a bunch of jackasses. It may be time to get a bit of perspective. Talk about crying wolf.
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 4:52 PM
Agreed freeform. Yeah, it's a blog, but there really should be some very basic journalistic standards. Hopefully, Mr. B feels a bit chastened to have the blog's ass kicked by the Daily News reporting.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 29, 2007 4:56 PM
This story couldn't have ended up any better - the owner being an 82-year old that has probably lived longer in the neighborhood than any of you busybody @ssholes, including Mr. B.
Maybe now y'all will learn to keep your mouths shut until you know the whole story, but that would be too much to hope for.
Posted by: Rocknrope at July 29, 2007 4:59 PM
Why do some of you assume that Manhattanites don't know their neighbors or understand how to be a part of a community? I haven't lived in Brooklyn for long, but I know my old Village neighbors very well and it was pretty wrenching to move to leave particularly for this reason.
My parents had the same experience when they lived on the UES side in the 70s and my friends who grew up the Manhattan have extended adopted families in their neighborhoods.
We could all be better neighbors, especially when we decide to comment about our shared borough and end up calling each other idiots and ***holes. I don't know if Mr. B. works from his home, but it doesn't sound like he was there yesterday.
"If we'd waited until we got home this evening to go knock on the door, the whole thing could have already been painted."
Great NYC buildings get defaced and destoyed all the time. I think we've all seen this and once they're gone they're gone. There is a certain urgency that develops when it seems like a beautiful place may be damaged, whether it's at the hands of a big bad corporation or an individual homeowner.
The attention paid to this issue may seem myopic, but I would argue that the people who are paying attention to their neighborhoods and local issues are the same ones who read the newpaper, vote, perform jury duty, adovcate for national and global issues, etc.
Posted by: no paint! at July 29, 2007 5:12 PM
Gawker material, yet again.
You nosy boobs.
Pay the guy's health care premiums for a month.
He's my Brooklyn hero of the month.
Posted by: 5w30 at July 29, 2007 5:15 PM
For people who spend so much time reading a blog about historic preservation, you sure are bitching mightily about JB's attempt to save a building he genuinely and understandably thought was about to be ruined.
That Daily News article was pathetic and lazy, a typically lame reduction of the genuinely important issue of historic preservation to a knee-jerk rant about "yuppies" versus real, Brooklyn old-timers. ("Yuppies" again? Didn't Bonfire of the Vanities come out in the mid-eighties?) That's not what this was about AT ALL.
JB was correctly trying to sound the alarm about what looked to be a desecration of an important block. And, while the house in question apparently does happen to be on JB's block, presumably JB was at the Brownstoner office in DUMBO. You can't expect a one-man blog operation to have a glass of sherry with every old coot in Brooklyn who might be about to ruin a landmarked building.
If you disagree so mightily with the concept of protecting historic buildings, WTF are you doing here? Maybe you should find yourself a split-level in Houston or someplace, and write your own damned blog. You could call it, perhaps, ShitSandwich.com. Good work, Brownstoner!
Posted by: whatthefuckisayuppie? at July 29, 2007 5:30 PM
WTFisAYuppie? WTF was that??!?!? You are so not getting the point...Ruin what? It's COURTESY!!!
Here, take a puff of this...im passing it through the screen...Now don't u feel better... :)
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 5:46 PM
i'd suggest shitshow.com but that's neither here nor there.
agree, wholeheartedly, whatthefuckisayuppie.
we're all yupsters here though anyway. get it right!
;-)
Posted by: stoner at July 29, 2007 5:46 PM
WTFisAYuppie? WTF was that??!?!? You are so not getting the point...Ruin what? It's COURTESY!!!
Here, take a puff of this...im passing it through the screen...Now don't u feel better... :)
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 5:47 PM
how absurd. some people get all riled up about a facade being painted, but until the owners of Brokenangel were forced to take down that hazardous monstrosity referred to by some as "art", not an objection was voiced. I would be threatened more by that crap falling on me as I walk by, rather than the white that graced the walls of the brownstone. didn't hear any objections on the contrary there is a post to save it. go figure.
Posted by: anon at July 29, 2007 5:53 PM
Dear Whatthefuckisayuppie. First the root of "yuppie" is Young Urban Professional, so, yes, many of the posters here and many of those that currently own brownstones are, in fact, yuppies. You say this: "...a building he genuinely and understandably thought was about to be ruined." Nothing involved here would "ruin" a building, stop overreacting. Genuinely thought, maybe, but it is then incumbent upon upon JB to check facts and verify (particularly as fact-checking in this case need involve nothing more than a short walk down the block to talk to a neighbor.) Understandably thought, not so much, as white, black, and rust-red (the most common colors for exterior primer) are not colors that one would normally paint the facade of one's house, the "understandable" assumption would be primer. Again, I find it most disturbing that so many are willing to turn their neighbors in to the Gestapo over something that poses no risk of injury or harm and does not affect them in any way, shape, or form. Some of us moved to this great city from shitholes like Dallas and Houston for the anonymity and tolerant attitude cocommitant with urban living. Perhaps if these watchdogs of the color-wheel were as vigilant concerning street crime, industrial pollution, political and corporate malfeasance, a corrupt and ineffective police force, and our crumbling infrastructure, this could be the "shining city on a hill" that is Nueva York's potential.
Posted by: l0b0t at July 29, 2007 5:57 PM
no one on here claimed that we were discussing a topic on events that harm or injure people, 5:57.
that's all coming from people like you. we were talking about paint. don't twist things around.
this thread was like a "hey...look at that" and it's posters such as yourself that have deemed it the moral dilemna that you seem to now be making of it.
Posted by: stoner at July 29, 2007 6:07 PM
one thing this thread does prove however...
clinton hill is the NEW PARK SLOPE!!!!!!
just kidding. even i can't admit that.
Posted by: stoner at July 29, 2007 6:14 PM
"If you disagree so mightily with the concept of protecting historic buildings, WTF are you doing here?" As I mentioned before...not disagreeing with the preservation itself. Anyway, I read this blog because of my unhealthy obsession with historic brownstones and NEIGHBORHOODS and LIFESTYLE they define. That lifestyle, to me, is about community. And funny you should mention it, but I AM starting my own blog. There will be lots on home restoration and nothing about Fedders or neighbor bashing. Ya damn bridge and tunnel crowd! ;)
Posted by: Yente at July 29, 2007 6:20 PM
There is no "moral dilemna" here, my issue is with the eagerness of some to report neighbors to the gestapo for something that not only does not "harm or injure" but that also does not affect them in any way whatsoever. Do we really want to live in a society where it is acceptable to run crying to the police, LPC, TSA, INS, what have you, with such flimsy reasoning as "something really destructive could have been about to happen."? Something really destructive could have been about to happen anywhere at anytime. Even a policeman needs to have a reasonable articulable suspision before investigating; your suspision, while obviously articulable, was in no way reasonable. There is nothing "destructive" about painting sandstone, while we probably agree that unpainted stone is prettier, the lack of materials knowledge on a blog devoted to owning and maintaining buildings is laughable. 200,000,000 year old sedimentary rock does not need to "breathe" as suggested by an earlier poster (perhaps they were thinking of the long curing time for concrete.)
That's the rub with the current landmarks process - someone, a neighbor, generally, has got to be the whistle blower. There is a horrible white plastic fence around the side yard of a prime corner property on Albemarle in Prospect Park South (along the cross street), and it's still standing a year later. Guess no one's wanted to take the initiative.
Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2007 11:31 AM