« Weekend Events Walentas Dunked, Money Raised at Dumbo Fight Night »
September 21, 2007
Push to Make Burg's Fillmore Place a Historic District
This afternoon the Waterfront Preservation Alliance of Greenpoint & Williamsburg will submit a historic district nomination to the LPC for Fillmore Place. A couple of real estate developers built up the Williamsburg side street (bounded by Metropolitan, Grand, Driggs and Roebling) in the 1850s according to a master plan, and it contains an accumulation of typical mid-19th century brick row houses that were meant to be affordable for middle- and working-class residents. Henry Miller, who grew up nearby, celebrated Fillmore Place in “Tropic of Cancer”:
It was the most enchanting street I have ever seen in all my life. It was the ideal street – for a boy, a lover, a maniac, a drunkard, a crook, a lecher, a thug, an astronomer, a musician, a poet, a tailor, a shoemaker, a politician. In fact this is just the sort of street it was, containing just such representative of the human race, each one a world unto himself and all living together harmoniously and inharmoniously…
In a more plainspoken fashion, the Waterfront Preservation Alliance says the street should be a historic district because of its architectural cohesiveness and its significance as a planned development.
Fillmore Place Historic District [WPA] GMAP
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/2301
Comments
This block is nothing interesting. Half of bed-stuy is far more noteworthy than this block.
It's obsolete housing. Bulldoze it and build high density housing so we can end the housing crisis!
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 9:55 AM
Eh, I think they should landmark it. It's practically the only intact townhouse block in Williamsburg (although there's a few other nice ones on Southside). Williamsburg is the one place where there's plenty of high-density housing going up (in fact, they're adding some in the background of this photo).
Posted by: Zach at September 21, 2007 10:09 AM
Nice houses...but not a single tree. What's up with that?
Posted by: seniorbrownstone at September 21, 2007 10:12 AM
Does anyone know if this would affect the huge, totally out of context for the neighborhood, 14 story tower Karl Fischer has designed for the lots between Fillmore Place and Grand Street along Driggs Avenue?
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 10:16 AM
nothing special about this block
at all
these williamsburgh folk sure are full of themselves
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 10:23 AM
Miller used to live in 662 Driggs, at the western end of Fillmore
Posted by: g man at September 21, 2007 11:28 AM
I agree with Zach. Why not save one block? Especially with literary provenance. All of Williamsburg shouldn't look like a giant oversized mall. Variety makes a neighborhood interesting.
Bulldozing the block and putting up high density housing is not going to solve the housing crisis. It will be lux housing/condos, far beyond the reach of those who need housing the most.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 21, 2007 11:29 AM
Montrose Morris: you don't know what you're talking about. Housing is a luxury because there is a housing shortage. If you build 50,000 new "luxury" housing units, do you really think they will be able to keep the price high?
I just don't understand why people on this site don't understand economics. Let's say the government only allowed Mercedes Benz to produce 30,000 cars a year. Demand would skyrocket, and they would only produce luxury cars to make even more money. Then, imagine, one day the government said you could build as many cars as you'd like. What would happen then? They would build millions, new companies would start making cars, and prices would plummet.
That is the same situation here. Bulldozing this one block and building a 100-story tower won't do much to end the housing crisis. Building hundreds of buildings that size would certainly change things quite a bit.
This is how things used to be. Ever here of Harlem? Greedy developers built way too much luxury housing and guess what happened? There were no white people to move in, so black people got it for very little money.
There is no such thing as "luxury" housing. There is only housing, and when there is a shortage, it is expensive.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 11:35 AM
he block should definitely be landmarked... it's heartening to see that this block of charming rowhouses have been kept so well...
The architectural cohesiveness, and scale, is a visual delight.
Posted by: bren at September 21, 2007 11:36 AM
bren have you ever gone beyond williamsburg?
while fairly nice, this row of houses is quite typical for many parts of brooklyn, most of which arent landmarked
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 11:42 AM
A visual delight? In what world? This is as ordinary a looking row of townhouses as you can find in Brooklyn.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 11:48 AM
I disagree, 11:35. Your post suggests that everything starts out and stays equal. If that were the case, and housing was just housing, then there would be no difference between the highest priced condo and an apartment in the projects.
Most of the new construction in Wmsburg, for example, was built as luxury housing. I'm sure you know that means they (hopefully) used superior materials and construction methods, as well as superior finishing materials. You know, the granite countertops, Sub Zero and Viking appliances, better fixtures, lighting, floor materials, etc, etc. If they can't sell all of these units, they may go down in price a bit, or worse case, become rentals, but they still aren't going to be cheap rentals, or inexpensive condos. This has no effect on the vast majority of people who need affordable housing. The trickle down theory of housing doesn't work here any more than in the economy. If Joe Gotbux moves from the Dakotah to a posh condo in Wmsburg, his apt on the UWS is not going to go to a teacher. Rich people moving around is only a lateral change, their apts go to other rich people. There is no trickle down the economic ladder.
I agree there needs to be much more housing for the majority of us. I don't think razing a unique block is the answer. I also don't think high density housing solves too much either. We are not ants content to live on top of each other. It doesn't work in the projects, and lower density housing is advocated for that reason. These buildings are already serving housing needs for those in them. Why change that?
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 21, 2007 11:52 AM
11:48 is right. There are SO many superior blocks all over Brooklyn, and at least as many with connections to historic writers. Nothing against THIS block, but I don't see anything particularly special.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 12:14 PM
in the grand scheme of brownstone bklyn, yes, this block isn't a standout. but in w-burg, it is indeed worth preserving. I personally love these little pockets of history that have managed to survive everything the city has thrown at them. For a reference point, check out Manhattan Avenue between 104th and 105th on the UWS. It's a collection of smallish brownstones landlocked by tenements and housing projects.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 12:43 PM
Thank you 12:43 PM...
Posted by: bren at September 21, 2007 12:52 PM
i agree with 12:43. i love this little block. there are a few "nice" (in the traditional sense) spots in williamsburg that i can appreciate and would love to see remain intact.
Posted by: janelle at September 21, 2007 1:12 PM
"nice for williamsbrugh" does equal "worthy of landmark preservation"
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 1:15 PM
Precisely, 1:15. The only way landmark status is going to remain meaningful -- and therefore sure to be protected in the future -- is if the stuff we landmark is genuinely worthy of it. These resolutely ordinary buildings aren't worthy of this status just because they're better than their totally banal surroundings.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 1:20 PM
"These resolutely ordinary buildings aren't worthy of this status just because they're better than their totally banal surroundings."
this statement is completely unfair, possibly even classist. north brooklyn was a historically working-class neighborhood that never had quite as much (or quite as nice) architecture as wealthier south brooklyn. i don't think that's grounds for writing it off, it's still important to the neighborhood's history. it's more than fair to consider this block's relevance contextually, relative to the neighborhood and not necessarily all of brooklyn.
Posted by: janelle at September 21, 2007 1:31 PM
indeed, it's context. as a w'burg resident, i can tell you that this block stands out - it feels completely different than its surroundings...almost like an alley. Like it's safe for kids to ride around in Little Tyke cars, for practicing your throwing arm with your uncle, or chatting with neighbors on the stoop.
Sure, this sounds overly romantic, but with steel and glass reaching to the sky all around, a block like this is a pocket of nostalgia, a time warp, and a refuge to pass through on a morning dog walk.
The pic above doesn't do it justice - next to the rest of the neighborhood, it's a beautiful old block.
Posted by: guest at September 21, 2007 1:42 PM
this won't affect the new developments on Grand - they are outside the proposed district.
As far as aesthetics are concerned, this block is one or two generations older than all of brownstone Brooklyn (four or five when compared to Bed Stuy). Its rather like comparing Greenwich Village to the Upper West Side.
Posted by: WBer at September 21, 2007 7:36 PM
"Sure, this sounds overly romantic, but with steel and glass reaching to the sky all around, a block like this is a pocket of nostalgia, a time warp, and a refuge to pass through on a morning dog walk."
EXACTLY!
Posted by: bren at September 21, 2007 8:22 PM
I live on this block. It is peaceful and charming. I hadn't known about the literary significance when I first saw my new apartment months ago, but as soon as I turned the corner onto Fillmore I thought, "this is a unique and quiet pocket in the world".
Of course, it's not all amber-colored nostalgia in a glass; williamsburg brooklyn is still brookyln, evidenced by the occasional loud, foul-mouthed youth below my window at 3 a.m. But I love it just the same.
Posted by: guest at September 25, 2007 12:21 PM
Does anyone know what is planned for 161 Roebling Street, seen in the background of this photo?
Posted by: guest at September 28, 2007 12:40 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.