BREAKING: Dumbo Designated as Landmark District

the rich get richer...

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:10 PM

Wonder why this is news. The history of the district is obvious for landmarking and so what was there for the committee to mull over except sit down and have latte.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:25 PM

when landmarking first started it was to save architecturally unique and interesting buildings and architecturally beautiful buildings. now it has become the protection of buildings just because they're old. Dumbo has old buildings - buildings built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. can anyone point to any one building in Dumbo and explain what's so unique or beautiful about them beyond? they're nothing like the beautiful brownstones of Brooklyn Heights or Greenwich Village. they're old factory buildings. they weren't even built to be architecturally significant or interesting - just practical factories. all I have ever heard is that people in the neighborhood don't want more J Condos. the prevention of new tall "ugly" buildings is not the same as protection of old buildings.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 3:51 PM

Now maybe they can get their act together for Prospect Heights, before it's all razed to the ground.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:01 PM

3:51-The use of concrete and the external supporting structure of the gair buildings is considered unique and important. They make up a large number of the buildings in the district.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:06 PM

Hey 3:51- the buildings in the other neighborhoods you're talking about are just old suburban homes with outdated finishes and bad mechanicals. They got landmarked for the same reason- and it's precisely so that people don't tear them down and put up a bunch of new tall buildings.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:08 PM

The most interesting thing about DUMBO is the
streetpaving. I love the granite blocks and the old trolley and light rail tracks. That's what needs preserving. Nobody is going to do anything to those solid concrete bunkers filled with yuppies.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:25 PM

Concrete bunkers filled with yuppies desrve as much protection and brown-colored stone houses filled with yuppies.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:30 PM

Will this designation have any effect on the Dock Street development?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:35 PM

David Walentas added a square frame structure on his abode, is that covered by landmark regulation? Is protection good only for the goose and not the gander?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:42 PM

THese old concrete bunkers are gigantic, they are overbuilt in terms of current zoning. They do not need the same landmark protection as little three and four story brownstones that could give way to much larger buildings on the same site.
There is no comaprison. The Commission designated this area precisely because there was no need to. Therefore no contraversy.
The wallantas site for the Dock Street buildings was cut out of the boundaries. Surprise! -not.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 4:56 PM

Thanks 4:56. Guess I shouldn't be surprised about Dock St.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:04 PM

It looks like the Dock St site is outside the preservation district. For us parents, this is good news for the proposed public school.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:10 PM

why should the Dock St area been included? there's no building there that's worth protecting.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:12 PM

But bad news for the Brooklyn Bridge.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:14 PM

I think the Brooklyn Bridge will survive a new building on Dock Street.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:17 PM

But condo owners with expensive views might not.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 5:22 PM

Build on dock street but don't make 8' ceiling, pancaked floors and long thin rectangle sized forms. Keep it a square with 12' ceilings and windows that look tall (8').

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 7:17 PM

I think if you asked the Brooklyn Bridge it would say "build something tall and elegant next to me, not some squatty thing with low self-esteem".

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 7:36 PM

I think if you asked the Brooklyn Bridge it would say, "Get outta my face ya piss-elegant yuppie hive!"

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:41 PM

8:41
you certainly have a low opinion of the Brooklyn Bridge. Do you really think it is as
crude and vulgar as the family you grew up in?

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:49 PM

The shills for 2 trees are so absurdly apparent on this blog. Do you think that anyone thinks that you are sincere when you say moronic things like "if you asked the brooklyn bridge it would say build something tall and elegant next me" If you are shilling for millionaire developers you should at least be a better phony. After all this is what you have been paid for. By the way speak to anyone in the area, including politicians and board of ed people, and they all know and agree that the school is a phony trojan horse being used to put lipstick on a Pig. The pig, of course, being this giant, out of context, skyscraper that a developer wants to foist on his neighbors and his city. But please keep writing your bogus posts. This only helps to clarify and illustrate to most people the true colors and intent of two trees.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 8:53 PM

Oh 8:49, how you cut me to the quick.

Tool.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 9:42 PM

Does anyone what the story is with the Jehovah's building on Adams b/n Front and York? I heard that the Beacon bought their air space to build up so high, but as it looks like that Jehovah's site is not included, could they (sell and) build another high rise? Also, it looks like the east side of Washington Street is also not included in the District. Is that possible, and if so, why? Those buildings should be preserved.

Posted by: guest at December 18, 2007 10:00 PM

Good grief!
So many posters are simply ignorant or uniformed or just plain obvious in the "trying - to -sound -like -someone-else" - like that comment 5:10 by "us parents" - Oh PUHLESE.
I am a parent in DUMBO and on the neighborhood association and in the Dumbo Parents Organization and no one who has even half a brain is taken in by that bullcrap about a public school in that location being good news for any dumbo parents.
Go to the DNA website & read more about the Dock Street Proposal & what a school there would really entail. Our rep David Yassky is opposed to the ludicrous & unrealistic notion of a school in that location - it is just an obvious ploy to get zoning & approval for a giant 16 story, 400+ rental tower with two stories of underground, below the water table parking - a giant Environmental nightmare. Also read what the folks at savethebrooklynbridge.com have to say about Dock street to get more info, other than some silly posting by some "Parent" happy about the "good news" about a proposed school that - once a plan is approved - may never happen anyway years down the pike in the morass of building.
The historic district boundaries: these were finally set by LPC with expert municipal advice after over ten years of grass roots effort and much compromise, in part due to the lobbying of developers for delays in designation & boundary changes. If developers had been stopped from altering or destroying buildings SOONER, the boundaries would have included many of the lots in question above and more. So stop whinging - it is set - it won't include more ground & thank goodness it has finally happened - better late than never.
Also, Dumbo has plenty to preserve - the industrial buildings have lots of historical importance ( someone mentioned Gair, they are correct) and there is a lot of detail & care in many of the buildings - far more than a modern pre-fab monolith which slaps up in cheap slabs of lego like stuff, such as the horribly ugly and too brightly & ostentatiously lit Beacon Tower (85 Adams ) - though they do have a lovely rock garden. How do I know this about historical value? I read, I know my history, I am familiar with the report that got DUMBO placed on the National Register of Historic Places - people who sound off and are uniformed or just plain agitators - just STOP. You are causing damage.
So here it comes - more Wallentas/Two Trees or Developer's Group employees or just some passive aggressive agitators ( or even people who just don't like old buildings and are real nasty about it) can now ridicule me - safe in their anonymity.
All others, just don't count the nay-saying opinions here as valid if you aren't so familiar with the dumbo neighborhood. It isn't everyone's cup of tea - it is Industrial & old - and we love it that way. Thats why we bought here & live here & have set up business here. If you don't like it - bug off & live somewhere else - like Co-Op CIty, or a Toll McMansion in the Poconos, or the Upper East SIde, or in the new strip of high rises on 6th Ave btwn 23rd & 34th Streets - there are a lot of options - just go away.
(ps - Here , here - right on, 8:53 PM)

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 1:14 AM

does this mean we can blow up the abominable J condo and that piece of crap across from the General Store on Front?

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 7:04 AM

7:04. Just as long as you let me take out all the brownstones in the north slope between 7th and 8th aves and up to the park with my flamethrower.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 9:28 AM

This community seems to be full of strident anti-development loonies. The stridency and the rigid brainset are almost totalitarian in nature. As is the nutty attitude that if a person disagrees with them they must be on the payroll of the developer -or satan!
These types of people are scary. They're bullies and jerks.
The idea that they sunk the perfectly reasonable proposal of putting a middle school in the new building speaks for itself. Even children's welfare must take second place to their maniacal delusions that the Brooklyn Bridge is threatened and that a midrise building is out of character with the area, which is full of gigantic tall factories and warehouses.
I do not work for Wallentas but I don't feel like kow-towing to the activist morons either.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 9:31 AM

Am I correct in reading the map that the Empire Stores site is also outside the district? I don't see the logic in that. It's clearly historic. If someone wants to develop it, they should have to play by the same rules as the the other DUMBO buildings.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 9:54 AM

The Empire Stores are in their own historic district, the Fulton Ferry District, which has been in place for decades.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 11:10 AM

9:31 Fascism comes in different colors. The old renegade is the new convention. And counterculture is of the past.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 11:12 AM

1:14, DUMBO was ruined when the artists got priced out. Don't act like it's not already a yuppie hellhole.

Many buildings in DUMBO are nice and as a result there's market demand for them. But local government shouldn't be in the business of imposing some property owners' tastes on others, which is what happens in landmark districts. It works well for areas that have historical value but have fallen on hard times, but where it's at a market peak, it's all about property owners holding down supply, at best, and at worst, asserting control over the appearances of properties they don't own.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 12:57 PM

9:31 Fascism comes in different colors.

But they usually only like black or brown shirts.

Posted by: guest at December 19, 2007 1:40 PM

December 19, 2007 1:14 AM: We echo the points you made so well. By the way the link to go to is http://www.savethebrooklynbridge.org/ (not .com).

Posted by: guest at January 6, 2008 9:25 PM