73 Pineapple Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up at LPC

I agree that it would look 100% better if the windows and cornice lined up a little better with its neighbors. Oh well.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 10:59 AM

Landmarks fails AGAIN.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 11:32 AM

I like the facade as it currently stands.

It's almost like landmarking has devolved into a means for self-important busybodies to impose their tastes on actual property owners. I don't really care one way or another about 73 Pineapple, though I live about 4 blocks away. But I do enjoy Brownstoner's comeuppance!

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 12:08 PM

aligning cornices perfectly is something that was given up years ago.
C'mon Brownstoner, you are in the know about the latest German appliances but you need to brush up get up on modern historic preservation policies!

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 12:57 PM

Landmarks isn't about "busybodies imposing their tastes" - it's about preserving the historic character of the neighborhood. Part of the reason that property values are so high in the Heights is because of landmarks - it is a rare neighborhood not just in New York but in the whole of North America. If the government can bulldoze your house to build a highway because it's in the public interest, what's so bad about recognizing that a neighborhood belongs not only to individuals but also to the rest of the neighbors? (This house doesn't look bad to me, by the way.)

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 12:57 PM

yes but why would you want to make the first floor, and the building shorter?

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 1:31 PM

I wonder if they will do anything with the properties on either side of the new building. One of them appears to be under demolition inside, so maybe a condo conversion of some sort?

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 1:35 PM

Alas there is that pesky height limit in the heights, which at 50 feet, is shorter than most brownstones in the district.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 1:36 PM

There's a 50-foot height limit in the zoning rules for this area, so the building is probably as tall as it can get. (Same height limit as at the Two Trees project on Atlantic just west of Trader Joe's on Court.) The bulkhead doesn't fall under the same height regs, but landmarks could allow it if it isn't visible from the street.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 1:49 PM

I like how this building picks up on, rather than imitates, the adjacent structures. I think that LPC was right on to keep the facade as is.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 2:23 PM

12:57 is a classic case of a busybody imposing his/her tastes. The total lack of selfawareness is comical.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 2:29 PM

I'm all for busybodies.
All great neighborhoods need lots of them.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 3:52 PM

12:08 here -- two points:

The fact that landmarking raises property values is not necessarily an argument in their favor -- it depends on how you feel about redistributing wealth from prospective home purchasers to current owners.

There's also the issue of transaction costs. The LPC is pretty clearly an inefficient process, which leads to lots like 73 Pineapple remaining undeveloped for long stretches of time. Landmarking should prohibit egregious uses of properties, like if someone wanted to build a vinyl-sided ranch house or a cape cod. But the degree of detail B-stoner seems to want to impose turns the Landmarking process into something out of Kafka. The goal is to preserve what's there but not in amber.

When you nitpick designs about which reasonable people can disagree, and feel the appropriate consequence for that disagreement is to maintain someone else's property as a feral cat habitat, you're a busybody.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 4:10 PM

4:10,
The Landmarks Commission APPROVED the new building. What more do you want them to do? Underwrite the mortgage?

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 4:22 PM

12:08:

The lot at 73 Pineapple has been vacant for more 65 years. Brooklyn Heights wasn't landmarked until the mid 60s. The LPC process does impose a higher level of attention and care on new designs (with results that reasonable people can disagree about, on a case by case basis). But the LPC-related transaction costs aren't remotely enough to keep owners acting in good faith from building on a vacant site in a historic district. Now, if the feral cat advocates would like to put their two cents in...

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Meow meow meow meow meow.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 4:52 PM

admittedly stupid question: why is desireable to "line up the facade". i live on a block with perfectly lined up facades and it is LOUD AS HELL. there is nowhere for the noise to go except to echo right back.

isn't that the first law of supressing sound is to put baffles, non right angles, etc in any surfaces that would bounce the sound back?

why is lining up a facade such a big deal as i ALWAYS see it mentioned on this site as something that violates their sensibilities? is this just equivalent to some people liking the pens on their desks lined up?

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 5:36 PM

5:36, you probably like white windows, too. Sheesh.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 6:14 PM

5:36 asks a very good question, especially as I assume he/she may be blind. All I can say is that most sighted people just like the way lined up facades look. Visual aesthetics is hard to explain to someone who experiences the world only audially. Take my word for it.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 8:20 PM

"visual aesthetics" blah blah blah. lighten up, you knuckleheads... who cares whether the facades line up or whether the windows are white? do you really walk down streets sideways? you must suffer endless disappointment. "audially"... how retarded.

if you know the block, you'll admit that the two adjoining buildings are ancient piles and are probably ready to fall at any minute. this new structure will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at February 22, 2008 10:04 PM

10:04,
you gotta start laying off the booze.

Posted by: guest at February 23, 2008 11:56 AM

The LPC previously rejected a perfectly fine proposal, so, yeah, it's inefficient. A bit more modern, and without lined-up facades (such a big deal that turns out to be!), but still something that would have been worth building. It's funny how people who claim to be the heirs of Jane Jacobs seem to LOVE bureaucratized neighborhood planning.

Posted by: guest at February 23, 2008 5:13 PM

ok, i was actually posing that question as a serious one, but apparently i'm blind. i'm also deaf because as i said, on a block with lined up facades, the traffic noise has nowhere to go and it is louder than i would assume a more baffled surface would be. and i've seen blocks on carroll gardens, a lovely brownstone neighborhook with facades (from OLD buildings) lined up all over the place. the neighborhood still looks fine to me. honestly, what is the fetish with facade alignment?

and what is the problem with white windows? if someone has put in white double paned windows, doesn't that mean they are getting more energy savings and thereby preventing global warming (you know, the thing that will eventually put all those historic buildings in nyc under water) than to have vintage single paned windows?

i don't understand the "aesthetics at any cost" sensibility of the brownstoner crowd. clearly you have delicate sensibilities, but can't even defend why something that might deviate from your rigid standards might actually be an improvement.

Posted by: guest at February 25, 2008 1:45 PM

White windows clash with the brownstones. However, they are desireable precisely because they annoy the people who need to get got.

Posted by: guest at February 25, 2008 3:43 PM