« Monday Events Developer Save the Kings? »
March 17, 2008
Victorian Flatbush Landmarking, in Drips and Drabs
While several micro-neighborhoods in the area collectively known as Victorian Flatbush have been designated historic districts, many others are unprotected and in danger of losing their rich history, according to an article in yesterday’s Times. The good news is that the LPC is almost certainly going to name Midwood Park and Fiske Terrace historic districts this week, which means they’ll join already landmarked Albemarle-Kenmore Terraces (designated in 1978), Prospect Park South (’79), and Ditmas Park (’81). Still, that leaves more than half of Victorian Flatbush—including Caton Park, West Midwood, Ditmas Park West, and Beverley Square West—unlandmarked, and many preservationists and residents are worried that unchecked development will result in the loss of those areas’ stunning collections of Victorian houses. “We don’t want the Manhattanization of Brooklyn,” says Ron Schweiger, who lives in Beverley Square West and is the Brooklyn borough historian. “We don’t want high-rises coming into residential areas. That’s why we want all of Victorian Flatbush to get historic district status.” (On a side note, the joke was on the Times writer who took one local blogger's renaming of her micronabe at face value. Hah!)
Peaked Roofs, Crossed Fingers [NY Times]
Fiske Terrace/Midwood Park Designation Two Weeks Away [Brownstoner]
Times Admits Past Errors: We Are Not All Ditmas Park [Flatbush Gardener]
Photo of Beverley Square West house by Flatbush Gardener.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/4233
Comments
I really hope the residents of these still-unprotected areas push hard for historic district designation. I don't make it to V. Flatbush all that often, but I love going there in the summer (most often for the house tour) and it elevates my spirits like nothing else. If these neighborhoods fall prey to unscrupulous developers, it will be a tragedy not only for the people who live there but for all of Brooklyn. V. Flatbush is too valuable to sacrifice on the altar of crappy development.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:36 AM
Hopefully Mary Beth Betts feels the same way. Although I'm not too sure about that.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 10:23 AM
Hopefully Mary Beth Betts feels the same way. Although I'm not too sure about that.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 10:32 AM
Much, but not all, of the area is already mapped with zones that permit only detached, single-family houses. Going beyond that, to impose aesthetic controls on private property, seems a really excessive use of state power. If it doesn't block your light and air, or impinge on the peaceful enjoyment of your property, why is it any of your business whether I use thermal-pane windows or enclose my porch?
Posted by: Flatbushwhacker at March 17, 2008 10:43 AM
Your stance is an idealogically consistent one, but not one you are going to win legally. And given that studies show that houses inside landmark districts sell for higher prices than those outside them, your response could be to sell and move with your profits to another neighborhood without such restrictions. And if you think, wait that's not fair, I like this neighborhood and I think it is special for x y and z reasons, well I guess that is an example of how a neighborhood's character does have value and is worthy, in some cases, of protection.
Posted by: Putnamdenizen at March 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Goodbye, Manhattan Terrace.
http://realestate.nytimes.com/sales/detail/2156-711188
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 12:19 PM
Interesting choice for a photo for this thread. Because this house has been altered from its original state and none of those alterations would have been allowed if the house had been landmarked. Nor would the red color.
A lot of the houses in these areas are very space and layout challenged. Landmarking is great for keeping out bad-taste tacky alterations that make a whole block look bad. But at the same time it doesn't allow the well-done alterations like on this house pictured that expand the space and open up windows so they're bigger. Which is unfortunate and I think would hold back sales and values even though yes, landmarking generally can increase home values.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:48 PM
Technically M & N is one block past Manhattan Terrace (train tracks to Ave L)...but yes, the Victorians in Manhattan Terrace are disappearing in a haze of teardowns and additions. Check it out next time you go to DiFara's.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 3:56 PM
I totally disagree 3:48. The homes in this area are far from being space and layout challenged and the original window sizes are more than sufficient and allow light to enter from all four sides of the homes. I would not consider a box stuck on the front of the hosue to be a well done alteration. Most of these homes have much larger and more free flowing floor plans than most Brownstones. Landmarking does increase a homes value and Flatbush is no different. The homes in the landmark areas of Victorian Flatbush do sell for slightly more than the non landmarked areas, of course taking condition into consideration.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:24 PM
Is it part of the original Midwood Terrace then? Or was that just further west?
The house in the picture has a sleeping porch that was added probably in the decades just after the house was built. The porch previously had small paned windows in a grid formation, not a big picture window like it does in the photo. I think, overall, the exterior reno was tastefully done, with the exception of the picture window. Landmarks would have insisted that the window be replaced with something similar to the tiny panes, which are original to the addition, if that makes any sense... And since previous panes were original to the addition, they looked right.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:41 PM
To the owners' credit, they were originally intending to put up vinyl siding but were persuaded by a neighbor who had done a period sensitive restoration to go with the shingle, despite the expense. I know they came pre-stained. They aren't painted. I was told by someone and I don't know if this is correct, that many houses originally had stained, not painted, shingle. Anyone know if this is correct?
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:45 PM
New York needs to realize that we need a Garden District designation or something similar, which would govern exterior renovations in neighborhoods with historic character, but which is not as strict as a landmarking designation and which would permit the use of cost sensitive materials such as hardiplank, etc....
The whole point is for these neighborhoods to remain extant and to continue to preserve the Victorian period feel. It's great if people can and want to do period restoration to the T, but not everyone can afford that, and the city should recognize that. It shouldn't have to be an all or nothing war. People living here don't want front porches bricked up or houses covered in stucco. That's the primary goal.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 5:55 PM
From what we ourselves saw when house hunting the houses priced less than $1.5 million in Ditmas have tiny living rooms and small bedrooms. Sure, I imagine the giant houses have bigger rooms.
Lots of historic woodframe houses have been added on and added on over the years. In other places I've lived it's very typical to see that in homes in historic districts. But it seems to some if a house is expanded in 1928 it's okay and if it's done in 2008 it's not.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 8:30 PM
As a long time resident of the area, I can assure you that we are not challenged for space. Mansions aside, most homes here have at minimum five bedrooms which are bigger than any that I've seen in Brownstones or even new construction, double parlors or one big one, nice size dining rooms and medium sized kitchens. There are several bungalows and a a few homes directly on Dorchester Road that are I would consider small.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 8:46 PM
My house is "small" (2780 sq ft) but so is my heating bill and my upkeep costs. Oh, by small I mean 3 large bedrooms, 2 twin bedrooms, and a single living room (althouh I confess to a finished basement with a playroom). I don't know. I envy the bigger houses sometimes, as I'd like a double parlor and six double bedrooms (home offices), but I think our house is big enough for my family and we don't need a tenant to float it. That's the killer about brownstoners in the Slope, etc. Yeah, you're getting your 3000 square feet or whatver, but you (alot of people anyway) have to rent out half of it to carry it. Might as well stay in an apartment.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 9:14 PM
Most of my friends living in brownstones have to have tenants to help carry their mortgages but none of my friends in Ditmas Park do. The homes in Ditmas Park are not as expensive to purchase as the homes in the Brooklyn brownstone neighborhoods even though they may be more expensive to heat. I too would rather pay more to heat a larger space than to have to reside in an apartment-like portion of my own home. I must admit that I do like some of the Brownstone neighborhoods but I can't afford to buy in them. Unfortunately many of the homes in Ditmas Park are also out of range for me. I am waiting to see if anyone drops their asing prices but it doesn't seem to be happening. I looked at one of the smaller homes in Ditmas Park which happened to fall within my price range and was tastefully updated but the house didn't have a driveway and was on a major street. I passed on that one because of course having a driveway is one of the advantages to living in Ditmas Park.
Posted by: guest at March 17, 2008 10:58 PM
Is that the house on Dorchester? It looks like a nice reno, but it's true, people comig out here want driveways and they're generally not interested in buying a property without one. It's one of the big draws of living here.
Posted by: guest at March 18, 2008 8:23 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.