Unprotected Sunset Park Being Destroyed Bit by Bit

Wait a minute.

You're getting bent out of shape over someone who decides to remodel their brownstone to fit their tastes (regardless of what else you say, that's really what is happening). Moreover, you say that and run a photo which shows two adjacent brownstones that have been butchered by some aweful retail additions onto the front. I'm sure that whatever the homeowner is doing can't be much worse than that.

Isn't this the United States? Don't homeowners have rights?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 10:25 AM

I need to go walk around over there. Way nicer looking than the area in the 40's

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 10:51 AM

I agree that these renovations are unattractive, but two brownstones does not equal an "all-out assault". The author mentions other homes, but neglects to provide proof.

10:25, most posters on this board care only about property rights when protesting the use of eminent domain for AY. When it comes to rent control or landmark districts, property rights suddenly fly out the window.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 10:55 AM

"Isn't this the United States? Don't homeowners have rights?"

Reading this blog, sometimes I wonder. It seems to me that Brownstoner and his ilk would like us to to follow the Soviet model, with every homeowner requiring permission from the collective to change so much as a porch light on his own property.

Posts like this one make me want to buy a block in Sunset Park and hire Scarano to design a huge residential/retail complex, just out of spite.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:17 AM

Sunset Park is the largest Federal Historic Housing District in the country, which amounts to no protection.

There is an effort to rezone the community. Don't know what's happening with that lately.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:18 AM

Context is unnecessary when you're a NIMBY complaining about change.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:19 AM

"Considering that housing is in such short supply, I fail to see why any of this is bad news."

Nope asshole, Greed is in vogue! There are plenty of apartments but, we need to build more. I will be very happy when this shit fucking crashes!

The What

Someday this war is gonna end....

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:20 AM

Remodel? You mean demolish?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:24 AM

Yo, The What:

I am writing an article for New York magazine about real-estate blogs and their commenters. I'd love to talk to you for the piece -- please email me at:

adam (dot) sternbergh (at) nymag (dot) com

We can talk on/off the record, as you like.

Thanks,
Adam Sternbergh
NY mag

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:34 AM

Yo, The What:

I am writing an article for New York magazine about real-estate blogs and their commenters. I'd love to talk to you for the piece -- please email me at:

adam (dot) sternbergh (at) nymag (dot) com

We can talk on/off the record, as you like.

Thanks,
Adam Sternbergh
NY mag

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:35 AM

If people didn't have third world esthetics and a congential absence of taste we wouldn't need landmarking.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:38 AM

"Reading this blog, sometimes I wonder. It seems to me that Brownstoner and his ilk would like us to to follow the Soviet model, with every homeowner requiring permission from the collective to change so much as a porch light on his own property."

Or worse, it's like the suburbs that all brownstoners claim to hate where the neighborhood association makes sure every house looks so much like those around it. How is having every house the same sh*t brown better than having them all the same color beige and heaven forbid you hang your laundry anywhere visible.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:53 AM

"does anybody know what this place looked like before it was gutted? maybe it was beyond repair? i need context!"

Agreed, bloggers and Brownstoner provide context please!!! Nice how the photo is framed to only show brownstones, cropped so it doesn't show the nearby total crap buildings typically found on every block in Sunset Park. South Slope and Sunset Park do not merit landmarking, get over it. It is way too uneven. A rare block with all houses, then one block warehouses, then one block tenement apartment buildings, or a mix of all 3 on a block. How on earth does that merit landmarking?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:55 AM

"If people didn't have third world esthetics and a congential absence of taste we wouldn't need landmarking."

Oh horror of horrors, not the esthetics of immigrants. Who the heck do you think built and lived in these brownstones to begin with?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:58 AM

11.58 - Immigrants from non-third world countries.

Really, go and live in your barbed wire compound.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 12:30 PM

The people complaining about wanting to do whatever they want to thier property don't own these brownstones. If they did, they would have a better understanding of other people's concerns and appreciation for the buidlings.

11:17: I doubt you have the cash to buy a house and put up a fugly feddders piece of crap.

You nasty skanks need to crawl back into the double-wides you came from.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 12:38 PM

"Don't homeowners have rights?"

Sure they do, but only to a point. In the end, homeowners are really tenants renting from the city (paying property taxes for the right to significantly influence the condition and occupancy of a dwelling).

Effectively, we all live in one big co-op with different rules for different districts. Preserving a historic district keeps New York City great. The above phenomenon is outrageous and should be stopped.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 1:08 PM

I live a few blocks from this house and was blown away when I saw it with my own eyes this past Monday. It's worse in person, regardless of the ridiculous looking laundromat next door. Many parts of 6th Ave in SP are absolutely beautiful, but they won't be for long.

As much as I agree that homeowners should have rights, this is a shame. It will surely make this area look worse, not better.

It was the destruction of Penn station and the construction of Madison Square Garden that started this whole preservation movement years ago. I can't beleive that one would argue that this type of destruction of the old is good for the city - whether its a major location in Manhattan or a small house in Sunset Park.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 1:38 PM

Again, context please, 1:38. You have none.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 1:53 PM

Puhlease!! If this pit had been the HOTD before it was touched everyone would be saying it was a short, narrow wannabe brownstone in a dangerous peripheral neighborhood next to noisy business where crackheads hang out all day.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 1:54 PM

Let's be serious. Do we actually expect Mayor Moneybags and the Landmarks Commission to give a rat's ass about a neighborhood outside of Manhattan? Not enough superrich people here.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 1:55 PM

"Again, context please, 1:38. You have none."

What context do I need? It was a nice looking brownstone from the outside (obviously, I don't know what the interior condition was like). It's been destroyed and will almost definitely be replaced by some shit box that takes full advantage of the the zoning allowed. Get off your ass and take a look around the area and you'll get some context... dick!!!

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:09 PM

"In the end, homeowners are really tenants renting from the city (paying property taxes for the right to significantly influence the condition and occupancy of a dwelling)."

This is probably the DUMBEST comment I've ever read on Brownstoner, which is really saying something. Property taxes are paid to fund services, NOT to "influence the condition" of a property. Owners do NOT "rent" from the city. We OWN our properties and are free to develop, rent, or alter them AS WE PLEASE as long as WE abide by applicable laws. OK?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:14 PM

"In the end, homeowners are really tenants renting from the city (paying property taxes for the right to significantly influence the condition and occupancy of a dwelling)."

This is probably the DUMBEST comment I've ever read on Brownstoner, which is really saying something. Property taxes are paid to fund services, NOT to "influence the condition" of a property. Owners do NOT "rent" from the city. We OWN our properties and are free to develop, rent, or alter them AS WE PLEASE as long as WE abide by applicable laws. OK?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:14 PM

"In the end, homeowners are really tenants renting from the city (paying property taxes for the right to significantly influence the condition and occupancy of a dwelling)."

This is probably the DUMBEST comment I've ever read on Brownstoner, which is really saying something. Property taxes are paid to fund services, NOT to "influence the condition" of a property. Owners do NOT "rent" from the city. We OWN our properties and are free to develop, rent, or alter them AS WE PLEASE as long as WE abide by applicable laws. OK?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:15 PM

Classic post, 12:28. Your ilk always assumes that anyone who disagrees a preservation agenda must have never set foot in the neighborhood.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:40 PM

Really 2.15? - stop paying your property taxes for a few years and see what happens.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 2:46 PM

2:40 - The majority of comments make it clear that the posters don't know Sunset Park very well. A lot of 6th Avenue is brownstones, and limestones are also common. What is also common, unfortunately, is new construction sites with Fedders all over them. Also, on 42nd Street, a large new apartment building has sunken the backyards of several homes on 43rd Street. Don't THOSE homeowners have rights as well? The irresponsible building and renovation that is occurring all over Sunset Park affects both sensibilities and safety.

Sunset has lots of coop buildings, and it was one of the top areas in Brooklyn for building sales. There are also several SRO's. It's greed, not a shortage of housing over on this end of Green-Wood.

Is that enough context?

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 3:25 PM

The rights of owners to build/trash their properties extend precisely to the extent granted by law and the limits imposed by their neighbors through property, zoning, criminal and landmark laws.

If owners abuse their rights by building garbage that has value only because of their neighbors (owners and not) without contributing to the neighborhood, then the law should change to stop them.

If you want the right to freeload without limitation, go to Houston, which has no zoning, or find an island and live by yourself. In the city, people who take without contributing will -- sooner or later -- get what they deserve.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 4:47 PM

Context: Across the ave is a full row of turn of the century brownstones fortunately zoned R6. This is a commercial development, there is a C1-3 overlay on that side of 6th ave. It was a two family 3 story brownstone no clue as to what the new commercial space will be. It's not that development is bad it's the choices the developers are making. This is greed, nothing more.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 6:30 PM

What also smells about this is this from the permit filed at the DOB:
CONVERT EXIST'G(U.G.2) 1ST FL INTO COMMERCIAL SPPACE (U.G.6) FRONT AND REAR VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL EXTENSION, INCLUDING PLUMBING, PARTITION, STRUTRAL,FOUNDATION WORK. REQUIRED NEW C. OF O. FOR ONE RETAIL SPACE AND 2 FAMILIES. for $75,000. What they are doing is more like a $250,000+ rebuild. Something stinks here!!!

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 6:45 PM

I have also seen the DoB file. The plan goes way over the FAR limit. Also it appears from the picture that there is a demolition in progress here and there is no permit!
What is DoB doing?
Re-zoning will help but if there is no enforcement, it's hopeless.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 9:48 PM

I don't think the person destroying the brownstone in the picture is overly concerned about New York's housing crisis or ever ponders the array of challenges that 21st century population growth present our society -- if he does, then he's a greedy self centered jerk. More likely though, he's the factory worker who's owned the building since the 70's when he bought it for $30k and now sees a way to secure a comfortable retirement. I'm not saying that this justifies participating in the evisceration of a historic district's character. But it does illustrate how through banal decisions and a tendency toward expediency, a society can eventually deprive itself of some of the things that make living in a city humanizing, elevating, special. Some people think there's nothing bad about Queens. Some people like living in a tiny windowed brick-bunker-like structure with an a/c in the wall because they know it was built less than 20 years ago. They're successful. They live in a new building. Only the poor live in old crappy buldings...

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:03 PM

Neo-Malthusianism, rears its ugly head. One blogger says there is plenty of housing, another says there is not enough. Apparently that cause another to conclude that there was plenty of housing just too many people. Landmark this.

Posted by: guest at April 23, 2008 11:33 PM

Sunset Park is the largest federal register historic district in the northeast U.S. But as a poster indicated, this affords no protection whatsoever. Sunset Parkers tried for years to create a NYC historic district - it didn't happen and won't happen.

To argue that destroying "historic" buildings is in anyway excusable because of a housing shortage is ridiculous.

I believe the issue is managed growth, people sized neighborhoods and quality of life.

A nice two family next door to me was converted into a rooming house. The folks for the most part are really nice - although there is the most minimal of communication (just smiling & hi). But no one stays more than 2 months at the most. Instead of two families (with a total of 8 people) we now have about 18 people. My biggest concerns are:
1. congestion & over-taxing of our utilities - our electric grid (not the supply) is inadequate and we are experiencing burnt out cable, manhole fires and carbon monoxide poisoning as gases seep up into homes thru the underground electric conduits.
2. congestion of our mass transit - this is a plus & minus - the crowded subway makes traveling safer throughout the night, but folks not being able to board the incoming subway or bus is a growing problem.
3. congestion of the streets & sidewalks - a daily newspaper ad from 100 years ago showed a scene of kids playing on the sidewalk with the caption "you wouldn't see this in manhattan" - well soon you won't see it in Brooklyn either.
4. quality of life - the stress of noise through the night, the stress of people living so close together (even very nice people) just wears people down.
5. education - in three years, sunset park will face an explosion in elementary school population - there is no place to put these kids - they will have to be bussed out of their neighborhood - making parental involvement in their kid's school difficult.
6. the asthetics - it really makes a difference - it may not be life and death, but it has an impact. Fire escapes running up the front of a beautiful brownstone, electric conduit scaling the outside walls, twisting and turning like a maze, utility boxes outside, piles of trash, gate plantings replaced with cars, on and on - this is not the beautiful neighborhood I put my life savings into. to younger folks it isn't as big a deal - they either don't have a past to compare this to, or they are not invested financially or emotionally to the area - they will move on, or believe they will.

What is the answer? Community involvement - voluntary involvement within democratic "collective" structures - that don't overwhelm or abuse individuals, but includes them in the future of their community. Will this happen? I doubt it, we are a people that "vote" by moving away and towards the environment we desire (and hopefully can afford).

tony

Posted by: guest at April 24, 2008 10:11 AM

why can't sunset park be designated a landmark district?

Posted by: guest at April 24, 2008 6:07 PM

LOL......oh my goodness!!!!! I agree that sunset park has many beautiful brownstones as well as ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS in New York. Some are well preserved by their owners, others are just shit inside!!!! Have you lived in or even been in more than ONE of these houses??? Everywhere you turn co-ops and condos are being put up in place of the "landmark homes"....Sure! We all love a beautiful preserved brownstone that has trash in its front yard overflowing out of the garbage. I don't think these are landmark neighborhoods as much as they are semi-slums!!!! Sections or portions like 2-4 block radiuses may be well kept, but the rest of the people and public as well as owners treat them like crap. There is history to every part of brooklyn, so if you have the money to go and preserve it all, by all means do so. And don't forget to build a gate around the whole thing so you can keep your brownstones "beautiful and historical". Maybe you are just a creature of habit and can't stand the changes being swiftly made left and right. I, myself, love a brownstone, but I also love everything about Brooklyn, from it's trashy neighborhoods to it's very fine ones. That's what makes Brooklyn what it is. A diverse melting pot full of renovations and opinions. Keep it fun and interesting to be here. Its not like they're removing dead bodies out of the ground or anything...LOL.

Posted by: guest at April 29, 2008 3:34 PM

The last writer is an idiot... and armchairwarrior is afraid to say what's really going on here.

Posted by: guest at May 5, 2008 1:04 AM