« Housing Starts Continue to Suck Yet Another Round of Price Cuts at Lofts on Lex »

December 16, 2008

Help on the Way for 173 St. James Place?

173-St-James-Place-1208.jpg
Could a rehab finally be in the works from the crumbling down wood frame house at 173 St. James Place in Clinton Hill? Let's hope so. An application to "construct a rear yard addition and alter the facades" is being presented to the Landmarks Preservation Commission today; unfortunately, we didn't have a chance to grab photos of the proposed make-over. Anyone know anything about it?
Agenda 12/16/08 [LPC] GMAP P*Shark




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:44 AM | Comments (10)
Categories: Clinton Hill, Development, Landmark

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/7608

Comments

Isn't this the house that had an electrical fire 2-3 years ago? I'm sure I read about it on Brownstoner!

Posted by: rf at December 16, 2008 11:07 AM

That'd make a spectacular property especially with those garages. Got to look up the sale history on propertyshark on this one.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at December 16, 2008 11:08 AM

So the house is landmarked?

I know I have bad taste, but I really like the green house next door. I was admiring it today.

Posted by: Heather at December 16, 2008 11:17 AM

This application was laid-over from today's LPC hearing. Heather, the building is not landmarked, it is in a historic district.

Posted by: g man at December 16, 2008 11:27 AM

Here's an older Brownstoner post about an application for tear-down of this building:
http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/11/teardown_applic.php

Posted by: rf at December 16, 2008 11:29 AM

Ahhhhh tear it down. It's too short. Rebuild to height of adjacent buildings and over garage. Some things just aint worth savin'.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at December 16, 2008 1:37 PM

what's the difference between being landmarked or being in a historic district? It is the same thing.


Posted by: Inigo at December 16, 2008 2:58 PM

That little house has been there a looong time, from the look of it; I just wonder how long! My dream is for a handheld GPS-type device into which you could enter any address and immediately find out its date of construction, architectural history, any notable events or residents there based on newspapers and census data, and selling prices!!! Call it the "Blackberry Curbsider" or something. The device itself would be the easy part; the database would be the killer!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at December 16, 2008 4:52 PM

I hear you Inigo. It's semantics, but when someone uses "landmark" or "landmarked" as a verb, I think individual landmark. It practical terms, it's the same thing.

Posted by: altervoce at December 16, 2008 6:46 PM

Semantically speaking, I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that one's house in Clinton Hill or Brooklyn Heights is "Landmarked". Individual landmarks like the Chrysler Building or the Seagram Building are just stand alone structures, they are not fortunate enough to be landmarked as part of a district. It is a matter of geographical placement not quality.


Posted by: Inigo at December 16, 2008 7:48 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions