« Hotel Le Bushwick On Tap Vantage 238 Coming to St. Marks Avenue »

April 1, 2009

New Retro Lampposts for Victorian Flatbush

crook-lights-0409.jpgDitmas Park Blog gives a shout-out to the Bishop Crook lights that are popping up all over Victorian Flatbush (as well as Community Board 14, Ditmas Park Association, West Midwood Association and Marty Markowitz for making them happen). Turns out there are 500 of the antique-style lampposts going up all over the 'hood. The only downside: Jack hammer at 7 a.m. To see some originals, check out this coverage on Forgotten NY.




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:45 AM | Comments (15)
Categories: Ditmas Park, Streets, Victorian Flatbush

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/9082

Comments

What great news. They're just so beautiful. The coverage that Forgotten NY did is fantastic, what a lot of work. Bravo!!

Posted by: TownhouseLady at April 1, 2009 10:51 AM

They certainly add a lot to the charm of our Victorian neighborhood. The installers, despite their early morning start, have been most cooperative to all. With the new underground wiring I hope that the numerous lights that have had frequent problems over the years will now be reliable for a long long time.

Now, we must move on an fight for Landmark status for all of Victorian Flatbush.

Tomorrow, Thursday 4/2 at 7pm there will be a public hearing at PS 249 on Caton and Marlborough on the Flatbush downzoning. Please come and show your support for Victorian Flatbush - Brooklyn as it used to be.

Posted by: yaakovdoe at April 1, 2009 10:54 AM

I think they're beautiful. My only question is, where are ours? They've been promised in PLG also. Come on Marty--we know you love your old senatorial district :-)

Posted by: Bob Marvin at April 1, 2009 10:58 AM

That's awesome. Love those old lights.

Posted by: 11217 at April 1, 2009 11:09 AM

I don't mind them in the appropriate neighborhoods - but the franken-posts which popped up on Myrtle Avenue in Clinton Hill look ridiculous. They took the old posts and drapped them in retro-customes. Why can we not be forward thinking in our street furniture and not try to make everything look like it is 1883? Sure it is easy to disney-fy our cities but it is neither respectful of legitimate historic fabric nor creative. I know a modern design will bring out the naysayers, but don't tell me that we haven't figured out better wasys to safely and economically light our streets.

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 1, 2009 11:13 AM

I am all for these lamp posts in my neighborhood... my street looks much nicer because of them.

I also totally agree with Putnamdenizen about not getting stuck in the past. The "standard" street lights are for safety, but they're ugly. However, these old fashioned ones are great in my neighborhood but shouldn't be seen as appropriate for all.

ALSO... the call to landmark ALL of Victorian Flatbush is ridiculous. It's just ridiculous.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 1, 2009 11:37 AM

Agree that landmarking all of Victorian Flatbush is ridiculous. Where I live, within a 100-foot radius you have a tudor, a Dutch Colonial, a plain-old center hall colonial, and a bunch of 'victorians.' Nearby you have wood siding, vinyl, asbestos shingles, and even a couple people who went the Garden State Brickface route. Tell me what context you would assess new development against? The zoning already limits you to single-family detached residences, and includes height limits and yard requirements. That seems like enough.

Posted by: Sparafucile at April 1, 2009 11:44 AM

Indeed Sparafucile... I certainly wouldn't want to see the house I live in landmarked. Or perhaps yakovdoe is suggesting compulsory restoration, and not landmarking.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 1, 2009 11:50 AM

Downzoning is different from landmarking - no?

Posted by: Putnamdenizen at April 1, 2009 12:25 PM

I'm all for downzoning... actually, I'm not. But I'm all for making zoning *match* what exists so new construction would basically fit.

Downzoning could add to "sprawl" -- so it should be used wisely.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 1, 2009 1:11 PM

Landmarking is just one means of preserving, and encouraging the long-term restoration of, neighborhoods. Eclectic building types and styles - "a tudor, a Dutch Colonial, a plain-old center hall colonial, and a bunch of 'victorians'" - are part of the character of Victorian Flatbush. It doesn't diminish the possible virtue of landmarking. One need only look at Prospect Park South as an example of a landmarked historic district with wildly varied architectural styles.

"The zoning already limits you to single-family detached residences, and includes height limits and yard requirements."

Under current zoning, most of the areas in Flatbush zoned to allow only single-family detached houses (R1-2 and R2 districts) are already landmarked: Prospect Park South, Ditmas Park, Midwood Park and Fiske Terrace. West Midwood is the only area so zoned that is not already landmarked.

Most of the non-landmarked areas with detached houses are currently zoned for both single- and two-family residences, but allow any type of construction, including townhouse/rowhouse buildings. Some areas are zoned for even denser, multiple-unit residences. Among other goals, the Flatbush Rezoning Proposal will replace the existing zoning in those areas to allow only single-/two-family detached residences.

Posted by: Xris at April 1, 2009 1:20 PM

Single-family only zoning is absurd. If you have a 4000 sq ft house and can't make it into 2 or 3 apartments, the building should not exist within the city limits!

I'm not saying you can't live in a 20,000 sq ft house with just you and your cats... just that the city shouldn't impose ridiculously low density restrictions. As a related side note.... it's a bit hard for a shop to survive when the the "catchment" area for the shop is only 100 people. Community vibrancy isn't linked to how pretty the houses are.

Posted by: tybur6 at April 1, 2009 1:34 PM

If "eclectic building types and styles" can constitute a landmark district, then is there anything that can't? This is what drives me nuts about landmarking - they seem to make the rules up as they go along, both before designation and after. If you have a bunch of houses that look the same, then they need to be landmarked to preserve the context. If you have one lonely survivor of that same housing type, then you need to landmark it because of its rarity.

The question of whether such low density districts are justifiable in such close proximity to a relatively underutilized subway line is a separate matter. I like my single-family detached on a block of single-family detacheds, and I love being around the corner from an express subway stop. But from an objective standpoint, it would make a lot of sense to allow greater density here, so more people could live in proximity to mass transit, and reduce their dependency on the automobile.

Posted by: Sparafucile at April 1, 2009 1:54 PM

The impetus for down-zoning was the spate of tear-downs changing the character and density of long established communities. When someone buys a home in a neighborhood of single family homes, isn't it a reasonable expectation that the house next door will not be replaced by a monolithic multi-storey structure blocking its air and light? Much of this city is a heat-sink of concrete and asphalt. We should cherish the few green villages left, not begrudge their existence.

p.s. Most of Victorian Flatbush is gaining Bishop Crooks lights. However, the eastern boundary, Bedford Ave. from Glenwood Rd to Foster Ave., has been excluded because some staff member of the Borough President's office used a unofficial, incomplete map as the basis for the contract.

Posted by: Mansfield at April 1, 2009 5:11 PM

keep posting, Xris. I'm too tired to chime in on the specifics, but of course you are right and know this issue inside out... There are sooooo many reasons why VF should be landmarked. Anyone who is against them either can't or won't pay the extra to keep up their home in accordance with Landmarking guidelines or doesn't value what makes the neighborhood beauitful or unique and is OK with seeing even last house on their block turn into a stucco and brick fronted, detail-free behomoth.

Posted by: Architerrorist at April 2, 2009 9:32 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions