« Streetlevel: New Deli for Myrtle Avenue Development Watch: 277 Gold Street »

June 23, 2009

Prospect Heights Landmarked!

Prospect Heights landmark map
This just in: The Landmarks Preservation Commission earlier today unanimously approved the designation of the Prospect Heights Historic District, culminating a widespread effort by the likes of the Municipal Art Society and the Prospect Heights Neighborhood Development Council that goes back over three years. The district contains 850 buildings and is the largest designation since the Upper West Side got the nod back in 1990. “Prospect Heights is among Brooklyn’s most distinguished, cohesive neighborhoods because of its architectural integrity and diversity, scale, tree-lined streets and residential character,” said Chairman Tierney. “These features lend the neighborhood its unique sense of place, making it a natural for historic district status.” Woohooooo!
Proposed Prospect Heights Historic District Meeting at LPC [Brownstoner]
As Historic District Gets Hearing, Some Politic Omissions [AY Report]
Landmarks to Consider Prospect Heights Historic District [Brownstoner]
ProHi Historic District Could Include Almost 800 Homes [Brownstoner]
Growing Momentum for P'spect Heights Landmarking [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10330

Comments

Great! Congrats!

Posted by: meerkatz at June 23, 2009 2:17 PM

well thank god we got the permits in last week!

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 2:19 PM

This is wonderful news. Another great neighborhood saved from the demolition/remuddling derby. Congratulations!

Posted by: Brooklynista at June 23, 2009 2:26 PM

This makes me very happy.

Prospect Heights is my new favorite neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Kudos to all that helped make this happen.

Posted by: 11217 at June 23, 2009 2:26 PM

I'd be interested in knowing how many owners in landmarked districts consider this a good thing. As one who's, shall we say, blase about getting work done through the 'correct' process on my house, I'd hate to have to jump through the hoops necessary to get landmark approval...not that I disagree with the premise, just the application.

I would, for example, be justly pissed about having to get an approval to repaint my door or replace an outdoor light.

Now I were going to do a teardown I can see why Landmarks (and my neighbors) should weigh in. But there should be something in-between in terms of economic impact on not-so-rich owners like me who wouldn't screw except from the viewpoint of dyed-in-the-wool preservationists.

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 2:29 PM

'screw up'

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 2:31 PM

CONGRATS!

Posted by: threecee at June 23, 2009 2:32 PM

Congrats, lived in Prospect Heights for three years and loved it. One question, how did this happen in three years and it seems that extending the Bed Stuy historic district has taken forever?

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at June 23, 2009 2:34 PM

Whoo Hooo... Yeah...Yeah! Too bad this did not include AY as most of the buildings there have already been demolished. Go Prospect Heights!!!

Posted by: cementbottom at June 23, 2009 2:34 PM

woo woo

Posted by: mimi at June 23, 2009 2:35 PM

woo woo

Posted by: mimi at June 23, 2009 2:35 PM

CMU - after seeing a few houses trashed in our neighborhood most owners are very positive about landmarking.

Posted by: mimi at June 23, 2009 2:37 PM

How long before they replace all of the green street signs with the brown historic ones?
Does anyone know a good source for new entry doors that meet landmarks requirements?

Thanks.

Posted by: PHfamily at June 23, 2009 2:48 PM

cmu - i am in the neighborhood and approve of the landmarking. that said, there is little that the LPC can do from a practical perspective to stop you from repainting your door or getting a new outdoor light. they can slap you with a violation if someone notices and complains which means nothing unless and until you decide you want permits someday. i'm okay with this - more problematic to me are the houses that are clearly being neglected and are falling into disrepair. it's obviously not landmarking that causes that problem, but landmarking does complicate the potential solutions. interestingly, the owners who let this happen are not the ones you'd necessarily guess - seem to be an equal number of committed community members/resident-owners letting their facades rot as there are absentee landlords doing the same...

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 2:53 PM

They must be the same ones who have 300k to spend on a reno.

I guess my point is that I fully agree with the idea, just not the way it's implemented. Why can't we have strict limits on 'trashing' a house and take a benign view on repainting the front door? Why should we have to replace windows with expensive and less-efficient wood ones when similar and better ones are available (and I don't mean cheap aluminum ones.) I guess enforcing a nuanced standard is more difficult than enforcing rigidity. easier.

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 2:53 PM

smokychimp - is it your house or a new project? can you say which street you're on?

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 3:08 PM

i disagree: but as a practical matter, the violation will cause you trouble down the road, so you could say the teeth are long;).

I moved here from SF, and the influx of renovators 20-30yrs ago who were not bound to traditional colors and methodologies is the reason that we have the beautiful "painted ladies" there. I had a house there, and, then as now, did not have 30-50k to do a bang-up 10-color job, but I did spend almost double what a single color job would have to paint my house "reasonably" well. Had NYC Landmarking been in effect, I might have not painted it at all, thereby contributing to the 'neglect' you mention.

I have the opposite constraint here. At some time, I intend to introduce some color to my dull brown house. If I were landmarked, I would not be able to do so. Is that a laudable purpose of landmark protection? I don't think so. (Otoh, that pink Garfield house...!)

And I'm a little confused when you say "not landmarking that causes that problem, but landmarking does complicate the potential solutions"?

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 3:10 PM

GO PH! I am happy that our neighborhood got landmarked.

Posted by: AJAS at June 23, 2009 3:15 PM

Yay!

Posted by: mopar at June 23, 2009 3:15 PM

CMU, the painted ladies of San Francisco were painted in a variety of garish and bizarre colors when they were first built. It is a San Francisco tradition. It is not a new thing.

Posted by: mopar at June 23, 2009 3:17 PM

i don't think so. my neighbors with crumbling facades (who presumably couldn't afford a non-approved facade reno for the past 10 years, and now certainly won't be able to pull together the $$ for the approved upgrade) are the ones most in favor...

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 3:18 PM

i mean that landmarking isn't what causes houses to fall apart in the first place. the disrepair you see in prospect heights as of today (or at least as of the day PH was calendared, if you want to be more strict about it) can't be blamed on landmarking.

when we bought, at least 2/3 of what we did was simply getting rid of crap renovations, restoring what was originally there, and dealing with things falling apart - all of which, had the owners exercised regular maintenance and proper care, might not have been a problem. if ph had been landmarked when we bought, yes, it would have complicated how we could have addressed those problems. presumably, though, the market will take these things into account - generally, the increased cost of renovation is balanced out by buyer's preference for landmarked areas.

as for your example of painting your house - yes, clearly, nuance is much more difficult to legislate than bright lines, and it just makes practical sense to have consistent communication. you might think painting your house is non-objectionable, but how about covering it with aluminum siding, or faux stone tiles, or adding a fourth floor in white brick and fedders boxes?

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 3:35 PM

"I disagree" - it's a few different filings and modifications on St Marks, both taking place in the backyard but you can see them a little from the street. Would have been possible to do with Landmarks jurisdiction but the process would have taken forever and ever. When they start, I will post them here for everyone to roast.

My own view of the Landmark Commission is that it's probably a good thing, and certainly well intended, but I feel that the LC disproportionately burdens individual homeowners while too often giving the larger scale developers a pass.

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 3:42 PM

mopar, 'Garish' originally? I may be wrong, but I thought the original colors were nowhere near as bright, Victorian colors were muted and the later renovators really jazzed things up.

i disagree, i agree (couldn't resist) that the physical structure should be controlled strictly so that the street facade, height, bulk, etc should be consistent. And yes, I also see vinyl siding=bad but repointing in blue=weird but not bad, aluminum windows=bad but fiberglass=ok, etc.

Oh well, this is too slippery a slope unless I am God.

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 3:54 PM

Congrats to Prospect Heights! Well deserved and overdue.

Bedstuy11216, I know there is work going on as we write, to add more of Bed Stuy to the list of landmarked areas. There are 2 additions to the Stuy Hts district, and a Bedford Corners area centering on, and affecting a bit more than the Hancock/Jefferson/Arlington Place blocks between Bedford and Throop. There is a committee, which our own Amzi Hill is on, so he could elaborate and I'm sure they could use volunteers in the effort.

PHfamily, unless your PH association can get donations and money, don't strain yourself looking for those signs. They have to be bought from the city, they aren't free. We don't have any here in CHN,and we were landmarked in 2007, but we plan on raising money for them in the near future. I think they are in the range of $30/sign, and if you look at all of the intersections in your district, that can add up really quickly. I don't know about the large signs with the description of the area, I'm sure those are a pretty penny, too.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at June 23, 2009 4:01 PM

smokychimp - interested to see them. and i don't disagree with your analysis. i know there are ways of accessing small amounts of money to help ease the burden, but there really ought to be some kind of fund - even if it were just to pay the additional fees and expediting - to help assist low-income people trying to make necessary repairs or minor upgrades.

Posted by: i disagree at June 23, 2009 4:06 PM

DOT used to provide the terra-cotta color streetname signs free. I can't believe they are asking communities to pay for them. How unbelievably cheap and mean.

Posted by: Minard Lafever at June 23, 2009 4:39 PM

i_disagree, email me i'll send some more details

Posted by: Smokychimp at June 23, 2009 4:46 PM

Actually the Victorians could do garish really well. They started working with chemical/anilene dyes in the 1860's with magenta being the first successful one. A look at Victorian fashions shows colors and combinations that see almost contemporary. We only think the victorians were in to muted colors because we see them after years of fading. But the Victorians were very much into color. Rich, intense color. (When Queen Victoria went into mourning for Albert black and dark colors became the fashion- but luckily most people found a year of deep mourning to be more than enough.

Posted by: bxgrl at June 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Oh- and congrats! the Landmarking is great news!

Posted by: bxgrl at June 23, 2009 4:51 PM

Ah, tx bxgrl. What would you think if I painted my front door a bright yellow with teal trim (I don't have the exact colors) ;)?

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 5:48 PM

We happened to be driving around this weekend and noticed a lot of uglification in Prospect Heights, cheap replacement doors, horrible windows...

Underhill is not very nice...what happens to the recent ugly redos...? Do they get landmarked into the bargain?

Will the suburban type door slapped on a brownstone 30 years ago (or the even uglier doors from the last 15 years) need to be replaced with exact replicas down the road or will the owner be allowed to find another just-as-ugly/just-as-cheap door to replace it even if the little windows are of a different configuration or the door is a different material...

Anyway, I don't know if the ugly-door area is within the boundries of the new Landmarked district.

Ugh...I could just tear off a good one on the ugly doors of Prospect Heights...what happened to the original doors...? Such a shame. Such ruination...

Posted by: BrooklynGreene at June 23, 2009 5:51 PM

BG, see, that's what I mean. I have an 'ugly door' from when I bought the place, and I don't want to spend $3000 to get a period replacement (which I won't like anyway.) I might spend $800 on an energy-efficient door which looks good, but Landmarks wouldn't approve it. There's ugly and there's ugly...vinyl siding is ugly; fiberglass doors less so. Frankly, I *like* the variety of doors on my block, most of them non-period.

Posted by: cmu at June 23, 2009 5:58 PM

Yay landmarking! Squeeze those gross poors out!

Posted by: Jeremy at June 23, 2009 6:01 PM

Ha Jeremy!

Posted by: mopar at June 23, 2009 6:31 PM

I've posted a few times against landmarking. however, i think landmarking Prospect Heights is a good decision.

Posted by: slick at June 23, 2009 6:52 PM

Why no love for us on Plaza Street???

Posted by: ronpoz at June 23, 2009 7:34 PM

Check out my doors at 217 Prospect Place! We installed them about three months ago and Landmarks sent a letter to my clients describing the facade as having "original front doors". Best compliment to date. Thanks LPC.

Posted by: southslope at June 23, 2009 11:45 PM

cmu- I love gold with teal- in fact I love the bright colored doors you sometimes see on old houses- but that's my visual preference. It's probably not period but its only paint on a door. Painting your brownstone facade bright pink would give me pause though :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at June 24, 2009 12:26 AM

Congratulations, PH.

Landmarking is the only means by currently available to preserve the historical character of New York's beautiful housing stock. However, unlike many other Landmarking committees in other cities (Atlanta comes to mind), NY LPC does little to "soften" the rules, enabling middle class homeowners to at least maintain the "historic" look of their properties at a reasonable cost. There are many synthetic products on the market (not cheap, but not as costly as the real deal) which beautifully mimic older building materials and give historic homes that much desired period look. While these materials might not be acceptable for individual buildings of exceptional historic merit, but I think they could well be the "compromise" that would enable New Yorkers to preserve historic neighborhoods at prices they can afford, rather than see them crumble into oblivion.

I am all for Landmarking, but I think it's time LPC took a good look at what other cities have done and perhaps introduce different "classes" of preservation. Perhaps it's time for a less oppressive "garden district" designation. No bricking up Victorian flatbush facades, for example, but bring on the hardiplank where shingle is not an affordable option. Let someone in the Slope have their polystyrene cornice, if complete neglect is the alternative. Or creating neighborhoods that only the wealthy can afford to preserve and enjoy.

Posted by: Architerrorist at June 24, 2009 9:19 AM

Put much more reasonably than I ever could!

Posted by: cmu at June 24, 2009 10:04 AM

SouthSlope- What make/manufacturer are they? We really need to get rid of the ugly home depot doors that came with our house.....

Posted by: PHfamily at June 24, 2009 10:45 AM

southslope as in southslope woodworks.

Posted by: southslope at June 26, 2009 12:01 AM