« The Return of the Rooming Houses? HBO Does Fort Greene »
September 21, 2009
City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking
On Thursday, the City Council voted 47-0 in favor of the creation of the Prospect Heights Historic District; LPC had voted for the designation back in June. Just thought you'd wanna know.
Prospect Heights Landmarking: The Video [Brownstoner]
Prospect Heights Landmarked! [Brownstoner]
Landmarks to Consider Prospect Heights Historic District [Brownstoner]
Photo by Tracy Collins
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11497
Comments
Why would anyone move back to Manhattan, especially someplace like the gritty EV, crowded Chelsea or the boring UES/UWS when they could live on a block like that one????
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 10:05 AM
Yea! About time. Congratulations to Prospect Heights, which has some truly amazing and unique buildings. They've been waiting a long time, and have worked very hard for this.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 21, 2009 10:08 AM
quote:
Why would anyone move back to Manhattan, especially someplace like the gritty EV, crowded Chelsea or the boring UES/UWS when they could live on a block like that one????
:-/
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 10:12 AM
Parents move to boring UWS/UES for schools, non-parents move to Chelsea/EV for the nightlife.
I am very happy that Prospect Heights gets landmarked, there are so many gorgeous blocks, it's great that we protect some architecture for the future generations.
Posted by: Maly at September 21, 2009 10:16 AM
People live in Manhattan for a variety of reasons, social cachet and proximity to most cultural & social venues being the top two. Propsepct Heights is great. I love it, but then so are many parts of Queens and Staten Island. One of the percevied problems with Brooklyn is that there is still a lot of poverty here. And it's very visible. It takes a certain kind of person to spend over a million dollars on a house in an area where poverty is still very prevalent. In the long run that will pay off. I certainly hope so anyway.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 21, 2009 10:25 AM
who cares as long as they still live in NYC...what neighborhood or borough makes no difference. they are all parts of a great whole.
Posted by: Petebklyn at September 21, 2009 10:27 AM
to be fair, there's still a lot of poverty in manhattan as well
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 10:29 AM
"Great" news. Another blow against housing ever being affordable in NYC for the middle class.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 10:46 AM
Benson--I'm not sure I understand your comment. What does landmarking have to do with affordable housing? This is excellent news for Prospect Heights, a vibrant and diverse neighborhood.
Posted by: bklynrosie at September 21, 2009 10:54 AM
Bklynrosie;
Landmarking =
Stopping supply of new housing in centrally located areas
+ Freezing housing stock to that of expensive-to-maintain old brownstones snd limestones
+Housing stock and accessibility attractive to wealthy folks
= eventual gentrification of the area!!
It happened in Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope and Cobble Hill, and is spreading to other areas.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 10:58 AM
It happened in Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope and Cobble Hill, and is spreading to other areas.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 10:58 AM
Thank god. Otherwise you get Fedders carp and all sorts of fugly development.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:02 AM
This is, indeed, really GREAT NEWS! Especially coming on the heels of last week's LPC's designation of the Alice and Agate Courts HD and PLG's new HD coming up for a LPC designation vote next month, it's encouraging to see the preservation agenda now moving further south and east in Brooklyn where much of the housing stock is gorgeous and "affordable" but has not been protected against the forces of profit-driven, shoddy and fugly over-development.
Hopefully, if we can stay on point, this thread celebrating the Prospect Heights's HD won't descend into the kind of redneck discussion that totally killed the Alice and Agate Courts HD discussion last week.
Posted by: Brooklynista at September 21, 2009 11:03 AM
benson, be more specific, the term "middle class" is meaningless. The NY Times considers the wealthiest elite middle class, some folks consider themsleves middle class because they are no longer receiving public assistance. The words mean everything and therefore nothing. House prices in many neighborhoods of Brookly, even the ones that are kind of iffy, have risen beyond what teachers, cops, and other civil servants can pay, beyond what a nurse can pay, or a store employee. The French would call that group the "petite bourgeoise" but we hate terms like that.
I do have a nagging suspicion that a city that turns its back on the majority of its hard-working citizens is going to be in trouble. We can't all be stockbrokers and dermatologists. A milion plus dollars is an awful lot of money for a house or apartment.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 21, 2009 11:04 AM
"Hopefully, if we can stay on point, this thread celebrating the Prospect Heights's HD won't descend into the kind of redneck discussion that totally killed the Alice and Agate Courts HD discussion last week"
Brooklynista;
Thanks for the memo. My thoughts have been cleansed, and I will blog according to the "script".
Let me see if I've got it down right.
Aaaaaa-mmmeeeeen!!! Aaaaaaaayyyyyy-men!!! Aaaaayyyy-men!!!
How did I do?
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:06 AM
You forgot the thre "Mea culpas."
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:17 AM
"I do have a nagging suspicion that a city that turns its back on the majority of its hard-working citizens is going to be in trouble. We can't all be stockbrokers and dermatologists. A milion plus dollars is an awful lot of money for a house or apartment."
Minard;
This pretty much sums up my thoughts. The only thing I would add is that - (Please put your hands over your ears, Brownstoners) - is that MANY folks will not find brownstones to be a viable form of housing, at ANY price. These homes were built for another day, when servants were cheap and plentiful. Many of the things that the vast majority of common folks need - a place to park the car (Yes, the CAR!), multiple bathrooms and a limited number of flights, are not provided.
I know folks here shudder at the thought of these modern condos, but I'll just take mine as an example. It provides a 3 BR, 2 BA 1350 square foot space on a single level, with elevator access. It provides a parking space. It provides modern heating and air conditioning. It is WHOLE lot more energy-eficient than these drafty homes.
From an environmental POV, I wonder about the wisdom of freezing the development of the central part of the city, which has good mass transit. Doing so only pushes development to the outer edges, increasing the use of cars.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:18 AM
quote:
"redneck discussion"
how utterfly offensive.
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 11:19 AM
One more thought.
Anytime you find the City Council voting for something 47-0,you know that the thinking process has been turned off. This is a certainty.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:23 AM
benson you are correct.
But an impractical 1932 Duesenberg will continue to sell for over $1,000,000 while a Miata or a camry will be $15,000-20,000.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:26 AM
Another day, another rant from benson. Whyever do you bother to even post here? It's called "Brownstoner.com"? And fyi- landmarking is a good thing, especially in less wealthy neighborhoods because a lot of this housing stock is owned by less wealthy working class people and it stabilizes the RE values, and even adds to it. You can complain about Bklyn Heights but landmarking made that neighborhood- its one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city. Same for Park Slope and Cobble Hill. Homeowners saw the values of their property go up and the neighborhoods get better amenities.
Landmarking has nothing to do with affordable housing. It's not getting built because developers don't want to build it. Look at any nonlandmarked brownstone neighborhood and tell me lack of landmarking brought a whole slew of affordable housing on the market.That's a baseless argument and a look out your window will prove it.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 11:26 AM
"But an impractical 1932 Duesenberg will continue to sell for over $1,000,000 while a Miata or a camry will be $15,000-20,000."
DIBS;
I don't dispute that. Duesenberg's should be rare, however. Touche'!
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:27 AM
Uh-oh!! The "hall monitor" of Brownstoner is here - Bxgrl.
I'm sorry, Bxgrl. I'm really trying to cleanse my thought process. I'll practice the script some more.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:30 AM
Well Packards, like brownstones, are less rare and they command $75,000-1,000,000. You of all people should understand the aesthetic attraction as caretaker for a brownstone.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:30 AM
benson- Blaming landmarking for the problem of cars is such a hoot. With or without landmarking, until the MTA decides its money is better spent improving access to the subway and or buses in the outer boroughs (instead of spending billions on one short leg of the subway on the UES) people will need cars. Relating it to landmarking ( there ain't that much landmarked stock in the central core) is totally without merit.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 11:32 AM
Benson,
I think you are looking at one side of the coin. My sense of the overall policy direction of the last 6-8 years is to downzone and landmark various neighborhoods to preserve scale, architectural quality and history, while freeing up many other areas through rezoning and substantial upzoning, and trying to revitalize lower income neighborhoods with properly scaled housing to attract basic amenities to make formerly distressed areas viable for lower income residents. With a few policy quibbles, I think overall that has been a worthwhile trade-off. Look at 4th Ave, Williamsburgh waterfront, Dean Street, Coney Island Ave, Greenwood, SP, and many other areas. Lots of areas have been freed up. Much as I like to ridicule the 4th Ave architecture, that's a lot of new housing that has been developed in exchange for the Slope downzoning. If all the City did was downzone and landmark one neighborhood after another, then you would be right in an economic sense. But you have to look at this landmarking in the broader context of teh direction the City has taken.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 21, 2009 11:33 AM
call it what it is. plain and simple. inventing another snobby snooty neighborhood in brooklyn. and LOL benson at the hall monitor remark. it's kinda true.
luv ya bxgirl tho haha. except when you called me a racist last week. grrr
*rob*
Posted by: Butterfly at September 21, 2009 11:39 AM
Slopefarm;
It's true that the city has upzoned certain areas to try to compensate for the downzoning of other areas. However, they then also load up these new zones with so many conditions that they force upscale development. How many "working stiffs" do you think live in those 4th Ave and Billyburg waterfront condos?
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:46 AM
benson, I'm hearing "entitlement" in your argument.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:50 AM
I'm not the hall monitor but if you want to make statements, you seem not able to take a reply. I don't expect you to agree with me- but you're the one who seems to think everything you say is the truth. But don't worry- our conversation is done.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 11:50 AM
benson, we can't just raze the city and start anew. We tried that in the 1960's and it was a disaster. When I was growing up the only "respectable" neighborhood to live in was the Upper East Side. Nice people also lived in little "oasis villages" as Tom Wolfe named then in Bonfire of the Vanities. Places like Brooklyn Heights, Forest Hills Gardens, Douglas Manor. But basically it was the Upper East Side and a few prestige buildings along Central Park West.
How things have changed! I would say definitely for the better. although when you see Sutton Place prices in Fort Greene, you do begin to wonder....
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 21, 2009 11:52 AM
rob- if you recall, you attacked me for a statement I didn't make. You were pissed off because someone said you made ignorant remarks. That wasn't me. Yet you called me a moron for my opinion on the 3rd av. train line. I give as good as I get. And with this I am done.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 11:54 AM
I'm with slopefarm.
I can't see how landmarking is that big of a deal in terms of the overall supply of housing in the whole city. Density can always be increased elsewhere in the city. To the degree that housing supply is a problem, landmarking doesn't have much to do with it.
Posted by: etson at September 21, 2009 11:55 AM
Additionally, to Minard's point, it has been shown throughout the country (Chicago & Philly being prime examples...remember Cabrini Green??) that high density housing is not the answer for affordable housing. Philly is aggressively pursuing a policy of building one family townhouses. They look like Federal style homes and blend in with surrounding neighborhoods. Crime is WAY DOWN in those areas.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 11:56 AM
Minard;
I'm not advocating any type of razing. As you say, the 1960's proved the efficacy of that approach. I think we've overcompensated for those mistakes in the other direction now. It seems that we believe we have to preserve all the quality housing from the 19th century, regardless of its effect on the city's economy and social structure, because we've lost the ability to produce quality housing in the 21st century. This is not an optimistic viewpoint.
DIBS;
I'm not arguing that working stiffs are entitled to live in the 4th Ave condos, I'm just saying that this development has not solved the issue of middle-class housing in NYC.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 11:59 AM
Actually, benson, some of those "conditions" lately have been the requirement that some of the new housing is set aside for lower income. If you are a pure free marketeer (which I am obviously not), then presumably your belief is that increased supply will bring down prices, whatever the initial pricing of the new housing itself. Some of that does seem to be happening in the new condo market. But I don't think loosening restrictions -- such as on construction safety and the like -- is going to bring down prices if the demand continues to keep prices relatively high (even if down from 2006). I think housing is too tight, and too unaffordable for too many. But I think that housing development should not be done without planning and necessary restraints -- so as either to provide or not overwhelm schools, parks, transportation, stores, etc. I wouldn't want to live in a city with no restrictions and no planning.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 21, 2009 12:08 PM
DIBS, Brooklyn, too. Lots of new stretches of 1-4 unit housing in Brownsville, ENY, etc. over the last 10 years. City allows development on that scale as of right, very few hoops, and there are various incentives to make it work. I worry that the density is a little too low to attract stores and other services that would help those areas thrive. But those areas are much mroe stable than they used to be.
Posted by: slopefarm at September 21, 2009 12:11 PM
benson, I actually agree with you (to my chagrin) about brownstone living. It really is not that pracitcal for modern life, especially the lack of parking for the family car and all the stairs. That is why, living in a brownstone was a special choice made by hardy and intrepid folks, many of them looking for bargains. The impracticality of the old houses was counter-balanced by the low purchase price and low taxes and the fact that you only needed one car. But now, the cost of these houses has become, in my opinion, (you can tell I'm not a broker) obscene. obscene! They cost as much as luxury estates with stately grounds and tennis courts.
Can that illogic be maintained into the future? I don't know, I just question it.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 21, 2009 12:13 PM
Not to make benson fall on the floor clutching his heart in shock but he is right about brownstone living not bring the most practical- but there are those of us who love it. I also agree with you, minard. I often think though that the prices reflect what about them does make them desirable. The craftsmanship,the beauty of the work, the height of the ceilings and windows. They aren't perfect but they also don't dehumanize the way boxy apartments seem to. Weall value things differently- I would more for a lovely old fixer upper than I would for a new construction box. But for someone else, new is the way to go.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 12:25 PM
Minard, back in 1899, one would summon a horse drawn hackney. Today it's referred to as car service.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 12:27 PM
> My thoughts have been cleansed
Thought Control to Major Tom
Thought Control to Major Tom
Tear those brownstones down
And turn your Fedders on...
Posted by: DitmasSnark at September 21, 2009 12:29 PM
Minard, there has always been a premium paid for proximity to the city, all around the world.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 12:32 PM
dibs, in Europe, Asia, and South America, the rich lived as close as possible to the city center. The poor lived in the outskirts. In the US on the other hand, with our Jeffersonian ideals of country life, the inner cities became the place for the poor. For the poor and shunned.
We are now at this interesting reversal in course, where young money is pouring in to old no-money areas. This is both good and bad, but mostly good. What I can't understand are the prices. These areas are in transition, they're not there yet, the future is unknowable and they may never get there and yet the prices do not reflect the tenuous social foundations. Prices for ordinary houses in Brooklyn should be much lower. That is my only point.
Posted by: Minard Lafever at September 21, 2009 12:55 PM
Even if you're right Benson, blaming Landmarking for (the lack of ) affordable housing is as silly as "blaming" low crime for gentrification. I'm sorry but Developers weren't exactly rushing to build "affordable" housing in the area. Unless you consider a 300k, 1 br condo on Sterling place "affordable"
Posted by: Crownlfc at September 21, 2009 12:59 PM
i'm in support of the landmarking in PH, but just wanted to note a couple of things. first, though PH is definitely a mixed neighborhood in terms of economic classes of *residents*, i do think it's a misperception that many owners there are "working class." there may in fact be owners who *were* working class at one point, but PH (in terms of its brownstones, anyway) has been a $1 mm neighborhood for a while, and doesn't appear to be sliding below that for brownstones in good condition. my point is that most working class owners, regardless of landmarking and regardless of the downturn, have for a while been sitting on a major asset that easily takes them out of the middle class as it is defined in this city.
second, as for renters, there appear to be a lot of owners of multiple buildings, many of which are stabilized or even controlled units, and a lot of these owners didn't really have the practical option of selling to developers anyway. on the flip side, they also don't seem particularly motivated, one way or the other, to make major upgrades with or without landmarking. i've definitely seen a ton of non-permitted cosmetic work (sidewalks, entryways, facades) going on in the last couple months. not much that appears geared toward pushing current tenants out - and with more condo stock coming on line soon, my guess is there will be replacement rentals should people start getting pushed out.
third, the landmarked area is pretty small, though a bit larger than it probably would/should have been in the absence of atlantic yards, in my opinion. i think there are at most four contiguous blocks in any one direction in addition to at least three or four new condo that already have been built. and there are *plenty* of open lots in the non-landmarked edges that are perfectly available to more "efficient" development of new housing, if developers choose it. lots of these blocks are a max 3+ minutes from subway options as those within landmarking.
lastly, the argument that new condos are more efficient because they have parking spaces is just weird. tearing down solid masonry construction to stick a finger building in the middle of a block is not efficient. there will be tear-downs that are left in limbo by landmarking, but my guess is that the statistical significance of these types of buildings is practically nil. on the other hand, half-empty, shoddily-built condos are not efficient, encouraging car ownership is not efficient, air conditioning is not efficient. converting to gas, upgrading your plumbing, replacing windows and doors, airsealing and adding a whole-house fan - now those things are efficient and will be just as do-able even at the 10% cost increase that landmarks seems to imply (assuming people do it with permits, which they may not).
Posted by: i disagree at September 21, 2009 1:00 PM
benson, there's nothing wrong with setting aside a percentage of buildings as examples of what can never be repeated. Are u against landmarking of all kinds? Should we tear down the Chrysler Building cuz it can no longer function as true Class A space?
This concern for the middle classes is over-rated. There are wide swaths of NYC devoted to them. Most of SI, Queens, and the bronx is affordable. The prime nabes, those in Manhattan, areas in Brownstone Brooklyn, those with good access to parks, schools, and transportation, will not be affordable to everyone. They never were and never will be.
As a free markets guy, who has (like me) worked themselves up from modest beginnings, I wouldn't think you would have a problem with teh fact that not everyone can live anywhere.
Posted by: denton at September 21, 2009 1:11 PM
And, most condo/coop buildings in the city do not have parking. Newer construction , yes, more so.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 1:15 PM
Denton;
You're making some good points. Let me respond:
-I am ALL in favor of preserving true landmarks of architectural distinction,such as the Chrysler building. That is a far cry, however, from preserving in amber spec.-built rows of ordinary limestones or brownstones (such as those shown in the photo for this article).
-I also agree that there is no constitutional right that entitles any segment of society to have a lock on a neighborhood. That is precisely why I am arguing against landmarking districts such as this latest one, because it eventually does, in effect, turns these areas into wealthy enclaves. If, as Minard states,we have a natural evolution underway in which the wealthy want to live close to the city center, I have no problem with that. It should not be zoned in place by government fiat, however.
-I disagree with you that there are vast swaths of NYC available to the middle class. Many formerly middle-class areas have become,in fact,immigrant areas,wherein single-family frame homes( Archie Bunker type homes) have been subdivided into multi-family dwellings aimed at poorer immigrants.
Posted by: benson at September 21, 2009 1:22 PM
i disagree- we agree :-)
One point- and maybe Crown Heights North is a unique situation but it is true many of the homeowners here are working class - and many of these homes have been in their families for several generations. I know quite a few in Bed-Stuy as well but it has been remarked in the past that CHN has remained, for the most part a neighborhood of working class homeowners. That is beginning to change but not so quickly as seen in other neighborhoods.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 1:26 PM
benson- but the change in those areas are not due to landmarking but to white flight. And landmarking doesn't necessarily turn neighborhoods into wealthy enclaves. Gentrification began in BH, Park Slope and other neighborhoods long before landmarking and they become so because of location, and - for lack of a better word- ambiance. Landmarking only protects that. It's people and economics that make the changes, not landmarking. And there are plenty of landmarked buildings that have simply rotted away because not even the wealthy wanted to live where they were situated.
Posted by: bxgrl at September 21, 2009 1:33 PM
Late to the party, but plenty of good arguments here. Glad the discussion didn't disintegrate, either.
First of all, landmarking does not mean that a bubble of affluence is cast over an area. Prospect Hts was landmarked because it has excellent examples of residential architecture by some of Brooklyn's best architects of the late 19th century. Thank goodness we haven't reached the point where we have to be like Noah, only picking two examples of every kind. What makes a block like the one in the photo so attractive is the sum of its whole. Places like that need to be preserved because they add some beauty, a play of light and shade, texture and materials, some synchronicity to our lives. Coming out of the subway after a hard day of work onto a block like this is a psychological sigh of relief. That is true whether in Park Slope, where the houses cost several million, or Crown Heights, where most are far, far less. Landmarking protects that, and I for one, am very grateful.
If there was no landmarking, this city would be a far less habitable place. It is a spurious argument that protecting these houses leads to a lack of affordable housing. As several people noted, only a fraction of this city is landmarked. Even in tonier nabes, like Park Slope, only the blocks near the park are landmarked, and landmarking there took place in the late 70's, well before the explosion of wealth. Park Slope gentrified for a lot of reasons, landmarking was not one of them. It preserved that which drew people there.
In Crown Heights North, our landmarking status has not meant a rise in income levels, nor a driving out of the poor or lower middle class. The middle class ARE the homeowners here, and will remain for quite a while, because they know what they have, have had it for generations, and plan on keeping it.
I think we do have a great deal of housing needs in this city, but blaming landmarking is a false argument. As bxgrl said, developers are not building middle class and affordable housing because there is no incentive to do so, and not enough perceived profit. That has absolutely nothing to do with landmarking.
Going to another meeting, happy to revisit this later.
Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 21, 2009 2:25 PM
"Thank goodness we haven't reached the point where we have to be like Noah, only picking two examples of every kind."
lol...
Posted by: denton at September 21, 2009 2:53 PM
Those are far from "ordinary" townhouses there; they are probably some of the finest examples of brownstone architecture out there (MUCH nicer than many houses in Park Slope). Prospect Heights is characterized by wider houses (most are over 20') and longer lots (150') than those found in Park Slope (although FG and Clinton Hill do have some wider ones as well, but with 100' lots), and these houses hwere designed by some of the foremost brownstone architects out there. Do check out the LPC's designation report for a description of all the houses in the district: http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/prospecthts.pdf. It’s one of the most comprehensive and detailed reports yet, and with color photos, too.
If anything, there are areas in PS that are less landmark-worthy than Prospect Heights.
Posted by: babs at September 21, 2009 3:41 PM
Thank you for that link babs.
Posted by: daveinbedstuy at September 21, 2009 4:09 PM
You're most welcome -- I think this report is great, as it's the first time they've noted all the alterations that the various properties underwent prior to landmarking, so one can tell what's really been grandfathered in and what's been done post-landmarking and is a violation. Bravo LPC!
Posted by: babs at September 21, 2009 5:09 PM
I think the name of this site says it all - Brownstoner - no one has websites devoted to undistinguished fedders apartment buildings. Even Ratner, when he sent out mass mailings promoting Atlantic Yards a year or so ago, didn't put pictures of his proposed buildings, but pictures of brownstones.
And all the blocks to the east of the landmarked parts of PH are now filled with these homely fedders condos - so those of you who want more modern, utilitarian buildings can rejoice. PH has the old and the new. Personally I perfer the old.
Posted by: mimi at September 21, 2009 6:11 PM
bxgirl = "hall monitor" of brownstoner.com. LOL! Good one, Benson!
Posted by: Big Jugs at September 21, 2009 6:43 PM
I'm super glad that my neighborhood and home have gotten landmark protection. It's a great place to live, and this will help keep
I am proud to celebrate the fine architecture of Prospect Heights, which leads to its close neighborhood feel.
In other cities, buildings over 40 years old are considered ancient treasures. In Brooklyn, we have so many fine buildings that we sometime ignore their value.
These buildings have stood the test of time. I'm glad the LPC has decided to protect these buildings from developers & politicians and such who see no value in good design or public policy.
Posted by: harriet at September 21, 2009 7:50 PM
One more great benefit of landmark protect for PH: All you people who don't like won't move into the neighborhood.
Posted by: harriet at September 21, 2009 8:15 PM
re: 150 ft lots... it's true a small plane can land in my backyard ;)
This is great news. Not sure why it takes the folks at landmark so long. Last yr 3 neighbors added floors made out of stucco and glass.
Posted by: jack slade at September 21, 2009 9:53 PM
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Le Barricou
added November 20, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Der Schwarze Kölner
added November 19, 2009 12:00 PM in Fort Greene -
Oak Wine Bar & Café
added November 18, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Mr. Wonton
added November 17, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Casa Rosa
added November 16, 2009 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Cousin John's Café & Bakery
added November 13, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Elote
added November 12, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Miracle Grill
added November 11, 2009 12:00 PM in Park Slope -
Phoebe's Cafe
added November 10, 2009 12:00 PM in Williamsburg -
Ruthie's
added November 9, 2009 12:00 PM in Clinton Hill, Downtown Brooklyn
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.