« Last Week's Biggest Sales Co-op of the Day: 100 Underhill Avenue, #2 »

October 27, 2009

BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked

We'll have more details for you in the morning, but we just got word that the Landmarks Preservation Commission just approved the Ocean on the Park Historic District. Past coverage here. Whoopee!




Posted by Brownstoner at 11:48 AM | Comments (21)
Categories: Landmark, Prospect Lefferts Gardens

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12033

Comments

That's kinda nifty... but 12 houses makes an "historic district"?

Though, the name is pretty hokey. Ocean on the Park.

Posted by: tybur6 at October 27, 2009 11:56 AM

This is great news, for the community and for Prospect Park.

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at October 27, 2009 11:56 AM

"That's kinda nifty... but 12 houses makes an "historic district"?"

It is when everything else of historic value on the block has already been decimated.

Posted by: FlatbushMan23 at October 27, 2009 12:16 PM

Small- but a jewel! Great work- and a lovely group of houses.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 27, 2009 12:29 PM

This district was originally proposed for inclusion in the original Prospect Lefferts Gardens historic district in 1979, but the LPC was not into non-contiguous districts at the time, so this is really an add-on. Still to come: Chester Court, Parkside Ave.

This turned out better than we could have hoped -- the lot adjacent to 189 Ocean (the former house that sparked it all) has now been calendared as well.

Well done everyone!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 12:54 PM

Can an empty lot be made part of an historic district? If so, does the owner of the empty lot at 185 lose the right to build on it? It would make one heck of a community garden :-).

Posted by: FlatbushMan23 at October 27, 2009 1:04 PM

I think anything built would have to be approved by the LPC in terms of appropriateness -- see examples in Brooklyn Heights. Certainly what was proposed (an eight-story condo wit a cantilvered projection over the driveway of the house next door) wouldn't pass.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 1:11 PM

FlatbushMan23,

# 185 is NOT in the Historic District that was just designated, although it probably would have been had the designation been calendared before that house was torn down [BUT SEE MORE BELOW].

Babs,

This row was actually not in the original historic district proposed by the LPC in the mid-70s. Many other parts of PLG, including Parkside Ave. and Chester Court, were in that original proposal and were left out because they weren't contiguous with the HD that was designated in 1979. IMO they SHOULD be landmarked, but that's a battle for another day

There was one really dramatic development at the LPC vote this morning. The owner of #189 demanded that her objections (already expressed at the hearing several months ago) be heard. The Commission listened and, although they voted to designate the whole row, they promised staff help with problems that might develop due to the construction site next door. The dramatic part is that the commissioners held a separate vote to calendar the adjacent lot (#185) as a possible addition to the Ocean on the Park HD. This might be part of an LPC effort to address the problem of constructionj adjacent to historic districts.

Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 27, 2009 1:25 PM

The homeowner is in a bad position though what with the odd shared driveway. The cantilever design that would project over the driveway right to the property line is a terrible idea. I believe she was worried about her ability to sell if the house was landmarked, but I think the cantilever design would be far more of a killer than being landmarked would.

Posted by: bxgrl at October 27, 2009 1:57 PM

Congratulations to the Ocean on the Park Houses. I know how hard you've worked to get this.

This was a really interesting move by LPC, to calendar the lot, and will cheer preservationists, while supremely pissing off those who don't think any agency should dictate property use. I was at the hearing primarily for the designation of Crown Heights North Phase II, which unanimously passed, and stayed to support my friends on Ocean.

I had no idea I was going to witness something much bigger than the actual specific event. This will be very important to future landmarking efforts.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at October 27, 2009 1:58 PM

Thanks for the clarification Bob -- yes, let's move on to Parkside and Chester. Is someone going to come up with a cutesy/catchy name for them too?

Truly the most exciting Landmarks session I've ever witnessed!

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:09 PM

"let's move on to Parkside and Chester. Is someone going to come up with a cutesy/catchy name for them too?"

How about the "Parcheesi HD"?


Posted by: FlatbushMan23 at October 27, 2009 2:12 PM

But considering they are non-contiguous, do we need two names? Or what about Parkchester (isn't that in the Bronx?)?

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:22 PM

RE: "let's move on to Parkside and Chester"

I sure hope we can.

Virtually all the work towards our new historic district was done by the residents of these houses (with a little help from me and rather more help from Ben Edwards, the LMA President).

People from other blocks were invited to the Ocean Avenue homeowners initial meetings with no response. FWIW I've been beating the bushes to drum up interest in landmarking additional PLG blocks here, on our local Lefferts Yahoo list, in the pages of the "Echo" and anywhere else I can think of. If people aren't interested in getting involved nothing is likely to happen

Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 27, 2009 2:27 PM

Any updates as to what's going on with the remaining unprotected Victorian Flatbush nabes?

Posted by: Architerrorist at October 27, 2009 2:36 PM

benson, you haven't blown thru here yet to declare yet another assault on the working class!

Posted by: denton at October 27, 2009 2:40 PM

Unfortunately, I think some of the property owners on both Parkside and Chester are anti-landmarks as well. If you recall, there were only 2 opposing owners at the original Ocean on the Park hearing at the LPC. I think there would be more in these cases.

Posted by: babs at October 27, 2009 2:44 PM

Who needs Benson?

Posted by: Bob Marvin at October 27, 2009 2:46 PM

It was an incredible landmarks session! MM and Babs are right -- what happened today is way more exciting than just the designation of the Ocean on the Park Houses. (Although, I must say, the conferring of HD status on this teeny row of houses which border the east side of Prospect Park was damn exciting, relieving, cause for celebration, a "hallelujah moment" and all that.) Indeed, what the LPC did today was major because it signaled to preservationists and developers alike that the swinging of the wrecker's ball may not necessarily mean the struggle to preserve a historic site has been forever lost.

In this case, the single spark which started the prairie fire which then became the Ocean on the Park preservation movement was the sale of a century old brick house to an inexperienced, undercapitalized real estate developer during the height of the bubble. Thus began a race between the preservationists and the developers to opposing finish lines. While the preservationists were pleading for historic district designation of the entire row before the developer could strike, the developer was rushing to secure DOB approval of his plans to erase a bit of architectural history before the LPC could take action to stop the clock. Of course, we all know that the preservationists lost that race. Yet, the irony is that it was the developer's act of demolishing a historic house which is exactly what helped the LPC to see the Ocean on the Park preservation argument more clearly.

Therefore, after designating this new HD in PLG today, the LPC also voted to calendar this (paraphrased) question: Can the newly-designated Ocean on the Park Historic District be amended/extended to include: (1) the stalled/or abandoned construction site and/or (2) the shared driveway that is sandwiched between the boundaries of the new HD and the abandoned construction site? In short, today's extraordinary action by the LPC action is one that should tell us whether there are ever circumstances in which the development gate can, and should, be closed after the historic cow has already left the barn. That's gotta be historic in and of itself. Stay tuned!

Posted by: Brooklynista at October 27, 2009 3:57 PM

two things:

1. you can (theoretically) build in a historic district. it just means that the LPC gets to approve the design.

2. I still say the city would be better off with 6 story multifamily dwellings dwellings on the spot b/c development would be less intrusive there than just about anywhere. plus the penthouses could have nice views of the park.

Posted by: slick at October 28, 2009 2:34 AM

I'm still wondering what relevance to the historic district designation the shared driveway had in the mind of the owners of 189. They apparently brought it up at the LPC hearing. Can anyone clarify?

Posted by: FlatbushMan23 at October 28, 2009 9:20 AM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions