Landmarking Tensions Build in Carroll Gardens
A fight is brewing in Carroll Gardens over a growing movement to expand the two-block stretch of landmarked area to include more of the neighborhood's old houses. Predictably, the battle appears to forming along class and generation lines, with the more working-class old-timers bristling at the loss of control over their own homes. "I bought my house under the pretense that I can do what I want to it - inside and outside," long-time resident Butch Mule told The Daily News. Unfortunately, though, some of these long-time residents have not exactly distinguished themselves as guardians of the neighborhood's architectural legacy. "We don't want buildings to get funky additions on top and inappropriate modifications to the facade," said architect John Hathaway, who is among those who have lived in the neighborhood for decades that does feel the area's buildings are worth protecting. "The neighborhood has become so popular because of what it [looks like]."
Issue of Landmarking Splits Carroll Gardens [NY Daily News]
41 Comments
By daveinbedstuy on December 9, 2009 9:30 AM
By bowl of dicks on December 9, 2009 9:36 AM
damn dibs, you beat me to it. ;-p
By Petebklyn on December 9, 2009 9:40 AM
wish there was a way to not landmark but to keep fugly fedders type contruction away. Most additions I see are pretty good. Really don't see need to have every addition, exterior change (windows/doors) need LPC approval.
This is not some intact area to begin with.
BTW - anyone looking for house needing major work.(interior and exterior)
there is smallish one on DeGraw(hoyt/bond) for sale listed for 895K or something like that. Sure could be had for less.
By daveinbedstuy on December 9, 2009 9:43 AM
I agree Pete, there should be some compromise.
By bupe on December 9, 2009 9:47 AM
I am changing my name legally to Bupe Mule.
By Petebklyn on December 9, 2009 9:51 AM
Butch is just nickname for Haangleicher.
By mopar on December 9, 2009 10:17 AM
Carroll Gardens is a showplace for 1950s doors, awnings, interior dividers, cupboards, and Santas meeting the Christmas donkey. Why would you want to mess all that up? If they bring Landmarks in, the neighborhood might start to look tastefuakkoke Brooklyn Heights.
By benson on December 9, 2009 10:22 AM
"Predictably, the battle appears to forming along class and generation lines, with the more working-class old-timers bristling at the loss of control over their own homes."
Where is the evidence of this statement? One quote from each side of the issue, both by longer-term residents.
Here is a more apt statement:
"Predictably, Mr.B. casts a landmarking issue in terms of class and/or ethnicity, so as to pump up the number of comments and clicks."
By brikenny on December 9, 2009 10:50 AM
The oldtimers (and I speak as one of them) rarely realize that the value of their homes has risen because of preservation, not in spite of it. It only takes one homeowner "enhancing" their home to devalue the entire block. Landmarking is a formal version of the already existing tacit social contract we have as urbanites; you don't put a monstrosity next to my house and I won't put one next to yours. Still, why are they quoting John Hathaway in the article? He's well known for out-of-context construction, but I guess he's comfortable with it only as long as he doesn't have to live near anything he's built.
By hannible on December 9, 2009 10:56 AM
"Oldtimmers" hold out and be patient! It will not be long before those idiots that bout during the housing bubble will iether sell of forced into bankruptcy.
By daveinbedstuy on December 9, 2009 10:58 AM
hannible, learn how to spell.
By cmu on December 9, 2009 11:23 AM
But seriously, why isn't there a "Facade and Structural Landmarking Only" movement? I'd be all for that. But I do not want to get LPC approval to change my doorknob, light fixture or even putting in energy-efficient windows.
By Minard Lafever on December 9, 2009 12:08 PM
I agree that the landmarks commission is too obsessed with miniscule changes -windows and sidewalks to name two of the most annoying LPC fetishes. They lose sight of the big picture by micro-managing minutae and letting big things slip by. The organization needs to change in order to keep up with the ever-growing inventory of landmarks. The fact that the commission cannot seem to hang on to staffers -the median age of case reviewers is approx. twelve- makes for a staff that is perpetually on a learning curve. I don't blame owners for being wary of landmarking. The commission can be a bit over-bearing, especially with home owners. A zoning overlay that would preserve exterior envelopes and open space may be a superior mechanism to preservation regulation and be more user-friendly than the clunky, 1980's vintage approach to regulation that the LPC seems wedded to.
By East New York on December 9, 2009 12:19 PM
"Butch Mule"
C'mon, that name is totally made up!
By Sparafucile on December 9, 2009 12:47 PM
"Landmarking is a formal version of the already existing tacit social contract we have as urbanites"
It's nothing of the sort. It is using the state power to impose aesthetic regulations that are often arbitrary - especially as landmarking gets applied to areas that are quite heterogeneous in building style, age, and level of alteration.
Zoning that says how tall a building can be, where on a zoning lot it can locate, and what uses are permitted are very different from dictating paint color or telling you that can't replace your windows unless you go for the ones that are triple the cost of the generic ones.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 1:01 PM
I agree, minard. The LPC tends to lose the forest for the trees. Although overall I feel landmarking is a real benefit to the neighborhood, having to file to paint your front door a different color is plain silly.
By mopar on December 9, 2009 1:15 PM
"It is using the state power to impose aesthetic regulations that are often arbitrary."
They are not arbitrary. They legislate that historic buildings should retain their traditional appearance.
For proof, look at Brooklyn Heights.
By Minard Lafever on December 9, 2009 1:34 PM
Brooklyn Heights is an interesting case. At the time it was designated an historic district it was in a steep downward spiral. Many of the larger houses had been demolished and replaced with ordinary apartment buildings and many of the regular houses had been subdivided into cramped SROs. The area was a mess with a few nice blocks where the gentry stubbornly hung on. Over the course of the past 30 years a lot of expensive restoration work has undone many of the bad deeds of the past although there are still quite a few eyesores in the Heights. Park Slope slid down far less and was always primarily a single-family neighborhood. Fort Greene was...well....not very nice at all some years back. So yes, landmarking has a definite positive role but it needs to keep up with the times and lose the old restricitve rules that encourage non-compliance.
By orestes on December 9, 2009 1:49 PM
Sparafucile- right on!
Minard- why not compel owners to also use gas lighting to retain traditional appearance? Because it's silly. People should be able to do with their homes what they like. South Brooklyn has been a working class neighborhood for generations, one in which people retained the right to do with their property as they wish. Let's be honest. Landmarking is being used by the overprivileged to create the environment THEY want. I am all for landmarking districts when appropriate, but this piecemeal block here and block there approach is only about creating a happy environment for the overprivileged through controlling the actions of their neighbors.
By Petebklyn on December 9, 2009 2:03 PM
" Park Slope slid down far less and was always primarily a single-family neighborhood" - Minard, you write well but often filled with misinformation ( in other words , hot air).
By benson on December 9, 2009 2:11 PM
"Landmarking is being used by the overprivileged to create the environment THEY want. I am all for landmarking districts when appropriate, but this piecemeal block here and block there approach is only about creating a happy environment for the overprivileged through controlling the actions of their neighbors. "
Orestes;
Bravo!!
You win the "Benson's Best" award for the month!!! Spot on.
I will say it for the umpteenth time on this site: the preservationist movement has hit a point of intellectual bankruptcy. They have moved WAY beyond the original idea of landmarking intact, important districts (like BH and the park blocks of PS) to the creation of adult Disneylands for the elite.
One sure indicator of this intellectual bankruptcy can be seen in Mr. B.'s post itself. He can't argue the merits of the case itself. Instead, he always spins it in terms of making sure those with low taste (in his eyes)are prevented BY LAW from doing what they will with their home. In other words, he can't make a positive case, so tries to make the actual, negative (class issue) case in code terms ("Old timers", "Working-class").
By randolph on December 9, 2009 2:22 PM
i wanna hear mr b defend himself here. i have never agreed more with benson.
By Minard Lafever on December 9, 2009 2:25 PM
benson, you need to calm down about the whole landmarking thing. Remember that many folks in areas like Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (montrosse morris being one of them) are practically begging the LPC to landmark their blocks. These are not elite or wealthy areas.
While I agree that there is too much snobbishness in the whole preservation world, the primary impetus of landmark protection is to protect areas from ambitious developers more so than from people with "bad taste". I know people with perfectly great taste that can't stand dealing with the Commission.
Oddly though I find myself agreeing with your take that the preservation movement has somewhat lost its intellectual bearings and is in danger of being taken over by the fundamentalist wing of the movement. In a way it is a sign of the times. The sane and rational are sidelined by the crazy and over-zealous. the latter make for better sound bytes.
By bklynrosie on December 9, 2009 2:54 PM
To be fair, I don't think Mr. B is class baiting here. From the article itself: "The battle is already pitting oldtimers - many part of the neighborhood's dwindling number of Italian residents - against relative newcomers."
And:
"Opponents argue the added costs could speed up the exodus of blue-collar residents - many of them elderly Italian immigrants or their Brooklyn-born children - from the neighborhood.
"You're forcing more of the oldtimers out of here," said John Esposito, 47, owner of Sal's Pizza on Court St. and a Carroll Gardens native. "What do we tell our kids - that you can't live here tomorrow?"
Census data confirm the neighborhood's Italian population is steadily dropping. In the 1990 census, 14,417 people claimed Italian ancestry in Community District 6. A 2007 estimate shows that number fell by 15.8%, to 11,810.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/brooklyn/2009/12/09/2009-12-09_a_landmark_battle_issue_splits_homeowners_in_carroll_gardens.html#ixzz0ZDtrqySP
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 2:56 PM
Minard is correct- the landmarking movement in Crown Heights North came from long time (sometimes multi-generational) residents who saw the benefits, such as stabilizing the neighborhood and property values. These are not overprivileged gentrifyiers but working and middle class people who watched as neighborhoods lost some of their most beautiful architecture and charm. Now other neighborhoods with similar demographics are doing the same. They sure ain't elitist, and if they are "intellectually bankrupt", then maybe there is something to be said for intellectual bankruptcy.
By bklynrosie on December 9, 2009 2:56 PM
^^The article itself makes the ethnic and class angle a major focus.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 2:59 PM
bklynrosie- landmarking is not what is forcing neighborhood change. Many neighborhoods have gentrified long before landmarking and economics is the reason it happens. There are plenty of neighborhoods that have become too expensive for the old-timers, and landmarking is not involved.
By bklynrosie on December 9, 2009 3:07 PM
Bxgrl, I agree completely! I was actually responding to Benson, who felt as though Mr. B was inciting a class riot with his mention of the dynamics of the neighborhood, when really it was mentioned many times in the original source article.
By benson on December 9, 2009 3:12 PM
Bklynrosie;
OK,point taken on the DN article. However, my overall larger point remains: Mr. B. and the preservationists cannot make an intellectually honest case on the positive merits of extending the landmarking district. Sparafucile and Orestes hit the nail right on the head above.
To believe that freezing the existing housing stock in a neighborhood that is newly popular with the elite is not going to drive up their price is wishful thinking. It WILL drive out the old-timers, and it WILL impose an aesthetic regime on the area.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 3:14 PM
I'm with you, bklynrosie!
By Sparafucile on December 9, 2009 3:23 PM
To my mind, the current intellectual bankruptcy of the preservation movement has nothing to do with the economic class of its advocates, but with the extension of landmark status to areas that simply do not merit it. Brooklyn Heights was the first landmarked district in the city, and its boundaries were drawn to exclude more recent buildings, so that the district itself was a cohesive area with a readily apparent context and built form.
More recent designations sometimes include such a wide range of building types and styles that I wonder what possible basis for determining appropriateness could be applied. In an area with a heterogeneous design context, property owners should be free to add yet another style element, as long as they stay within the zoning's bulk envelope.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 4:07 PM
Sparafucile- can you give me a specific example of a landmarked area for a heterogeneous design? I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to.
By orestes on December 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Bxgirl- do you have any support for your contention that working and middle class residents are the force behind landmarking? It is my experience that most working class people (at least) would react in the same way Mr. Mule does in the article. You're telling me that working class people support all of the restrictions that come with landmarking? I seriously doubt it. Sure, they would like to preserve the character of their neighborhood (newsflash- everyone does) and would rather see houses restored than torn down and turned into lots, etc., but that's very different from pushing for landmarking.
By orestes on December 9, 2009 4:31 PM
Benson- I should take my prize and run, because I'm not sure when we'll agree next. Interestingly, the DisneyWorld image came to my mind as well. "Next we'll be turning into 1896 Brooklynland."
By crazypants on December 9, 2009 4:37 PM
While I see where Benson et al are coming from in their view of pro-Landmark forces in certain neighborhoods pushing for an elite aesthetic standard that ultimately pads their wallets and the inherent snobbishness of not wanting to look at one's gauche neighbor put up one of Fiberama's ghastlier awnings over the front stoop of their brownstone - I just want to chime in for the other side, as a CH resident.
Landmarking would help over in my neck of the woods because although I live on a mostly brownstone block that's very pretty, there's nothing stopping an owner from tearing down their brownstone and putting up some ugly, cheap-ass Fedder like townhouse.
My neighbor across the street resurfaced his brownstone's front stoop with that fake multi-colored cut stone looking material (if you know what I mean) and replaced the battered but still mostly intact original bannisters with a thinner non-traditional handrail.
We've already had a couple of brownstones quietly turned into some sort social services half-way residences, and even though I don't know whether LPC would put an end to such shenanigans, there's nothing in place from having an owner tear down a handful of 100 year old brownstones if the mood strikes them.
CH also faces the problem that there's a couple of landlords who own a whole lot of property in the area, so if they want they can completely change the look of entire blocks if so inclined.
By slick on December 9, 2009 4:42 PM
As an example of a landmark with diverse styles, the newly landmarked area on Ocean Ave includes approximately 10 brownstones and 2 brick buildings (of limited architectural value) from the 30s.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 4:53 PM
orestes- I'm involved with CHNA and know the people who started the process. Yes there were some people who didn't want landmarking but most seemed ok with it. I don't know all the specifics but I believe LPC has programs to help those who are having difficulty with repairs and such. And the push to get landmarked began quite a few years ago- CHN is not a gentrified neighborhood, although there is growing interest. But for the most part is still filled with families that own their houses and that core has been what kept the neighborhood relatively stable.
Neighborhoods like CHN and Bed-Stuy are prime spots for teardowns and they saw a lot of it. I think one mistake most people who are anti=landmarking make is to assume only gentrifyiers care about the character of their neighborhoods, or that working class people don't understand that a nice looking neighborhood with beautiful streets and trees is a better place to live. Landmarking in CHN was a true grass roots effort.
By orestes on December 9, 2009 5:41 PM
Bxgirl- thanks for your response. I think there's a difference between landmarkers and people who want to preserve their neighborhood. As I mentioned upstream, in my experience working class people would not embrace the restrictions/costs associated with landmarking. Sure, they don't want teardowns, etc. and might find landmarking is their only resort (although again I think if they were fully informed they would usually reject landmarking). I would bet that most of the landmarking crowd are overprivileged people for the simple fact that working class people generally do not think it's anyone's right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your property. It is the overprivileged who are very comfortable trying to impose their will/desires on others. These are cultural features.
By bxgrl on December 9, 2009 6:09 PM
"It is the overprivileged who are very comfortable trying to impose their will/desires on others. These are cultural features."
Orestes- LOL!!
You have a good point but I think there is more to it than that and one of the things that is important is the idea that certain things go to the greater good in a community, especially taking the long view. Poorer communities see this in action, and I think it is very telling that the Bed-Stuy House Tour is one of the oldest and most venerated House Tours, and came about before Bed-Stuy saw serious gentrification. There has always been great community pride in many poor and working class neighborhoods but it doesn't get much attention. In that sense landmarking is seen as a tool to bolster neighborhoods, and a positive thing. Also, LPC makes great effort to educate the residents as to what is involved, and landmarking is a lengthy process with many meetings and much information given out.
By Montrose Morris on December 10, 2009 12:18 AM
The appreciation of beauty, in this case, architectural beauty, is not limited to the wealthy or the educated. I resent the implication that middle, lower middle or poor people can't appreciate the beauty of their homes in the same way wealthier people do, and are therefore somehow against landmarking or protecting their property. I've been involved in the landmarking of Crown Heights North for some time, and some of the most ardent supporters of landmarking have been elderly folks, long time residents, not all of whom are well educated, and most are certainly not wealthy. They just know beauty when they see it, and want to be able to keep it. That can be said of most people involved in preservation and local landmarking efforts. There are very few, if any, preservation nuts in our community, just ordinary people who feel blessed and privileged to have these amazing homes, and want to be able to pass them along to their families, or to those who share in that appreciation.
By hannible on December 10, 2009 9:32 AM
DIBS I spell the way me wants to spell. There are no more rules in this country why should I spell correctly? If idiots that should have never been allowed to qualify for a loan were given multimillion dollar loans which I have to pay for! And you are worried about spelling. It is all going down the drain!
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.
Latest Restaurant Additions
-
Teeda
added July 30, 2010 12:00 PM in Columbia Street Waterfront -
Bean Post Pub
added July 29, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Cobble Grill
added July 28, 2010 12:00 PM in Cobble Hill -
Agnanti Meze
added July 27, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Margaret Palca Bakes
added July 26, 2010 12:00 PM in Columbia Street Waterfront -
Skinflints
added July 23, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Joe's Restaurant
added July 22, 2010 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Elia
added July 21, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge -
Abilene
added July 20, 2010 12:00 PM in Carroll Gardens -
Pegasus
added July 19, 2010 12:00 PM in Bay Ridge
""I bought my house under the pretense that I can do what I want to it - inside and outside," long-time resident Butch Mule told The Daily News."
And here I thought "Bowl of Dicks" was a funny name!!!!!