New Retro Lampposts for Victorian Flatbush
Ditmas 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…
Ditmas 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Downzoning is different from landmarking – no?
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.
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.