Prospect Heights Bank
Architect’s illustration via Brooklyn Public Library

To the woe of local preservationists, the Landmark Preservation Commission has announced that, following review, they did not find a former bank in Prospect Heights to be worthy of landmarking. The neoclassical property at 856 Washington Avenue has been approved for demolition, with permits filed to replace it with a 14-story condo building.

Built in 1928, the elegant three-story bank was initially built as the second branch of the Green Point Savings Bank, a mutual thrift organization begun by Greenpoint locals in 1869.

Despite Brooklyn Community Board 8’s landmarking requests for the neoclassic structure, the Landmark Preservation Commission determined the building “is not a significant example of an early-20th-century bank building,” according to LPC Director of Research Mary, who spoke on behalf of the agency, DNAinfo reported.

Local preservationists and community leaders were upset with the LPC’s rejection of the building as an individual landmark, likely in part because a landmarking was one of the last ways to save the neighborhood icon from the wrecking ball.

Most recently, the building was home to a Capital One Bank branch. Now, Slate Property Group owns the building after buying it for $6,500,000 in January. The group filed residential development applications in August, planning to construct 26 apartments in the 161,479-square-foot space once they’ve demolished the bank.

Slate has become one of Brooklyn’s largest developers in recent years, with other projects underway in Gowanus, Park Slope and beyond.

Before Slate’s plans became public, rumors circulated that the property may be turned into a Trader Joe’s.

Prospect Heights Bank
Photo by Nicholas Strini for PropertyShark

[Source: DNA]

Related Stories
A Look Back at the Prospect Heights Bank That Will Soon Be Razed for Condos
Prospect Heights Bank, Once Rumored to Be Trader Joe’s, Will Be Razed
Past and Present: Duryea Presbyterian, Prospect Heights’ Apartment Church


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

    • There should be a channel through which the public could contest LPCs decisions that are obviously wrong and have them reviewed by a 3rd party agency. It’s corruption prong to invest almost absolute power to one single agency, the LPC to make such decisions.

    • There should be a channel through which the public could contest LPCs decisions that are obviously wrong and have them reviewed by a 3rd party agency. It’s corruption prong to invest almost absolute power to one single agency, the LPC to make such decisions.

  1. It puzzles me how sometimes landmark commission decides to landmark buildings that are simply lack of architectural beauty, some shabby little house with wooden siding. And for an architecturally significant structure like this, they allow it to be demolished and not even savaging the facade. Clearly their decision making sometimes cater to the interest of developers, and not to preserve our architectural treasures that’s hard to reproduce in our time, rwhat commission is supposed to do. What a shameful waste of our tax money to have a commission like this?

  2. It puzzles me how sometimes landmark commission decides to landmark buildings that are simply lack of architectural beauty, some shabby little house with wooden siding. And for an architecturally significant structure like this, they allow it to be demolished and not even savaging the facade. Clearly their decision making sometimes cater to the interest of developers, and not to preserve our architectural treasures that’s hard to reproduce in our time, rwhat commission is supposed to do. What a shameful waste of our tax money to have a commission like this?