Reason #1,001 For Landmarks To Exist
Blogger Transfer is hatin’ this building and so are we. Now if someone could just tell us where it is. Answer: Wyckoff between Smith and Court. Thanks, Peter. Bad Volume [Transfer]
Blogger Transfer is hatin’ this building and so are we. Now if someone could just tell us where it is. Answer: Wyckoff between Smith and Court. Thanks, Peter.
Bad Volume [Transfer]
Carla,
Free market idealogues?? Idealogue, maybe. And yes, I do enjoy strolling down a beautiful block of brownstone houses, e.g., those off Ft. Greene Park. But I’m not a slave to aesthetics. That would be totally vacuous.
It seems to me that free market idealogues would (if they could) eliminate virtually ALL zoning and design controls. I find them intellectually dishonest in their attacks on aesthetics. It’s possible that they are as blind as they profess as to the built environment. It’s possible that they don’t experience pleasure strolling down a street whose buildings aren’t necessarily identical matches but which offer a pleasing consistency and rhythm, relating one to the next. Paint color is the least of it. Elements such as consistent setbacks, patterns of fenestration, and building heights go along way towards achieving this essentially civil, civilized quality to a streetscape.
I think that free market idealogues do (secretly) enjoy streetscapes that give a sense of place to a neighborhood, and new developments or renovations that respect that character. It would be more intellectually honest for them to concede this point (which would show that they have a good eye and are not cretons) but that they are concerned if requiring design elements might pose unfair financial burdens. Then the discussion might profitably turn to quantifying the economic effects of requiring additional design controls and whether (if an individual property owner is financially stressed) if there are alternative ways to fund them.
Question:
Would you walk away from an amazing real estate deal simply because the building had an ‘ugly’ (which is culturally subjective) exterior?
I suspect that the answer is no. I don’t think anyone would walk away from a new property acquisition, albiet ugly, if it promised a 100K gain onced you flipped it or if it promised an extra $2000/mth.
So…this discussion is a bit fruitless anyway. It’s not as if anyone from this group is going to be inspired to make a call to their local politician or community board to enforce new landmark standards. It’s just a group of people bitching about the aesthetic design of what may be a very lucrative, money making property…or just a nice home for a middle class family.
Anonymous at March 10, 2006 03:38 PM,
I’ll take your advice and skip those ‘aesthetics’ post in the future. They seem to be increasing in popularity lately so maybe I’ll skip the site altogether.
i’m so glad i live in a landmarked area… but i do wish i could paint our brownstone a color. i agree with Anonymous 12:37, i love blocks with varying colors rather than all brown. like st felix… and others. unfortunately not everyone would paint thier brownstone a tasteful light green, taupe, etc. we’d have a pepto bismol pink, stop sign yellow… so i understand why they do it.
Ugggggggggly.
Where is a sense of civic pride. Of beauty. Of adding to the neighborhood, not robbing it of its humanity. Landmarks is the imposition of civic responsibility in the name of the greater good. Without it our city would be a very different place. Landmarking is not anti-people. Compared to France and England we get away easy. There they understand history and context are assets greater than any single entity’s right to make a profit. The absurd comments above, while protected by free speech, reflect a sad state of affairs. Go ahead and buy a tear-down in Greenpoint, and put up your fedder-laden eyesore with utility monitors for easy access, and then try and meet your neighbors.
I really don’t understand your point Anon 1.38. People who visit this site are very interested in the look of the brownstone neighborhoods, which is why it is about brownstone brooklyn and not other areas of Brooklyn. If you don’t like the discussions of problems of bad renos and destruction of old brownstone details, don’t read those posts. Simple as that.
Re: natural beauty.
Sure, but it’s still not san francisco or portland oregon or vermont or a suburb with hudson river views. It’s pretty urban. People immigrate to Brooklyn, not for its landscape but mostly because of its evolving culture/night life, its proximity to manhattan and its affordability.
Yes, we do have a lot of architecturally significant gems but I really get tired of the overwhelming obsession with fedders ac. It might not be top of the line in terms of aesthetics but it is functional.
I’m not suggesting that we abandon landmark standards. I just think that many ‘burbs’ lose their creative vitality because the community is more focused on whether the fence is painted the right shade of right rather than services, etc.
I would hate to see Brooklyn evolve into a ‘sub’-urban clone. The majority of buildings in Manhattan are butt-ugly but yet it’s still one of the most vibrant and exciting cities in the world….emphasis is on people, services and culture rather than the minor details of our domicile
I have to disagree re: Brooklyn geography–I think the hills and heights are fabulous and offer great views while walking/biking, the flatlands–which I think are western tip of Hempstead Plain–are also great for biking, and the shoreline is fantastic and rich with wildlife. Brooklyn does have natural beauty, and man-made beauty. One think I’ve always liked about it is its low-rise character–it’s great to see the sky.