The Curious Case of 54 State Street
There’s a real mess going on at 54 State Street, on the edge of the Brooklyn Heights Historic District (map on the jump). Back in 2002, the owners at the time applied for a new lot and block number, a request that was granted by DOB. Somehow in the process, DOB removed, erroneously, the “L”…
There’s a real mess going on at 54 State Street, on the edge of the Brooklyn Heights Historic District (map on the jump). Back in 2002, the owners at the time applied for a new lot and block number, a request that was granted by DOB. Somehow in the process, DOB removed, erroneously, the “L” for Landmarks from its property file. (Since then, the property has changed hands at least a couple of times, as far as we can tell.) So neighbors were more than a little surprised when the current owners started ripping the place to shreds without Landmarks approval. Since the discrepancy came to light, a Stop Work Order has been issued and, we hear, Landmark status has been reinstated. It sounds like there are multiple reasons to be concerned about the project going forward. “Neither the owners nor the contractors have done work in a historic district–they’ve only done the typical schlock quick-build developments,” says one person we heard from. And that’s not all. “With the BQE so close, one really heavy truck hitting a really deep pot hole, could level the place! ” What a mess. As far as liability, is this just an example of caveat emptor? Presumably the owners thought they were buying a building that was not subject to landmark restrictions.
GMAP BIS
hey, due diligence is every buyer’s responsibilty. if you out-source that resposibility to others, perhaps there is recourse in the courts. but honestly, the landmark district maps are readily available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/maps/historic_district.shtml. there is really no excuse for any buyer, developer or architect not knowing that a building is in a historic district.
Scooter –
I think the LH-1 may refer to a limited height district, which IS noted on the DOB applications.
Which doesn’t change the fact that the building probably was marketed as a landmark. Or change the fact that there are all these little brown signs around the neighborhood that say landmark.
Something fishy here.
I inspected this bldg just about two yrs ago through a small brokerage based in Red Hook. Broker supplied material had “landmarked” all over it. Took another look about 12 months ago through one of the top three brokerages operating in Brooklyn. Likewise, listing sheet had “landmarked” in numerous locations. Zoning was described as R-6 (LH-1 District) on both listing sheets.
Architect as noted on DOB forms appears to have been involved with numerous projects in Vinegar Hill. Some of those projects being designed, but not built, by Scarano.
I echo Brownstoner’s question – where does the liability fall here?
I agree with the previous comment regarding the previous discussion of ‘stability’ on Joralemon and State below Hicks. Alas, it is usually only when people get burnt buying these houses that the truth outs. For the safety of everyone, and the pocketbooks of those who do invest without making careful evaluations with independent home inspectors not recommended by brokers, we really need some truth to be at the forefront of any sales of these properties. Sadly, the broker issue in this country very much is a caveat emptor proposition: if you do not ask, they will not tell which, to be frank, is a disgrace. Of course, they don’t tell because they want to rake in the commission. Everyone who lives in the Heights who has looked for properties around these streets learns, sometimes by making a terrible mistake, what is going on there structurally. It is very sad that it takes blogspots like this to reveal the truth of the matter. I speak as someone who almost bought a house on Joralemon Street and I cannot say how thankful I am that I was stopped by a brilliant home inspector before it was too late.
“Somehow in the process, DOB removed, erroneously, the “L” for Landmarks from its property file.”
“Presumably the owners thought they were buying a building that was not subject to landmark restrictions.”
or maybe not.
A little hyberbolic?
Try hollywood
Good clarification. Clearly the pothole comment was being a little hyperbolic.
this dove-tails with the prior discussion about structural stability of all the homes below Hick St. between Joralemon and State Streets. The notion that there shouldn’t be close oversight of any construction in that are is crazy. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. All you have to do is look at the structures on that slope to see that there is a great deal of movement.
actually, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has expressed concern to parties close to the issue about the structural stability of the building, new steel beams notwithstanding. Brownstoner has it (relatively)correct; I take the deep pot hole comment metaphorically.