213-Cumberland-Street-Brooklyn-0208.jpg
Apparently someone blew the whistle on the owners of 213 Cumberland Street in Fort Greene for altering the fence around their brownstone. (The inset photo shows how the fence looked last year before the alterations.) The violation was particularly noticeable because of the property’s corner location across the street from the entrance to Fort Greene Park. (According to LPC, the owners also put in some new windows without getting them approved first.) As a result, they’re going in front of LPC today to try to get retroactive approval. Frankly, we think this fence looks a little silly and is too prominent to let slide. We bet Olde Good Things has some old iron fencing in its warehouse that would look a lot better. Update: We just heard from LPC that the hearing on 213 Cumberland ended up getting laid over until next week.
Agenda 2/26/08 [Landmarks Preservation Commission] GMAP
Photo by Scott Bintner for PropertyShark


What's Your Take? Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

  1. Is anybody (Mr. B?) going to attend the LPC meeting to report on LPC’s opinion, here? They’re a little more likely than we armchair quarterbacks to know all the facts about this case.

    What the f*** they want from this fence, 3:26, is a fence that complies with the law that was established via our straight-up democratic process in 1981, BEFORE these people bought the house. What’s so hard to understand about that?

    Personally, I’m amazed that anybody finds this fence attractive–it’s a total mishmash, and, again, it’s two tall.

    But whatever. I know this stuff isn’t easy to find, nor is it cheap.

    Thank GOD the neighborhood is landmarked. As was said before, otherwise, easily half our beautiful brownstones would be long gone, replaced with Dewitt Condo-type Fedders crap, soaring hideously into the sky. And a debate like this one wouldn’t even be happening.

  2. I don’t understand what the f*** they want from this fence in Cumberland. It is a nice fence and if I was the owner I’d tell the neighbors to go take a hike! by the way no one has the authority to do anything about that!
    The landmark commission is a myth!
    And stop this “we think.. bla bla bla” none sense, who are you to even think? sounds like you want to shape Brooklyn the way you want it.
    You sounds like an authority on Brooklyn, who are you? loser! When the “Brownstoners” are going to own half of what I and my friends own in Brooklyn than we will talk. Losers!
    I have a solution for you: buy Brooklyn and shape it. Nobody cares what you think.
    We look at “Brownstorner” as a place for info
    mainly on what’s going on in the area that’s all. It is amazing how “Brownstoner” and the losers here think they are making a difference and Scarano’s type of architects and developers are laughing all the way to the bank! funny isn’t it?

  3. 2:56, “an exploration in sliding parts and security”? What is that, undergrad Pratt speak? It’s a fence that, as someone put it, has an addition on it. nothing exploratory about it. They’re cheap.

    What kind of security do you want? Who’s gonna jump your 2′ fence who’s NOT gonna jump your 4′ fence?

  4. 3:01
    what are you talking about? The balusters match the stoop balusters. what do you mean there is no precedent? These are perfectly standard nineteenth century style balusters.
    That’s why you need a Landmarks Commission to tell people no, no, no, no, yes! Most people don’t know anything about architectural styles or design.

  5. I think it odd that those who are so quick to throw around the very racially-tingued “ghetto” as a negative descriptor are also seemingly adopting the criminal class ethos of “death to snitches.” If someone were running a dangerous business or had a chimney which was about to fall on someone would it be wrong for a neighbor to call the city about it? I think not. In the case of Landmarks many people have worked very hard to establish architectural review of construction in certain historic neighborhoods. Once that framework is in place, how can it be wrong to insist that all play be the same rules? This particular house seems to have been renovated by someone with diminished appreciation of the historic details – the paint job on the bay window, the use of the back yard as a parking lot for enormous trucks visible from the street and plantings which would look better in in Suess-land or in Brighton Beach, for example. None of these elements are the equivalent of a gas leak or a pig slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood, but the historic fabric of a neighborhood dies slowly the death of a thousand cuts if the landmark rules are not adhered to. And reporting violations is socially acceptable – at least to me.

  6. The current owners purposely destroyed the existing original beautiful fence which was in perfect shape when they bought the house. Landmarks got written confirmation from their architect that they wouldn’t ruin this fence. And they did exactly what they please. The giant baluster’s aren’t original. They have no precedent in this neighborhood at all. These owners have the money but not the taste or the common sense to deal with historic preservation.

  7. “Hey WHAT: This is your attitude in a nutshell: “That comment ” I’ve only been here 2 years” was all i need to reply to your drivel.”

    Why bother replying? You’re just a broken record. It’s the same racist prejudiced bullshit we’ve had to endure for centuries. “I just took one look at your skin color; all I needed was the spelling of your last name; as soon as I saw the friends you hang out with — I KNEW HOW TO REPLY.”

    And the reply is always the same: ignorant”

    ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.

    You fail.

    The What

    Someday this war is gonna end….

1 2 3 4 13