73 Pineapple Gets Unanimous Thumbs-Up at LPC
Well, we couldn’t have been more wrong about this one. Evidently none of the commissioners shared our concern about the alignment of the facade and the size of the bulkhead because they voted 9-0 to approve the new designs last week. Shows what we know. LPC Urges ‘Do Over’ for 73 Pineapple Street Plan [Brownstoner]…
Well, we couldn’t have been more wrong about this one. Evidently none of the commissioners shared our concern about the alignment of the facade and the size of the bulkhead because they voted 9-0 to approve the new designs last week. Shows what we know.
LPC Urges ‘Do Over’ for 73 Pineapple Street Plan [Brownstoner] GMAP
73 Pineapple Street In Front of LPC Tomorrow [Brownstoner]
admittedly stupid question: why is desireable to “line up the facade”. i live on a block with perfectly lined up facades and it is LOUD AS HELL. there is nowhere for the noise to go except to echo right back.
isn’t that the first law of supressing sound is to put baffles, non right angles, etc in any surfaces that would bounce the sound back?
why is lining up a facade such a big deal as i ALWAYS see it mentioned on this site as something that violates their sensibilities? is this just equivalent to some people liking the pens on their desks lined up?
Meow meow meow meow meow.
12:08:
The lot at 73 Pineapple has been vacant for more 65 years. Brooklyn Heights wasn’t landmarked until the mid 60s. The LPC process does impose a higher level of attention and care on new designs (with results that reasonable people can disagree about, on a case by case basis). But the LPC-related transaction costs aren’t remotely enough to keep owners acting in good faith from building on a vacant site in a historic district. Now, if the feral cat advocates would like to put their two cents in…
4:10,
The Landmarks Commission APPROVED the new building. What more do you want them to do? Underwrite the mortgage?
12:08 here — two points:
The fact that landmarking raises property values is not necessarily an argument in their favor — it depends on how you feel about redistributing wealth from prospective home purchasers to current owners.
There’s also the issue of transaction costs. The LPC is pretty clearly an inefficient process, which leads to lots like 73 Pineapple remaining undeveloped for long stretches of time. Landmarking should prohibit egregious uses of properties, like if someone wanted to build a vinyl-sided ranch house or a cape cod. But the degree of detail B-stoner seems to want to impose turns the Landmarking process into something out of Kafka. The goal is to preserve what’s there but not in amber.
When you nitpick designs about which reasonable people can disagree, and feel the appropriate consequence for that disagreement is to maintain someone else’s property as a feral cat habitat, you’re a busybody.
I’m all for busybodies.
All great neighborhoods need lots of them.
12:57 is a classic case of a busybody imposing his/her tastes. The total lack of selfawareness is comical.
I like how this building picks up on, rather than imitates, the adjacent structures. I think that LPC was right on to keep the facade as is.
There’s a 50-foot height limit in the zoning rules for this area, so the building is probably as tall as it can get. (Same height limit as at the Two Trees project on Atlantic just west of Trader Joe’s on Court.) The bulkhead doesn’t fall under the same height regs, but landmarks could allow it if it isn’t visible from the street.