Carroll Gardens Historic District May Grow
The Landmarks Preservation Commission released the boundaries of the expanded Historic District it is pushing for in Carroll Gardens and, not surprisingly, not everyone was pleased. The city would like to expand the pitifully small area that was protected back in 1973 (shown above) to include all the blocks bounded by Court Street, Henry Street,…
The Landmarks Preservation Commission released the boundaries of the expanded Historic District it is pushing for in Carroll Gardens and, not surprisingly, not everyone was pleased. The city would like to expand the pitifully small area that was protected back in 1973 (shown above) to include all the blocks bounded by Court Street, Henry Street, Huntington Street and First Place. Sounds like a nice idea to us but there are bound to be some whiners, right? Right. “Landmarking will force the old-timers out,” said John Esposito, co-founder of Citizens Against Landmarks. “All the new people who have $100,000 income a year think this is a great idea.” (This choice of this number seems reminiscent of Dr. Evil’s famous “one million dollars” line in Austin Powers; after all, it’s not like $100,000 a year goes too far in the Carroll Gardens housing market these days!) The plan for expanding the historic district is supported by the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association and the Brooklyn Preservation Council, and seems to be in keeping with the spirit of last year’s rezoning which made it harder to put up new out-of-context buildings in the low-rise community. No-brainer!
City Wants Second Carroll Gardens Historic District [NY Post]
ninethreesix, I probably have less money that anyone here, but I’m still an ardent preservationist. When I need to replace my windows, which is probably sooner than I’d like, I will have to pay more than the guy in the next block who can pop in white vinyl windows, but that’s ok. I may not ever own another home, and when I do anything to upgrade it, I want to do what’s the most cost effective thing for the long haul, and I will buy LPC approved windows. It costs what it costs. I’m not sneering at those who can’t afford the best, because I’m in the same boat. But I do think that the preservation of my landmarked neighborhood is to the greater good of my community, in the same way the betterment of the schools are to the greater good, even though I don’t have kids. It’s a price I’m willing to pay, and since the money to buy cheap windows has to be scraped together in the same way money for better windows does, I will just have to find the way to do it.
Minard – To me there’s a big difference between my choice to own, preserve, and restore an older property because I love it, and doing so because the power of the state compels me (and my neighbors) to do so.
Montrose;
I was not making a generalization, I was stating the facts as I see them, from personal experience. Some of my wife’s family is from the border of Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens. My mother was born on President St. My wife taught at St. Mary Star of the Sea’s parochial school before it was closed down. Finally, my uncle is a partner is a bakery that still exists on Court St. I know this area very well, and I know why people like Mr. Esposito oppose landmarking. I know people who moved out, and why.
Furthermore, the condescension and stereotyping that has taken place in this thread are part and parcel of the antipathy that is displayed towards folks who don’t agree with your side. Since you are definding Babs’ stereotyping, I’ll ask you: do you know of any history of racially-motivated attacks in this area? Can you cite some case or statistics?
Very timely article. Benson should read this especially…
“There’s no evidence housing prices rise in desirable neighborhoods just because they are officially named a historic district, a report by the Independent Budget Office found.”
Full article:
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/30/cg_historicdistrictside_2010_07_23_bk.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBrooklynPaper-FullArticles+(The+Brooklyn+Paper%3A+Full+articles)
Minard, just because we read/comment on the blog doesn’t mean we have to tow(toe?) the line.
I’m surprised at the level of antagonism towards landmark designation on a blog named “brownstoner”. Anyone would
think that it was a wild new idea.
“I would be for something to preserve the front gardens, buildings all at same line, etc.”
The new zoning does exactly that.
I have no stake in this fight, but as an observer, I’m still not seeing any real argument to suggest that landmarking somehow won’t raise costs for property owners. If anything, I’m just seeing more condescension and people suggesting that owners should thank landmarking for raising property values and encouraging them to maintain their homes in better, if more costly ways. No recognition that it seems likely that some people simply won’t be able to afford to do so, or even much acknowledgment all that there people in this world with limited means. With Brownstoner setting the tone by scoffing at $100k incomes and the rest of you continuing this way, how can you be surprised when people accuse hard-line preservationists of being elitist gentrifiers?
Nomi, I’ve stated before on other preservation threads that there needs to be a catagory in between landmarked and free for all. That would protect the historic integrity of a neighborhood but without some of the LPC’s more draconian regulations. I have never said they were perfect. They are, after all, a city agency. But they are all we have right now, and I would rather err on the side of being too protective than not protective enough. After all, the LPC is not “making” anyone do anything.
Benson, if you can make broad generalizations about old time CH’ers being forced to sell because of window costs, and the demographics of Cobble Hill, then mopar and babs are allowed their generalizations as well. Fair is fair. You didn’t go door to door and take a poll either.