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]
Pete;
If you think that I am exaggerating my point about the demographics of CH and CG, then I suggest that you get the very first edition of the AIA guide to NYC (published mid-70’s) and take a look at their description of the two neighborhoods.
RentControl tenants in 2-4 family homes is extreme rarity in area.
And no way am I moving to Staten Island.
Nomi — You’re being too rational.
I was asking specifically about Carroll Gardens. I haven’t noticed houses being torn down. There are some perhaps 1960’s bldgs with the curbcuts and set back from others that detract greatly from rest of blocks but in last 25 years I have not seen this sort of thing built (except for some decent looking ones on Sackett and not great on Butler).
I don’t see a real threat in the area they are talking about landmarking. I do see the threat and the assault (cheap looking junk) when have driven down blocks in BedStuy.
Many of the houses on blocks in CG have changed too much that I would not think such a treasure that need to preserve and conform to certain look. I think modern homes would/do work if match scale, lot lines, etc.
And I think both Benson and Babs exagerate the sameness and differences in CobbleHill/Carroll gardens.
Also, I don’t think landmarking has much affect on rents, driving old-times out (I guess I would be included in that group).
I do support landmarking at times. But not here. Not now.
Neighborhood is doing just fine and I welcome some of the new building going on. I don’t see a threat.
“They’ve either already fled to Staten Island, or they are still living happily in Carroll Gardens with no plans to move, or they will cash out when they please to and take their millions and go wherever they like. And they’re not exactly hurting for money either. ”
Mopar
Thank you for informing me of the plans of the old-time residents of Carroll Gardens. I wasn’t aware that you have personally contacted them all, and can thus summarize their plans so well. It was very kind of them to share their balance sheet with you too.
There is an unavoidable conflict between landmark preservation and rights of the individual property owner.
Yes, yes, there is always going to be a battle, a negotiation between what regulations and laws protect some larger good (tho, of course, what is the “larger good” is often arguable) and the rights of the individual. More debatable even are laws that “protect” ourselves from ourselves . ..
But, not to get to far afield: I live in Carroll Gardens and LOVE how it looks and is and feels. I don’t want to see that change.
However, I do not think that the fact that “putting in a cheap vinyl window is pennywise/pound foolish” is a reasonable argument for landmark preservation.
As much as I would not like to see what I consider unpretty windows installed on a house I look at, I think it’s a very tricky business regulating such things. I certainly don’t think the goal should be to protect people from what some might perceive as their own cheapness.
I suppose for me, I’d like some middle ground .. . I don’t know what that’d be called, “landmark stabilization?” (ick), something in the spirit what Pete’s getting at — “I would be for something to preserve the front gardens, buildings all at same line, etc.” Though, I don’t think finding some mythical middle ground is really any less fraught.
My point is that the question of what an individual gets to do with his property is serious one and should not be blithely dismissed with what I see as weak arguments like protecting owners from bad decisions, or even the enhanced-property-vale argument: Does any governing body have the right to protect us from possible declining property values that come merely from owners individual decisions, as opposed to, say, some change in public or quasi-public use?
oh yeah that comment about 100K a year not being a high salary made me gag. you do realize that someone who makes 100 K a year makes more than like 95% of everyone else in the country, right?
*rob*
Benson, what an outrageous piece of hogwash to claim that old timers are going to be forced out by landmark window requirements. What a joke.
They’ve either already fled to Staten Island, or they are still living happily in Carroll Gardens with no plans to move, or they will cash out when they please to and take their millions and go wherever they like. And they’re not exactly hurting for money either.
There is also a sizable population of rent controlled tenants who are not going to be forced out by landmark window requirements either.
Benson, the point is people all over the world, including Asia, live in old buildings, whether by necessity or choice. Old buildings are viable choices for human habitation, which was my point to rob, who thinks our neighborhoods could not last another 200 years. I’m talking about the forest, not interested in debating each tree with you.