Slopers Support Expansion of Historic District
There were no naysayers at the Community Board 6 hearing for the expansion of the Park Slope Historical District last night, so the proposal moves onto the Landmarks Preservation Commission for a public hearing on October 26th. Members of the Park Slope Civic Council took the opportunity to advocate for the plan and area homeowners…
There were no naysayers at the Community Board 6 hearing for the expansion of the Park Slope Historical District last night, so the proposal moves onto the Landmarks Preservation Commission for a public hearing on October 26th. Members of the Park Slope Civic Council took the opportunity to advocate for the plan and area homeowners were equally enthusiastic. One issue that came up a lot at the meeting, though, was the frustration over new developments in the neighborhood. “New real estate projects contribute nothing to Park Slope and dock thousands of dollars off your home,” said one homeowner. Another said, “I never thought I’d be walking past soulless buildings in my neighborhood.” Councilman Steve Levin also made an appearance and commented, “They don’t make buildings like they used to. I’d be surprised to see the buildings on 4th Avenue last another 50 years.” Ouch! If all goes according to plan, the expansion will be voted on sometime in 2011. Then it’ll be time to focus on Phase Two of the expansion, which would extend the current historical district to Flatbush Avenue.
Benson,
You continue to [I think] posit that the absence of anti-landmarking testimony at this meeting shows some lack of transparency in the system, as opposed to overwhelming support for an extension of the Park Slope HD, by those living in the area that would be landmarked, yet you write that MY comments are silly.
You are correct that I have no idea about what you do in the political process, but it does seem to be a reasonable assumption that you did not make your views known at the meting in question, a reasonable thing to have done, since you’re not directly impacted by the proposed HD extension. I just don’t understand your vehement objections to the positions of those who prefer old houses, have invested in the same, and want their immediate neighborhood preserved. This leaves lots of room for development elsewhere and, as you correctly observe, “One can be both pro-landmarking, AND pro-development.”
Anti-development hyperbole, on the pro development side is no stranger than your many disparaging comments about old buildings on this forum [and should not be taken any more seriously]. To each his own 🙂
Bob;
I would urge you to read my post again.
The area in question (for landmarking) has virtually no new development. The issue at hand was whether the homes in question merit landmarking. How does that justify anti-development rants? One can be both pro-landmarking, AND pro-development. You tip your hand in looking at it as an either/or proposition – which is precisely my point about the mentality of those who attended the meeting.
As far as what I do in the political process, you do not know me, nor what I am involved in, so your comments on this matter are downright silly.
“Here is a meeting that is supposed to be about preserving already-built housing, and somehow folks rant about new development. Methinks that these comments expose the underlying mentality behind this preservationj drive”.
Surprise; those behind “this preservation drive” are pro-preservation. It’s shocking that they didn’t come up with anti-preservation arguments to provide balance. Didn’t the anti-preservationist side drop the ball here? Granted, it would have involved some inconvenience, if the meeting was announced late, but wouldn’t it have been worth it for such an important issue?
IMO the commenter who wrote “And what is Benson so bent out of shape over land marking when he lives in a new condo? He won’t be dealing with any of it” got it right. It seems that many people who disdain old houses and prefer new construction [a perfectly respectable position, with which I, and many others here, disagree] only care enough to complain on forums like this, but don’t actually DO anything–which is just fine, as far as I’m concerned–keep up the good work 🙂
Hi folks;
I would have responded yesterday, but I had a tough time getting on the site. Mr. B: you’ve got to get the bugs out of this new system!
Where to begin with some of these comments. Let me try:
a) reason I wasn’t there toi object. Is anybody here on the mailing list of the Park Slope Civic Council? Well I am, and they announced this meeting the day before (with apologies). I already had an appointment.
b) secondly, my objection went to the fact that all of the comments quoted in the article were ANTI-DEVELOPMENT. Funny how that works. Here is a meeting that is supposed to be about preserving already-built housing, and somehow folks rant about new development. Methinks that these comments expose the underlying mentality behind this preservationj drive.
c) 11217. For some reason I couldn’t open the link that you posted, but I think I remember that article, and it did not respond to my challenge. This was an article about start-up problems at the Novo. As I already said, ALL new construction has start-up problems, as did my condo. My challenge to you was to find a post by someone living in the Novo who regrets it.
Considering some of this buildings on 4th ave aren’t quite full yet there’s not a whole lot of constituents there compared to the amount of people that live in Park Slope.
As for his comment that they won’t be around in 50 years I don’t think he was talking about them falling down. Sounds more like he’s commenting that they’ll probably knocked down to make room for something else.
And what is Benson so bent out of shape over land marking when he lives in a new condo? He won’t be dealing with any of it.
does seem pretty lame comment from Levin but I would get so excited over it. He is young inexperience pol playing to the audience at hand.
Park Slope gets its charm and ambience from the historic homes and streets and nothing wrong with trying to preserve that. Yes, LPC can go overboard and move too slowly.
But area also needs the new construction, taller bldgs, etc. Not everyone wants the old, lot of blocks are not special anyway that need preserving, the brownstones can be expensive to maintain and impossible to afford to begin with. If I were Benson’s age and looking, I would probably want an elevator bldg. relatively new construction.
No doubt there are problems with construction of some but ignorance shows if say that this new construction won’t last —appears 100 times better than stuff they were building 25 years ago in the area.
Some of the problems could be developer cutting corners, or problems with design or using cheap inexperienced labor (non-union).
Not kinda hot, Delepp. Raging HOT! 🙂
11217, did you see article on the new opera star in times? kinda hot.
“Yeah – like Brownstones themselves don’t have problems. While the exterior hold up well their interior (plumbing, electric, etc) also needs maintenance or upgrade”
You can’t compare mechanical upgrades on 100+ year old houses to structural/quality issues on something built 1-2 years ago. That’s just plain silly.