City Council Signs Off on Prospect Heights Landmarking
On Thursday, the City Council voted 47-0 in favor of the creation of the Prospect Heights Historic District; LPC had voted for the designation back in June. Just thought you’d wanna know. Prospect Heights Landmarking: The Video [Brownstoner] Prospect Heights Landmarked! [Brownstoner] Landmarks to Consider Prospect Heights Historic District [Brownstoner] Photo by Tracy Collins
On Thursday, the City Council voted 47-0 in favor of the creation of the Prospect Heights Historic District; LPC had voted for the designation back in June. Just thought you’d wanna know.
Prospect Heights Landmarking: The Video [Brownstoner]
Prospect Heights Landmarked! [Brownstoner]
Landmarks to Consider Prospect Heights Historic District [Brownstoner]
Photo by Tracy Collins
Minard, there has always been a premium paid for proximity to the city, all around the world.
> My thoughts have been cleansed
Thought Control to Major Tom
Thought Control to Major Tom
Tear those brownstones down
And turn your Fedders on…
Minard, back in 1899, one would summon a horse drawn hackney. Today it’s referred to as car service.
Not to make benson fall on the floor clutching his heart in shock but he is right about brownstone living not bring the most practical- but there are those of us who love it. I also agree with you, minard. I often think though that the prices reflect what about them does make them desirable. The craftsmanship,the beauty of the work, the height of the ceilings and windows. They aren’t perfect but they also don’t dehumanize the way boxy apartments seem to. Weall value things differently- I would more for a lovely old fixer upper than I would for a new construction box. But for someone else, new is the way to go.
benson, I actually agree with you (to my chagrin) about brownstone living. It really is not that pracitcal for modern life, especially the lack of parking for the family car and all the stairs. That is why, living in a brownstone was a special choice made by hardy and intrepid folks, many of them looking for bargains. The impracticality of the old houses was counter-balanced by the low purchase price and low taxes and the fact that you only needed one car. But now, the cost of these houses has become, in my opinion, (you can tell I’m not a broker) obscene. obscene! They cost as much as luxury estates with stately grounds and tennis courts.
Can that illogic be maintained into the future? I don’t know, I just question it.
DIBS, Brooklyn, too. Lots of new stretches of 1-4 unit housing in Brownsville, ENY, etc. over the last 10 years. City allows development on that scale as of right, very few hoops, and there are various incentives to make it work. I worry that the density is a little too low to attract stores and other services that would help those areas thrive. But those areas are much mroe stable than they used to be.
Actually, benson, some of those “conditions” lately have been the requirement that some of the new housing is set aside for lower income. If you are a pure free marketeer (which I am obviously not), then presumably your belief is that increased supply will bring down prices, whatever the initial pricing of the new housing itself. Some of that does seem to be happening in the new condo market. But I don’t think loosening restrictions — such as on construction safety and the like — is going to bring down prices if the demand continues to keep prices relatively high (even if down from 2006). I think housing is too tight, and too unaffordable for too many. But I think that housing development should not be done without planning and necessary restraints — so as either to provide or not overwhelm schools, parks, transportation, stores, etc. I wouldn’t want to live in a city with no restrictions and no planning.
Minard;
I’m not advocating any type of razing. As you say, the 1960’s proved the efficacy of that approach. I think we’ve overcompensated for those mistakes in the other direction now. It seems that we believe we have to preserve all the quality housing from the 19th century, regardless of its effect on the city’s economy and social structure, because we’ve lost the ability to produce quality housing in the 21st century. This is not an optimistic viewpoint.
DIBS;
I’m not arguing that working stiffs are entitled to live in the 4th Ave condos, I’m just saying that this development has not solved the issue of middle-class housing in NYC.
Additionally, to Minard’s point, it has been shown throughout the country (Chicago & Philly being prime examples…remember Cabrini Green??) that high density housing is not the answer for affordable housing. Philly is aggressively pursuing a policy of building one family townhouses. They look like Federal style homes and blend in with surrounding neighborhoods. Crime is WAY DOWN in those areas.