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
I’m with slopefarm.
I can’t see how landmarking is that big of a deal in terms of the overall supply of housing in the whole city. Density can always be increased elsewhere in the city. To the degree that housing supply is a problem, landmarking doesn’t have much to do with it.
rob- if you recall, you attacked me for a statement I didn’t make. You were pissed off because someone said you made ignorant remarks. That wasn’t me. Yet you called me a moron for my opinion on the 3rd av. train line. I give as good as I get. And with this I am done.
benson, we can’t just raze the city and start anew. We tried that in the 1960’s and it was a disaster. When I was growing up the only “respectable” neighborhood to live in was the Upper East Side. Nice people also lived in little “oasis villages” as Tom Wolfe named then in Bonfire of the Vanities. Places like Brooklyn Heights, Forest Hills Gardens, Douglas Manor. But basically it was the Upper East Side and a few prestige buildings along Central Park West.
How things have changed! I would say definitely for the better. although when you see Sutton Place prices in Fort Greene, you do begin to wonder….
I’m not the hall monitor but if you want to make statements, you seem not able to take a reply. I don’t expect you to agree with me- but you’re the one who seems to think everything you say is the truth. But don’t worry- our conversation is done.
benson, I’m hearing “entitlement” in your argument.
Slopefarm;
It’s true that the city has upzoned certain areas to try to compensate for the downzoning of other areas. However, they then also load up these new zones with so many conditions that they force upscale development. How many “working stiffs” do you think live in those 4th Ave and Billyburg waterfront condos?
call it what it is. plain and simple. inventing another snobby snooty neighborhood in brooklyn. and LOL benson at the hall monitor remark. it’s kinda true.
luv ya bxgirl tho haha. except when you called me a racist last week. grrr
*rob*
Benson,
I think you are looking at one side of the coin. My sense of the overall policy direction of the last 6-8 years is to downzone and landmark various neighborhoods to preserve scale, architectural quality and history, while freeing up many other areas through rezoning and substantial upzoning, and trying to revitalize lower income neighborhoods with properly scaled housing to attract basic amenities to make formerly distressed areas viable for lower income residents. With a few policy quibbles, I think overall that has been a worthwhile trade-off. Look at 4th Ave, Williamsburgh waterfront, Dean Street, Coney Island Ave, Greenwood, SP, and many other areas. Lots of areas have been freed up. Much as I like to ridicule the 4th Ave architecture, that’s a lot of new housing that has been developed in exchange for the Slope downzoning. If all the City did was downzone and landmark one neighborhood after another, then you would be right in an economic sense. But you have to look at this landmarking in the broader context of teh direction the City has taken.
benson- Blaming landmarking for the problem of cars is such a hoot. With or without landmarking, until the MTA decides its money is better spent improving access to the subway and or buses in the outer boroughs (instead of spending billions on one short leg of the subway on the UES) people will need cars. Relating it to landmarking ( there ain’t that much landmarked stock in the central core) is totally without merit.