Illegal Paint Job on Landmarked Block of Clinton Hill
We just got a tip that someone just started painting one of the brownstones on Grand Avenue between Gates and Putnam white this morning. (Yes, a certain blogger does live on this block.) Something tells us the Landmarks Preservation Commission didn’t sign off on this. If any readers are nearby, we’d appreciate a photo asap….
We just got a tip that someone just started painting one of the brownstones on Grand Avenue between Gates and Putnam white this morning. (Yes, a certain blogger does live on this block.) Something tells us the Landmarks Preservation Commission didn’t sign off on this. If any readers are nearby, we’d appreciate a photo asap. If anyone from LPC is reading, please get on the stick! Update 7/27: Here’s the photo from about 11:20 this morning. The address is 373 Grand Avenue. LPC confirms that there are no permits out on this.
Update 7/29: As the Daily News article reports, it turns out that—luckily—the owner was only repainting the area around the door. While we understand that some people feel it was an overreaction on our part to post about this before all the facts were known, here’s why we think it was warranted: First of all, had the painters been intending to paint the entire facade, every second counted when we got the tip (we were in fact in Dumbo, and not just across the street, when the tip came in, so popping over for a friendly chat was not an option); secondly, we were on the phone with LPC within five minutes of getting the tip, and LPC told us that (1) the owner had no permit for the painting and (2) that he had racked up, and failed to cure, several other landmark violations over the years. All these factors led us to conclude that, on balance, it was not worth taking the risk that something really destructive might happen. You know, better safe than sorry. With 20/20 hindsight, this was clearly the wrong call. Apologies to the owner—our obsession with historic brownstones may have gotten the better of us on this one.
Bottom photo by Rosier for the Daily News
Wow I missed this. Look how we made the 82 yr old famous. It would have been so much simplier to ask the man what he was doing there like a good neighbour.
He should sell his brownstone and move to Florida with the millions some depraved person will be willing to pay for it. Justin you can buy #2.
This blog is over…or should be.
Again, repainting anything requires no permit. If he were to CHANGE THE COLOR of the exterior, then he would need a permit. But there was nothing whatsoever to indicate that the entire facade was being repainted and the only investigation required to verify that fact before writing the article was to cross the street and TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. Mr. B however, chose to just post away, blissfully ignorant not just of the basic facts of this particular case but also the whole LPC permiting process. This was an overreaction on the part of a busybody, buttinski neighbor who was not in possesion of all the facts when he wrote his article. All the backpedaling and circular reasoning from his supporters in the comments section will not change that fact.
I’m certainly not going to try to debate you over the durability of brownstone, you are clearly much more knowledgeable about it than I.
However, this next part is wrong and this is the reason why the thread got started in the first place.
“As for the bit about it not being 100% clear wether or not the entire facade was to be painted, A: it doesn’t matter what part of your building’s exterior you are repainting, LPC has no permit authority over this”
This is actually only true if the exterior was previously painted and is therefore grandfathered. The doorway, as we all now know, was previously painted and so does not require a permit to be repainted. However, had the owner started painting the surrounding, unpainted stone facade – which was the general worry – this would indeed require a permit from the LPC.
Well there you go assuming again. Yes, I did read the entire thread (several times in fact), I am also the one posting that is perfectly safe to paint brownstone. A doctorate in Geology and a LONG family history in the stone trade have shown me that 200,000,000 year old sedimentary sandstone will not be harmed by modern mastics. The problem comes when the stone is not properly sealed from water intrusion and water causes the surface coating to degrade (not the stone itself). Paint may be expensive to remove from stone but it is not that difficult using proper ablative techniques (bead blasting). Exposure to the elements causes far more surface damage to brownstone than paint. I would direct you English and Jensen’s excellent text Getting Aquainted With Minerals or Montgomery’s Environmental Geology 3rd ed. both of which should be readily available at your local college library. As for the bit about it not being 100% clear wether or not the entire facade was to be painted, A: it doesn’t matter what part of your building’s exterior you are repainting, LPC has no permit authority over this, B: that’s why it is incumbent upon the author to do a little research before posting such an unfounded allegation. It would seem quite evident from the first picture that the doorway was cut in quite nicely which would indicate that it was the only thing being painted at the time. Cheers.
l0b0t, did you read all of the posts in this thread? Doesn’t sounds like it. You just seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon late in the game with all the people who are in a rage over this incident.
If the nice 82 year old man was in fact commiting an actual LPC violation by painting his entire building, which wasn’t 100% clear at the time of yesterday’s posting, then the building would have been in danger. Brownstone is not the world’s most durable material, and contrary to the person who keeps posting that it’s fine to paint over it, it isn’t. Paint is terrible for the stone and so difficult to remove.
So many brownstones have been destroyed over the years, and yes look how many have made it without help from us “white”, “nazi”, “yuppie”, “transplant rejects”, etc., but that doesn’t mean that they’re going to be here for another 100 years + if we don’t continue to preserve and advocate for them.
I’m not trying to say that the brownstones are more important than the people who own and live in them, because that’s absurd, but these buildings should be given a chance to see lots of grateful owners over many, many years and generations to come.
Uh “…reacting to a situation where he thought a building was legitimately in danger.” If you think repainting a doorway endangers a building in any way, shape, or form then you need to remove your head from your 4th point of contact and leave discussion of renovations and construction to those of us that have a basic grasp of materials science and a modicum of common sense.
Me, too! Im tired…YAWN
exactly. relax. you’ve made your pointgive your hatred a rest.