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
One word: tattletales.
The hot purple under question was grandfathered in, as are many of the presently painted brownstones. If it was hot pink in 1972 (or whenever) then it can stay that color.
I thought we all knew this, but apparently not. Why’s everyone jumping on Mr. B’s back? This is a blog about Brownstone restoration. Go find some libertarian blog if you want to argue that a person’s home is his castle and leave us alone.
The Garfield house was painted purple before the area was landmarked and therefore it was not illegal to keep repainting it purple.
…the friggin” rule are?
There are several issues here.
1. Painting a stone facade is often, but not always, destructive to it, as most paints will trap water behind the paint. This trapped water ends up blistering the paint and decaying the stone.
2. Painting is often done rather than more expensive — and more period-appropriate — fixes. Sadly.
3. To my knowledge Landmarks view painting as the remedy of last resort, since (as other posters have pointed out) it is so difficult to remove. Landmarks will specifically approve repainting a facade if it is clear that stripping the paint will damage the facade. This is why you see some facades being repainted.
4. The Garfield Place pink house painting PRE-DATES the landmarking of Park Slope. It is therefore grandfathered in. If the owner wanted a different color, of course, he would be subject to LPC review.
***
I don’t know Brownstoner himself from a hole in the wall, but I think it’s clear this blog is his back yard. Short of the threshold of slander or libel (I wonder which applies?) it seems to me he may post anything he wants, enjoy any “double standard” he feels like, at the sole risk of damaging his site’s reputation. This post is about a renovation that is both tacky and not allowed, in flagrant and full public view.
You may say that people should have the right to do as they please with their facades, in which case you should work to overturn the Landmarks Law. But for my money it is difficult to condone a facade treatment that so clear ignores the law while at the same time hastening the destruction of good, existing details.
–an architect in Brooklyn
That said, does anyone actually KNOW what the friggin’ rules?
Scores of neighbors in the Clinton Hill community worked hundreds of hours to secure this landmark district. We all have every right — even obligation — to assure that the integrity of the district is maintained. Starting with our own homes and then extending to our blocks then to the entire district. Thank you Mr. B for doing what a good neighbor in a landmarked district would and should do.
Moral of the story:
Pull stupid sh_t like that and someone’s going to call you out on it.
To all those who think this isn’t important enough to care about, don’t you both care about very major issues like the war in Irag and AIDS and famine, and ALSO care about things closer to home? It’s not one or the other. If you spend some time today pondering what you are having for dinner, is anyone going to get on your case for not spending 24/7 thinking about political prisoners or something equally serious? If you are concerned about your neighborhood or in your family, is there no room left in the brain for “the big issues”? This is a blog about brownstones and interesting historic architecture. OF COURSE people will care about neighbors ignoring the rules of a landmarked district. Only a very small part of the city is landmarked–if you want to paint your house polka dot you would not want to own in a landmarked district.