Landmarking Bed Stuy: A Forum
(Photo:reclaimedhome) Over 400 people crowded into a basement meeting room at Restoration Plaza last night to attend an informative meeting on landmarking, hosted by Community Board 3’s Landmark Committee. Panelists included representatives from the LPC, Historic Districts Council, and Landmarks Conservancy. Representation from the grass roots organizations Bedford Stuyvesant Society for Historic Preservation, Bedford Corners…
(Photo:reclaimedhome)
Over 400 people crowded into a basement meeting room at Restoration Plaza last night to attend an informative meeting on landmarking, hosted by Community Board 3’s Landmark Committee. Panelists included representatives from the LPC, Historic Districts Council, and Landmarks Conservancy. Representation from the grass roots organizations Bedford Stuyvesant Society for Historic Preservation, Bedford Corners Joint Block Association, Save Bedford Stuyvesant and SEPAL, along with other block associations, joined a large crowd of neighbors and elected officials. Executive Director Kate Daley announced that the LPC would be going ahead with designating the already calendared Stuyvesant Heights Extension, and would be looking at other areas, citing a recent survey conducted by the LPC of over 8,000 landmark worthy buildings in the very large Bedford Stuyvesant community. Smaller historic districts would be phased in across a period of years.
City Councilman Al Vann stated he would advocate in the City Council for Bedford Stuyvesant, as he did for Crown Heights North, when the Council votes to designate. State Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries promised to press for the Bedford Corners Historic District to be the next area to be landmarked, and vowed to keep that neighborhood on the LPC and City Council’s front page. A question and answer session followed with residents asking questions about the LPC’s rules and regulations regarding changes to facades, windows, the grandfather clause, and the usual general landmarking questions. The overall impression at the end of the meeting was that Landmarks was very pleased by the turnout and positive interest of the majority of the crowd, an important part of their decision to landmark any area. Hopefully, this is another step towards historic designation of a long overdue, architecturally rich part of New York City.
Actually Amzi if the expansion of the West End Avenue Historic District on the Upper West Side goes through, it could be the largest in the city. That and the end of most development on the West Side.
But anyway, great job and best of luck to everyone in Bed-Stuy and all the proposed new historic districts. Especially Bed-Stuy North. Walking down Myrtle last night (because the G decides to cut out now before reaching my Clinton/Washington stop) I saw how terrible the new development has ravaged the area.
thebedstuyowl – Send us and e-mail viva the contact us page http://bedfordstuyvesantsocietyforhistoricpreservation.org/
Last night’s meeting was a great mix of folks, and I was really impressed with the questions asked. Especially many voicing concern about elderly residents who will need assistance filing for grants to do repairs, etc.
Who’s leading the Stuy North group and how can I get a hold of them?
Grand Army: That’s interesting information. Indeed, all the windows on these side-street townhouses have been changed across entire facades (their owners have deep pockets), so they must have been allowed the special dispensation you mention. Some time ago, I called LPC in a panic that one building’s window replacements weren’t appropriate (because of the materials), only to be assured that they were “conforming.” Now I know why. Thanks.
The downside is that it has taken 30 years Bedford Stuyvesant, Crown Heights North and Park Slope to be landmarked. In the next two years we are going to have larger landmarked districts in Brooklyn. Once all three of the neighborhoods are done probably 10 years away Brooklyn Landmark districts will be the largest in the city.
The conversation about landmark designation in Bedford Stuyvesant is open and honest and has been constant for the last four years. The majority of the people attending last night’s meeting were already well informed about the pros and cons of designation.
Despite of the restrictions imposed by designation, the community is still in favor of it. This is evidence by the number of people attending last night’s meeting.
Actually I believe the old saying that “windows are the eyes of a house” so I’d hate to see any change from one-over-one or two-or-two sashes. Sorry, cmu, but there’s no faster way to destroy the architectural integrity of the streetscape.
Sure, mopar, storms (interior or exterior) are great. But it’s a little unrealistic to suggest that as a cure-all when lots of homeowners WANT to replace their windows. That option has now become much, much more expensive for those in historic districts.
And NOP, I’m aware that in some circumstances LPC will approve aluminum replacements — but it’s rare. I’ve heard LPC staffers say this at public forums and in private meetings. They will only approve aluminum when EVERY window in the front facade is done together. They will also demand detailed drawings that most GCs are challenged to provide. So most replacements are infact still wood.
Anyway, I’m not arguing against landmarking. I just wish the system was better. And when it comes to convincing a broad swath of the community that it’s a good thing, I believe you need to be honest about the downsides.
Bedford Stuyvesant is very much threaten by developers who can care less about aesthetics. The northern section of the neighborhood you see really bad out of scale buildings and Fedders buildings. As the southern section change and become more desirable these days the developers will come and destroy if we don’t protect.
Absolutely great meeting!!! Very happy about the Stuyvesant Heights Extension and hope to see Bedford Corners as the next designated district.