Landmarks to Consider Prospect Heights Historic District
The Landmarks Preservation Commission intends this Tuesday to officially begin considering designating a Prospect Heights Historic District, according to a release from the Municipal Art Society. If approved, city law would prevent some 750 buildings on 21 blocks in Prospect Heights, in most cases, from being demolished or altered in a way unfitting with their…
The Landmarks Preservation Commission intends this Tuesday to officially begin considering designating a Prospect Heights Historic District, according to a release from the Municipal Art Society. If approved, city law would prevent some 750 buildings on 21 blocks in Prospect Heights, in most cases, from being demolished or altered in a way unfitting with their historic character. Gib Veconi, chair of the Prospect Heights Development Corporation, said in a statement, The pressure from the Atlantic Yards project and other recent developments are of grave concern to the hundreds of local residents who have written in support of historic designation for Prospect Heights. We’re all grateful for LPC’s swift action in moving the process forward. Historic designation has throughout the city been found to increase property values and the cost of making improvements, according to a study cited in the Atlantic Yards Report. The original district, according to the release, included more than 800 structures. Anyone know why specific buildings were taken out, or why others were added?
ProHi Historic District Could Include Almost 800 Homes [Brownstoner]
Prospect Heights Historic District nudges forward [AYR]
The study area did change. I notice that it now includes those fantastic buildings at the corner of Sterling Pl. and Flatbush (where Prospect Perk is).
I agree with MMHTPH: there seems to be remarkable consensus that this district needs to happen.
Notice that this is a study area, they can always cut back on the boundaries. They seem to have only wanted rowhouses because they have excluded all the historic apartment buildings, same as Park Slope I guess.
I’m kind of surprised they added my block in (west side of Underhill btw Sterling – St. John) since it’s not very “architecturally significant” compared to the rest. I think the study area has changed since I last saw this map.
I’m really surprised the small sliver on Carlton Avenue at Pacific Street is being designated as historic. The buildings are really nothing special (several are in exceptionally poor condition), and they have already been condemned by the state. Not only that, the block mostly consists of tenements and industrial buildings. What is the point? Was this just to appease Weinstein?
A strange, quixotic move that is a waste of the taxpayer’s money.
Fjorder:
One of the interesting components of the landmarking process is that the proposed district has to be both largely contiguous and homogenous – so my guess is that there are not only a lack of architecturally significant buildings on the blocks you mention (or buildings that are significant in another way than brownstone residential) but that the district would have to ‘jump’ over buildings not deserving of inclusion to include them.
Crown Heights North is going through a second phase and it’s great that prospect Heights is getting a landmarks designation. We had the same questions about why some blocks are included and others not- the answer seems to be what they deem architecturally significant. Of course that’s sufficiently vague in and of itself. the other issue that came up with CHN was the sheer size of it- We were told it was better to do the landmarking in increments and it is a tedious process what with the paperwork, documentation and photographing every house in the proposed district. CHNA worked on getting the first phase done for years. and the calendaring process is even more time, but they do bump up areas they feel are in danger and with the threat of AY, maybe they are trying to push the designation forward a little faster. Best of luck to PHDC!
Prospect Place and St. Mark’s between Underhill and Washington are not designated, I am guessing, because of a lack of original townhouses—although both blocks have a number of structures that are certainly worth including. Same goes for Dean Street, and Underhill btw. Prospect and Pacific. So really i have no clue why the district is mapped the way it is.
Really? I was just thinking that, considering how long these things usually take, this has been moving along pretty quickly. I guess I just have lower expectation of quick-moving government processes than you do.
I haven’t seen a historic-district with such universal approval in a long time in this city. I’m pretty surprised that some anti-landmarking group hasn’t sprung up to oppose this…
This will be a lay-up when LPC finally gets around to it. So it’s really a matter of “when” and not “if”. Don’t know where those 50 buildings went though.