Widespread Support for Three New Brooklyn Landmarks
The Landmarks Preservation Commission held hearings on three potential new Brooklyn locations yesterday. First up was the four-building complex associated with the William Ulmer Brewery in Bushwick. All of the seven people who spoke—including a representative from both Councilmember Reyna’s office and the Municipal Art Society, Simeon Bankoff from the Historic Districts Council and Ward…
The Landmarks Preservation Commission held hearings on three potential new Brooklyn locations yesterday. First up was the four-building complex associated with the William Ulmer Brewery in Bushwick. All of the seven people who spoke—including a representative from both Councilmember Reyna‘s office and the Municipal Art Society, Simeon Bankoff from the Historic Districts Council and Ward Dennis from the Waterfront Preservation Alliance. A similar line-up of North Brooklyn folks also unanimously supported the creation of the Fillmore Place Historic District, a 29-building, one-block stretch of Williamsburg. When it came to the Ocean on the Park Historic District (pictured above), more than 20 people spoke; only two—the owners of 189 and 211 Ocean Avenue—came out against it. The dates for the commission’s votes on the three matters have yet to be set.
Big Day Coming Up for Brooklyn at Landmarks [Brownstoner]
Public Hearing Agenda 3/24/09 [LPC]
otp, you are completely right about 211 being a gold mine, but its owner doesn’t see it that way. He’s still thinkinghe can sell out now to a developer for $2 million or so, vs. selling it as a nice, landmarked house for maybe $1 million less. And considering that they’ve owned the house since around 1998 or so, that doesn’t sound too bad. But it’s not the magic number dangled in front of them by greedy developers in 2007.
It also seems like this owner has been listening to the “It’s my house and I can do what I want with it” types who are completely against any form of landmarking. Mostly these people simply aren’t aware that landmarked houses generally sell for more than their non-landmarked counterparts. Unfortunately there are a number of these types on my block in the PLG hisotric district (not in the Manor) and it’s really distressing to see what they inflict on their houses.
Once landmarked, these houses might actually go for more than those in the Manor — they are as large (or larger than some), are not bound by the one-family covenant, and are closer to both the park and the trains.
189 basically made life so hellish for the owners of 185 that they gave in and moved far away. They didn’t push anyone to demolish — 185 was simply bought by a developer after a drive-by (he didn’t even get out to look inside). Unfortunately for them that developer’s approved plans include on-site outdoor parking making 189’s backyard much less pleasant and a cantilevered overhang over 189’s portion of the driveway that would block a lot of light.
However, as I mentioned, it is extrmely questionable that such a thing would ever be built.
“Why wouldn’t someone want to buy 189 because it’s a nice house right across from the park, regardless of condos next door?”
I don’t understand that either “ontheparkway.”
Regarding #211, many people seem to think that landmarking lowers property values, despite evidence to the contrary.I don’t understand that either. I know that I’m really glad that my house is in an Historic District
For the rest, I have only hearsay, which I will not repeat.
OK, maybe this is a little inside baseball but I don’t get some stuff on Ocean Ave. . .
What did 189 owners possibly do to push 185 to sell/demolish?
Why wouldn’t someone want to buy 189 because it’s a nice house right across from the park, regardless of condos next door?
On 211, ditto, the place should be a gold mine, landmarked or no, right?
Slick,
The presentation yesterday, by an LPC staff member, makes it clear that the Commission considers the “Federal Revival-style house at No. 191… [and] No. 189, a brick row house in the Arts and Crafts style” to be integral parts of the row. IIRC almost all the speakers yesterday [myself included]were in favor of designating the ENTIRE row, the exceptions being the owner of #211, who opposed the HD designation in it’s entirety for the classic [IMO mis-informed] reasons, the owner of 189, and two others [who, I’m told, are her mother-in-law and her lawyer] who want that house excluded because of alleged difficulties regarding the development of the lot to their north, and a representative of Councilman Eugene, who also supports excluding #189.
Thank you FlatbushMan23; I didin’t want to mention that, but basically they got what they deserve…
Both 211 and 189 Ocean owners insisted that landmarking would cause them financial hardship. While I do feel for the owners of 189, their argument that no-one will ever want to live in their house as a one-family house because of the monstrosity to be built next door seems rather weak considering that the developer of the lot at 185 has listed it for sale (and taken it off the market again, apparently) and the fact that they had listed their own house for sale as a development site at a price of something like $3 million. And they had this obnoxious Brooklyn Heights lawyer who called the house drek and said there was no way it should be landmarked. Most offensive was the owner’s contention that the house did not deserve to be landmarked because no-one of note had ever lived there, only a postmaster and a doctor! Considering that one of Fillmore Place’s reasons for proposed landmarking is its look into the lives of ordinary people, I doubt that argument will fly! And I won’t even address Mathieu Eugene’s support with the caveat that those poor people at 189 Ocean be spared.
The owner of 211, unfortunately, just seemed clueless. He seems to want desperately to sell to a developer but doesn’t realize that 1. No developer would buy just one house and 2. That ship has sailed in any case, for the moment. He actually used the coming development of Atlantic Yards (as if!) as an argument that he be allowed to sell his house to a developer.
But yes, MM (I didn’t realize that was you!), thank you for your eloquent and moving words. Here’s hoping all of thouse houses get approved!
“I certainly do feel for the owners of 189, they seem to have been royally screwed by circumstances beyond their control, and I hope they are able to win any lawsuit against the owner of 185.”
Empathy is a laudable emotion but should be spared for the truly deserving. Were it not for the actions of the owners of 189, 185 would still be standing, a well-liked family and their tenant would still live there and the movement to create the HD would not have gotten the spark it needed from the destruction of 185. The owners of 189 are truly unusually awful people who dug there own grave – may they rot in it for eternity.
On Ocean Ave., what was the argument made by the owners of 211 and 189 . . .
You are welcome, Brooklynista, it was my pleasure. Since I got there early, I listened to all of the testimony for all three potential landmarks, and it was fascinating, all around. Kudos to everyone associated with all three.
The brewery complex is a no brainer. This part of Brooklyn’s industrial past is almost obliterated. These buildings are iconic and important. I hope they are saved.
On first look, the Fillmore Place houses are not impressive. Ordinary middle class enclaves usually aren’t. But upon seeing the report, and especially from hearing the testimony of residents and experts, this block is indeed special and worthy. I wish them well.
Of course the Ocean on the Park Houses are worthy. They should have been included in the original PLG designation, as that would have saved 185. I certainly do feel for the owners of 189, they seem to have been royally screwed by circumstances beyond their control, and I hope they are able to win any lawsuit against the owner of 185. But I fully understand the desire to landmark the entire row, including the two remaining brick houses. They have the same setback, and add to the continuity of the rest of the row. The owner of 211, unfortunately for him, didn’t have a leg to stand on. But his right to be heard and put on the record is meaningful to the process, and he is entitled to his feelings and opinions. I think he will lose, however.
I couldn’t get out of work to attend the Crown Heights North hearings, two years ago,so I was really glad to see the process in action. When we go up for the remaining phases of our landmarking process, I’ll be there.