Ocean on the Park Landmarking: The Details
We gave you the short version yesterday morning, but there’s more to the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s vote yesterday to approve the Ocean on the Park Historic District in Prospect Lefferts Gardens. In addition to the obvious architectural merits, the row is notable for a couple of historic reasons: (1) the land it’s on was owned…
We gave you the short version yesterday morning, but there’s more to the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s vote yesterday to approve the Ocean on the Park Historic District in Prospect Lefferts Gardens. In addition to the obvious architectural merits, the row is notable for a couple of historic reasons: (1) the land it’s on was owned in the mid-17th century by Jan van der Bilt, the progenitor of the Vanderbilt family in America; (2) one of the buildings, 193 Ocean Avenue, was owned and occupied by Charles Ebbets, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers and developer of Ebbets Field. Those of you who’ve been following along know that the designation of the twelve 19th-century row houses was a rocky process, with two of the owners fighting the effort and one City Council Member initially blocking but then acquiescing to the landmarking. The final chapter played out yesterday at the LPC hearing, when the owner of 189 Ocean Avenue made a last-minute plea to be left out of the district. Most interestingly, the Commission held a separate vote to calendar the adjacent lot at 185 Ocean Avenue as a possible addition to the district; this is notable because a developer already tore down the beautiful old house there and started to build a new development only to run out of money in the process. As Brooklynista wrote in the comments of yesterday’s post, “Indeed, what the LPC did today was major because it signaled to preservationists and developers alike that the swinging of the wrecker’s ball may not necessarily mean the struggle to preserve a historic site has been forever lost.”
BREAKING: Ocean on the Park Houses Landmarked [Brownstoner]
Ocean on the Park: Crisis Narrowly Averted [Brownstoner]
Councilman Threatens Ocean on the Park Historic District [Brownstoner]
Big Day Coming Up for Brooklyn at Landmarks [Brownstoner]
LPC Moves Ahead With Two New Historic Districts [Brownstoner]
LPC to Consider Ocean Avenue Historic District [Brownstoner]
Bob, that’s my point. Expect landmarks to approve a contemprary design of note – even if neighbors don’t feel it’s a good fit for the existing period aesthetic.
Don’t hold your breath hoping for something that approximates the design of the existing homes with respect to that empty lot. Landmarks doesn’t like historicizing repos. There was a lot of flak about this several years ago regarding a lot with a derelict 1950s home on tony Albemarle Road in PPS. They would not accept a “Victorian” style home, even if others in the nabe felt if blended well with the other turn of the century properties. The 50s home had to stay, bizarrely, and the very undistinguished period architecture, preserved. House has been for sale for years now – and no takers.
I think the homeowner who objected to landmarking might find that it actually works in her favor, if in fact it stops the developer from building a cantilevered monstrosity.
traditionalmod,
IF the lot at # 185 is eventually landmarked, the owners would not have to build a reproduction brick or limestone one or two family house? To give an example, when a house in the Greenwich Village HD was destroyed in a Weatherman bomb-making accident in the late ’60s (early ’70s?) the replacement building was quite modern, with some touches that tied it to the other buildings in the row. It’s even conceivable that an apartment building could be built, but there’d be some level of aesthetic review which, IMO, would be a big plus for the neighborhood.
BTW Tybur6, the NYC Landmark Law allows for individual landmarks or historic districts, which comprise more than one building(as well as other categories like scenic landmarks and interior landmarks, but that’s besides the point). It is what it is. The Ocean on the Park HD is no more a “lie” than the Filmore Place HD, or the Stone Street DD, the Manhattan Ave. HD, or the Stockholm St. HD (or, for that matter the Park Slope, or Greenwich Village HDs) There are large and small Historic Districts; why be so hung up on terminology?
My friend Brooklynista says that I might be able to explain the relevance of the owners of 189’s liability concerns to landmarking. She gives me too much credit; it’s beyond me and, from hearing the Landmark Commissioners discussion yesterday, I think it’s also beyond them.
Tybur6,
The homeowners requested that their houses either be landmarked as an extension of the existing Prospect-Lefferts Gardens Historic District OR, if that was not feasible, as an independent HD. The LPC, not liking non-contiguous districts, chose the latter. IMO either would have been satisfactory, although I’m kind of pleased to be able to say that PLG (like Ft. Greene) now has TWO Historic Districts.
Gee, I’m sorry this is so upsetting for you.
>> Realtors will NOW be able to say…