Park Slope Historic District Likely to Expand
The hard work of the Park Slope Civic Council and others is paying off: On Friday, reports The Observer, the Landmarks Preservation Commission began the process of expanding the Park Slope Historic District by officially “calendaring” the revised boundaries; the move would expand the currently western boundary to the far side of 7th Avenue; currently…
The hard work of the Park Slope Civic Council and others is paying off: On Friday, reports The Observer, the Landmarks Preservation Commission began the process of expanding the Park Slope Historic District by officially “calendaring” the revised boundaries; the move would expand the currently western boundary to the far side of 7th Avenue; currently it stops at 8th Avenue between 5th and 15th Streets and the eastern side of 7th Avenue between 5th and Union Streets. The expanded district would also include a couple of cut-outs that remain unprotected on Prospect Park West. If ultimately approved (which is highly likely) the number of protected buildings would grow from 2,000 to over 2,500. You can read the precise boundary definitions on the LPC website.
Park Slope Historic District To Grow [NYO]
Expanding the Historic District [PSCC]
“There’s a big difference between 8th & President and 7th & 15th.”
Sorry I haven’t made it down the thread all the way yet, but have you SEEN 7th and 15th? That’s the corner where Thistle Hill Tavern now sits and that building (and cornice) is BEAUTIFUL!
I am a little surprised by some of the suburban attitudes to landmark designation on this thread. One would think it was a new or foreign concept for us.
Obviously the reason the beautiful pre-war apartment buildings along PPW were left out of the original designation was political. Landmarking was in its infancy then and the locals wanted a district that would pass muster at City Hall -at the Board of Estimate, remember that? Also in those days Park Slope proper was thought to end midway between Seventh and Sixth Avenues.
Now it is time for the district boundaries to catch up with the times. I don’t think landmarking has hurt Park Slope in any way. Quite the opposite.
In addition, the concept of historic district designation is that it seeks to preserve the whole neighborhood ensemble rather than the individual superstar building. Therefore great, good, and average buildings are included to preserve the various historic building types in the area.
People need to chill about lanmark protection, it is a good thing and really the last thing to fear IMO.
Maybe, fsrg, but maybe not. Using cmu’s building as an example, if it has an elaborate roof, with lots of different materials, it would cost a lot of money no matter if it was landmarked or not, if the goal was to repair the roof in such a way that it would last another century without major repairs. It would not necessarily cost 4 times as much to do it according to landmark rules, unless the only other alternative is to slap some cheap roofing up, and call it a day. Any job done well, which is what most people would want on their property, is more than likely to be a job that the LPC would get behind.
Landmarks does not “force” anyone into hiring the most expensive contractors or specialists in the business, nor do they make recommendations towards any contractors. If someone pays 4 times as much to get something repaired, it’s not because the LPC “made” them, that would be because they hired people more expensive than perhaps others would be, and down the line to materials, labor, etc. Nothing is cheap today, not even crap. Blaming landmarks is convenient, but not necessarily accurate.
It’s already too late for the top of Union Street. There are plans to add 4 floors on top of 910, already approved very quickly a few years ago (though construction has not yet begun) because the buyer knew that the building was on the list of next buildings to be landmarked. This addition will more than double the size of the building, a former school. Of course, they claim in will be “in context.” Great for the developer, who also plans to extend the back of the building to the borders of the yards of the brownstones behind it on President St. and add what I am sure will be a VERY pricey penthouse on top at the back.
Amzi, In europe there seems to be room for contextual modernism that provincial tastes in NY do not allow. There are ways to respect existing fabric without mimicking it. I’m recalling great examples in some very sensitive places: i.e. Verona, Barcelona, Copenhagen to name just a few.
Already expanded long ago by brokers.
***Bid half off peak comps***
>That claim cannot be backed up with actual figures, because it’s just not true
Please cite study showing it’s not true…not that I don’t believe you as you’re almost always right, but it flies in the face of reason (see my previous post.) I cannot conceive of living in an apt and having a 23,000 assessment for a roof.
I guess there’s the possibility that LM buildings may actually not appreciate as much if buyers take the wildly increased maintenance into the equation. LM sort of like a building with rent-controlled teanants?!
>A good historic district is not just made up of the mansions and buildings of the rich, but shows an overview of many different income levels and architectural styles and budgets
Absolutely agree. LM should be about preservation of OVERALL quality/environment, but not the petty sh%t that they add to the pot. If LM really worked, tear-downs would be history, but even LM cannot completely stop that.
MM-“If a landlord raises the rent, its not because a building becomes landmarked. That’s one of the Big Lies of the anti-landmarking bunch. It’s the same building, the same neighborhood it was the day before. ”
But you have to admit that LM increases costs, which will in the long run, result in higher rents. No?
tybu6 “to maintain some idealized “neighborhood feel” that has nothing to do with preservation?”
Exactly – the proponents/supporters of this really arent trying to protect landmark buildings they are trying to preserve in amber a neighborhood the way they ‘want it’
But I have to say I am not sure that this is against the mandate of landmark preservation, they have the opportunity to landmark individual buildings or a ‘district’ – seems like maybe this “amber spill” is within the landmark mandate – I just dont know