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]
quote:
and the home of a factory worker is as important as that of the factory owner
um no, it really aint. :-/
*rob*
MM- Landmarking involves more than a roof repair, and therefore you HAVE to acknowledge that Landmarking leads to higher costs for owners (and eventually renters). – its just a fact and trying to deny it weakens your position (that it is worth it)
Personally I am not against landmarking in general and its extension is justified to some extent BUT this extension seems to extend into some fairly dubious areas (if there is a great building then do it individually) in terms of “historic” DISTRICT.
My overall philosophy is that when you attempt to manipulate facts/law to create a end that you desire (here to preserve a neighborhood the way you want it-even if it isnt really worthy of ‘landmarking’) you undermine the legitimacy of the whole process. I am sorry but the area between 7th and 8th south of 9th just IS NOT worthy of a historic district (not saying that there aren’t so worthy buildings tho) – frankly there really should be 2 tiers of landmarking, because even if you think this part of PS is worthy of protection, you cant tell me it is as worthy as Styvesant Hgts or Brooklyn Hgts – it just isnt.
I am always stunned at the vitriol against landmarking on this site. If we didn’t have landmark districts, the notion of architectural preservation would die a swift and ignominious death in NYC. Commercial interests alone will never look after the legacy of architecture, which in itself is history written physically upon the face of the city. Do people really want to lose their own history?
cmu, just as there is a fine line between being a nanny state and looking out for the public health, there is a fine line between being a purist for purity’s sake, and staying true to historic principles. I belive the latter can include new materials and technologies, provided they 1. do the job as well as the original material, 2. maintain the look of the original material. In terms of roofing materials, there is the fake slate that is the equivelent of laminated flooring, with the same “authentic” markings in the same place on every tile, and there is the stuff that looks real, with variety, as in nature. I don’t blame the LPC for rejecting the former, and I would hope they would accept the latter. The same for other materials, especially in places like roofs and cornices that no one is ever going to get close enough to really see.
As for your general argument, paint your door fuschia or yellow, more power to you. The city could use a bit of color. But that is nowhere the same as brickfacing your brownstone with “river rocks”, or tearing your cornice down, or removing your stoop, or putting aluminum fencing in your yard. Those are the kinds of “alterations” that landmarking was designed to stop, and that protection is still worth, to me, the aggravation of all of the rest of it. And trust me, I am not rich, so this is not coming from some money is no object mindset.
Not directly related to the topic at hand but I did a self-guided walking tour of Park Slope on Saturday and I have to say that every time I’m in that neighbourhood, I fall more in love with it. The incredible assortment of beautiful homes street after street after street is mind-blowing. A side trip to Christie’s on Flatbush for a Jamaican patty and fried fish combined with a sweet from the Treats food truck that was parked in the Slope made the tour even better. As much as I dread dealing with the LPC (particularly in light of my recent consideration of putting skylights in my Brooklyn Heights brownstone), overall I’m in support of the proposed expansion discussed above.
The only time I ever heard about a shutter issue at Landmarks was on one of the rebuilt and relocated Federal era houses on Harrison Street in Manhattan. Those houses were moved to their present location at the time land was being cleared to build the World Trade Center and were rebuilt and restored by the city. Later they were sold to private owners but the city placed special covenants on the title. Is that where your friend lived? The issue there was more with the covenants than the LPC regs.
But anyway it is a good story of TYRANNICAL DEPRAVITY!!
Everyone likes a good story.
The problem with LPC is it’s dominated by the same mentality that many here bring to the issue. The kowtowing to historical ‘accuracy’. The disregard for modern, better solutions. The nitpicking at every detail. Ignoring financial reality.
I give up trying to convince you traditionalists. But before LPC is extended to my block I’ll probably paint my door lemon-yellow and the trim fuschia. Painted Ladies Rock!
Ack, the joys of not proofing. I do know how to spell “doubt”.
“No shutters needed…just hang some sheets in the window.”
Oh snap…that was funny…