Slope HD Extension: In 3 Parts, Over 10+ Years?
The Post had an article yesterday with details about the push to extend the Park Slope Historic District so that it includes 4,000 more buildings. Right now, the Park Slope Civic Council is proposing an extension that would happen in three phases: “the first 1,350 buildings [are] bordered by Flatbush, Prospect Park West, Seventh Avenue,…
The Post had an article yesterday with details about the push to extend the Park Slope Historic District so that it includes 4,000 more buildings. Right now, the Park Slope Civic Council is proposing an extension that would happen in three phases: “the first 1,350 buildings [are] bordered by Flatbush, Prospect Park West, Seventh Avenue, 15th Street, and parts of Union Street and Fifth Avenue. The second phase includes 2,000 buildings east of Fifth Avenue, and the third, east of Fourth Avenue between Flatbush and 15th Street.” A trustee of the civic council estimates that it will take 3 years to get landmark status for the first section and that there would be 5 year gaps between the landmarking of the other two portions. The Slope’s Historic District currently includes 1,975 buildings. Update: Blog Save the Slope takes issue with some parts of The Post article.
City Aims to Expand Slope District [NY Post]
Photo from Save the Slope.
No benson – and I know exactly what buildings you are referring but 1. as a argument for/against landmarking its a stretch at best [I applaud your effort however] and 2. While it is gross, I do find an advantage in the loose garbage bins that the buildings sport – I dont have to walk all the way home with dogs poop bags, so it aint all bad.
I think FSRG sums it up perfectly at 4.12 PM.
I’ve said it before (and even Minard has said it): the preservationist community should take a breather, and think through their criteria for requesting designation. It can’t just be: it’s old and charming, so we should preserve it. It has to be more holistic and in synch with the organic economic and demographic development of the city.
BTW: I still think my garbage argument is good!! Am I the only one who is disturbed by the ever-present display of overflowing garbage in front of these types of buildings???
For what it’s worth, fsrg- preservation is just staving off what will eventually happen- buildings will decay and no longer be salvageable. I agree we need to be careful but w need to balance not only what we preserve, but how we build and where we build. Cities are a mix- and that mixing is a good thing. To me, we’ve spent the Bloomberg years tossing out babies with bathwater when it comes to development. Everything came at a cost to the outer boroughs, including Brooklyn for the most part. He treated Brooklyn like an outpost of Manhattan, and views everything in Brooklyn as being for the benefit of Manhattan. Queens is getting a taste of his highhandedness, as is the Bronx. I resent it and in the long run I think its destructive.
Essentially in my mind it comes down to this – all these buildings that are “old” (and which Benson and I +et al think are outmoded) are NOT now protected, and yet they are not abandoned (generally) either – so Bxgrls post is correct, currently and by in large the economics makes these buildings useful and viable (albeit with a minority being changed significantly) – therefore with or without Landmarks – the vast majority of the buildings will be preserved. What I object to however is sticking current owners and future generations with vast stretches of our city/neighborhood where the buildings may not be changed regardless of their economic FUTURE usefulness and utility.
And since the larger the areas you do this too, the more the need may arise in the future to revisit the landmarking of particular areas – which for my way of thinking – opening up landmarking to periodic or even generational review weakens ALL the protections anyway – therefore I would think true preservationists would be very careful about expanding such designations to loosley for fear of reducing the protection offers in the 1st place.
Bxgrl I agree 1000% with your 2:41 post – however I think that would be EXACTLY the argument that someone against ALL landmark designation would make and certainly supports my contention that such a designation shouldn’t be used across broad swaths of a neighborhood, that contains both historical/beautiful/effective housing as well as housing that is merely old and/or attractive but not especially unique.
BTW – I agree with MM – the garbage argument is a bit thin there Benson.
benson- but think of the abs you could develop, man! 6 or even 12 pack 🙂
Benson, citing garbage as a reason for a building being outmoded is really grasping for straws. Transiency is scarcely an indicator of anything relevant to the discussion of landmark worthiness, as it has many factors. Perhaps price might be factor for people moving, either too expensive, or maybe they are now doing well enough to move up. You are correct, perhaps having a growing family causes people to move. None of that has anything to do with the building’s worthiness or unworthiness to be landmarked. Neither does its history as a tenement, which is not in of itself a reason for inclusion or exclusion.
Bxgrl;
In my case, I’m not so sure. If I were in an apartment where my wife and I were constantly bumping into each other, there might be some arguments. I’d be running up and down those stairs alot to throw out the garbage and get some fresh air!
Maybe- but would you? 😉 I’m guessing yes! (Unless your wife brings home a cat) 🙂