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.
Why does the process take so long? 10+ years!
***Bid half off peak comps***
bxgrl — “I said there is plenty of room for development- why tear down these neighborhoods first?”
That’s the problem with this logic. Who said these neighborhoods were in such danger of being torn down?! They aren’t. These properties (generally speaking) are waaaaay too expensive for tear-down developments. The worst thing (from a preservationist POV) that tends to happen is that a single townhouse (or maybe two) is in crappy condition and a developer decides to tear it down because it’s more cost effective. It’s not wholesale neighborhood replacement.
Exactly, bxgrl.
I’m not as familiar with the Bronx or Queens, but I can only imagine that there are tons of ripe development spots for the influx of new residents.
Some people think that’s not good enough apparently. They hate the LPC, yet want to live as close as possible to the areas the LPC pays most attention to.
Total hypocrisy.
And also, within historic districts, you can build, according to zoning restrictions and LPC regulations, and you can repurpose buildings, and renovate existing buildings. The area is not cast in amber. Perhaps an historic district may not be the place for a cutting edge, ultra modern building, but that doesn’t mean you can’t build that building in any number of other places, perhaps even 2 or 3 blocks away. People act as if the entire borough is landmarked, or will be. That is not so, most of the city is NOT landmarked.
Benson,
They aren’t all arriving overnight. And some say that with the recession, they aren’t even coming.
Right now, we are coming out of a housing collapse with a ton of shadow inventory. No need to panic quite yet.
The places I mention are a few examples of MANY areas of the city which could support housing. There will be thousands of new residents in Hudson Yards in Manhattan as another example. Some say 30,000 units could be developed there. Downtown Brooklyn in and of itself could hold 10’s of thousands of residents in new development, should demand call for it.
You suggesting an Avalon Park Slope on 5th Avenue?
11217- and don’t forget the housing going up in the Bronx and Queens.
benson- again “speaking” for me- I never said development shouldn’t happen there. I said there is plenty of room for development- why tear down these neighborhoods first? So how green is it to keep overdeveloping a “core” area to the neglect of the rest? How financially savvy? My guess is not very and not much. How much more intelligent would it be to fix public transportation instead of wasting billions for two small areas of Manhattan while the rest of the city has to go through hoops to get around? It means more cars, and a harder time for those businesses outside of Manhattan. It’s neither green, nor smart.
11217;
Do you seriously think that 1 million new residents can be accommodated in the few areas you cited?
Tyburg,
From 5th Avenue to the Park (for the most part) should probably be landmarked. 5th avenue heading east already is a transition from old to old and new. And that’s great.
The point is that there is A TON of important structures from 5th Avenue to the Park which should be (and will be) landmarked.
There are areas of Gowanus, Downtown Brooklyn, the Atlantic Yards site, Williamsburg etc which are PERFECT for development to accommodate new people. Doesn’t have to be in Flatlands. Why must you exaggerate everything to the point that you lose your point?