Victorians Accuse LPC of Brownstone Bias
Since the Landmarks Preservation Commission announced in its January newsletter that it was postponing plans to create historic districts in Beverly Square West and Ditmas Park West, preservationists in Victorian Flatbush have been accusing the group of unfairly favoring Brooklyn’s brownstone neighborhoods. (The LPC is moving full-speed-ahead to expand protection in Park Slope and Fort…
Since the Landmarks Preservation Commission announced in its January newsletter that it was postponing plans to create historic districts in Beverly Square West and Ditmas Park West, preservationists in Victorian Flatbush have been accusing the group of unfairly favoring Brooklyn’s brownstone neighborhoods. (The LPC is moving full-speed-ahead to expand protection in Park Slope and Fort Greene.) “The [LPC] has limited resources, but it shouldn’t be to the exclusion of the Victorian neighborhoods,” said Ditmas Park West Neighborhood Association president Joel Siegel. “If it’s worthy, they should fund it and do it.” Even Marty has weighed in on the issue, saying, “”It is not appropriate public policy to place [Victorian Flatbush] on hold while purely Brownstone Brooklyn is pursued.” According to The Daily News, the LPC defends the prioritization by pointing out that it landmarked two small areas of Flatbush in 2008 and that the current areas seeking protection have a large number of structures that have already been altered.
Victorian Flatbush Bashes Brownstone Bias in LPC [NY Daily News]
Photo by Flatbush Gardener
And by the way… Umm, if we don’t call it “Victorian Flatbush” I would not start to cry. New styles of housing does not change the density and so on.
The fact is that the ZONING requirements force all of the “livability” issues. Argyle between Coretleyou and Beverley is not going to be a 5 story tall block of row houses.
Architerrorist — Those two brick cube buildings are absolutely terrible renovations. No one is going to disagree with you (other than the owner… and they’d probably agree too.) This is just hyperbolic and ridiculous to suggest this is the possible future for the whole neighborhood.
HOWEVER, and this is a big however, What you say above is missing my major points.
(1) You point out 2 extreme examples and a few others you characterize as travesties, but are only borderline “out of character.” Do you honestly thing that what’s going to happen is a complete abandonment of this “sensitive renovation” trend that you have admitted is quite successful?!
(2) You re-stated my major problem with landmarked building requirements! You can (a) replace crap with crap, OR (b) fulfill the strict requirements of the (at this point artificial) style. There is no alternative. Are there no renovations in the neighborhood that are “updates” that you are happy with? Cuz, there are A LOT of them. Very interesting, creative and very nice renovations that DO NOT preserve this frozen-in-amber style of 1897. NONE of these would be allowed if the neighborhood were landmarked!
This is absurd.
A lot of those houses you have photogaphed are, frankly, a little sad and boring. HOWEVER, if they were landmarked, you couldn’t do a whole lot about it. They would have to remain sad and dowdy… unless you went through a painful, expensive and loooooooong process to get variances from the LPC. This is a good thing?
ALSO — the new zoning that was recently passed is huge. As you state on you little website, many of those things are NOT legal any longer.
btw, The house on Rugby and Cortelyou… i live right around there. The brick siding is gross and, actually, badly done…. but guess what, the original “classical revival” house was pretty damn ugly… just happened to be the *original* poor choice. And the stained glass?! From the outside, stained glass is not that great looking. And that’s the thing. At the core is your love of the old and dwelling in a “nothing new or evolving could possibly be an improvement” sensibility.
I’m a relatively new homeowner in Ditmas Park West, and I strongly support landmarking. Architerrorist, I agree with everything you’ve said here. Tybur6, I don’t know where you live to think that so many of the homes around you are teardowns, but you sure don’t live on my block, and you can’t possibly live on my neighboring blocks either. What happened to those homes on Ditmas Avenue is tragic, and that kind of senseless alteration will continue to happen until the entire neighborhood is protected by the landmark status it deserves. There is no place in the city like Flatbush/Ditmas Park, and the beautiful character of our homes and streets should be preserved. Otherwise we’ll end up like Midwood, Bay Ridge, and all those other non-brownstone Brooklyn neighborhoods that have lost their souls to thoughtless remuddling and development.
First half of the above post disappeared.
Sparafucile. I am saying no such thing. I am saying that there has been a trend over the past decade toward sensitive restoration based on historical evidence. I have witnessed several of these restorations and they are in no way Disneyesque, as Tybur6 suggests. Despite some of the devastating losses in BSW (newcomers may not remember what the pale pink brick hulk on the corner of Rubgy and Cortelyou used to look like), the overall number of homes that confirm to landmark requirements is on the upswing. The case for landmark designation is consequently better than it was ten years ago, yet also more timely, as houses continue to remain vulnerable. Again, I refer you to the link above, which shows two homes on Ditmas Avenue that literally had their facades sliced off several years ago.
I disagree that it is too late for BSW. I have personally photographed every house in BSW, and I would argue that 150 plus houses are more than worthy of landmark status. I’m not on the landmarks committee, but I am educated in the field of art and architecture. I have also taken the petition door to door, and have heard all the pro and con arguments for landmarking. It has been a divisive subject in the neighborhood for decades. Some people just don’t like government “telling them what to do,” others just don’t want to spend the extra cash needed to maintain their homes according to landmark standards. And some, of course, truly can’t afford it.
Futhermore, if your house is part of a landmarked neighborhood, you are welcome to keep it as the “crap hole” it is, should desire. Landmarks doesn’t come knocking on your door forcing you to return a previously renovated house it to its original Victorian splendor. You are more than welcome to replace crap with the same crap, if it is in place prior to landmarking. Just don’t go adding more crap.
One more thing, Tybur6 – would love to hear your take on those “renovated” Flatbush houses depicted in the link above? Or are they not on your particular block – yet. Or if you do reside in a landmarked neighborhood, do you really think house prices will continue to hold if the neighboring streets are riddled with brick, stucco Fedders, and picture windows? Will we even call it Victorian Flatbush anymore?
“the number of worthy homes has actually INCREASED over the past ten years, making the case for landmarking the neighborhood even stronger.”
You’re suggesting that developments/renovations that are less than ten years old are worthy of landmark designation. Is this for real?
You might not be happy about it, but the truth that is evident to anyone who cares to look around is that this horse left the barn a long time ago.
bob- sorry. I don’t speak convoluted English 😉
I agree, architerrorist. Thankfully in many less wealthy neighborhoods, the exterior renovations were a cover up- sometimes you go by one of these buildings and the siding has fallen off and exposed the original wall, or a beautiful cornice or column. And despite the remuddling, there is an ambiance to a neighborhood filled with old houses that new brick fedders shoebox can never emulate.
So, you want to landmark a neighborhood to FORCE this magical rediscovery of the 1890s?! Keep in mind that for many many many many many many houses in this part of Flatbush, this means creating a Disney-like fiction… i.e., not actually restoring what was there, but creating a building that looks like it “should.”
ALSO, the current zoning already answers you hyperbolic statement about the brick Fedders (in terms of apartment buildings).
What I find totally amazing is that what you are REALLY saying is that you have no trust in the neighborhood residents building and renovating their houses the way they see fit. You want to impose a hugely restrictive regulation on the residents… which says… Your house looks nothing like the “Victorian Style” that we’ve decided reflects the “character” of this neighborhood because it was majorly altered in the 1950s. However, if you choose to do anything to your house you can either make it look exactly the same as the craphole it is now, OR “restore” it to its previous Victorian glory. It’s your choice, either (1) expensive and pointless, or (2) extraordinarily expensive and impossible.
How about let this “sensitive renovation” trend do its thing and step off?! Or don’t you think this trend is actually real?
I’m also saying that because there has been an increase in sensitive renovation, guided by historic evidence (such as original sales photographs, which are in the BSW archives), the number of worthy homes has actually INCREASED over the past ten years, making the case for landmarking the neighborhood even stronger.
Landmarking is in the best interests of all Victorian Flatbush residents – unless you enjoy strolling by brick Fedders shoeboxes on your way to Cortelyou.