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
Disagree. There are plenty of photos at the above link to illustrate my point. Plenty of existing structures sworthy of landmarking BSW, as well as plenty more than can be restored. That’s the point. There is enough that remains to warrant landmarking (at least 150 houses), and if those who are only interested in FAR are deterred by landmarking limitations, then the neighborhood will continue to attract those who want to restore.
I’m not buying it Architerrorist…. Landmarking has to be for what EXISTS. Not what could *potentially* exist after your undo everything that was done between 1940 and 2010.
I simply don’t think there is critical mass of EXISTING landmark-worthy structures. Simple as that.
Quite a few Flatbush homeowners here posting negatively re: landmarking… Interesting. Although, as a former BSW home owner (who did not leave by choice), I beg to differ.
BSW and DPW deserve to be landmarked for all the reasons cited above, and more. Yes, zoning prevents a developer from erecting a six story apt building flush with your bedroom window, but nothing will stop a homeowner from blasting off the facade of a Victorian home and bricking up the facade. Lest anyone forget:
http://home.att.net/~ebasics/hallofshame.html
and
http://home.att.net/~ebasics/bsw.htm
This is happening NOW, not just 30 years ago. Yes, some homes that have porch enclosures, nasty siding, etc., may initially appear to be off the landmark radar – however, there have been a substantial number of homes in DPW and BSW in the past ten years that have removed that asbestos/asphalt siding, rebuilt those brick front porches with wood and ballusters, often using original period photos as guides. These houses are worth saving, in so many ways. Those who choose to bastardize simply for the sake of FAR? Please. Landmarks needs to act FAST. Although I’ve been saying this for years, now.
DIBS,
IIRC Edward VII reigned from 1901–1910, so your Chicago house was Victorian. Of course one might question the appropriateness of naming American styles after dead Brit monarchs, but I guess our styles were pretty derivative at the time.
downzoning has already protected the area from scarano development. DPW’s landmarking is somewhat strange because of all of the aluminum siding and composite exteriors. Although if it opens the area up to grants and low interest loans to restore the exteriors, then it’s worth it.
Bob, I had a frame house in Chicago that I restored with brackets & fretwork. It had a square bay in the front and I was told that it was “Edwardian.” I believe it was built in the 1870s.
The Flatbush Victorians are no loger threatened by teardowns, but by remuddlings. As time goes on more and more a remuddled, lost to future generations. Those of us with old original homes are first and foremost caretakers for the next generation.
That’s what I said Bxgrl, in my usual convoluted and confusing way–my 1899 house is on of relatively few PLG houses that is Victorian, rather than Edwardian.
re the LPC’s limited budget: they had sent someone over to MacDonough Street to side with the DOB’s call for demolition, lol. can we talk about waste of limited resources? Why not just stay away, and maybe work on landmarking something?