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
Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901. Bob, If your house is 1899, it is considered Victorian, by date.
harriet- you’re right.
Wow – there’s an organization dedicated to preserving or increasing property values and your problem with them is they aren’t moving fast enough?
If there was an organization dedicated to lowering my rent I probably wouldn’t be looking that gifthorse in the mouth…
Me too harriet, but please do remember that my part of Brownstone Brooklyn IS also on the “other side of the park”.
I have to side with the LPC. They did landmark two bits in that area in 2008, and one reason they acted so quickly on Prospect Heights is that development pressures are ramping up with groundbreaking on Atlantic Yards tomorrow.
The main problem is lack of funding for the LPC, which moves pretty slowly, from my perspective. Of course they are subjected to political pressures, but those pressures certainly won’t go away if one neighborhood picks fights with another.
I’m from Brownstone Brooklyn, and I will fight to protect the architectural gems on the other side of the park.
Montrose… most of the buildings which are “prime targets” for tearing down because they are falling apart pieces of crap! They are old wood framed houses with countless modifications, years of neglect, nothing (or almost nothing) original. Most of them were gutted and converted in the 50s to multi-family houses.
Let ZONING do its work. And let people build a 2 family, replacement home without adding 30% to the cost because they have to fulfill landmarking oversight restrictions/processes.
“No one ever calls an 1850s Italianate brownstone a “Victorian,”
I do, but then I often seem out of step. Most of “Victorian” Flatbush [AND my PLG neighborhood, if not my own 1899 house] is Edwardian, rather than Victorian–not that it matters all that much.
“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.”
IF THESE AREAS ‘HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALTERED,’ THEY SHOULDN’T BE LANDMARKED AT ALL.
As has been pointed out, these areas have very restrictive zoning that limits new development to buildings that in many cases are even smaller than what’s there now (many houses have undersized rear and side yards). So overdevelopment is not a legitimate concern. And in neighborhoods that already have a wide variety of architectural styles and finishes (wood siding, cedar shingles, asbestos tiles, vinyl, aluminum, stucco, fake brick, etc.) what possible context are you looking to be consistent with?
Tybur, just because an adjacent area is protected, doesn’t mean that next door shouldn’t be. That’s like saying we have trees in Prospect Park, we don’t need to keep any in other locations. Each neighborhood or district that desires landmarking should be considered for the merits of that district. The architecture there should be judged not only for the individual merits, but for how the whole body works together, to make up Beverly Square West, and for how that community fits into the greater Victorian Flatbush district. From my limited visits and knowledge of the area, each may be similar, as they are largely single family houses, bordered by larger apartment building streets, but they are subtly different, and unique, and all worthy of landmarked status. And, most importantly, because they are prime targets for tear downs or mucking up, they need to be protected before there is nothing left.