Wallabout Becomes a State Historic District
NY1 reported yesterday that the State Board for Historic Preservation designated a Wallabout historic district. The Myrtle Avenue Revitalization Project’s Michael Blaise-Backer noted that the designation provides tax incentives for preservation. The LPC is separately considering a Wallabout Historic District. Brooklyn’s Wallabout Becomes A Historic District [NY1]
NY1 reported yesterday that the State Board for Historic Preservation designated a Wallabout historic district. The Myrtle Avenue Revitalization Project’s Michael Blaise-Backer noted that the designation provides tax incentives for preservation. The LPC is separately considering a Wallabout Historic District.
Brooklyn’s Wallabout Becomes A Historic District [NY1]
“because the gentry wants a certain architectural standard preserved”
Seems an entirely reasonable thing to want & strive for, IMO.
I’m not a fan of old for old’s sake, as some preservationists on this site seem to be, but why not preserve the best of it?
tyburg- it varies widely, actually but the more important point was that it is long-time residents, not rich, not gentry, not white, who are driving this in these neighborhoods. It’s something they wanted for the same reason anyone wants it- to preserve beautiful architecture and neighborhoods. The push to get landmarking in Crown Heights was begun by 2 residents who grew up here. Others in CHNA have not only lived here many years, but often are living in the homes owned for several generations of their family.
Benson, for your information, preservation was not invented in NYC. There are active preservationist movements in every major city in this country, and most smaller towns and villages. That’s why there is a National Trust for Historic Preservation. And it’s not the gentry preserving in amber, either. It’s ordinary people who want to save their town/city/village/farm, whatever, history for those who come in the future. I’m sure they are in Allentown and Utica, as well. In fact, I know they are in Utica.
You keep harping on the awfulness of preserved areas being close to transportation. Well duh. Those areas were developed and grew because of that transportation. THere would not be a neighborhood without the transportation, there would be no transportation had there been no neighborhood. There is no sinister plot to keep pure certain neighborhoods while ignoring those further out.
15%? of Manhattan is landmarked? The horror! You realize that even that miniscule 15% includes a whole lot of non-residential buildings, that would never be used for homes anyway? There is no danger of the city becoming Venice. Up until the crash, there was active building going on in this city EVERYWHERE, including in lnadmarked districts. Besides, what’s wrong with Venice?
I read all the time about the thriving preservationist movement in cities like Utica,Bridgeport, Ct and Allentown, PA”
30 seconds on google would get you:
http://www.uticalandmarks.org
http://www.allentownpreservation.org/
among others
Couldn’t see anything for Bridgeport.
benson — I disagree on facts. I don’t see that all the upzoning is being pushed to the outer ring of Brooklyn. 3rd/4th Aves, Atlantic/Pacific/Fulton, parts of Williamsburg, Court Street (I believe) and other araes have had substantial larger scale development due to upzoning and are all inner ring and along mass transit corridors. I remember specifically that both the Park Slope and South Slope/Greenwood rezonings were a combo of upzoning and downzoning packaged together, and I think Fulton and Pacific corridors may have evolved similarly, not to mention Dumbo and Flatbush Ave near bridge, which I imagine resulted in part from manu to res rezonings without an accompanying downzoning. I would be more inclined to agree with you if all the upzoning was being pushed out, and i do agree that, for planning purposes, density makes the most sense where mass transit access is easiest. But I think that has actually occurred in many places.
Manhattan below 96 has really evolved to have large res density along avenues and smaller buildings on side streets, though many side streets, particularly on UES east of Park Ave, are also apartment buildings. Harlem also seems to be proceeding on something of a Brooklyn model — large scale development on busy thoroughfares coupled with preservation of neighborhood scale and historical character where those atributes are strongest.
bxgrl — What is the price tag on those landmarked houses in Bed-Stuy and Crown Heights?
Ditto;
One more point. If preservation is only needed where “stuff is in danger of being torn down”, then why not leave it at that? Why not just pass a law preventing the structure from being torn down? Why pass restrictions regarding window type, door type, etc.?
Answer: because the gentry wants a certain architectural standard preserved, per my 12.28 post.
Crown Heights and Bed-Stuy are hardly filled with “gentry.” Yet they are fighting to get landmarked. You’re assuming that only the rich love old houses, beautiful craftsmanship and history. A bad assumption, benson.
Maybe in places like Allentown, there may not be a major preservation movement because most of the old homes are not in much danger of being torn down for huge apartment buildings or fedders style buildings.
Dittoburg;
Disingenuous? I don’t think so. If you go through these poor cities, what you will find is that the homeowners there cannot keep up their homes in accordance with the preservationist credo. You’ll find a sea of vinyl replacement windows, “home-depot doors”, vinyl siding and all of the renvations that are scorned on this site.
Funny how there is so little outcry about this situation. Could it be because there is not a gentry in these cities that wants these homes preserved for their use?