President Street in All Its Glory
We realize that we’re not going to please everyone all the time, but we are constantly surprised at how quick some readers are to confuse our opinion about a house being overpriced with a negative attitude towards a specific neighborhood. When we have thought a house in Bed Stuy was overpriced in the past, we’ve…
We realize that we’re not going to please everyone all the time, but we are constantly surprised at how quick some readers are to confuse our opinion about a house being overpriced with a negative attitude towards a specific neighborhood. When we have thought a house in Bed Stuy was overpriced in the past, we’ve been accused of “hatin’ the Stuy”, which just isn’t true. We happen to think it’s one of the most architecturally rich nabes in the entire city. Same goes for yesterday’s post on the President Street house in Crown Heights. It’s got a nice exterior but what looked like a subpar renovation, so $1.4 million just sounded like a whole lot of beans to us. Also, the fact that Crown Heights properties tend to command less per square foot than some other brownstone areas is just an empirical fact, not some random opinion of ours. One of our readers who leapt to the nabe’s defense took it upon himself to snap some photos of the block of President Street in question and emailed them over this morning. (Thanks, Hal!)They do a nice job of contextualizing yesterday’s post and providing visual back-up for the many comments that said what a grand street it is. Grand indeed. We’re lovin’, not hatin’, people.
Crazy in Crown Heights [Brownstoner]
I was going to chime in on this thread, but I think it’s been stated pretty clearly. These homes and the blocks the line are valuable examples of an architectural history that is being razed at a dizzying pace to allow for the construction of cheap, ugly boxes of absolutely no architectural value. Currently, landmarking a neighborhood as an historic district is the only way to protect these neighborhoods. There is no middle of the road “garden district” designation which would simply serve to protect existing streets and maybe even be a little more relaxed in terms of what property owners can and cannot do to their homes. Until such as designation is created, landmarking is the only avenue of recourse.
I completeley agree with Kevin Walsh. Surely the arhictectural quality of the buildings is the best reason to grant a neighborhood landmark status. And their rarity, of course. So much has already been lost. St Marks Ave in Crown Heights was once the “Gold Coast” of Brooklyn with extraordinary free-standing mansions (mostly wood frame) all with extensive grounds surrounding them. You can still find 19th century prints showing this gracious streetscape. Maybe 2-3 of those houses remain today. It would be great if we had more magnificent streets like Clinton and Washington Aves. Given that they don’t build ’em that way anymore, shouldn’t we try to hold on to what still exists?
EXCELLENT COMMENTARY BROWNSTONER! People love to twist things, don’t they!
If you like these homes plan a visit to the East Side of Milwaukee. Blocks and blocks of Nineteenth Century Revival mansions up and down the Lake Michigan shoreline. Wait till summer though, it’s below zero today.
The LPC defines four types of landmarks, defined on the following page:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/working_with/recommend.shtml
As in other landmarked districts, Crown Heights contains a large percentage of buildings that are more than 100 years old. Certifiable antiques. This creates a distinctive character for the area that is worth preserving, regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of any individual buildings.
The core of Crown Heights is no less worthy of landmark status than Park Slope or Clinton Hill.
The landmark commision needs to create “Garden Districts” allowing owners to do as they will with the homes as long as the open space is preserved, and they remain “high-end” exteriors.
Downzoning is not enough.
I really love detached urban houses. The president street houses are some of the best in northern Brooklyn.
Why should you have to hear your neighbors through the walls at such a high price?
Why should these houses be landmarked? Just cause they look pretty? The Landmarks Preservation Department are not the Pretty Police. They dont go around landmarking buildings just because they are pretty.
A building gets Landmarked because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value. There are three types of landmarks: individual (exterior) landmarks, interior landmarks, and scenic landmarks. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may also designate areas of the city as historic districts.
What is so special about these buildings. Are they architecturally or historically significant? Or do they just look real pretty? There are those who have mentioned that the area should be landmarked. An historic district is an area of the city designated by the Landmarks Commission that represents at least one period or style of architecture typical of one or more areas in the city’s history; as a result, the district has a distinct “sense of place.”
What period or style of architecture is reflected in Crown Heights? What “sense of place” is conveyed by this style?
I’m not trying to take anything away from the above cited homes. However, a couple pretty houses does not a neighborhood make.
None of Crown Heights is currently landmarked. The area being considered for landmark status lies entirely on the north side of Eastern Parkway, so does not include President Street.