Landmarking Delays
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
Looks like Ditmas Park West and Beverly Square West will have to wait for parts of Park Slope to be landmarked first, the Daily News reports:
The LPC [Landmarks Preservation Commission] quietly revealed in a January letter to a preservationist group that it would delay granting landmark status for the tree-lined, semisuburban blocks of Beverly Square West and Ditmas Park West.
Instead, the LPC will press ahead with enlarging historic districts – which preserve neighborhood architecture – in Park Slope and near the Brooklyn Academy of Music.
That sounded like a brownstone bias to Borough President Marty Markowitz, who blasted the LPC in a letter sent last week.
Full story here.
57 Responses to “Landmarking Delays”
-
Steve says:
I can’t say I’m surprised by this. I hope everyone will express their disappointment directly the the LPC:
-
J says:
I have no intention of supporting this… I know everyone that owns south of Beverley wants to boost their property values, but “Prospect Park South” is already landmarked.
Yes, there are some interesting individual houses south of Beverley. But whole swaths of land considered landmark worthy? No.
There’s already fairly aggressive zoning restrictions.
For example, the house I live in (as a renter) is CLEARLY a tear-down if my landlord ever croaks. It is also within this “Beverley Square West” zone. The zoning requirements would already make a replacement structure a certain “type” of building — 2 family, detached, certain FAR, etc.
But beyond that… you want to restrict the style? Cause the construction to be faaaar more expensive because of LPC oversight and approval processes? Materials selection? And so on? REEEEEDICKULUS!
-
Raul Rothblatt says:
For a long time, the LPC largely ignored anything outside Manhattan, which is one reason my group, the Four Borough Neighborhood Preservation Alliance, was formed.
Now that we have been working with civic groups from around Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and The Bronx, it’s clear that a lot of the overdevelopment issues that plague one neighborhood are found all over the place.
I hope all of us can work together who value New York’s architectural heritage and the strength of its neighborhoods. Yes, political pressures can sway the LPC. So I don’t think it’s productive to pit one neighborhood against another.
-
Freddy says:
Zoning is not a substitute for landmarking. While zoning will ensure that no apartment buildings, condos, gas stations, warehouses, etc. will be built ina residential neighborhood, historic district status will ensure that the character of the neighborhood is preserved. Yes, the style of the house is important – take a ride through Gravesend, or Manhattan Beach or even part of your own neighborhood, and see the result of lack of landmarks protection – all “zoning-legal” homes, a hodgepodge of styles and shapes. While in Victorian Flatbush the houses are not identical (or anything close to it), they spring from the styles of the same era. It’s what gives our neighborhood the character that drew most of us here in the first place.
By the way, here in the Fiske Terrace/Midwood Park Historic District, the support for landmark status was overwhelming, by the very homeowners who knew they would be subject to LPC oversight. For some of us, the preservation of our neighborhood is as important as whatever inconveniences we as homeowners may encounter.
-
J says:
I never suggested zoning was a SUBSTITUTE for landmarking…. I just suggested that the aggressive rezoning of Beverley Square West was the *appropriate* thing to do and anything more is not.
Wander around Argyle and Rugby etc. What is the percentage of the buildings that still have the character of “springing from the styles of the same era”?? The vast majority are VERY renovated and devoid of most of this character…. the only commonality is already reflected in the ZONING.
Yes, there are owners that are choosing to spend the HUGE amounts of money to restore (or rather, recreate) the long lost styling…. but why should this be imposed? I buy a craptastic, beat to hell “victorian” that was completely transformed in the 1950s… why shouldn’t I be able to renovate it however I’d like? My own choice of siding. My own choice of windows. My own colors and finishes…. No, it wouldn’t reflect the historical style of 1985… BUT it would also look a whole lot better than the bastardized, asbestos sided 1950s renovated monster next door!
-
J says:
And, of course, I meant 1885.
I grew up in a house reflecting 1985 style — it had kickass cathedral ceilings. -
Architerrorist says:
J, I personally have lived in BSW and photographed every single house there. I would estimate that over 150 plus homes in that neighborhood are worthy of the landmark designation. Many others could be restored with the simple removal of siding, a bricked in porch, etc…
Please consult the following site for a visual list of BSW properties which reflect the Victorian aesthetic residents which to protect.
I don’t know when you arrived in BSW, but I wonder if you can remember what the pink brick hulk on the corner or Rugby and Cortelyou (next to the Flatbush Food Coop) looked like just a few years ago. True it was sided, but the day they took the stained glass windows out and sold them to the highest bidder (in the trade, not a local looking to restore), you could see the original cedar shakes, largely intact, beneath the asphalt siding. A crime against BSW.
-
Architerrorist says:
Sorry, link is: http://home.att.net/~ebasics/bsw.htm
-
DITMAS PARK W RESIDENT says:
Architerrorist – Very impressive photos.
I’m an older resident of the neighborhood and I fully support the effort to landmark the neighborhoods. We won’t have to restore what was their, but we won’t have to watch our neighbors remuddle either. We have some monstrosities that could have been prevented if LPC had acted upon the original applications.
-
J says:
Landmark it all! Why stop with these areas? Make the whole of Brooklyn a gated community with the Style Commission providing oversight for all your renovation needs.
-
inez says:
If a house that has altered the original detail of a house does the owner have put it back to the original style. I know some who cannot afford major renovations and have just left their homes as. Is there any money for owners with limited funds
-
inez says:
Sorry for the bad grammar. It’s hard to type on my iPhone
-
Architerrorist says:
Inez, Ditmas Park W Resident (above) is correct. If a house is altered prior to landmarking, then it is grandfathered and in no way required to renovate their home in order to return it to it’s original period state. The owner can even place “like” material with “like.” If a plastic downspout is in place, it can be replaced with plastic, Vinyl windows can be replaced with vinyl windows, etc… (windows are perhaps the biggest expense for owners of period homes – if original wood windows exist, they must be replaced with wood). However, no new “remuddling” is permitted – for either period faithful homes or houses with existing alterations. In fact, when a neighborhood is landmarked, funds (mostly in the form of loans and tax breaks) can become available to owners for restoration work.
-
bkforman says:
Landmarking these homes is a very important step to preserving them. Yes, as a home owner in Ditmas Park proper, it can be a pain to deal with but it is worth it. I actually wish the codes were more strictly enforced. Every now and then you get a crack pot who does something crazy and out of line.
I actually wish we could gate our community. The transient parking is an eye sore and the litter from walker’s by and those transient cars is becoming ridiculous. I pick up stuff from my yard every single day.
-
J says:
Those “transients” are, for the most part, your neighbors…
-
Ditmiss says:
Architerrorist – Our previous home was on a landmarked block in downtown Brooklyn. When we replaced the vinyl windows that were installed pre-landmark designation, we had to install Landmarks approved wood frame windows. All facade work had to comply with current Landmarks regulations. So while it is true that landmarking does not mean (for example) that all the vinyl siding must be removed from these houses, I was under the impression that all future repairs/renovations to the exterior had to follow strict guidelines.
-
Architerrorist says:
I was told you could replace like with like, but perhaps I was misinformed or this has changed. I do get the impression that the Landmarking Committee can be somewhat inconsistent. Just want to note here, that although I am clearly all for landmarking all unlandmarked neighborhoods in Victorian Flatbush, I do feel that Landmarks needs to look create a form of landmarking that seeks to preserve the historic character of a neighborhood without punishing/bankrupting homeowners. “Garden Districts” exist in other cities, and permit the use of modern materials (a few high end forms of siding and polystyrene cornices come to mind) to mimic historic elements, thereby keeping the look of the neighborhood intact, but also affording homeowners access to relatively affordable materials with long shelf lives. But that is a whole other thread.
-
Rugby says:
I’m not a fan of picking up other peoples garbage on my lawn either, (in fact, I picked up a half eaten Subway sandwich along with the bag and napkins this morning) but a gated community? Ugh. Let’s not go crazy here.
Love the fact that the zoning rules got stricter. Reserving judgment on landmark until I know more. That said, I’d be upset if a neighbor knocked down their house and rebuilt a brick split level that technically meets zoning requirements. -
Architerrorist says:
Pity your neighbors on Ditmas Avenue in DPW. There’s a lovely little dutch colonial there with a pretty picket fence, obviously well-tended by the current owners – several years ago the two houses next to them went down like dominos… Both had the facades torn off (completely). Now they get to look at two oversized red brick monstrosities that aren’t even architecturally competent. It could happen to anyone in an unlandmarked neighborhood in VF.
-
bkforman says:
J,
Not True – By “Transient” I mean the commuters who park here in our neighborhood. They are not our neighbors, nor are they living in apartments over here for the most part. They live far enough from here to park here and take the subway. They clean out their cars and leave the debris in our yards. If they lived in this neighborhood, they would not do that. I love Ditmas Park and care for my neighbors. We are in this together. The litter is an eye sore!! Some of us are more meticulous about it than others.
-
Architerrorist says:
J, to be fair, as a renter, you have absolutely no say in whether or not BSW is granted Landmark status. Only homeowners can sign the petition in favor of landmarking. SIgnatures from over half the households were needed (and obtained) to go forward with a formal petition.
-
Deb from Ditmas says:
Go look at 1210 Albemarle – the plywood-fenced eyesore that is my argument AGAINST landmarking. Before Prospect Park South was landmarked, an old house was taken down and 3 1960’s split-level houses were put up. (Pro-landmarkers will take this as an argument FOR landmarking, but read on.) They are there forever because of the landmarking. When we came here in 1987, one of them was very rundown. However, rules require that only another split-level can be there, since that’s the way it was on landmark date. It looks like what happened was that new owners kept the front as the split level and added a little height at the back for more room. This violated the rules – now it is a half-completed wreck and will probably stay that way forever. Please. A little vinyl siding is infinitely preferable. I have witnessed fear-mongers convince some neighbors that if we’re not landmarked, houses will be torn down and replaced by giant coop buildings.
strict zoning will prevent that. -
Ditmiss says:
Deb – I won’t argue with you that the 1210 Albemarle is an eyesore. But there is a world of difference between a little vinyl siding and some of the wretched bricked over facade work that has taken place all over BPW and Ditmas Park. I wouldn’t worry as much about giant coop buildings as I would about the further destruction of an incredible trove of Victorian architecture.
-
Ben says:
I kind of like the Brick Victorian. Where else would you see that?
-
J says:
So… what about this house? http://bk.ly/bJ2 (Look at the google street view – the brown house on the east side of Argyle)
The renovations to this house would NOT have been allowed if this street or neighborhood was landmarked. Are you going to tell me this house is horrible? That it ruins the character of the neighborhood? Those casement style windows are the end of civilized housing?
This is what I’m talking about. You can throw all you horror stories around, but that fact is that landmarking is equally as dangerous. ESPECIALLY when you looking to not preserve any particularly amazing architectural beauties… but to preserve some sort of neighborhood “feel” that you find so precious. This house is very nice. The owners took great care in their renovations, but the LPC would have said “NO” and the only choice would have been (1) leave the house the way it in frozen in time like the 1210 Albermarle house… or (2) spend all sorts of money to recreate something probably mediocre and uninteresting and DEFINITELY not to the owners liking.
I’d be interested to know if THIS owner signed the petition?! (but, of course, they don’t care because they’ve already done their renovations!! convenient, right?)
-
Ditmiss says:
J – the house on Argyle was done well, there is no question. However, I don’t particularly care for it. It’s neither daringly modern nor historically correct, so where it sits smack in the middle isn’t my personal cup of tea. Anyway,I’m more concerned about houses like the one I pass on Beverly Road every night with a bricked over/enclosed front porch. It’s atrocious any way you slice or dice it. And it has never been finished. This is what I object to and there is nothing to stop any homeowner in non-landmarked areas from doing the same thing. You and I seem to have completely different views on historic preservation. I’ve had to endure Landmarks bs before and I found the nitpicking infuriating at times, but I’d much rather have that than a freeforall, which is probably why we bought another house in a landmarked area.
-
Tina says:
It is quite rude to talk about other neighbor’s houses. What if some of us cannot afford the massive costs to keep it up? Not everyone in the neighborhood is rich. Thank you.
-
Tina says:
I should have added that there are homes that are redone because of hazard reports and often times to redo the house in a way that would preserve the historic architecture is very very expensive. Landmarking if it doesn’t cost those that have been here and are living on a fixed income
-
Ditmiss says:
It would be great if there was a fund that would provide assistance to people on fixed incomes to make repairs on their homes (in landmarked areas, that is). I do understand how expensive it is to do historically correct renovations. I wonder what provisions Landmarks could/would make in these circumstances? And I’m sorry if you found my comment rude – many people thought the house in question on Beverly had been abandoned when it was discussed on Brownstoner at some point recently.
-
Freddy says:
You can point to many examples to make a point: take a look at the third house from the tracks on the north side of Avenue H in West Midwood – it used to be a tumble-down victorian (known as the “bird house” because it was filled with pidgeons!). Now it is a horrific mess of columns and a concrete wall surrounding it. I doubt that restoring that house to it’s original beauty would have been more expensive than what was actually spent. Imagine more of these in the neighborhood.
Again, take a ride around Gravesend, Manhattan Beach or even Midwood – some houses have been tastefully restored or mildly modernized – many have been turned into “McMansions” – gaudy, out of character, and enormous compared to their neighbors. Many of them have been turned into virtual compounds, surrounded by concrete walls and high gates. That could happen here. Only landmarking prevents it.
-
J says:
That COULD NOT happen here… again, there has been ZONING changes.
-
J says:
And because you may want to know what R3X zoning is… http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zoning_handbook/r3x.pdf
-
J says:
Oh, and R1-2 areas… http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/zoning_handbook/r1-1_r1-2.pdf
Here is the Zoning Map. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/map16c.pdf
-
Architerrorist says:
Yes, it CAN and DOES happen here. Take a walk Down Ditmas Avenue some day… I don’t why you can’t understand that zoning only limits the SIZE and USE of a given building. It does absolutely nothing to protect the neighborhood’s Victorian aesthetic.
I am fully aware of the situation on Albermarle, which does highlight some of the flaws with Landmarks. They will not permit historicizing repros. Do I agree with this? No? Do I feel landmarking will protect the architecture of Victorian Flatbush. Absolutely. The above poster said it him/herself: the house on Albremarle PREDATES landmarking. Therefore, a tide of teardowns on Albermarle and/or increased insensitive renovations have been curtailed. Albermarle has been protected from future encroachments. Not so for many other streets in the neighborhood as a whole.
I agree that the Abermarle situation is unfortunate. However, it is preferable to the absolute red-brick bastardizations going on just a few blocks south. Without landmarking, there is nothing to prevent the rape and pillage of these beautiful homes.
J – you’re a renter . Rant all you want, but you don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to landmarking. If you’re not interested in saving the neighborhood’s architectural gems, or you’re not an actual homeowner claiming hardship due to landmarking, your voice means nothing on this score. Your opinions here are tedious at best.
-
Architerrorist says:
Not to mention flat out wrong, I might add. Here, I will post it again S-L-O-W-L-Y for you… ZONING LIMITS SIZE AND USE OF A GIVEN STRUCTURE. IT DOES NOT PROTECT VICTORIAN HOMES FROM HAVING THEIR FACADES HACKED OFF AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENCASED IN RED BRICK AND FEDDERS UNITS. As long as it’s being used as a one or two-family home, anything goes, architecturally speaking.
-
Architerrorist says:
By the way, the brown house on Argyle in DPW is loathsome. It’s a thorn in the side of the entire block. And because it was a relatively costly reno, you can bet than any “old bones” have been completely destroyed. Do I feel that landmarks has a right to protect historic neighborhoods from clueless homeowners? You bet. If the rest of Victorian Flatbush is landmarked, potential home owners who are only interested in a homes generous FAR will no doubt look elsewhere.
-
J says:
Yep… Architerrorist, you last post CLEARLY epitomizes why people dislike (hate?) landmarking and “preservationists.”
-
Architerrorist says:
Fine by me, J. If someone’s primary interest happens to be contributing to the aesthetic destruction of an historic neighborhood, then I’m happy to see them steered to a less architecturally important neighborhood due to landmarking constrains.
Seriously, though… why do YOU live in Victorian Flatbush. Obviously not for the architecture or Victorian charm. Even consider looking elsewhere? You have the freedom of renting, after all. Not like you’re actually invested in BSW.
-
Liena says:
It seems every heated conversation gets to the point where someone suggests someone else moved out of the neighborhood. To suggest that “since you are a renter you don’t care” is not fair. Clearly, J cares about the neighborhood. Let’s agree to disagree respectfully. Thanks!
-
J says:
Thank you Liena!
And I enjoy the neighborhood because of the scale and because of the trees and because of the people…. not because of the “Victorian Charm.” I find this taste police business very tasteless, especially when it boils down to a particular aesthetic that is not shared by all, would cause significant financial burdens, only marginally changes the “livability” of the neighborhood… and not necessarily for the better.
And guess what?! Ever thought I might not always be a renter and may want to buy in this neighborhood?! Ever thought that landmarking makes a neighborhood *less* attractive to prospective buyers? (Yeah, I know, current owners love the cash.) And i am definitely not a “maximize” the FAR type of person…. if anything, the opposite. But maybe I want to have purple paint and a red tin roof on my porch…. or non-period windows… etc etc.
BUT, at the same time, live in a neighborhood that has the scale and walkability of a R3X zoned area!!
OR, maybe I want to stay a renter and don’t want to pay an unnecessary premium because my landlord had to buy a period-specific door and porch light. If you want to make the financial argument — it goes in both directions, bucky.
-
J says:
Also — I live here because I WORK here. I’m not a commuter to a financial industry job in midtown who lives her in order to create a “showpiece.” Flatbush (Victorian or otherwise) is my home and where I spend most of my existence. Good enough for you?
-
Architerrorist says:
I disagree. I don’t think J cares, particularly, about this issue. His comments have been inflammatory though out this thread, and he isn’t invested in the neighborhood, not from a landmarking perspective, which only takes into consideration the feelings of home owners. Home owners are the ones who put the blood, sweat and tears (and no small sums of money) into caring for these homes, which in turn draws people to the neighborhood, including renters.
I’m not saying renters aren’t an important part of the neighborhood or don’t contribute – so many do and are greatly valued for it. I do get angry when someone suggests that we should get over having trash on our lawns (especially trash thrown out by our OWN NEIGHBORS? ), or that our architecture, and the singular character of Victorian Flatbush, isn’t worth protecting. In fact, I find it infuriating. It’s been a contentious subject for decades, and it won’t cease to be until landmarking is finally granted. If it is met with defeat, another group of activists will revisit the issue in a decade. That’s been the trend, historically.
-
J says:
First – “Home owners are the ones who put the blood, sweat and tears (and no small sums of money) into caring for these homes.” For buildings with rental units…. where do these homeowners get their money? Thank you.
Second – If decades and decades have gone by without landmarking, why doesn’t “Victorian Flatbush” look like these horror show neighborhoods you mention? Perhaps allowing homeowners to do what they please (within *zoning* restrictions) hasn’t been all that bad…. three or four ugly houses on a block does not destroy the fabric of space-time and cause property values to plummet. Simple as that.
-
Deb from Ditmas says:
To Architerrorist and J: I am a homeowner and have been so here since 1987. I love this neighborhood. I love the variety of people, that fact that I know many of my neighbors and we look out for each other. Many people come and and decide to restore their homes to their original Victorian looks. This is great and I love it. Making it mandatory would just mean that “love of Victoriana” would be a prerequisite to moving here. I also live near “the brown house on Argyle.” I think it’s nice enough – not fabulous and not hideous. It is, however, light years better than what preceded it – the owner moved to Florida, turned it into 3-4 apartments, and rented them out – at least one to a prostitute, as evidenced by the frequent traffic and regular commotions at 2, 3, and 4 in the morning. The house is what the current occupants want, current occupants being a very nice family who does indeed add to the wonderful character of this neighborhood.
Sorry to go on so long, but this landmark vs. zoning is a very real disagreement, and not helped by the ad hominem attacks in which you two are engaging.
-
Liena says:
People! Clearly the issue is more with the “all or nothing” nature of landmarking in this country than how much money which neighborhood resident puts into preserving neighborhood character (which most residents seem to pride themselves in, regardless of their ownership status).
-
J says:
Deb – I agree. And I apologize. I tried to keep it civil, but I know I failed at that…. but “you’re a renter and have no say” and “J doesn’t care about the neighborhood” makes me angry.
You are spot on about landmarking making “Love of Victoriana” a prerequisite. That’s the key. I think we all agree about the neighborhoods scale, its trees, our great neighbors… it’s that added “layer” that’s the huge disagreement.
-
Jaguar_Gorgonne says:
God forbid somebody would buy a house and then renovate it as they wish. How UnAmerican!
-
Freddy says:
A few points of information: Landmarking a neighborhood does not make it less attactive – quite the contrary. LPC has done a study that shows that landmarked neighborhoods increase more in an up-market and decrease less in a down-market. (I believe you can read it on the LPC web site). Quite a few people bought into our area after we were landmarked. Many people are attracted to such neighborhoods precisely because they appreciate the aesthetic into which they are buying and that it is protected. If landmarking depresses home values, why are homes in Ditmas Park, Prospect Park South, etc. so expensive? If there was no demand, the prices would fall. Of course, the whole market is down, but historically, the landmarked areas have maintained and increased their value consistently.
At our LPC public hearing, 58 homeowners testified – 56 were enthusiastically in support, 2 were against. This after hundreds of postcards were sent into LPC asking for our neighborhood to be landmarked. And now there is a similar grass roots effort to landmark BSW and the rest of Victorian Flatbush. So who are the people who “dislike (hate) landmarking and preservationists?” I know there are some, but from my experience, there are far fewer of them than landmark supporters.
-
bkforman says:
I think all this boils down to respect. Whether or not people live here as owners or renters or are just passer’s by, it just seems as though there is a current lack of respect for one’s neighbors (LITTER, DOG POOP, etc.). When this great neighborhood was built, I am sure that people took pride in the neighborhood and we should continue to do the same.
-
Beth says:
With all due respect, the proportion of homeowners who appear at a public hearing who support landmarking is not indicative of their proportion in the general population. In any case, even if they are a majority(which is doubtful), they should not have the right to impose their will on people they deem to be “clueless” or whose taste they find “loathsome.”
-
Freddy says:
Actually, a public hearing is indicative. People who were as vehemently opposed to landmarking would have shown up in droves. They didn’t. They could have sent letters against it. According to LPC, they didn’t. In our neighborhood, based on community meetings and discussions among neighbors, supporters were clearly the majority. It wasn’t even close.
But “their will” isn’t being imposed on anyone. NYC has a law on the books designed to protect structures deemed to be of historic value by LPC. LPC makes the call, not the neighbors, and sets the standards based on the law. The fact was that majority of the community of homeowners asked the government to consider our neighborhood for a historic district. They did, and determined the neighborhood was historically significant. LPC could have said no.
Actually, across the country, historic preservation is becoming very popular, with many cities and towns enacting their own laws to protect historic structures. There was an article in yesterday’s NYTimes about such an effort on Long Island.
-
J says:
Does the LPC provide each *individual* owner with details about their property before they vote? i.e., what will be allowed and what will be forbidden? what renovations are required for “historic accuracy” and what renovations are required to fulfill “like-for-like”?
The concept in the abstract sounds really great to many owners — for folks that aren’t swayed by the style arguments, they are fed lots of information about huge improvements to property values… money talks. Are BOTH sides represented… in an official way? (Not just “opponents” standing up in meetings)
Is the vote truly well-informed? And is 51% really enough to *permanently* take away a huge chunk of liberty from the homeowners?
-
Freddy says:
56 to 2 is hardly “51%.
LPC held meetings in our community to inform homeowners about what it means to be landmarked. Homeowners were also directed to the LPC website for a great deal of specific information. Renovations are not “required.” When a homeowner wants to renovate, they apply to LPC who responds on a case-by-case basis. And as I said, if homeowners objected to the designation, they could write to LPC or come to the public hearing.
You have a perfectly rational arguement against landmarking – some homeowners share it. But in our experience, most do not.
-
J says:
I was referring to the 51% vote of all homeowners in the affected area that Architerrorist referred to above. Not at the public meeting where many people don’t attend or can’t attend. Or does the LPC just have to get 51% of the folks that show up to a meeting?!
And I never said *renovations* were required. I said *what type* of renovations are required or forbidden — i.e., what’s on the new menu of reduced possibilities for your own private property.
Given the 1 or 2 family zoning restriction, the people building in the proposed LPC areas are *individuals,* not evil developers with no connection to the community. It strikes me that the existent community pressures (natural ones) have been quite effective. No external agency required to help them select their porch lights.
There is another major issue I see in addition to the loss of liberty issue (and, no I have no problem with most of the regulations imposed on private property in NYC – i understand issues of livability, sanitation, safety, etc. This most definitely includes zoning restrictions that vary from neighborhood to neighborhood as they do.)
It’s the simple issue that what is *old* came from folks being able to build what they wanted…
-
JR says:
This boils down to whether it’s OK to use the police power of the state to impose your aesthtic preferences on other people.
Loathsomeness is a subjective matter, and in our neighborhoods, which reflect decades of renovations in all manner of styles with all types of materials, it would be easy for any of us to cite plenty of surrounding examples of, say, bricked-in front porches, or aluminum siding. Since these elements are clearly part of our neighborhood’s context, on what basis would LPC prohibit me from renovating in a similar style, other than a purely subjective aesthetic one?
-
Architerrorist says:
Is it personal taste – or the architectural character of a given historic neighborhood that landmarking protects? The latter, I argue. Why would it be unusual for a neighborhood with a specific architectural style to attract homeowners who value that aspect of the neighborhood and are determined to see it protected? If that means prospective homeowners who value the neighborhood/homes for other reasons are deterred, why should pro-landmarkers care? They shouldn’t and generally don’t. Single family homes WITHOUT rental units currently make up the vast majority of homes in the area, so it’s laughable to suggest that renters make any real dent in the economics needed to preserve the historic character of Victorian Flatbush. By the way, do people realize how many of these “apartments” in Victorian homes are actually dangerous and illegal. Not all, but many, and unfortunately, people tend to only reflect on this fact when a house is lost to an electrical fire, or worse, when someone’s life is lost in such a tragedy. But that’s yet another topic.
If a neighborhood majority (and yes, that means just 51%) support landmarking, and LPC agrees to award landmark designation, the historic character of the neighborhood is protected. In BSW, where I believe J says he/she lives, more than 51% of homeowners have signed a petition IN FAVOR of landmarking. That’s all it takes to make an official application to the LPC. Now it’s up to the LPC. End of story.
-
Freddy says:
Couldn’t have said it better myself…
