Should Prospect Heights get Historic designation

dailyheights

danaeo sent this out via e-mail. It originated from Patti Veconi. The question came up whether PH actually wants landmark status. What are the pros and cons? Isn't this the kind of change that introduces a new and potentially annoying bureaucracy? Like, you have to go to city hall if you want to caulk your windows?

****PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS****

July 17, 2006

Dear Prospect Heights Neighbors,

The Municipal Art Society has begun work on a historic building survey of
Prospect Heights, which is the first step toward historic district
designation for the neighborhood. MAS has experience in this process and will offer training to community volunteers who would like to work on the effort.

As you may know, our neighboring communities of Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Park Slope, Lefferts Gardens and very soon, Crown Heights, all have landmark status. Following is a link to the Historic Districts Council website where you can find more information on landmarking: http://www.hdc.org/preservingmyths.htm.

I’m writing to ask if you are interested in volunteering to help with some of the survey ground work needed to complete the application paperwork. What this mostly involves is photographing the hundreds of properties in the potential historic district boundaries. Volunteers will attend one training session given by MAS and then complete assignments during hours convenient for them. For those who are really interested, further training on basic research techniques will be offered for the next steps of the landmarking process.

This phase of the process is very straightforward and will be completed as
soon as possible, hopefully by the end of September. Although I don’t want to downplay that there is work involved, please know that by volunteering you are making a short time commitment and your help will be greatly appreciated. MAS has reported to us that their previous volunteers very much enjoyed doing this type of survey work.

The first training session offered will be on August 2 at my home, 284 Park Place, from 6:00 to 8:00pm. I will be out of town until the 30th, but please email your RSVP to me so we have the appropriate amount of materials – and refreshments!

If you cannot attend this training session but are interested in the project, please let me know. We will be offering another one later in August and I will contact you about it.

Hope you are enjoying the summer and all my best,

Patti Veconi

armchair_warrior

the north part of ph dont need it. cause its very industrial and needs developement. there is way too many holes to fill there.

ben

I think it would be a good thing for Prospect Heights, it would help to preserve the character of the neighborhood and ensure that any new construction is in context to the existing buildings.

The main downside to a landmark designation is that you have to get approval which often entails doing work in a way that costs a bit more. For instance, if you want to replace your windows you have to get landmark approved windows which are more expensive than standard ones.

My initial thoughts are that the impact to property owners will be minimal since the majority of properites are renovated and in good shape. For this same reason the risk of something ugly being built next door is also less of a risk. This is in contrast to Crown Heights where there are many abandoned properties that are being snatched up and could be renovated in context or not.

This woman Patti should also check with the folks at Property Shark to see if they would be willing to donate the photos they have of the buildings in the neighborhood. I think they are trying to sell them now but they may be willing to give them away for free to a cause such as this. I believe they have photographed the majority of the buildings in the area.

sterlingguy

i agree with ben -- added costs & bureaucracy, but on balance it might be a positive thing that will preserve the buildings and context of ph.

what would this mean in terms of atlantic yards? or is that project too far along to be affected by the final outcome of this process?

armchair_warrior

problem with "persevering" is you dont want a stagnant place. a city changes and without change it will just be a bland place. everything shouldnt be persevered.

think about if nyc as a whole had land mark status. ny would probably be a city of a maybe few million or not even. it wouldnt it what it is now. nothing changes and nothing new every pops up.

sterlingguy

Armchair: I agree that blanket preservation would kill a city (even Jane Jacobs agrees that a neighborhood must have old and new buildings to promote diversity of income and uses). But when I look down Sterling Place and other residential streets nearer the museum and the park, I see a lot I would love to preserve from the addition of many taller buildings.

And how much of Manhattan is historically preserved? We are just talking about one neighborhood, not all of New York City. And although I think additional office space and rental apartments would benefit Brooklyn and the city (Jersey gets a lot of tax revenue from business that moved there after Sept. 11th, tax money that the city could use for our benefit), I wonder if having a skyline to rival Manhattan is the best option...

But my main question is still: what would getting historic district status affect the yards development? For example, would it help argue for a reduction the building size? Or are the two processes unrelated? Or is it just too late for historic status to affect the yards, making it all moot?

alex

hell no. brooklyn heights is a historic place. prospect heights is not. it's just another neighborhood.

danaeo

SterlingGuy wrote:
what would this mean in terms of atlantic yards? or is that project too far along to be affected by the final outcome of this process?

Unfortunately, landmarking would have no impact on the outcome of Atlantic Yards. The City has ceded its regulatory power on the project site to the the State's Empire State Development Corporation, which can override all City zoning codes and allow the developer to build whatever he wants. If the site followed city zoning code, it would not be permissible to build an arena in the proposed location (500 feet from residential buildings in an M1 zone).

Landmarks Commission will only approve a district if it has a significant number of buildings of a consistent character, so boundaries of districts are drawn to include only the blocks of a neighborhood that can meet Landmarks' criteria. This would exclude most of northern Prospect Heights. It might include St. Marks from Flatbush to Vanderbilt, which is made up of mostly well preserved brownstones, while excluding St. Marks between Vanderbilt and Washington, half of which is made up of emptylots.

The only instance I can think of in which historic designation might have effected new development is case of the fedders building on Park Place between Underhill and Vanderbilt.

sterlingguy

Thanks, that is exactly what I was wondering about. I would argue, maybe, that the brownstones on Sterling Place from Washington to Flatbush might also qualify since they are of a consistant character as well, but that is obviously for someone else to decide. I still say: go for it.

escap

bad idea

phmimi

Before you say bad idea - take of look at this link on brownstoner about a building that is being torn down to make way for a condo.

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/07/civil_war_era_g.html#comments

It is only a few blocks from Prospect Heights.

doublediamond

I'm all for historical status as long as there's a responsible and common-sensical committee who makes restoration decisions.

I've lived in an historical area, Hamilton Park in Jersey City, and the committee wouldn't let my next door neighbor replace an ugly chain link fence surrounding the front of his brownstone with an ironwork gate(which is like the rest of the houses on the street) because the chain link fence was historical.
The chain link fence surrounding the front of the property was from the late 1800's. So, the committee denied his request and stated that if he wanted to replace the fence, he needed to find someone who made chain link fences like the one already there. The cost ended up being prohibitive and it made no sense. Chain link fences don't fit with the also historical ironwork gates surrounding the rest of the brownstones on the street in the area.

And this is just one ridiculous story. So, if a historical committee can use common sense, I'm all for it.

escap

phmimi wrote: Before you say bad idea - take of look at this link on brownstoner about a building that is being torn down to make way for a condo.

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2006/07/civil_war_era_g.html#comments

It is only a few blocks from Prospect Heights.

Yeah, I grew up and still live about 2 blocks from that house. I've always hated it--talk about out of context!! It's yellow, which is bad enough, and it looks like something from the Civil War era, much as brownstoner observed, only I'd omit the word "gem". I won't shed a tear over its passing.

Edit--looks like I mispoke myself. This is not the house I was thinking it was, and anyway I was pretty much just trying to provoke people.

armchair_warrior

i said its a bad idea. we live in a over regulated life already. dont need no stinky commitee to tell me what i can and cant do with what ever i like.

also alot of the buildings people are trying to protect arent historical any more anyway in the area as a whole.

all the insides have been change over time. only the shell of brown stones are left these days. very few gems are around. those should be protected. but tons and tons of houses and homes shouldnt be.

so it should be done house by house, block by block. just just a whole sale area bam! that would be a shame and a crime against progress.