Civic Council Wants to Supersize Park Slope Historic District
On Thursday night, the Park Slope Civic Council set forth an ambitious plan to expand the Park Slope Historic District in three phases over the next several years; if completed, the effort would result in the largest landmarked area in the city, reported the Brooklyn Paper. Phase 1 would address the area bounded by Flatbush,…
On Thursday night, the Park Slope Civic Council set forth an ambitious plan to expand the Park Slope Historic District in three phases over the next several years; if completed, the effort would result in the largest landmarked area in the city, reported the Brooklyn Paper. Phase 1 would address the area bounded by Flatbush, Prospect Park West, 15th Street and 7th Avenue; Phase 2 would include the blocks between 5th and 7th Avenues between Union and 15th Streets; Phase 3 would encompass the strip between 4th and 5th Avenues all the way from Flatbush to 15th Street. In all, more than 5,000 new buildings would gain protection through the plan. “There is so much of Park Slope that is at risk and in danger of development,” said Peter Bray, chair of the Council’s Expansion Committee. We want to preserve everything that needs to be preserved. The Landmarks Preservation Commission will begin studying the request but in all likelihood will have its own opinions about whether the entire area gets designated. For a historic district, we look for a distinct sense of place, and a coherent streetscape, said LPC Spokesperson Lisi de Bourbon. (Click map to enlarge.)
Slope’s District Would Be Truly Historic Under Plan [Brooklyn Paper]
The claim that “Any push to designate between 4th Ave – 5th Ave or 6th to 4th above 9th st [as part of an expanded Park Slope Historic District] is clearly more about anti-development than about historic preservation†rings false.
Landmarking such areas will accomplish two things: First, it will be a means of preventing buildings that are already there – including the existing eyesores – from (a) being altered in ways or (b) replaced by structures that would be detrimental the appearance of the neighborhood. Second, it will encourage development that will enhance the streetscape of and, as a result, the desirability of living and taking advantage of business opportunities in Park Slope.
Sam, no that doesn’t shock me, I am quite aware of that practice, as it has affected my family in the past. Mrs. Ortner’s accomplishments are legend, and she and her husband are the patron saints of preservation, as you know. But I would have thought by at least the 90’s, the hue and cry for an expansion of the district would have been taken up by others. I’m not slighting anyone here, I’m just wondering about the process.
dear montrosse, Park Slope was designated back in the day when banks were red-linng every neighborhood within a one mile radius of an african american family. does that shock you? it should! you need to hear it from my friend everett ortner. the whole idea of the historic district was his wife’s idea. evelyn ortner was such a great lady. does anyone doubt that she did everything that she possibly could have done at the time? now she is gone but others must step up to the plate and forward the concept to fit our currrent reality.
Late to the party, so I’ll just add, I live in the yellow outlined district and don’t believe it should be landmarked. The red is just a joke — and I say that as someone who used to live quite happily between 4th and 5th Aves, no snobbery here. It just seems to me that landmark districts should be for unique, really historically significant areas, not just every block in the city with a pretty building on it.
Green area should definitely happen.
i just glanced over this posting:
did Landmarks release the report stating the historical significance of the different areas?
my thoughts are these:
1) I tend to agree that some of the yellow area might be pushing it as far as historical significance…but definitely park slope has a lot of beautiful old buildings worth preserving
2) to touch on a previous conversation with CMU (the building unit or the school?): it shouldn’t be really considered a way to ‘regulate aesthetics.’ landmarks is more concerned with historical appropriateness than aesthetic excellence….it DOES however, force clients/builders to adhere to an approved design,and not cheap out, which is a good thing (and one reason landmark projects can be among the more rewarding finished projects for small architects)…
Ok, Sam, peace. But the idea that we have priority at Landmarks does make me roll on the ground in hysterics. If that were so, we’d have the largest HD in the city, larger than the Village. We may be the poster child for some to use as examples of minority grass roots preservation, but that
and a token will get you on the subway. It doesn’t cut us any slack or preferential treatment at LPC.
Why wasn’t more of the Slope designated years ago? I’m not being snarky here. Was there no grass roots effort, no local political will, no community desire? Or did the LPC just keep back burnering you? I know that is part of a lawsuit, is it not?
Just to be clear, I support landmarking the area outlined in green in the map above. That is what makes sense. the other outlines are an over-reach in my opinion.
Montrosse, I am very surprised to read words such as “slum” in your posting. I would never use such language in connection with crown heights or any other historic brownstone neighborhood. in terms of property values, I know that the LPC often sites studies that property values increase more in historic districts than in adjacent non-designated districts. whether that’s true i don’t know. i know that landmarking has worked out very well in the south bronx in various charming little districts that were on the brink and are now solid.
The pity with CH is that it wasn’t designated fifty or more years ago when St. Marks Avenue was still lined with those great mansions. those were a big loss for your area.
but nonetheless I believe CH has prirority at landmarks, they don’t want to be accused of only designating lilly white neighborhoods like dumbo or tribeca etc etc. But what bothers me is that people think that the slope is protected while in reality, many of the choice blocks are not.
Sam, it does neither neighborhood any good to get into a pissing contest of who is more worthy. I fully agree that much more of the Slope needs to be landmarked, and should have been years ago. But we are equal in how many parts of our neighborhoods are currently protected – that’s one each. Our Phase 1 designation in 2007 is it.
We are also not the undesired slum you seem to think we are. Development is not an alien concept here. Landmarking has had minimal to no effect on housing prices here, either. The properties are put up for the same perceived values as anywhere else. 90% of the higher priced mansions and extra large townhouses are not landmarked. Only about a fifth of CHN is landmarked, not most of it, and not the prime blocks of Bergen,Prospect Pl, Park Place, or Sterling.
I absolutely agree, chb. But from the post a few days ago from an architect, it’s clear that maybe contextual zoning is not enough, at least in the way it’s implemented.
You almost have to have design guidelines, including a materiel palate, to stop the abuses that are around us. Landmarking is a blunt instrument which forces total conformity, and does do the job, but at a high price. HOwever, it seems to be the only tool that’s available.