PLG Build Appropriates Historic District Name
Yesterday Prospect-Lefferts Gardens neighborhood leader Bob Marvin sent in the photo above, which shows that the development at 185 Ocean Avenue—plans for which, a few years ago, served as a major catalyst for the campaign to landmark neighboring townhouses—has taken on the name of the historic district that was subsequently designated in 2009, Ocean on…
Yesterday Prospect-Lefferts Gardens neighborhood leader Bob Marvin sent in the photo above, which shows that the development at 185 Ocean Avenue—plans for which, a few years ago, served as a major catalyst for the campaign to landmark neighboring townhouses—has taken on the name of the historic district that was subsequently designated in 2009, Ocean on the Park. The construction of the building involved razing one of the row’s townhouses. Meanwhile, reader Brooklynista, a resident of the historic district, also wrote in to say the following, in part: “By taking the name of ‘Ocean on the Park’, the developer has sent a major F U message to the HD…From now on, whenever people hear of ‘Ocean on the Park,’ there will forever be the possible association with this 2011 condo disaster instead of the landmarked turn of the century enclave…I tell you, as much as this makes my blood boil, I gotta give it to ’em: it’s an outrageously clever marketing strategy!” Meanwhile, the website advertised on the banner is not actually in operation.
Development Watch: 185 Ocean Avenue [Brownstoner] GMAP
Checking in on 185 Ocean Ave. [Brownstoner]
Ocean Avenue Hangover Continues to Rise [Brownstoner]
Development Watch: 185 Ocean Encroaching [Brownstoner]
185 Ocean Avenue Starts Back Up [Brownstoner]
185 Ocean Avenue Still Sucking Wind [Brownstoner] GMAP
Karma Is a Bitch: 185 Ocean Developer Sucking Wind [Brownstoner]
PLG House Razed, 8-Story Building Planned [Brownstoner]
Ocean’s 13: Landmarking Against a Ticking Time Bomb [Brownstoner]
PLG Shocker! 185 Ocean Closes 33% Above Ask [Brownstoner]
I’m kinda liking this building so far. I think it will be good for the neighborhood. It’s good the historic district is in place, but there’s no use lamenting the crappy building that was torn down. It was a mess. Now if a developer would just spruce up that Lincoln Road development site w/ a nice new, high quality condo, we’ll be set. Fingers crossed.
Eclecticism is not inherently bad. To hate eclecticism is totally about personal taste. This building sticks out way too far and that’s always way more jarring to me than its height or style. It’s obnoxious. I’d personally rather see buildings allowed to be built higher so that they don’t build right up to the sidewalk like that.
Kensingtonka, I’m not arguing that most people aren’t trying to live the best they can. (That’s certainly the case for me and my family!) I’m also not arguing that the developer didn’t have a profit motive in erecting a building full of tiny apartments on a sliver of park-bordering land. All I’m saying is that I doubt these apartments will be “family size”, by most folk’s standards and that, they are unlikely to be deemed “affordable” by same.
JoeBushwick, posts like yours only remind me how happy I am that there is an Ocean on the Park Historic District! That’s a preservation accomplishment which would probably have never come about had #185 Ocean not been sold to someone who thinks like you. Precisely because most of Ocean Avenue in this area is already populated with 6 story apartment buildings, the matter of preserving a tiny enclave of 13 turn-of-the century small houses (10 of them being Axel Hedman limestones) became all the more important, especially in the hearts and minds of the people who were already living in these homes and well- invested in this neighborhood. Although we lost the battle with respect to saving the original house that was #185, at least we won the war. As such, we have successfully defended against any future efforts to erase an important piece of architectural history on this side of the Park. Woo hoo!
Don’t get me wrong, as a preservationist, I am not flat out against all new development. Nor do I believe that every old building, no matter what, needs to be preserved. But, I will always advocate for urban real estate developers to focus their bid for new housing starts (a) on currently vacant urban lots; (b) by razing already-existing buildings not worthy of preservation or (c) by rehabbing already-existing stock.
The lack of affordable middle class housing is a direct result of lack of land to build. PLG would be an excellent place for new medium-density mid-rise building – good transportation, decent shopping, plenty of green space. There are dozens of nice pre-war 6 story buildings in the area and development at this scale is appropriate in an urban area. Before locking in anymore areas into low-density two family zones, the City needs to start identifing areas that could be up-zoned to effectively create more land for development. This will induce the private sector to build and meet the demand for housing at a variety of price points.
Brooklynista, I can assure you that 100% of the people trying to earn a living are doing it so that they and their family could live as royally as they possibly can, whether in a single family house or a high density apartment building. The developers are no exception.
The developer wouldn’t build those tiny apartments if there wasn’t a market for them. At least that’s their bet.
Tybur6, you know I never agreed with you that the name of “Ocean on the Park” is a dumb one. However, given the developer’s recent in-your-face act of hijacking and identity theft, I’ll now have to agree with you that it’s a name that has become too damn clever for its own good. 🙂
What would you have, BoerumHillScott? Is your idea of the perfect world one in which everyone who is now living in a currently existing 1-3 family building, vacate it so it can be destroyed to make way for high density apartment towers?
BTW, I absolutely “DON’T pretend that landmarking and zoning downgrades limit future supply.” Neither should you.
So you can house the same number of people in the old house as the new building will hold?
I understand loving old buildings and wanting to protect them, but don’t pretend that landmarking and zoning downgrades limit future supply.
I said it long ago… but “Ocean on the Park” is a seriously dumb name anyhow. Too clever for its own good.