Prospect Heights Vulnerable to Developers?
The post we did earlier today about the Park Place teardown got us thinking about how vulnerable this area of Prospect Heights is. It has some incredibly beautiful blocks of townhouses that have two attributes that could make them targets: They tend to be a little smaller than the brownstones of Park Slope and Fort…
The post we did earlier today about the Park Place teardown got us thinking about how vulnerable this area of Prospect Heights is. It has some incredibly beautiful blocks of townhouses that have two attributes that could make them targets: They tend to be a little smaller than the brownstones of Park Slope and Fort Greene and they tend to be on extra-deep (usually 130-foot) lots. And, or course, they’re not landmarked. The result is that many of these old buildings have unutilized FAR and no landmark restrictions to hinder a small developer who wants to squeeze out every last drop without concern for the aesthtic impact on the community. 273 Prospect Place is a case in point. It’s 16.5 feet by 40 feet but sits on a 131-foot-deep lot, so there’s 1,390 square feet of extra FAR kicking around. The deal just got a little more interesting, too, with a price cut from $1,650,000 to $1,575,000. Still a little pricey for the house that it is in this market but we fear that a developer could find a way to make the numbers work.
273 Prospect Place [Douglas Elliman] GMAP P*Shark
Why do you think there isn’t there a call to landmark sections of Prospect Heights? Several blocks of Crown Heights are already in the process of being landmarked. Since they’re right next door, why not bring the landmarks commission over for a walk through this neighborhood?
Will someone explain to me why a ‘developer’ will be interested in a significantly overpriced, narrow lot without the best frontage in a falling market??
I still don’t understand why people that are so pro development, pro modern building, would frequent a blog who’s mission statement is: An unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define.
Not sure how some of you are equating pointing out the potential for encroachment by developers with our advocating the maximization of FAR in these nabes. We’re just sounding the alarm, you dopes. We can be accused of a lot of things, but questioning our pro-preservation credentials just seems silly. As for HOTD, anyone is welcome to shoot us an email with a suggestion and their thoughts on why the house would be an interesting pick. We just try to find things that are noteworthy, whether they are underpriced, overpriced, particularly beautiful or ugly. There’s no agenda driving the picks, we can assure you.
Brownstoner should stick his FAR up his (f)ARSE! Zoning is meant to limit destruction to the context of the neighborhood. Not a blueprint for squeezing pathetic dollars from every stinkin’ lot. Without literal landmarking much is at risk. You need to decide which side of the fence you are on.
I’m starting agree with anon 12:44..there’s a conflict of interest with respect to brownstoners house pics as well as other aspects of this blog. i think the house pics should be left to a lottery of sort, or to the readers ourselves.
Great, thanks for pointing this out to the developers. I am starting to get a little bit suspicious about your financial interest in these “new developments”.
The house across the street is in contract. These two houses seem like a good indicator of where the market is right now –the great stuff sells right away, like the Corcoran house and the Warren Lewis listing on Berkeley that was a HOTD last week. The ok stuff like this place sits and has to cut prices. What have you guys been calling it –a “flight to quality”?
Yes, the Municipal Arts Society is supporting a local effort to landmark a substantial portion of Prospect Heights.
JOSH K: First of all, it’s slightly absurd to call the “vast majority” of houses in Prospect Heights “pretty ugly.” It’s full of stunning brownstones, dating from the 1860s through the 1910s and representing every style from Italianate to Renaissance Revival to Colonial Revival. While I’m a big fan of innovative modern architecture, in truth most of the new construction in the neighborhood leaves much to be desired on an aesthetic level. The knee-jerk pro-development sentiments on this site sometimes leave me breathless!
i agree with sylvia, “charming old townhouses with loads of period details on quiet tree-lined streets.” does anyone know if there are any efforts to landmark the area?