[Photo courtesy of Save the Slope]
From what does Park Slope need to be saved, on might ask, other than the little ones running amok and moms wielding strollers like weapons? From destruction, of course. This is actually a serious post about the critical subject of extending the Park Slope Landmark District, which currently covers a lot less of the neighborhood than one might think. The original boundaries weree drawn quite bizarrely even by Brooklyn standards. The Park Slope Civic Council has been working on the issue for a long time (a request for evaluation went the Landmarks Commission in 2000) and here’s the email they sent:
We’re kicking off a campaign to expand the Park Slope Historic District! Help us research the history of Park Slope’s unprotected blocks. Research will be submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission in support of our request to expand the Park Slope Historic District (our Request for Evaluation was submitted in 2000 so we have been waiting a long time; the LPC wants to be coaxed!). Regards, PSCC HD Expansion Committee.
They’ve created a nice blog called Save the Slope that is worth checking out so people can see the kind of incredible buildings that have no landmark protection and that could be demolished (unlikely in most cases given the value of the buildings) or radically altered in a way that changes their fundamental character (more likely).
9 responses so far ↓
1 Josh // Jan 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm
How many copies of a brownstone do we need in Park Slope? Extending the Park Slope historic district is great for current property owners, since it will basically cap the supply of housing in the area, but, as a renter, I think we need to have more flexibility to increase the supply of housing in the neighborhood.
I’m not against preserving historically or architecturally important buildings, but I feel they should be preserved on a building by building basis instead of a wide ranging historic district.
2 ff // Jan 26, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Josh, the supply of housing in Park Slope is indeed being increased… just look at 4th Avenue.
And, rents and real estate prices are tumbling in any case, due to larger economic factors, as documented on all the blogs.
It’s a great time to be in the housing market! Stop whining, and start shopping for that new home!!!
3 JP // Jan 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I know it’s not a popular opinion, but Josh has an excellent point. Housing prices are affected by supply. Historic designations eliminate the possibility for a neighborhood to increase density and therefore the supply of housing in an area. Historic designations are beginning to be the biggest weapon in the NIMBY aresenal.
4 tom murphy // Jan 26, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Josh, as a wise economist once said (I paraphrase):
NYC has no shortage of affordable housing, only affordable neighborhoods.
5 Neil // Jan 27, 2009 at 8:29 am
I agree with Josh. I definitely value the beautiful brownstone lined streets of Park Slope. However, we don’t live in a museum. Part of the beauty in a neighborhood lies in how it grows and what gets built into it.
While this does open the door for ugly developments, it also opens the door for skilled architects to help transition the neighborhood form one of only brownstones to one where there can be many different variations on a brownstone (given the lot sizes you’re not getting too many other types of buildings in there).
The past and present must come together at some point. When you look at the beauty of some European cities it comes from all of the old architecture and kitchieness (Is that a word?) melding with the new and making itself into one. You have to remember, in the grand scheme of things these Brownstones aren’t that old.
6 Erik // Jan 27, 2009 at 9:07 am
What makes something “Historic”? Is it simply age? From that perspective, all you have to do is exist long enough and then your importance to the community suddenly becomes elevated.
Although it will displease the property owners who stand to benefit from that sort of stance, isn’t it more appropriate to look at it as “properties of historical significance”? Did an important event occur there (like Ben’s Chili Bowl in DC)? Were great figures of history, literature or science (etc.) residents there? If you could make that argument, no one could refute that something has become “historic”.
From this perspective, I have to agree with Josh that expanding the Historic District doesn’t make sense to me. Too many properties that have minimal historical significance will be swept up in the net of this expansion and this waters down the value of such a designation.
7 Robert // Jan 27, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think the supply and demand issue is certainly a valid one if you must live in Park Slope, though there seems to be more than enough housing stock coming on-line in the next six months. That, along with the generally declining economic climate, should create downward pressure on the PS rental market. Also this same decling economic climate will make other nabs (which are perhaps more desireable) more afforable and will most likely further deeping the decline in the cost of rentals. On a totally separate issue, as the owner of a landmarked brownstone I can attest it is a real pain to do even the most straightforward repairs.
8 David Nimby // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:46 pm
eric, josh, jp and neil. if you could afford a landmarked brownstone in park slope i’m betting you’d buy one…
9 Eric // Feb 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I’m pretty sure that the “supply” of housing is controlled by zoning, and since Park Slope was just rezoned a few years ago, extension of the historic district would have no effect on supply.
What makes Park Slope special and worthy of historic designation is the fact that it collectively represents a tremendous example of turn-of-the-century townhouse/brownstone architecture. A building-by-building designation would take far more work, and since the LPC already moves at a snail’s pace, it’s just not doable.
As far as “skilled architects” creating attractive new buildings, I’ll give a prize to the first person to find me anything other than butt-ugliness along 4th Avenue, the only part of the neighborhood that was up-zoned. Not to mention the fact that none of the new 4th Avenue buildings contain any affordable housing, despite the existence of a $6 million inclusionary-zoning fund to accommodate just that.