What Historic District Designation Might Not Allow - Part 1

Today we're featuring some photographs of alterations that might not be permitted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, if the properties had been within a historic district when the alterations were proposed to the LPC.

Note we say "might not be permitted". The cases below represent our opinions only, based on our understanding of what the LPC does and does not try to promote. We might be wrong here; we are not the LPC and we do not claim to represent them. The following cases are based only on our own casual understanding of how the LPC works. We invite interested readers to review the LPC's website for more authoritative information.

Note also that some of the cases below are inside the current Park Slope Historic District, which was designated in 1973. The LPC does not force any property owner to change any conditions that existed prior to designation; the LPC only reviews proposed work and changes undertaken after designation.

Here we focus on modifications to existing buildings. In subsequent posts we will review new construction that might possibly not pass muster with the LPC, and also highlight some recent changes that have been sanctioned by the LPC.

First up, Park Slope's famous "Pink House":

233 Garfield Place, Park Slope Historic District

We can actually see "Big Pink" at this very moment, because we happen to live across the street from it. And we have to say, during the fifteen years that we've been gazing at it, the Pink House has grown on us. Although already included in the Historic District, it's almost landmark-worthy on its own, due to its amazing hue. It is a kind of throwback to an earlier Slope; it is by far the most photographed house on the block; and it is enormously popular with children. We once witnessed a wedding party climb up to be photographed on its stoop. And we're very fond of its elderly owner, who cares for it meticulously. In any case, there are so many greater abominations underway in Brooklyn, it's hard to get exercised about pink paint...

All this said, the LPC would probably discourage such an unusual color choice, were someone to propose this within a historic district. We suspect the LPC would try to work with the property owner to discover a more historically compatible choice. And, although we may feel a tinge of regret when the Pink House is inevitably restored to its original brownstone glory, perhaps it's all for the best.

Next up, a house within the current Historic District that has done everything wrong:

190-188 8th Avenue, Park Slope Historic District

The two buildings shown above were once twins, but the one on the left was ruined by a long-ago "remuddling". The stoop was demolished, and the scars left when the stoop was torn away were covered by "Permastone" around the ground-floor entrance. One parlor window has been bricked up. The lovely original peaked roof, visible on the house on the right, was destroyed. This kind of desecration would most likely be disallowed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and rightly so, we feel.

Below, more "Permastone" on the center three buildings, which are part of a larger row in 10th Street:

10th Street above 7th Avenue, north side

These three buildings once matched their companions on either side. Note that the cornices have been removed, and the projecting window frames have been shaved off as well. The LPC would probably disallow these kinds of changes.

Below, another pair of buildings about which we have fulminated before, that once were twins:

9th Street between 4th & 5th Avenues, north side

Here, the lovely projecting window bays of the 8-family apartment house on the left have been shaved off. We suspect such changes would be disallowed by the LPC.

There are a great many "two-and-a-half" story houses in Park Slope, often in continuous rows of 10 or 15 houses, all alike. The houses often have a pitched roof and tiny windows in the front, but a full-height, flat-roofed 3rd story in the rear. Some long-ago owners thought it would be a good idea to remove the cornice and raise up the front of the 3rd floor, as in the cases below:

497 1st Street, Park Slope Historic District

362A 6th Avenue

Unfortunately such modifications break the lovely symmetry of these long rows of formerly identical houses. We suspect the LPC would disallow these kinds of changes.

In other cases, the owner decides to add an entire new floor or floors atop an existing building, as in the examples below:

393 6th Street

304 7th Avenue

7th Avenue & 14th Street, northeast corner

There are definitely ways to greatly expand an existing building in a way that satisfies the LPC, and we hope to showcase an example in a subsequent post. But we suspect the above examples, where the new construction is so highly visible from the street, might encounter difficulties during LPC review.

Occasionally an owner decides to expand the existing building both upward and toward the rear, as in the following example:

7th Avenue & 15th Street, southwest corner

Such an expansion creates an odd juxtaposition in which the new construction appears to envelop or swallow up the old. There is a famous case in Carroll Gardens which some have dubbed the "Tetris House". The LPC might not immediately approve such a proposed change.

We never cease to be amazed at the ingenious ways people find to mess up a perfectly lovely old house. All we can suggest is that the LPC really, really wants to hear from you before you make any changes to the exterior of your building. They will work with property owners to insure that proposed changes are compatible with the historic fabric of Park Slope. We will present examples of permitted modifications in subsequent posts.

1st Street Row: Split by the Historic District

On the north side of 1st Street just above 7th Avenue stands another continuous row of related buildings split by the current Park Slope Historic District boundary.

According to the district's Designation Report, the four houses from 465 to 469A 1st Street were built in 1884-5 in Neo-Grec style by Brooklyn owner-architects Martin and Lee:

Park Slope Historic District Designation Report, p. 100

465-469 are pictured below; 469A, just out of the frame to the right, is identical to 469. The builders seem to have been trying out different configurations in these houses: 469 & 469A are 2-story over basement; 467 is 3-story over basement, and 465 features a full-height, two-sided V-front. Detailing, however, is similar on all of the houses:

465-469 1st Street - Park Slope Historic District

It is likely that builders Martin & Lee erected the houses in small groups, as they did in their lots through the block on the south side of Garfield Place above 7th Avenue.

Six houses stand between 7th Avenue and the Historic District boundary on the north side of 1st Street. The Designation Report notes that these houses were "built at the same time". The statement is ambiguous: were they built at the same time as each other? Or at the same time as the adjacent houses inside the district?

455-463 1st Street - unprotected

A clue can be found in our comprehensive Documentary History of the Park Slope Historic District Expansion Study Area. An 1886 citation from the Brooklyn Eagle notes that builders Martin and Lee have recently completed three narrow (16') houses at the northeast corner of 7th Avenue and 1st Street:

Brooklyn Eagle, April 2, 1886, p. 1 ("City Growth")

Altogether, six identical narrow houses, all apparently by Martin and Lee, stand together between 7th Avenue and the current Historic District boundary, adjoining the four additional, stylistically similar houses by Martin and Lee within the current Historic District. The entire row was apparently built between 1884 and 1886.

463 1st Street - detail (unprotected)

469 1st Street - detail (Park Slope Historic District)

Why were the six houses nearest to 7th Avenue excluded? Let's do the math: six houses, at 16 feet each, equals a total of 96 feet, or very close to the 100' depth of a standard Brooklyn building lot. Could these houses have been excluded because it was assumed they would be replaced by modern towers along 7th Avenue? Is that the future we envision for our community?

But more importantly, should "development potential" be the basis for landmarking decisions? If the adjacent buildings inside the current district, stylistically identical, and erected by the same builders at the same time, are worthy of protection in a historic district, should not the rest of the row down to 7th Avenue also be protected?

Historic District Expansion Update

The effort to expand the Park Slope Historic District is featured in the current (Nov. 2009) issue of the Civic News, the monthly publication of the Park Slope Civic Council.

The article profiles the work of two interns who are currently conducting formal research into the proposed expansion area in the South Slope. One intern is researching building files in Brooklyn's Department of Buildings, while the other intern is conducting field survey work under the direction of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission. The interns' work is being funded by grants obtained by the Park Slope Civic Council.

The article may be accessed here (via "read pdf" link at bottom of page).

Garfield Place: Another Row Split by Historic District

Earlier we saw how the current Park Slope Historic District boundary divides rows of identical houses in Union Street and President Street between buildings within and outside the Historic District.

A similar case exists on the south side of Garfield Place, in the row beginning at the southeast corner of 7th Avenue:

204-220 Garfield Place - partially protected

Here, what appears to be a row of nine identical buildings is split between the four easterly houses, which are included in the Park Slope Historic District, and the five westerly houses, which are not.

The Park Slope Historic District's Designation Report includes a description of the first group, #214-220 Garfield Place, four neo-Grec houses built in 1884 by owner-builders Martin & Lee of 440 Clermont Avenue:

Park Slope Historic District Designation Report, p. 58

The same builders erected some of the houses in President Street just below 7th Avenue.

Citations from the American Architect and Building News confirm what the eye can plainly see, which is that Martin & Lee built the rest of the Garfield Place row to the 7th Avenue corner as well.

Interestingly, however, the buildings were apparently built in small groups of two or three at a time. #212 & 210 Garfield Place, immediately outside the current historic district (the boundary runs between #214 and 212 Garfield Place), were apparently built in 1884:

"Building Intelligence; Brooklyn," AABN vol. 16, no. 451 (Aug. 16, 1884): p. 83.

–"Garfield Pl., s s, 50' e Seventh Ave., 2 three-st’y brown-stone dwells., tin roofs; cost, each, $9,000; owners, architects and builders, Martin & Lee, 440 Clermont Ave."

#208-204 Garfield Place, however -- the three buildings on the corner of 7th Avenue -- were apparently built nearly two years later, in 1886:

"Building Intelligence; Houses; Brooklyn, N. Y.," AABN vol. 19, no. 540 (May 1, 1886): p. xv.

– "Seventh Ave., s e cor. Garfield Pl., 3 three-st’y brown-stone dwells., tin roofs; total cost, $30,000; owners, architects and builders, Martin & Lee, 440 Clermont Ave."

#204 Garfield Place, at the corner of 7th Avenue, was later retrofit for commercial space at the basement and parlor floors. That the commercial conversion was very early is reflected in the cast-iron pilasters framing the projecting window at the parlor level, which look nearly as old as the original cast iron on many 7th Avenue mixed-use buildings:

204 Garfield Place - parlor floor commercial conversion

Although all nine buildings in the entire row by Martin & Lee are otherwise identical, there is one extremely slight difference in the console brackets from 1884 and 1886:

214 Garfield Place - 1884 Console Bracket

208 Garfield Place - 1886 Console Bracket

So once again we have a case of an identical row by the same builder, split between houses inside and outside the historic district. Once again, five houses are excluded, each approximately 20' wide, for a total of 100', the depth of a standard building lot in Brooklyn. It is as if the 7th Avenue frontage were deliberately excluded from the original 1973 Park Slope Historic District, to allow large development parcels to be assembled and bulldozed for larger buildings. Is this another case in which politics impact landmarking decisions?

Finally, for the "completists" out there (you know who you are)... the current Park Slope Historic District Designation Report (p. 59) omits the builder for the 5-building group 230-238 Garfield Place, inside the current historic district. We have discovered that it is, again, Martin & Lee:

"Building Intelligence; Houses; Brooklyn, N. Y.," AABN vol. 32, no. 804 (May 23, 1891): p. xviii.

– "Garfield Pl., s s, 250' 4½" e Seventh Ave., 5 three-st’y brick dwells., tin roofs; cost, $11,000 each; owners, Martin & Lee, 440 Clermont Ave."

3rd Street - Back from the Brink

This week the Brooklyn Paper celebrates its 30th anniversary with short portraits of Brooklyn's neighborhoods describing how they've changed over the past 30 years. The Park Slope feature is accompanied by a photograph from the north side of 3rd Street between 4th & 5th Avenues, showing buildings in a frightful state of abandonment:

3rd Street between 4th & 5th Avenues (Brooklyn Paper photograph)

The article notes that the block, which looks out upon Washington Park and the Old Stone House, "is now one of the most delightful blocks in Park Slope." We certainly agree with that assessment.

The buildings that were in such terrible shape 30 years ago are four story "double flats", i.e. two apartments per floor, perhaps built to house the families of workers employed in the industries ranged along the nearby Gowanus Canal. The buildings are apparently part of a row constructed in 1893 by local builder Charles Hagedorn (whose last name sometimes appears in variants including Hagedon, Hagadon, and Hagadorn).

"Building Intelligence; Houses; Brooklyn, N.Y., AABN vol. 40, no. 905 (April 29, 1893): p. xvii.

- Third St., n s, 175' w Fifth Ave., 12 four st'y brick dwells., tin roofs; cost, $7,500 each; owner, Chas. Hagadorn, 227 Thirteenth St.

American Architect and Building News, April 29, 1893, p. xvii.

The 1897 Lain's Brooklyn Directory lists Charles Hagedorn, lawyer, in residence at 227 13th Street, the same address as in the above AABN listing:

HAGEDORN Chas. lawyer h 227 13th

According to Brooklyn Eagle accounts, Charles Hagedorn was a substantial property owner along the 5th Avenue corridor, and was also president of the Fifth Avenue Property Holders' Rapid Transit Association, which was "anxious to see rapid transit along Fifth Avenue":

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 21, 1888, p. 1 ("Fifth Avenue Property Holders")

The campaign was successful and service along the new 5th Avenue line of the Brooklyn Elevated Railroad commenced in 1889.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle in 1903 carried a photograph of one of the 3rd Street buildings when it was resold to a new investor. Note the awnings on the building to the left:

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 13, 1903, p. 11

The entire row comprises twelve identical double flats, all now restored to near original condition.

315-345 3rd Street - unprotected

341 3rd Street - unprotected

341 3rd Street - detail

341 3rd Street - detail

Perhaps even more remarkable than the individual buildings themselves is the fact that all twelve still survive. It remains to be seen whether the buildings will still be standing when our multi-phase, multi-year project to expand the Park Slope Historic District progresses this far downhill.

Shocker: Politics Impact Landmarking

Today's New York Times delivers the shocking news that the actions of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission are sometimes affected by political factors:

Last week the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 6 to 3 to give landmark protection to the 100-year-old B. F. Goodrich tire company building on Broadway just north of 57th Street, but not to a connected building around the corner designed by the same architect at the same time. Some commission members on both sides of that unusual divided vote cried foul, complaining that politics played an inappropriate role.

The building that was not designated was in the path of a proposed development by the Extell Development Corporation. Extell "had warned that a landmark designation for the smaller building would endanger the project".

Four City Council members "signaled that the council might overturn a commission decision to confer landmark designation on the second building because they did not want to jeopardize a hotel tower planned for the site at Broadway and 57th Street."

The article also notes that "in the 2009 election cycle, Extell made campagn contributions to three of the four councilmembers who questioned the designation of both buildings, as well as to other councilmembers."

The article concludes with the perspective of a professional preservationist:

Preservationists also said the commission should not have taken Extell’s concerns into account. “The landmarks commission is not supposed to be considering the development potential of the site,” said Andrew S. Dolkart, the director of Columbia University’s historic preservation program.

Of course the news that politics and development potential affect landmarking isn't that shocking to anyone familiar with the boundaries of the current Park Slope Historic District. In our previous post we cited identical examples here in Park Slope, where buildings are excluded from the historic district even though they are immediately adjacent to other buildings that were designed by the same architect and built at the same time. We suspect these buildings were excluded in 1973 precisely because of the "development potential of the site", i.e. their location within 100' of 7th Avenue.

We will review additional examples in subsequent posts.

Adjacent and Identical, but Some Historic, Some Not?

The present Park Slope Historic District, designated July 17, 1973, extends west of 7th Avenue only to the north of Union Street. South of Union, the district stops about 100' to the east of 7th Avenue, leaving nearly all of 7th Avenue unprotected by historic district designation.

In several blocks east of 7th Avenue, the arbitrary boundary of the current historic district bisects long rows of identical buildings, leaving some inside and some outside the historic district.

Consider the south side of Union Street and the north side of President Street, east of 7th Avenue.

In Union Street, a long row of 14 identical houses built in 1884-85 by William Flanagan extends east from 7th Avenue. The first five, #810-818, are outside the current historic district, while the next nine, #820-836, are inside the historic district. According to the Park Slope Historic District's Designation Report, Flanagan purchased a large parcel of property extending through the block from Union to President in early 1884 from the Methodist Episcopal Hospital. The land had earlier belonged to the Polhemus family.

810-818 Union Street, SE corner 7th Avenue - unprotected

Park Slope Historic District Desgination Report

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 1, 1885, p. 2 ("New Buildings")

"Building Intelligence; Brooklyn," AABN vol. 17, no. 486 (Apr. 18, 1885): p. 191.

– "Union St., s e cor. Seventh Ave., and President St., n e cor. Seventh Ave., 8 three-st’y brown-stone dwells., metal roofs; cost, each, $10,000; owner, architect and builder, Wm. Flanagan, 46 Berkeley Pl."

American Architect and Building News

In President Street, Flanagan built a similar row of 9 houses altogether. The first five, #823-831 President Street, are outside the current historic district, while the next four, #833-839 President Street, are inside the district.

823-827 President Street - unprotected

Park Slope Historic District Designation Report

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 1, 1885, p. 2 ("New Buildings")

The houses nearest to 7th Avenue were likely fitted very early on with commercial spaces at the basement and parlor levels. #810 Union Street has a particularly fine stained-glass bay window overlooking 7th Avenue at the parlor level:

810 Union Street - detail

Why does the current historic district cut rows of identical buildings in this way? We have no idea. But we note that in both streets, five 20' buildings were left out. 5 * 20' = 100', which is the depth of a standard Brooklyn building lot. It is almost as if the historic district boundary anticipates that buildings within 100' of 7th Avenue, lacking historic district protection, will someday be demolished, perhaps to make way for the kind of buildings recently being constructed along nearby 4th Avenue. Could this be the ultimate future of 7th Avenue?:

Argyle (brownstoner)

It seems to us that the 10 excluded buildings (5 each in Union and President) are just as historic and worthy of protection as their identical neighbors in long rows constructed at the same time by the same builder, and that they equally contribute to Park Slope's unique and historic "sense of place".