NEWS: If it was historic, it would have brown signs
From the Fort Greene Courier:
http://www.zwire.com/site/tab10.cfm?brd=2384&nr=1&nostat=1
One Home Equals 22 Condos – Restored Victorian Falls to Developers
By Helen Klein
Residents of Lefferts Place are fighting plans to raze this gracious Victorian home and replace it with a 22-unit condominium development.
An architectural Cinderella story is in jeopardy of losing its happily-ever-after ending.
An elegant 19th century mansion, which was restored from the depths of dilapidation some five years ago to the delight of nearby residents, has been sold to a developer who plans to demolish the gracious old structure and build a seven-story, 22-unit condominium development in its stead on the spacious, 65×120-foot lot.
Faced with the potential loss of a treasured structure, and with a possible change to the streetscape that could dramatically alter the area’s quality of life, residents of Lefferts Place, in Clinton Hill, have rallied to try and save the structure at 70 Lefferts Place, between Grand and Classon Avenues.
As well as being of aesthetic importance, the house may also be of historic importance, advocates note. It is rumored, they say, to have been home at one time to the controversial religious leader, Father Divine – another reason the house should be preserved, they say.
To save the home, area residents have begun a petition drive, and are reaching out to local elected officials for support. Short term, they are hoping to get a demolition hold placed on the building by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), which they are hoping will seriously consider granting the endangered structure landmark status.
A Tremendous Shock
David Conrad, secretary of the Lefferts Place Civic Association, lives across the street from the house. He recalled that the house’s tenants, as well as area residents, had been told that the house was going to be converted to a bed and breakfast after it was sold, last year, to developer Christopher Morris, for the whopping sum of $2.4 million. It was a terrific shock, he said, when they discovered that Morris’s company, 689 St. Mark’s Avenue Inc., planned to raze the structure and “put up a big block.”
Conrad, who has lived in the neighborhood for approximately nine years, said that, since he moved in, the area has changed dramatically. “The prices of houses have just been skyrocketing,” he noted, and there has been some condo development, though it has not been as egregious as some.
As far as the design proposed by Morris is concerned, said Conrad, “It looked like there was an effort being made to use design elements that are in the neighborhood.”
But, that hardly softens the potential blow. “He’s going for the largest building he can for the zoning, and it’s going to be a big wall.” The house itself, added Conrad, is, “Irreplaceable. It almost doesn’t matter what he builds,” he added sadly.
Beyond the value of the house itself, said Conrad, there is the fluid situation on the block. He said that rumor has it that another house, 96 Lefferts Place, has also been bought for development. A third site, now an empty lot, is being eyed by a developer of assisted living. While their efforts to claim the lot are currently in litigation, the “fallback on that,” said Conrad, “is that HUD would be doing something there.
“We don’t want to lose this house, first and foremost,” Conrad stressed, “but, it’s also a sort of domino effect. If that goes, there’s less and less for Landmarks to be interested in, on the block.”
Diminishes Chances
Simeon Bankoff, the executive director of the Historic Districts Council, concurred. While, he said, the neighborhood is on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, the possibility that it could be granted city landmark status is diminished by every major alteration.
“With every insertion of an inappropriate building within the neighborhood, it reduces the chance that the neighborhood might become a New York City historic district under landmark laws,” Bankoff explained. “You start to lose the integrity of the neighborhood and the distinct sense of place. So, not only is he destroying a historic house, but he might be damaging a historic neighborhood.”
Bankoff also criticized the plans he had seen for the new structure proposed by Morris as being “very unneighborly. It’s going to be presenting a blank wall of 75 feet to neighbors. It’s not going to fit in with the neighborhood. It’s just going to be more of this over-scale building that’s going on all over Brooklyn and really doing damage to our historic blocks.”
Bankoff stressed that the residents of Lefferts Place are not, “opposed to development,” per se. “Their real concern,” he emphasized, “is the loss of a historic building and the construction of a building very inappropriate to a historic neighborhood.”
Developer’s Perspective
Morris, the developer, does not see it that way. He contends that the old house “is not a historic building,” and that the neighborhood in which it is situated is, “Not a historic area. If it was, there would be brown signs, not green signs.”
The developer also expressed shock over the opposition to his plan. “I don’t know why,” he told this newspaper. “That’s the trend of the day, right now.” Morris, who said he had attended both a community board meeting and a block association meeting with his architects in tow, said he had not gotten negative feedback when he had displayed his plans.
“I’m bringing something into the area that’s going to uplift the area,” Morris asserted. “It’s not going to bring the area down.” In addition, the exterior would blend with the area, Morris contended. “We are going to try to keep the historic look on the front so it can blend in. That’s the intention,” Morris said.
The house, he added, is not in good condition on the interior. It would, he said, need about “$2 million worth of work on the inside.” If residents want to preserve the structure, he added, “All they have to do is buy the building for $4.5 million, and they can preserve it all day long. People can speak about these things because their money is not out there.”
Morris also contended that, in building the condo development, he would be aiding young professionals who want to live in the area, who, he said, “Can’t afford the high prices of the brownstones.” An average apartment in the development, he said, would sell for around $550,000, based on calculations of $500 per square foot. “I’m providing housing for middle income people,” he added, “so, what’s the conflict?”
Word from Landmarks
Despite Morris’ protestations that 70 Lefferts Place is not a historic building, LPC is looking at the structure, according to spokesperson Elisabeth de Bourbon, who noted, ”We are aware of 70 Lefferts Place and are considering as a candidate for potential designation. The commissioners haven’t scheduled a time to vote on whether to schedule a hearing on the building.”
Time is of the essence, say the home’s supporters. Given the fact that no permits have yet been pulled to demolish the old structure or build a new one, “This is a real opportunity to save the building before it is too late,” Bankoff emphasized.
“All too often,” he went on, “people hear when the plans have been filed and the permits pulled. At the moment, there’s still the opportunity to come in and preserve the building.”
This does not mean that the developer would lose out on his investment, Bankoff added. “I believe the developer can use the building as a multiple dwelling,” he explained. “He might be able
to build behind the building because of the size of the lot. It could be a winning situation for everyone, for the neighborhood and the developer.”
This is what the area’s City Councilmember, Letitia James, said she would like to see. “We need to preserve that building and do an adaptive reuse of the building,” she contended, “and provide for the needs of the community.”
The projected cost of the apartments, James added, would hardly qualify as affordable housing or serve her constituents whose average income, she said, was $36,000 per year. “Very few of the constituents I represent can afford $550,000 a year,” James stressed. “This is another step in the Manhattanization of Brooklyn.”