Planet Gone, Fate of House Unknown

Yesterday, the former voice behind PlanetPLG closed the deal on the sale of his Ocean Ave. house.  The new owner is a developer who never saw the house's interior.  According to the seller, the new owner expressed interest in renovating the house's interior, possibly renting the house and eventually moving his family in.

Others suspect that the new owner, having paid well over $1M for the house, intends to tear it down and build something new in its place.  Neighbors fear that because the single family homes on Ocean are not in a historic district nor landmarked that tearing down the Planet house could set a dangerous precedent.

Comments

[PLG rez]

Condos? If designed/built well it could be a nice addition to the neighborhood. If not designed/built well, it would spell disaster.

[Anon]

There is no way this broker plans on living in this property for a while after not having seen it! This is a total no-brainer.

The neighborhood response should be two-fold:

First we should do whatever possible to advise, pressure, and prevent the developer from erecting a tacky piece of crap. A condo building per se isn't bad. But if it's in the style of some of the shlock that's been put up all over Brooklyn (Fedders, etc.), we'll all suffer. Say NO to budget designs! NO to fake brick over cinderblock! Get a REAL architect with a true vision. Of course, some of you purists are going to have to realize that it may be better to use modern materials in a modern fashion. We may end up with something much nicer. Let's hope the Seller (owner of PLG) and the Broker (the big guy from Brown Harris Stevens) didn't sell the neighborhood down the river by accepting the highest sale price (and thus, the highest broker commission) from an unscrupulous developer with no investment in the neighborhood. This is an emimently important building for the PLG.

Second, we should work quickly to give historic designation to the Brownstones on that block.

Time to mobilize...

[Bob M]

IMO any new building on THIS site, whether it's a Fedders POS or a Richard Meiers glass box, would be harmful to the neighborhood. What happens when one of the wonderful limestones in this row, also built way under allowable FAR, comes up for sale? Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often, but there's the potential for disaster. Can you imagine a glass box plunked down in the middle of the row? An extension of the PLG Historic District, to include this row of Ocean, Parkside Ave., Chester Court, and so on, is long overdue. The only good that MIGHT come out of the destruction of the "Planet" house would be that it could serve as a wake-up call, but let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[leffres]

And I see the new planet blog is up and running.

[Ed]

Folks, you better pray for something like a glass box, because the architectural alternative is often pure crap.

Meanwhile, Bob, you cannot be of sound mind and equate a Fedders building with Richard Meier's On Prospect Park. The latter is unequivocally Brooklyn's best new residential construction in decades, and the Fedders buildings are quite the opposite.

Let's make a rule for this site -our "golden" readers are forbidden from posting their opinions regarding modern architecture. I've never met someone over 60 who doesn't loathe Meier's building, yet the younger generations seem to be quite fond of it. Isn't it a bit selfish to poo-poo modern architecture without paying some attention to the generations who are going to use it. Tastes change.

[Bob M]

Not unless it has a different URL from Dan's PPLG--the last item, as of 10:40 AM, is one Dan posted about the PD watch tower.

[leffres]

There is a redirect at the original Planet site that takes you here:

http://planetplg.blogspot.com/

maybe it isn't working on your computer.

[Bob M]

Thanks leffres--no redirect on my computer (I guess because Firefox blocks pop-ups) but the new URL works fine

[Bob M]

Ed,

Re: Richard Meiers glass boxes; I admit that they're better than Fedders crap. They're fairly ordinary glass boxes IMO, but with much better than average fittings. Meiers' buildings would have been quite original in the late '20s. although lots of Bauhaus architects did better. The problem with Meiers IMO, is that he's done more or less the same thing over and over again for many years. In other words, he's a hack, but a highly regarded successful hack. I certainly don't "loathe"his work (even though I am a bit over 60)--I just don't think there's very much there.

It doesn't really matter if anyone agrees with my opinion of Meiers and I doubt that we're likely to get one of his buildings on our side of the park in any case. What's important is the very real possibility that we could loose an extremely important row of houses, worthy of HD designation. Condos replacing Dan's house would not, I suppose, be quite as bad as condos in the middle of that row of limestones. Since this house is next to an apartment building and, possibly, slightly less significant than the limestones, it's destruction would be the "least
bad" disaster for that row, but a disaster nevertheless.

[Bob M]

BTW Ed, you know what you can do with your "rule" LOL

[babs]

Totally nasty and untowardly age-discrimanatory comment there Ed -- or is it your trollish alter-ego speaking? I know plenty of individuals "over 60" who thoroughly appreciate and understand good modern architecture, including many of the architects themselves. Just because something is now doesn't make it good.

Anyway, I must say I am in disagreement with Bob Marvin here for once -- construction of a beautiful new condo building would be a boon to this neighborhood, particularly if it consisted mostly of one and two bedroom apartments -- I know a great many young people who are extremely eager to buy in this neighborhood, but the extremely limited supply of co-op apartments in nice buildings limits them. Nice one bedroom units, priced at up to $450K each, would be a deal for this location and neighborhood, and I know they would sell like hotcakes, while still being relatively affordable.

The key is to prevent construction of a Fedders monstrosity -- but at this price, the buyer wouldn't make sufficient profit for one of these anyway -- but even larger projects must be supervised -- witness 46 Lefferts Place in Clinton Hill -- truly ugly cheap-o new construction -- who in this day and age builds a walk-up building and doesn't put laundry facilities in the basement (if not in every apartment)? No wonder they're not selling!

[Tg]

At least Planet PLG is a Blog now. Before it was all one sided. Also looks like someone sold out to a developer...
oh well ...

[Zimba]

I tried to post about this earlier, but with no luck.

I know this developer and it is a teardown. However, that is all I know for sure. I will see if I can find out more, though.

[Ed]

I should commend Bob on his preservation efforts. Just because I'm a pisser doesn't mean I don't admire his tireless efforts and never-ending contributions to this neighborhood.

Nevertheless, I believe modern architecture isn't understood properly by preservationists. They tend to devalue the aesthetic value of "contrast" as a valid, post-modern form of expression which mirrors the multicultural growth of our city. Also, it's no coincidence that young folks and the architectural elite view modern buildings differently.

[danielk]

I agree with babs, if a nice condo building went up in that spot it would be a benefit to the neighborhood. Higher density helps with services, and as much as I liked what Dan did with the PlanetPLG house I don't think we would be losing something of great historic value if the house were replaced with something new.

If we lost part of that beautiful row of limestones, this would be a different matter. Maybe the idea someone floated on brownstoner makes sense, if the limestones' owners could sell some of their unused FAR to the PlanetPLG house's owner it might make them feel better about joining the historic district.

[gw]

Having seen that gorgeous house, this news is PAINFUL!

[rutlander]

I really have no problem with this house being torn down. The problem, as others have said, is what comes next. But I question the assumption that a high-rent building here is going to have much impact on Flatbush. People who move into this future building will be a boon to the few places on Lincoln, but do you really see them walking all the around to Flatbush? They'll do what most of us do--hop on the subway or get in the car and go to the Slope.

[Charles]

The house is cute but not itself a masterpiece in need of preservation. Bob's note about the FAR on the limestones, however, is a serious issue. I'd hate to see all of Ocean become a high-rise condo village.

As for the Meier building on GAP, this under-60 says "meh." And I can't stand that there is a building that tall on that site.

[Ed]

Poor Rutlander. Poor, poor Rutlander. It's tough being inside your head, isn't it?

Meanwhile Charles, of course, there's room for more than one opinion. However, I have to say that of the numerous folks I've met who thought Meier's building would overpower Grand Army Plaza, most have have come to see that in reality it's not overpowering at all and is shaping up to be quite pleasant. The glass and white frame are much lighter and less oppressive than brick construction.

[Bob M]

Charles,

It IS tall--it looks just great from the long meadow in PP :-(

We wouldn't have to loose ALL the limestones. Just two (assuming that one lot is too narrow to interest a developer) replaced by a high rise (of ANY quality) would be an esthetic disaster IMO.

BTW, despite my opinion of Meier (which is sort of an"emperor has no cloths' thing) I do NOT dislike modern buildings. I just believe in preserving really worthy old ones and there are a number of rows of houses in PLG that are exceptionally fine AND not currently protected. The two most important IMO, (but NOT the only ones) are the limestones on Ocean, that we failed to get added to the proposed HD in the '70s, and the houses on Parkside west of Bedford that WERE in the original proposed HD, but were left out of the final version.

[Joe]

"Also, it's no coincidence that young folks and the architectural elite view modern buildings differently."

No, it isn't a coincidence. It's a direct consequence of the life experience and education that most of us benefit from over time.

[jd]

I love the Meier. I am all for change. I am all for new buildings. The problem of course is that you cannot control what gets built or where. What we really need is to have a developer raze the apartment buildings on Flatbush (of no architectural merit whatsoever) and build new condos there. Perhaps they can create a pedestrian path between Flatbush and Ocean while they're at it...

I agree with Rutlander that this building will not do all that much for the lack of amenities on Flatbush. I lived on the UWS when old buildings started being renovated and new buildings started being erected and all the residents ran out of their apartments and into cabs. It took about 10 years before there was any impact on the street. I imagine this will be the same (without cabs, of course.)

[babs]

Yeah, sure, raze the apartment buildings on Flatbush and build condos in their place -- right, and the people who live there now will automatically be given free condos? Thank goodness there are some protections for tenants in NYC law!

For every criminal, thug, etc., living and/or working in and around those buildings and those on Lincoln Rd. and the courts off to the side, there are hundreds of good, honest people who deserve their homes and who deplore the criminal element in their midst as much as (if not more so than) every priveleged type who has to walk through there back to the safety and security of their million dollar limestones in the Manor.

Tearing down these buildings isn't the answer -- it comes from a combination of landlords working to upgrade their buildings via enhanced security cameras and lighting, new residents moving in and bringing organic change, and making sure our local police officers are vigilant, pro-active, and not in league with this element. Change will happen -- young prople grow up, crime and vandalism become less exciting, and drugs less interesting (or, unfortunately, fatal).

In the meantime, hopefully the new people moving in will be the kind looking to support our community and all its honest, hard-working members and not some rich snobs seeking to drive away everyone who doesn't look or earn like them.

[jd]

I see that sarcasm doesn't work with some of you. My real point was that if people want real change on Flatbush Ave--new stores, less lotering, less drugs--the only way that is going to happen is the wholsale destruction of the buildings housing section 8 and other very poor families. There is a limit to how many new business will risk Flatbush as long as the population living on it remains the same. I was not actually suggesting that the buildings be torn down! If people want an integrated and diverse (economically, socially, racially) community, then they need to accept that Flatbush is not, cannot, have dramatic change. You can't pretend to want both.

[Ed]

Babs, the laws protecting tenants are only good when they involve reasonable tenants. Unfortunately, a number of tenants abuse these laws habitually such that, ironically, they are no longer a protective shield, but a sword. No better example exists than with abuses of "Rent Control" (NOT Rent Stabilization). Frankly, I think Rent Control should be ABOLISHED.