Landmarks Commission Says Hicks Street Townhouses Are A No-Go

By on September 27, 2014 1:50 pm in Brooklyn Heights, News, Real Estate

A proposal for three neighboring townhouses at 295-299 Hicks Street (between Joralemon and State) did not pass muster at Tuesday’s session of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Curbed NY’s Evan Bindelglass reported. The townhouses would each have had four bedrooms, four stories, and front and rear terraces.

The idea for townhouses on the long-vacant site didn’t seem a problem for the commissioners. A big problem was the massive proposed cornice, one that doesn’t show off the fact that there are three buildings, Bindelglass reported Tuesday. It was also suggested that two wider townhouses might work better than three narrow ones. The developer is free to redesign the project and try again at Landmarks.

Evan Bindelglass is a local freelance journalist and contributor to Curbed NY. He also contributes to Brooklyn Heights Blog. You can e-mail him, follow him on Twitter @evabin, or check out his personal blog.

Share this Story:

, ,

  • marshasrimler

    where was the bha on this..?

  • Heights Observer

    I don’t understand. The atrocity to be built on the long vacant lot on Cranberry is approved and this isn’t. And isn’t the owner/builder a former BHA president? Hmmm.

    According to NYCurbed.com “Judy Stanton of the Brooklyn Heights Association said the building would have a “significant impact” on the neighborhood and the design was “incomplete in scope” and ‘weak and ill-conceived.'” Perhaps because it is too close to where Judy lives.

    I remember when the plans for the old Ace Wire & Brush Co./Brooklyn Eagle building were proposed the BHA thought the rather traditional row house design was not “bold” enough for the northern entrance to the Heights. They wanted something with more of a wow factor. I guess Cranberry and the northern reaches oh Henry St. are far enough from Judy and the “Heights Proper” to worry the BHA and up in the North Heights anything goes and the rules can be bent.

  • marshasrimler

    Here it is again the BHA focusing on small matters (pro and con) while they support big things with much larger impact like housing on pier 6 and the library destruction plan. The BHA is outdated. They seem of be in the 70’s and 80’s not in our current world

  • Slobodan

    Totally agree, pierhouse has single handedly ruined one of the most cherished views in ny. The views of the bridges from the promenade is now forever lost

  • davoyager

    It wasn’t “long-vacant”. For years and years it was a perfectly good parking lot for the Catholic Charities. Why do we have to build on every square inch of land? What’s so wrong with a little light and air. We are even building in the Brooklyn Bridge pseudo park. The actual park portion is fine except for being basically too small and insufficient to the need in every facility. But the development of high end residential luxury housing is way out of scale for what would reasonably be needed to “sustain the park” Somebody’s making a ton of money on these projects.

  • http://www.cognation.net/ deancollins

    I dont see how these are too narrow
    but 154/54a/156 hicks st etc are fine?

    …..having said that I think the developer
    should build two brownstones and keep the “right of use’ curb cut…..a brownstone with a garage……lots of bucks.