Update on 39 Grace Court: Landmarks Rejects Proposed Townhouse on Garden Site on Design Grounds

By on January 31, 2024 9:22 pm in 11201, Architecture, Brooklyn Heights, Development, Government, Real Estate

Brownstoner reports that, at the hearing yesterday, the members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission rejected the proposal to develop the existing garden lot at 39 Grace Court by building a single family townhouse there. Their rejection of the plan was based on the proposed design of the building, which one commissioner described as a “defensive crouch.” (See a rendering at the Brownstoner story linked above.) This leaves open the possibility that the commissioners may approve a building on the site that meeets their design qualifications.

According to Brownstoner, former Brooklyn Heights Association executive director Judy Stanton opposed any development on the site, characterizing the gardens along Grace Court as a “microclimate” that should be protected. Other local residents expressed some support for development, noting the need for more housing, although one said a single family townhouse would do little in that regard. The owners of the proposed townhouse also own the adjoining townhouse at 36 Remsen Street, which they are converting from ten residential units to four.

Share this Story:

, , ,

  • Andrew Porter

    Here’s a photo of those gardens, from Grace Court, taken on October 1st, 1886:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/80a484b48c94ae3ac8505403d7617b6446696b666c190f63f935551d4414f5ec.png

  • Andrew Porter

    And another view, taken in the snow, on January 1st, 1887, from Hicks Street:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/628689ba426ec01c3f605a9e109c7608c925bd12acb47c925f9066f0dd507620.png

  • B.

    “Other local residents expressed some support for development, noting the need for more housing, although one said a single family townhouse would do little in that regard. The owners of the proposed townhouse also own the adjoining townhouse at 36 Remsen Street, which they are converting from ten residential units to four.”

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    For heaven’s sake, hie thee out to the Brooklyn hinterlands, where there’s plenty of space for low-income housing, and build it there. If I can commute an hour and a half to get to my job(s) for over forty years, others can too. Bring a book.

    I hope that proposed excrescence in the garden gets shot down for good.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    Said the person who doesn’t own the land, have to maintain it or pay taxes on it.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    Apparently the LPC de-mothballed an architect to come up with this “The design struggles with its own scale” LOL what a load of pompous bullshit.

  • B.

    Shrug. The topic was building more housing, an aim badly served by reducing the number of apartments in that existing townhouse from ten to four.

    If what you say is true, and it certainly might be, then it’s better to say to all the neighbors, and to those who appreciate the landmark status of the Heights, “I want the money, I plan to build ugly, and who cares about aesthetics,” and let it go at that.” At least it’s honest.

  • Illegal immigrant

    If you don’t have the money to maintain the land or pay taxes on it, sell it to someone who can afford. Building a townhouse on it ain’t gonna solve the issue.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    That is ridiculous. there are many reasons someone might want to build on their land, not just to pay for it.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7nPOzGeyaw Arch Stanton

    The proposed building certainly isn’t ugly, looks very much like many other buildings in the neighborhood and would be right next to a large, mid century, apartment building.

  • Nomcebo Manzini

    Gotta weigh in on the “dialogue” here that seems straight out of a 1960’s dorm argument (do I date myself?) about Ayn Rand. OTOH, you have, “They own it – they can do whatever the heck they want – AND SHOULD!”

    And the opposing argument – without trying to make it more reasonable than it obviously is: “We all exist in a society or polity together. If what’s best for an individual is actually bad for his/her community, the idea needs to be re-thought.”

    We live in a society where it’s possible/legal to sell an EpiPen for $1000. That decision certainly enriches the company that makes it. Shouldn’t they take into account the fact that some number of people will die when the price hike makes it unaffordable? … If they respond, “That’s not my problem,” how do you feel?

  • B.

    The front of the proposed townhouse is merely acceptable, and the rear facade is ludicrous. The building will house one family, the other building will house six fewer families, and the vista of the combined gardens will be destroyed.

    We have historic districts for a good reason.