The only reason it has not happened already is that it is not, nor will it ever be, legally possible. The floor plates are too large for residential conversion. So, put that worry to rest. By the way, 20 Jay Street can never be converted either for the same reason.

What is a landmark?
A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.
Landmarks are not always buildings. A landmark may be a bridge, a park, a water tower, a pier, a cemetery, a building lobby, a sidewalk clock, a fence, or even a tree. A property or object is eligible for landmark status when at least part of it is thirty years old or older.

Why is it important to designate and protect landmarks and historic districts?
As the Landmarks Law states, protection of these resources serves the following purposes:
1. Safeguarding the city’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage;
2. Helping to stabilize and improve property values in historic districts;
3. Encouraging civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past;
4. Protecting and enhancing the city’s attractions for tourists, thereby benefitting business and industry;
5. Strengthening the city’s economy; and
6. Promoting the use of landmarks for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the city.

What types of designations can the Commission make?
There are three types of landmarks: individual (exterior) landmarks, interior landmarks, and scenic landmarks. The Landmarks Preservation Commission may also designate areas of the city as historic districts.

4. An historic district is an area of the city designated by the Landmarks Commission that represents at least one period or style of architecture typical of one or more areas in the city’s history; as a result, the district has a distinct “sense of place.” Fort Greene, Greenwich Village, Mott Haven, and SoHo are examples of sections of the city that contain historic districts.
___________________________________________
The LPC does not designate empty lots – they are A)not over 30 years old & B) have nothing worthy of preserving.

You say you own a condo – is it in 70 Washington? So your view of the Brooklyn Bridge is over the empty lot at Front & York and over the former Nova Clutch site? So would you support landmarking if it ensured your personal view would be protected?

Lets look at another area – SoHo. Robert Moses wanted to plow over this horrible, run down industrial area that was rampant with crime and derelict, dangerous buildings. But grass roots community groups objected. It languished through much of the Eighties, many buildings were in disrepair – one might have argued that preservation ( it was landmarked in 1973) wasn’t working – but Holy Cow, look at it now!

I think landmarking has only one drawback – that you sometimes have to spend more money to repair the exterior of the building. But in my mind, that cost is well justified in exchange for the aesthetic beauty we can all enjoy and which remains for future generations.

I don’t know where I stand on landmarking. I’m concerned that landmarking has become more about blocking development, instead of historic preservation. Until the recent real estate boom, there were maybe a dozen homes in North Brooklyn Heights which had had no maintenance for years and were left in disrepair. There’s no requirement to preserve or maintain anything in an landmark district, only the ability to block changes.

I’m concerned that landmark districts tend to push out commerical business by increasing costs. Again, in the North Heights recently we had a long time children’s clothing shop forced to close so that the owner could convert the storefront to an apartment. The landmark premium is so enticing that owners of commercial space would rather sit on it empty for years holding out for that whale of a tenant who’d pay Manhattan style rents, than cut the rent (look at the number of vacant spaces on Henry Street between Clark and Cranberry).

Landmarking pushes out lower income tenants, either through increasing rents, or through rental-to-condo conversions.

Aside from being snarky, I’ve reviewed my comments (btw, that must have taken some effort DDF) and don’t see where I was misleading.

Landmarking preserves the architecture of a designated area by integrating the LPC into the DOB permitting process. It does not aim to preserve the specific cultural makeup of an area. It does not protect tenants (commercial or residential) from evictions for the process of conversions. It doesn’t even necessarily prevent development, it just requires LPC approval. The LPC’s sense of what’s historically relevant can be seen by walking around Brooklyn Heights and seeing the “new” (since the 60s) developments. The train comment may have been snarky, but what does it mean to “preserve” the look of the 1900s building fronts when they’ve all been converted from their industrial uses to more resident and staff friendly appearances. I’ve looked, I’ve asked, and no one seems to be able to define the quintessential DUMBO façade to be preserved.

I took another look at the proposed district map. Again, it does not encompass the Dock street development space, it does not enclose either of the two large open Watchtower properties, nor any of the smaller Watchtower properties. Please show me how landmarking will prevent or restrict development on these properties and I’ll withdraw that statement.

Landmarking isn’t a panacaea. As the district is currently proposed, it’s a massive gift to the largest property owners in DUMBO in the form of immediate increased property values.

If it were up to me, I’d restrict development from Dock St. to the Navy Yard, put in height restrictions so that no new development (including “cabanas”) can exceed the height of the bridge deck, and require a set aside of any residential space for affordable housing. And I’d freeze zoning where it is today, no conversions from commercial to residential.

But that’s just me.

But you’ve given me an idea. Other than comments here or posts on my blog, I hadn’t thought of taking an actual, meaningful public position against the landmark district, perhaps I should.

Landmarking won’t stop residential conversions.

At the same time, it seems that Walentas et al plan to do residential conversion on the buildings currently housing small non-retail businesses anyway, not sure landmarking will have much impact on this.

It will increase property values, it will increase the number of residents, it will increase the amount of square feet converted to residential space from commercial. And it won’t do anything to prevent development of the remaining open spaces in the neighborhood.

It’d be better to landmark individual buildings.