NY Times Highlights Dumbo Neighborhood Association


“Tracks on Main St.” (Photo courtesy of swingfeline)

Jake Mooney, of the NY Times visits Dumbo to discuss the current state of the Dumbo Neighborhood Association’s (dumbo-dna.org) quest for a historic district designation in his article yesterday. In 1997, the DNA, with the Historic Districts Council, campaigned to have Dumbo listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The area’s industrial buildings were recognized by inclusion on the State and National Registers of Historic Places in September of 2000. But the DNA is moving on to push for a historic district designation by the New York City’s Landmark Preservation Commission:

Meanwhile, the Dumbo Neighborhood Association, a residents group, has spent years pursuing another goal, one that has proved much more elusive. It is seeking to have Dumbo designated a historic district, which would place restrictions on how buildings can be altered and preserve a measure of the ambience memorialized in the 1997 photographs. If the designation is made, all the buildings within the district will be protected as landmarks….On April 19, the staff of the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission met with local property owners to discuss the ramifications of a designation, and the agency has developed a preliminary map showing what the boundaries of the district might be. It would occupy a jagged plot of roughly 15 square blocks bisected by the Manhattan Bridge.

The article mentions that there are opponents of the designation which “could prevent others from investing in the neighborhood.”

“Dumbo west of Jay was successfully developed and invested in without being landmarked, while still preserving the overall historic nature,” said Peter Forman, who is a co-owner of two buildings on Jay Street that would probably be in the proposed district. “Dumbo east of Jay can achieve the same without diminishing owners’ property rights.”

Jake Mooney covered both sides of the historic district views, but left out an opposing view by Two Trees, the largest holder of real estate in Dumbo. Having Dumbo as a historic district sounds great, but is it about not having ugly modern buildings being erected? Or is it about having buildings in the neighborhood worthy of being landmarked – those that are architecturally significant – protected by the designation? I don’t pretend to know all the facts, but there are many forces working in Dumbo:

  1. DNA: According to the DNA’s website, they “work on issues of interest and concern to residents, artists and businesses with the goal of building and maintaining a better community for those who live and work in DUMBO. Some of the issues DNA is currently focused on include: the Loft Law, preservation of our historic buildings and the Belgian block in our streets, improved law enforcement and sanitation,Brooklyn Bridge Park, and education.”
  2. Two Trees: A property management company focused on real estate development, also a neighbor (The Walentas’ live in Dumbo) and interested in keeping artists and businesses in the area.
  3. Dumbo Improvement District: An “organization dedicated to the enhancement and promotion of one of New York City’s most historic, dynamic and compelling neighborhoods.”
  4. Residents: long time and new residents who love their community

To me, it seems that all 4 have a common goal of building and maintaining a community. Is there a middle ground between real estate developers and residents when it comes to historic district designation? Again, I’m just asking b/c I don’t have all the answers…

{Before the Cobblestones Vanish, a Push to Preserve, 03Jun2007, NY Times}

18 Comment

  • Do you have the rest of the document that map image came from? I’d like to know what the number over my building denotes.

  • Do you have the rest of the document that map image came from? I’d like to know what the number over my building denotes.

  • Adam,
    I don’t have the rest of the image. What number are you referring to? Maybe I can find out what it means.

  • Adam,
    I don’t have the rest of the image. What number are you referring to? Maybe I can find out what it means.

  • I think it’s #10. North side of Water St between Pearl and Jay.

  • I think it’s #10. North side of Water St between Pearl and Jay.

  • Pingback: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Dumbo Historic District to Be Calendared Today (DumboNYC.com)

  • Pingback: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » Dumbo Historic District to Be Calendared Today (DumboNYC.com)

  • What will it mean on a day to day basis to landmark buildings in DUMBO? I just moved from Brooklyn Heights, the effect there was that alterations to the front of buildings had to be reviewed and approved by LPC in addition to the DOB.

    Many of the fronts of buildings in DUMBO have been long altered from their industrial looks (see many trains entering 55 Washington?). So what is being preserved, what they look like now?

    The proposed district excludes many of the Watchtower properties (though not the triangle at York and Front). It may seem unnecessary but if the buildings are sold off by Watchtower they could be altered or demolished (within whatever their zoning is).

    Landmarking appears to be a cheap, easy way of limiting development, rather than changing the zoning. The costs of landmarking tend to appear over time (the LPC needs to review and signoff (in theory) on all alterations, especially exterior but in BH we were told our interior alterations would also have to be reviewed). The LPC does not get funded in proportion to the number of districts or properties in the districts.

    I think there’s a need for historic preservation, but my experience in the Heights has caused me to question whether landmark districts are the right approach (no, I don’t have an alternative to suggest).

    Do people support landmarking because they want to freeze DUMBO the way it appears today? Or because they want to prevent the neighborhood from changing?

  • What will it mean on a day to day basis to landmark buildings in DUMBO? I just moved from Brooklyn Heights, the effect there was that alterations to the front of buildings had to be reviewed and approved by LPC in addition to the DOB.

    Many of the fronts of buildings in DUMBO have been long altered from their industrial looks (see many trains entering 55 Washington?). So what is being preserved, what they look like now?

    The proposed district excludes many of the Watchtower properties (though not the triangle at York and Front). It may seem unnecessary but if the buildings are sold off by Watchtower they could be altered or demolished (within whatever their zoning is).

    Landmarking appears to be a cheap, easy way of limiting development, rather than changing the zoning. The costs of landmarking tend to appear over time (the LPC needs to review and signoff (in theory) on all alterations, especially exterior but in BH we were told our interior alterations would also have to be reviewed). The LPC does not get funded in proportion to the number of districts or properties in the districts.

    I think there’s a need for historic preservation, but my experience in the Heights has caused me to question whether landmark districts are the right approach (no, I don’t have an alternative to suggest).

    Do people support landmarking because they want to freeze DUMBO the way it appears today? Or because they want to prevent the neighborhood from changing?

  • I misread one of the maps as including the triangle at York and Front in the proposed district, it’s not included. Also not included is the Watchtower owned block bounded by Jay/Front/Bridge/York.

    The net effect may be both to save the existing buildings, but also cause buildings which are totally out of character with the neighborhood to be built on some of these rather large lots. By creating the district, these vacant lots will increase in value for development, whether by Watchtower or others.

  • I misread one of the maps as including the triangle at York and Front in the proposed district, it’s not included. Also not included is the Watchtower owned block bounded by Jay/Front/Bridge/York.

    The net effect may be both to save the existing buildings, but also cause buildings which are totally out of character with the neighborhood to be built on some of these rather large lots. By creating the district, these vacant lots will increase in value for development, whether by Watchtower or others.

  • The top graphic appears to be from http://dumbo-dna.org/current/january07/dumbo_HD_map.pdf, the bottom graphic appears to be the proposed LPC map http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/Proposed%20DUMBO_HD.pdf

    I also noticed that the LPC’s proposed map excludes the building which two trees has rented to Galapagos (it’s also excluded from the Fulton Ferry district).

  • The top graphic appears to be from http://dumbo-dna.org/current/january07/dumbo_HD_map.pdf, the bottom graphic appears to be the proposed LPC map http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/maps/Proposed%20DUMBO_HD.pdf

    I also noticed that the LPC’s proposed map excludes the building which two trees has rented to Galapagos (it’s also excluded from the Fulton Ferry district).

  • I think it's #10. North side of Water St between Pearl and Jay.

  • I think it's #10. North side of Water St between Pearl and Jay.

  • Pingback: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » NY Times on Dumbo’s Next Chapter (DumboNYC.com)

  • Pingback: Dumbo NYC, Brooklyn » Archive » NY Times on Dumbo’s Next Chapter (DumboNYC.com)