Sunday, August 26, 2007

Sunnyside gets a facelift

The City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission unanimously approved last week the first two exterior renovation projects in the newly minted historic district: the renovation of an existing enclosed porch in Washington Court and the redesign of a rear dormer in Hamilton Court.

First Facelift Approved For Sunnyside Gardens

For years, property owners in Sunnyside Gardens have had to go to the Landmarks Preservation Commission and the City Planning Commission for approval of property modifications. Under the proposed amendment, owners would simply have to apply directly to the LPC, which would handle the rigorous review process and issue approvals or denials.

Photos from Queens Tribune


Anonymous said...

It seems there's a mistake in the original Tribune article. reported that "for years"
the Sunnyside Gardens residents had to go to the LPC for their approvals.

How could this be when it was only just recently
that this area has been granted landmark status
by the commission?

Another "little" error from another little weekly paper.

Anonymous said...

I was baffled by this error too.

Anonymous said...

Why the hell can't these papers get it right when reporting on something as simple as facts on landmarking? They write so much misinformation you want to almost think its intentional. At this point, if they can't do a story unless its mangled, they should just leave well enough alone and say nothing.

Forget about discussion on preservation. That is far beyond anything they can do.

But get the facts straight, or hire reporters that can do a story. You might have to pay more than $18,000 a year.

A hint: make it easy on your selves. Let you mind go numb and pretend you are writing about a machine politician.

Anonymous said...

Fire that inept reporter!

Anonymous said...

There's nothing in this redesign that conflicts with the SPCD designation.

This obvious opportunist could have done the exact same thing a year ago and not made any headlines for herself then.

The SPCD designation did not stop or hinder anyone from renovating existing structures.

What's so historic about renovating what in most cases in the neighborhood is an illegal addition in the first place.

If you were to tell me people were tearing these things down to conform with how their homes were historically designed, now that would be a story.

Anonymous said...

Oh and also, they're letting her keep it white, despite the fact it's a neighborhood of red brick buildings.

Its great to see the LPC is on top of this.

Anonymous said...

The truth is that SSG, without the mature Sycamore trees, looks much like a grim English workers town!
(Look at some early photos when it was first built).

Anonymous said...

SSG was landmarked to pacify middle class residents in Queens, to make them think the city has their interests at heart, and not just rich people's, which is a lot of bunk.

Of course I'm still in favor of the landmarking which will stop any oversized crappy building from being put up in the area. Then too there's the Bix Beiderbecke factor.

Anonymous said...

Pardon my ignorance.....but would you elaborate on the "Bix Beirerbecke factor".

Anonymous said...

he was a musician who died alone, probably from alcohol poisoning. He lived in SSG... he might have been a little famous.

One more thing to the Bix fan... no oversized crappy buildings were built or ever will be built in SSG, not because of the LPC or landmarking, but because the zoning restrictions which existed and still exist over the area make it next to impossible for it to ever happen.

The LPC is only going to make people's lives a lot more difficult in SSG, and their decisions will be very much arbitrary and capricious in nature for this district.

If you have any doubts, just remember that the LPC's first approval in SSG allowed this addition not only to remain, but REMAIN WHITE!

How popular were white, sliding glass doors in the 1946?


Anonymous said...

I'm fully aware who Bix was..... you pompous ass!
I was merely inquiring , in a round about fashion,
if he had lived in SSG .

Anonymous said...

P.S. and I'm in full agreement with you
as I think that those sliding glass doors are a tony house & garden mag cliche!

Anonymous said...

"crappy buildings were built or ever will be built in SSG, not because of the LPC or landmarking, but because of the pre-existing zoning restrictions..."

So the LPC has in essence restricted development on land that's already restricted. What a bunch of numskulls.

PS Check out some Bix licks when you get a chance and you may likely become a fan too. WKCR plays a 24 hour marathon of his music on March 10th each year.

Anonymous said...

Bix or "nix" fan of quality conrtol.
Do you work for Susan Micklejohn
and her small group of naysayers....perhaps?

Lord of the "A"- hole bully pulpit !

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is excluding the Phipps buildings (which weren't going anywhere anyway), the LPC designated and already heavily regulated neighborhood.

And say what you want about Susan, the women's credentials speak for themselves. Whether the whole process was/is discriminatory or not, never mattered to me.

What does matter is the inconsistent standards the LPC is going to apply to this area which is evident from their first approved refacing project.

Anonymous said...

Susan has no real credentials outside of her own
Hunter College bubble!

If you her curriculum vitae !

Anonymous said...

Keep on beating your same tired old
anti-landmarking drum.

If you don't like it MOVE !

It's over !

Anonymous said...

LPC designations can be and have been reversed. It will just take a few years and more of these great refacing projects to be approved by the LPC for people to realize landmarking was a waste of time and LPC will approve anything, regardless of how appropriate it is as long as it doesn�t interfere with the overall zoning restrictions.

No one has defended LPC on this decision, anyone what to take a stab at it?

Anonymous said...

for such a tiny group of naysayers ,
you're certainly trying very hard to convince
everyone that you represent
the majority opinion around here......
somewhat like a Puffer Fish
blowing itself up to twice its size
in a feeble attempt to look impressive.

Just some more Meiklejohn & Co. hot ?

Get off the've lost your audience!

The majority of the residents of SSG
want to be landmarked . Get a life!

Ant said...

unfortunately its a tiny group of informed individuals who see the hypocrisy that in store for SSG.

Again, I never gave a rats behind about inequality and discrimination... if you can't afford it,move out, if you don't feel welcomed, it's probably not in your head. Fine.

The issue is the first instance of LPC approval is not historically accurate and stand out alike a fly in milk against all these red brick buildings.

What was the point of landmarking if this kind of thing is permitted? Why are people okay with this?

Anonymous said...

i don't claim to represent the majority of SSG residents.

Just the ones who know enough to realize this was only done to keep people in Queens from complaining about the real destruction going on everywhere else in the borough.

How can a borough with one of the largest historic districts complain there isn't enough preservation?

Don't you get it?

Anonymous said...

In fact, what the LPC unanimously approved was the redesign of a wood porch enclosed in the 1940's. Historically, the porches were never red brick, because that would make them an addition. The wood, white porch is thus in keeping with the historical evolution of the neighborhood. The approval of the sliding doors shows that the LPC is trying to permit homeowners a more contemporary lifestyle. Also, the project was stalled by City Planning for a year; the Dept. of Buildings demanded approval from CP, CP said that was unnecessary. Only AFTER designation did the agencies move toward approval (did they want the LPC to take the heat and appear to be the bad guy?). So, this simple project was stalled for a year in the process opponents of landmarking said works so well. CP only regulated the footprint, LPC regulates the design, and this is clearly a much improved design. If only more SGers would work through the system legally.

Anonymous said...

Keep on pissing into the wind you SSG naysayers.
Hope you've got an ample supply of Kleenex!

Anonymous said...

Those SSG "naysayers" couldn't offer
any convincing number of arguments
at the LPC designation hearing
nor can they do likewise
with their futile epithets on this blog.

Now they're bitter
that they've been unable to force feed the majority
like a Strassbourg Goose with a deluge
of boring anti-landmarking rhetoric !

I think it's time to move on.....or simply move out!