A developer’s plan to build a 30-story tower behind a row of landmarked homes in Downtown Brooklyn has been sent back to the drawing board. On Tuesday, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing on Watermark Capital’s proposal for a glass and beige brick tower on a small lot behind the historic homes at 182-188 Duffield Street, four individual landmarks dating to the 1830s and 1840s. Commissioners and preservationists were skeptical of the proposal, which involves removing the rear facades of the four properties while combining the interiors to create a community space and a lobby for the 99-unit building behind them. The commission took no action on Tuesday and directed the developers to revise the design so it does not “overwhelm” the block’s historic character.
The homes in 2001, when they were landmarked
Existing front and rear conditions of the homes
Constructed between the 1830s and 1840s, the townhouses were originally located two blocks away on Johnson Street. The site was previously owned by Forest City Ratner, which relocated the 19th-century homes from their original sites and pledged to maintain them as part of a deal to develop the nearby MetroTech campus.
However, despite plans to use the buildings for offices and nonprofits, the homes have sat vacant for decades. They were designated as individual landmarks in 2001.
In December 2022, Watermark, which purchased the site for $10 million, told Brownstoner they intended to retain the historic structures and build a residential building with an affordable housing component.
In 2023, Watermark submitted a staff-level application to the LPC to repair and paint the exterior of two of the homes.
Last summer, Watermark and Hill West Architects filed plans for a new 30-story building with 99 apartments at the site. This past May, the developer presented the proposal to the Brooklyn Community Board 2, which ended up rejecting the project.
David West of Hill West Architects said the plan maintains the historic character of the homes while acknowledging “trade-offs” related to the project’s scale.
“Our proposal to locate a tower behind the townhouses offers a balanced approach that achieves appropriate scale and density while preserving the essential character of the historic townhouses at street level,” West said.
“As with any project, there are trade-offs. At the proposed scale, we can deliver 99 residential units, including 20 affordable units. This approach leverages existing city policy tools, including 485-x, and the voluntary inclusionary housing program. A smaller building would not be able to optimize these incentives.”
Preservationists and residents expressed concern over the project during Tuesday’s public hearing on Tuesday. An online petition against the project from the newly formed Downtown Brooklyn Community Association has garnered over 500 signatures.
The Historic Districts Council, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving the city’s historic neighborhoods and buildings, voiced opposition to the project, warning that the LPC’s approval could set a precedent implying that “every historic structure is only as meaningful as its facade, and thereby fair game to be window dressing for a tower.”
Proposed reuse of the rear facades
Residents of the Belltel Lofts across the street said the tower would block their rear views and alter the neighborhood’s character. During public testimony, Alicia Gonzalez, a longtime Belltel resident, called the proposal an “act of erasure” and urged the commission to focus instead on restoring the historic homes.
“We know it’s an act of erasure,” Gonzalez said. “It threatens to destroy the Duffield Street houses, which are not just structures, they’re sacred structures linked to the Underground Railroad and the people who came before us.”
“Allowing this project to move forward tells the community that profit matters more than people. That height matters more than history, and that our cultural memory is expendable. We will not let that happen. We should ultimately restore these homes to what they should be.”
Proposed interior alterations to the homes
LPC Commissioner Stephen Chu found that the proposal failed to present a solution that was a “win-win” for both the residential tower and the historic homes.
“Any solution here needs to celebrate those houses and work with them in a way that makes the proposal and the existing fabric a win-win,” Chu said. “Unfortunately, that is not what I’m seeing in this proposal. The houses are diminished severely in scale with the proximity of the tower. There’s so much demolition, it’s hard to tell what is left of the fabric of those houses. There’s just too much, and at the end, too little left of what was to be protected on the site.”
During public testimony, Peter Bray, co-chair of the Downtown Brooklyn Landmarks Coalition, sharply criticized the project’s lack of authenticity and condemned the LPC for considering it.
“I think this would be a great project if it were located in Las Vegas, where everything is just a replica of history and there’s nothing real or authentic to it. This is completely fake,” Bray said.
He added: “How in good conscience can the LPC consider a project that would fundamentally alter the integrity of these buildings, making them a mere appendage of a 33-story tower and robbing them completely of their original character and historical significance.”
Proposed exterior views of the homes with the rear tower
Following the hearing’s closing, Commissioner Michael Goldblum said the proposal “overwhelms” the historic buildings and asked the developers for a “little bit more help” on understanding why their proposal is the only option for developing the property.
“The volume of this building is way too close to the street and overwhelms the historic buildings,” Goldblum said. “This is a notably visible rooftop addition on four historic buildings to the extent that the real analogies don’t hold up here.”
He added, “I found the applicant’s answer to the question about why they couldn’t redevelop these at a lower scale completely unsatisfying. I would need a little bit more help from the applicants to understand why this Hail Mary, desperate affair must be the only way to develop these properties and save them.”
The project team must now return to the drawing board and revise the proposal to better align with the LPC’s recommendations. The commission will vote on the updated plan at a later date.
RELATED: