For more than a decade, 227 Duffield Street has been a building in peril, the contentious battleground over Black history, preservationist and development interests. Back in 2007, the city sought to seize the property by eminent domain to create a park, but ultimately relinquished after expert testimony about its origins and public outcry.

But following a vote on Tuesday by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, the mid-nineteenth century house in Downtown Brooklyn associated with New York City's abolitionist movement will finally be considered for landmark status.

During a Zoom meeting, the commission unanimously voted to calendar 227 Duffield, the first formal step in the city's landmarking process. By calendaring the property, the city has agreed to hold a public hearing on the merits of landmark designation and require the Department of Buildings to notify the Landmarks Commission of any permit requests, such as those involving demolition or redevelopment of the property.

Samiel Hanasab, a developer who owns the building applied last June for a demolition permit. He has plans to build a 13-story mixed-use building with 21 residential units, but has said he would erect an African American museum in the basement. He did not respond to a request for comment the latest development.

In her remarks Tuesday, Sarah Carroll, the chair of the commission, said Mayor Bill de Blasio had asked the commission to consider 227 Duffield as an individual landmark.

The support of the administration was no surprise. As activism around the site grew in February, prior to the pandemic and anti-racism protests, the mayor tweeted, "We hear you. All options are on the table as we look to acknowledge and preserve the history of the anti-slavery movement at 227 Duffield Street."

First Lady Charline McCray also sent a letter around that time to the commission in support of saving the building. On Tuesday, she commended their decision.

"This is really the epic story," said Raul Rothblatt, an activist and member of Save 227 Duffield who has fought for 16 years to get the building recognized.

He said that as early as 2007 he asked the Landmarks Commission to consider landmarking 227 Duffield. The building was once owned by Thomas and Harriet Truesdell, prominent abolitionists at a time when the economy of the city, and especially Brooklyn, was tied to southern slavery. As the historian Eric Foner has noted, warehouses on the Brooklyn waterfront were "filled with the products of slave labor—cotton, tobacco, and especially sugar from Louisiana and Cuba."

In addition to Downtown Brooklyn being a hotbed for activism, the existence of an underground tunnel beneath the home further strengthened people's beliefs that 227 Duffield was once a stop on the Underground Railroad. Nearby Plymouth Church is home to one of the stops on the Underground Railroad, which remains intact today.

But the city was uninterested, Rothblatt said. After the controversy over eminent domain, the Bloomberg administration committed $2 million to honor abolitionist history in the neighborhood, including renaming Duffield Street as Abolitionist Place.

The building was saved for the time being. However, as Rothblatt noted, "The city never admitted anything" about its historic importance.

Simeon Bankoff, the executive director of the Historic Districts Council, applauded the commission's decision.

"It’s a remarkable courageous step for the landmarks commission to be taking," he said.

Bankoff noted that unlike most properties considered for landmarking, the current three-story brick building that was originally designed under the Greek Revival style has been dramatically altered over the years. But increasingly, the commission has begun considering the cultural importance of sites rather than purely architectural merits.

"I think this is a very strong statement that they are willing to use this law to step outside their normal comfort zone," he said.

In her statement, Carroll noted the "rarity of landmarks associated with abolitionist history" in New York City as well as the "commitment to tell the complete story of African American history," especially in the current moment.

At one point, Frederick Bland, another commissioner, asked whether landmarking culturally important landmarks might be a "slippery slope." What about other kinds of less progressive or "less salubrious cultural events" that have taken place within New York City buildings, he asked. How would they be treated?

"Instead of thinking of it as a slippery slope, I would say it’s a challenge that we have to rise to," Carroll responded.