AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
Ashley Dupre On Tiger Woods' Babes: "At Least I Kept My Mouth Shut"
Same-Sex Marriage Blame Game Aims at Paterson, Addabbo
Rihanna's Random Airport Search
Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Looks like all the pleas and protests from architectural preservationists didn't help: the Tunnel Garage demolition has begun. They've already taken out the terra-cotta Model-T emblem on the front, and started demolishing the top story. The interior is totally cleared out, and it looks like workers have begun hammering away at the internal ramps. At this rate, the lot will be entirely empty in a week or two.
There's a bit of controversy over where the car medallion will end up-- the property owners want to put it in the lobby of the new tower they are building, but community activists want to see it in a more public setting. The Villager reports:
Berman rejects the use that Bob Esnard, a representative of Broome Thompson LLC, the property’s owner, said the owner is proposing for the medallion — to locate it inside the lobby of the new residential building slated to go up at the location.“It would be a very nice gesture on his part to make sure it is preserved in perpetuity in a place where the public can see it,” Berman said. “It’s the public who should be able to appreciate it.”
Also in doubt is whether the artifact will make it down from its high perch intact.
“It has some very serious cracks through it, so it’s taken a very long time to try to pull it off. We’re just starting the removal and if it stays together we will preserve it and use it in our new building,” said Esnard.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm overreacting but this felt like a kick in the stomach.
This does suck. You would think that a developer with some sense of history, some imagination, and some soul would find a way to incorporate that exterior into his new construction. But that would probably require too much money and thought. Better to have another steel and glass monstrosity full of condos that no one can afford.
first, why shouldn't the owners be able to use their property in a way that is most valuable to them? i'm sure they didn't buy the place just to make -you- happy, or fulfill some reactionary need to make neighborhoods static.
second, if the emblem is really that important to the community activists, why doesn't berman try to purchase it in order to preserve the thing in perpetuity?
I tried to draw attention to this gem back in July of last year. Sadly, there are plenty more of these demolitions on the way.
Besides the housing boom driving demolition permits to 20yr highs, the recent changes to the Rent Stabilization law make it tremendously easy for developers to evict tenants outright (paying nominal moving fees) if they can prove to DHCR that demolition is the best option for the site. Last Sunday's Times Real Estate cover story was the first good look at some of the recent cases.
I love how people somehow think they're entitled to things that don't belong to them.
Oh, I think I saw a story about this on the Who Gives a Shit channel. Big deal.
There's a lot more important stuff out there than a freakin' parking garage from ye olde dayes.
Yeah, I walk by every morning on the way to the subway. It's very very sad to watch it being slowly dismantled.
yeah, naysayers, nyc will look really great when every historic building is demolished and the entire city is made of hideous Toll Brothers condos. Have you SEEN the renderings for the building that is going up where the Variety Theatre on 3rd Avenue used to be? Heinous. Check out the pictures, they are on Curbed.
Let me clarify for the monkeys in the comment zoo. I'm not advocating, nor am I critiquing, Rent Stabilization as a form of market control. I'm only pointing out that there will be an explosion of demolitions because it is without a doubt one of the only ways, but also the easiest and cheapest way, to empty a building without Years in the courts. For that reason alone, its a misguided change to the law.
smitty, if its that important to you why don't you just buy up land and preserve the buildings?
Because only fucking souless rich people can afford Soho property, that's why.
Of course the guy can use the property any way he damn well pleases. I only wish the people who have the money to make these purchases weren't such soulless assholes and had a little apprciation for what made the area attractive in the first place.
With a little thought, he/she could have done something aestetically pleasing and made the desired millions and millions of dollars.
But I guess to some people greed will always trump everything.
smitty:
you can move to a different run-down city and call its dilapidated & outdated buildings charming. You can tell everyone how much you love its 'character'. Until then ... pull up a seat.
is it greedy to -expect- people to go through a lot of expense and trouble just to make you happy? or is that just a sense of entitlement?
Dave - Just want to clarify: that NY Times article was saying that they are demolitions in name only; the buildings are not being demolished, it's just a tactic to empty out the tenants. So there may be a wave of demos coming, but not because of the issue raised in that article.
A hypothetical, non-snarky question: If this garage was being replaced by a residential building for moderate or low income tenants, or a school, would that be less distasteful? Is this an aesthetic opposition? Or class?
I just find it hard to believe that an old, undistinguished parking garage is worth saving, and would like to know a real reason for keeping it there based on the qualities of the building itself, not some opposition to the homogenization of NYC or whatever.
Am I entitled to live in a city where building that have some aestetic worth saving are in fact saved? I suppose not. Especially when entitlement equals cash.
Drew - you make good points, and certainly it was not worth saving as a garage. But portions of it could have been saved, and it still could have served the money-making motives of the owners. This is a defeat of imagination and vision at the hands of greed. And, yes, if the building was answering a crying need of the community, that might be different. Becasue then it wouldn't be reduced to rubble just for the sake of a few bucks.
Drew, I'm going on more than just the article, I only mentioned the article because its one of the first to address this fundamental change in the law. Part of the process is submitting the demo applications to DHCR, once those are approved, then the eviction process can begin. This isn't something lawyers can drag out in the courts, nor is this something the developer can reverse. You can't just submit demo permits and then withdraw them once your buiding is emptied. This are in earnest demos. Point being, give it a moment to gather steam, this will become a much bigger issue than appears from the article.
The parking garage, while old, is not undistinguished. Do you think what they're doing with the Highline is nonsense? Well you can understand this structure in much the same way. Aesthetically and Historically it does have significance. Its thought to be one of the first in the country, built before the Holland Tunnel was even finished. Its an excellent exercise in early Deco stylistics and demonstrative of a much underrepresented part of NYC architectural heritage. Plus, it would have made a wonderful shell for an inventive developer, giving it value that would far surpass any ole fedders tower, which any imaginative property owner would have recognized. Take a look at the Gold Metal Flour project in Minneapolis for an example.
Will, maybe I would if I didn't make less than $30,000 a year.
Tim N.
You are entitled to SHIT!
From Capitoilette:
"The garage was designed by architect Hector O. Hamilton, winner of the fabled international competition to design the Palace of the Soviets. It is historically linked to the Holland Tunnel, built as a speculative project in advance of the tunnel’s opening. And, the Tunnel Garage is an early example of a dedicated automobile garage—it was not converted from a carriage garage or stable—and is one of only a handful of these early car parks left in the city. To my mind, there are few buildings that do more to sing out their ties to the birth of the automobile age than does the Tunnel Garage.
The garage has caught the attention of the Historic Districts Council, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, the New York Landmarks Conservancy, the Art Deco Society, and the Friends of Terra Cotta. It has garnered the support of City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, State Senator Martin Connor, State Senator Tom Duane, and Assembly Member Deborah Glick. It has been recommended for landmark status by Community Board #2, and has been declared eligible for the State and National Registers of Historic Places".
I'm down with saving the shell, that'd be great. Preserving it as a garage, however, seems less worthy. As for the fame of the architect - lots of good architects design undistinguished buildings. As for history: A lot of stuff is historically linked to the Holland Tunnel, but is outdated or dilapidated. Do we save it all? Are we going to save the ventilation buildings also?
As for it being symbolic of the automobile age, isn't that a bad thing? Cars, along with their garages, parking ramps and surface parking lots, have done incredible damage to the soul of NYC.
But again, preserving the shell would definitely be a best of both worlds type of option.
Goodbye, parking lot. Didn't you help eliminate the street cars (trams) some years ago? Blood for oil?