Gothamist: Schumer Calls UN Building a "Fire Trap"

Brightliner

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:42:20 -0500

My last comment was directed at Scout [12], BTW.

Brightliner

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:32:29 -0500

Um, just what do you think they've been trying to do? Duh! You might try looking at your local and national leaders, who've been blocking them at every step. No, you can't have the money. No, you can't build a temporary building. No, you can't move into this other building.

Larry Littlefield

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:04:48 -0500

(Probably the most brilliant comment I've ever seen on this blog.) NYC paid for it. I came up with it back when I was on the staff at City Planning, when the first plan for Governors Island was being discussed. They've had several since. In fact, I think they've tried everything else.

Homo Faggot GUy

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:08:46 -0500

Who but Schumer could do something so inane. I say we have a Schumer vs. Liu media whore contest.

Scout

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:36:10 -0500

"Woe to the man whose house burns down because he didn't want to help his next door neighbor with his fire. It's easy to forget that sprinklers are a relatively recent requirement for high rises. NYC didn't mandate it until the 1970s." Yes, that's the whole point of having them bring their building up to code, so they do not burn their neighbors down and blame NYC for not putting out its fire. Woe to the homeowner who does not make the necessary improvements to their property for their own protection.

mmm. . . current account

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:11:27 -0500

Let Trump gut the building and turn it into condos. "It's the BEST building in the city. It's gonna be huge." Or make China, Iran, and Russia pay for the repairs. They're floating on dollars. They could pay for it and not even notice the drop in their reserves. It would help out our trade deficit which would keep the dollar up and help fuel even more of their exports.

Toby

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:01:40 -0500

I would have to agree with the idea of moving the UN to Governor's Island, as it would have many benefits and is a great suggestion. The down side of it is these nut job historic preservationists would scream to keep the UN building, death trap that it is, due to its historical value.

Frank

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:35:03 -0500

#5 - Larry -- that's a great idea! Probably the most brilliant comment I've ever seen on this blog.

Brihgtliner

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:32:47 -0500

Snark if you want, but try reading the articles first. If the US can't do anything about it, then why were there Senate hearings? Enough with the "it's not our territory, it's not our problem" attitude. Woe to the man whose house burns down because he didn't want to help his next door neighbor with his fire. It's easy to forget that sprinklers are a relatively recent requirement for high rises. NYC didn't mandate it until the 1970s.

dhex

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:27:24 -0500

why do international bureaucrats have a say in local new york politics?

Dave

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:23:50 -0500

The real problem is that certain city council members are blocking the renovation plans because they disagree with the UN's policies. WTF? Why does a Brooklyn city council member have a say over international politics?

Larry Littlefield

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:20:53 -0500

(At this point, there has been much talk of a U.N. building renovation, most recently with discussions about where the U.N. will or will not rent temporary office space, but nothing conclusive about the renovation has been decided. One thing holding up the renovation: The U.S. doesn't want to fund the $1.6 billion project.) As I said a decade ago -- Governor's Island! The U.N. and all the embassies could finance new buildings there by selling their existing buildings at high Manhattan prices. The U.N. could more out of its building before the gut rehab, rather than trying to work in it during the gut rehab. The feds could pay to rebuild the seawall, construct a lift bridge to Brooklyn, and do other infrastructure repairs for $1.6 billion or less. The U.N. would gain prestige by having its own international peace island, perhaps attracting other international agencies and conferences. It's security would be enhanced by the ability to close the island off when heads of state are in town. Otherwise, UN island could be a tourist attraction, with tourists and employees getting there by ferry from Lower Manhattan and elsewhere. The city would see tons of property returned to the tax rolls. And our diplomat parking problems would be solved. Yeah it would be hard to get the universal agreement needed to make it happen. But it turns out that EVERYTHING involving the UN is hard.

Scout

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:03:26 -0500

It may not be on US soil, but they'd certainly want our firefighters there if the place went up. I mean, no sprinklers in a high rise? WTF? Media whore or not, Chucky is right. Imagine all the bitching when the building burned down because FD wouldn't allow their guys in there due to the unsafe conditions. Modest budget. That's a laugh. They should make France pay for it with the food for oil money they stole.

sucks to be in Hillary's shadow

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:45:47 -0500

On our elementery school tour of the UN back in the 80s they told us the UN property is not considered US soil so I don't know what Chuck thinks he can do about it. Quick, Chuck! I heard there's a camera crew down by City Hall! Run!

T.R.

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:45:05 -0500

I went on one of those UN tours several years ago, and from what I saw, and what the tour guide told us, very little has been changed since the place was built in 1949. The carpets have worn paths from years of foot traffic, the head sets for translation in the large meeting rooms are so old school they must be seen to be believed. I was shocked at the condition of the building, but we were told that they had a very modest budget. That place is a time capsule.

hr

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:32:42 -0500

what would a sunday be without a typical senator schumer media-whore, scare-athon get-a-reaction press conference.