Dubai Debt Issues Push Stocks Down
Family Gets Early Christmas Gift From Ellen DeGeneres
Photos of D Train Murder Depict Bloody Panic
Stuy Pyro Leaves Notes In Hieroglyphics
Mayor: Sex Trafficking Victims, Please Speak Up
A 19th century Greek revival building on Pearl Street – the road that formed the oyster shell strewn border of New Amsterdam in the 17th century – will soon be torn down, according to the A.P. The former warehouse at 213 Pearl was built in 1831 and was integral to what Ric Burns calls “the first district in the world devoted exclusively to commerce.” Once the city approves the permit, demolition could start as early as next week in order to make room for a new Sheraton Hotel. (This also spoils the Building Collapse Betting Pool on 213 Pearl that Curbed started in April.)
A group of preservationists are fighting the demolition, but they’ve had an uphill battle on this stretch of Pearl Street. Another 19th century building at 215 Pearl was disappeared to make way for a luxury high-rise, and 211 Pearl has been rubbed out in favor of a parking garage. The façade of that building is still eerily standing, however; three mysterious triangular shapes found in the brick may be linked to William Colgate, the soap entrepreneur for whom the warehouse was built. Preservationists are worried that the impending demolition of 213 Pearl will damage the façade.
Amateur historian Alan Solomon tells the A.P. that, ironically, the demolition and redevelopment of the old trade district is being partly financed by tax-exempt Liberty Bonds, issued by the federal government to rebuild the neighborhood around the World Trade Center after Sept. 11, 2001. So if we don’t replace New York’s old buildings with parking garages and chain hotels, does that mean the terrorists win?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Nothing can stand in the way of progress. Of course, progress means $$$$$$$$!
what would New Orleans or Paris look like without its picturesque streets and 19th century (and earlier) buildings? its too bad this city has such little regard for preserving its history,and is so quick to cave$ to developers who want to (for the most part) put up something ugly and impersonal. It seems that we have not learned the lesson of the old Penn Station.
Tgirl, this is what happens when you elect a sexual harrasing billionaire from Boston who cares more for the almighty dollar above anything else and has no regard for the history and fabric of the city he oversees.
I assume that's a picture of 211 Pearl Street? I have no way of actually knowing since there's no caption or attribution.
ya thats 211-213 Pearl but from inside the fence thats surrounded the block for most of the last 4 or so years
awful, awful, awful. A real shame.
at what point does the city change so much that it sucks? Personally I think its happened already
Just what we need a Sheraton Hotel which will no doubt be a soulless box that may as well be in Sacramento, Trenton, Utica, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Detroit or some other godforsaken place that you would loathe to spend time in.
Truely tragic.
Enough already with the greed.
This appears to be one if not the only building that survived the great fire of 1835.
So let's see..
We can't knock down old buildings... we can't knock down buildings that middle class or poor people live or work in...
So apparently, the only locations that can be redeveloped are new buildings where wealthy people live/work...
Unfortunately, the profit margins for that sort of redevelopment are usually negative.
I'm all for prudent historic preservation, but I never get the sense that anyone is looking at the larger picture. How many jobs will be lost or will fail to be added because the downtown market doesn't have enough hotel space for business' contractors, visitors, customers?
You can't save every building. In NYC we have a tradition of not saving many of them. That's just the way we do it. That building looks like a piece of crap. Knock it down and put something else up that's nicer. Save a few artifacts and stuff.. but really that building is nothing special.
Seriously, maybe in 200 years some of these high-rises that are 'new' now will still be around and people will be havin this same conversation. "you can't take down the dilapidated early 21st century Sheraton... nooo.... its still standing from before the great global warming flood of 2104!... " And just think about the 'beautiful' farm that was 'tragically' destroyed to make way for that crumbling Pearl Street building.
If you want to save a bit of it, you can maybe force the Sheraton to use a bit of the facade in their plans, or maybe stick some of it in the lobby. But seriously this building looks like a piece of trash and it's not really worth saving. Save the nice looking stuff, and for the rest, knock it down, save a few pieces and make sure to take photographs before you do it.
The really ironic bit is that the building that we're saying is so tragic for being torn down because of 'greed' was built for the same reason.
Okay... Believe me, I really don't think Bloomberg is responsible, per se, for the destruction of this building or any other specific "target". I personally believe that the reason for all these troubles is the ineptitude of the NYLC, NYCLPC, and other such groups. We need more landmark statuses going out to buildings and more Historical Districts being put in place. I feel that it is a failure of the city to recognize the threat's to our past and history; because, of money. One of my friends, from Zaragoza, was telling me of how his city RARELY destroys buildings because they are ensured survival through stringent landmark statuses or grants; and, rigorous laws are put in place to prevent the loss of old ones - and to renovate a place, it must be in dire straits. However, another lurking issue, I believe exists, is a favoritism in architectural styles. It begets me great shock and surprise that in the late seventies and early eighties that the Alexander Hamilton US Customs House was in threat of demolition but was saved by the great Senator Moynihan. Granted, the Beaux Arts style makes the building grand and it helps make the case to preserve it. But other smaller buildings don't have that quality and are rushed to the wrecked ball - by means of calling it dead space. This is utterly a dangerous injustice.
I live in Downtown Manhattan and just a block or two from that section of Pearl Street. I am only 19 but I remember a lot more of the whole downtown area than what remains. Even to see the South Street Seaport to go pains me. Granted, a movie theater and larger mall would be nice in the direct area; but not at the expense of the aesthetic, cultural, and historical (Granted, I know Pier 17 is recent but it still has a similar feel to space) value of an area.
Manhattan, for me, is, sadly, already a loss. To see buildings go down for the sake of more and more luxury condos is disgusting. To my parents, New York is the not the same New York they grew up in. But how scary is it that New York is not the same New York I grew up, which is just mere years than decades.
While not surprised these old buildings are being removed for newer and bigger ones, I am surprised NYC is not doing a better job. Why are we just getting another big, ugly box that could be in any city? European cities do progress (believe it or not) and require the new buildings must add to the city's style. Why does NYC only care about the style when it's on the back of a starving model?