Gothamist: Landmark Designators Are Busy, Not Everyone's Happy

AndyBlue

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:51:10 -0500

The former Abraham and Straus (now Macy's) store in downtown Brooklyn should be included on the list of buildings to be landmarked. The Art Deco store incorporates an earlier cast-iron building from the late 1800s. The first floor Art Deco entrances and elevator lobby should receive special protection in addition to any landmarking of the exterior. I agree with Kingston- the vast majority of new buildings (and especially new houses) are butt-ugly and completely out of character with their neighborhoods. Is it that hard for an architect to design a house which at least tries to blend in with its surroundings? Is it an ego trip, designing something which sticks out?

kingstonlounge

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:17:35 -0500

Spiny got it right. Not all change is bad, but if "progress" means tearing down venerable & solid buildings that have weathered a century-plus in this city to put up ugly utilitarian towers and gaudy "moderne architecture", then forget progress - let's stay static until we can sort out our priorities. If the developers keep going the way they want to, this city will turn into a homogeneous mess of ugly, soulless crapitecture lacking in any aesthetic merit - lacking in any merit whatsoever, in fact, except for lining the pockets of money-hungry developers.

cwbuecheler

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:57:41 -0500

I love the idea of the landmarking system but mother of god, does it get used on some homely-ass buildings from time to time.

Kevin Walsh

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:28:54 -0500

Broadway-Flushing rejected. It's in Queens, of course, which means the LPC and the City considers it the home of bedroom barracks for the future 1 million population explosion. www.forgotten-ny.com

rtd2101

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:11:59 -0500

Mr. Hogarty, a correction: Fisk Terrance/Midwood Park and Webster hall are not being considered, they we DESIGNATED today. You should correct this.

MT

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:40:16 -0500

I think that last sentence is very key. While it's crucial to preserve the history of New York we have to remember that not everything is worth preserving. I'm sure there would be some group out there who would want to preserve the "gritty historical low-rent low-rse sea-dependant shabbiness" of the pre-One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, but look what went up in it's place. Not all progress is bad. Sometimes we get new landmarks that will last even better than what they replace. The city is constantly evolving and that's what makes New York so great. Let's preserve but not strangle the city.

EastRiver

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:09:21 -0500

Too bad it is landmarked because just the other day I was thinking what a disaster that plaza is. It's elevated above street level which makes it uninviting. Being elevated also removed any possibility of sidewalk retail or cafe space below and yet they did nothing in the plaza, not even landscaping. Aside from one large piece of modern art is completely concrete and quite wind swept.

Spiny

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:08:50 -0500

Change is not all bad. Some change is bad, and that includes tearing down the visually stunning physical remnants of your city's incredibly rich history to put up butt-ugly glass-and-steel condos all over the place.

eyekantspel

Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:54:32 -0500

They should landmark all of Manhattan. And don't let anyone new move here. Because change is bad.