http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php All comments for Five New Structures Get Landmark Status en-us 2008 sports_peter Wed, 17 Sep 2008 00:13:27 -0500 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss trink119@yahoo.com trink119@yahoo.com 60 http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1464022 http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1464022 Comments Wed, 17 Sep 2008 06:14:39 -0500 <p>And Yankee Stadium gets the wrecking ball.</p> http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1463851 http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1463851 Comments Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:12:08 -0500 <p>I agree it is a burden for building owners to have their buildings landmarked, but historic buildings are eyesores? Are non-historic buildings sites of beauty? Only two of the three listed above appear to be privately owned. </p> http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1463573 http://gothamist.com/2008/09/16/five_new_structures_get_landmark_st.php#comment-1463573 Comments Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:31:28 -0500 <p>I hate landmark status. It makes renovation and upkeep impossible. It also makes for eyesores.</p>