Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Video: Close Encounters Above Central Park?
The Times concludes its epic, four-part think piece on the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission today. Yesterday, Robin Pogrebin's series looked into why many churches eschew landmark status (cheaper to demolish), Friday was about how sneaky developers send in the demolition crews mere days before the LPC holds their hearing, and last Wednesday's piece noted the fun fact that LPC chairman Robert Tierney has no background in architecture, planning or historic preservation. Today's coda considers the "delicate dance" between preservationists and developers. DUMBO developer Jed Walentas derides landmarking as "one of the best tools that anti-development people have." But his feisty dance partner, Andrew S. Dolkart at Columbia University, argues, "A relatively tiny proportion of New York land is landmarked. It’s hardly an obstacle to economic growth in the city."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This was an excellent series but I am more puzzeled then ever as to how the LPC operates and the criteria it uses to establish a building as a landmark. How could 2 Columbus Circle not be landmarked and Pei's dorm towers at NYU be landmarked? Personally Pei's buildings are well executed but hardly unique whereas Stone's was one of kind.