I don't understand how this isn't already a landmark and why there even has to be a movement to get the status. This is a no brainer. What do they want to do, build a starbucks and shake shack there?

oh. ha. read it wrong. doh!

I think they're cool.

There are people in Buffalo that want to rebuild the 1901 Pan American Exposition so what's a little concrete chunk from 1964?

Knock that ugly crap down and save us millions!!

'Psilocybin?' You win.

no way, even as a preservationist i am in favor of taking that psilocybin monstrosity down!

Hey, you're right - "taste is subjective." That's why during the 60's, when neo-classical Beaux Arts architecture was out and Modern was in, we lost Penn Station. Now this structure (by 2 of the most important 20th Century architects, Philip Johnson and Richard Foster) is probably no Penn Station, but to apply "taste" to what should be preserved is dangerous. How about more objective criteria than whether you like it? - historical importance, landmark design, part of greater whole, etc. I am glad that yahoos like you are not the ones to decide what should receive landmark status.

again with the unnecessary and unprovoked name calling. is it something about the phallic nature of this architectural trash that gets people like you all tingly in the pants?

reminder: nothing that happens in Gothamist comments will result in preservation or destruction of the pavilion. so settle down.

what would you rather preserve, exactly? these are bonafide relics of the '64 worlds fair. you are the worst preservationist ever.

call it what you will, but i think they're cool as hell.

1. taste is subjective. you like them, i (and many others who see them daily) do not.

2. take it down a notch.

I looked it up.