Develop v. Historic Districts

[billyblancoNYC]

I know we are all for development and HIGH-ASS scrapers, but does anyone here think that old, historic, or significant (in some way) buildings should NOT be preserved.

I think they should be - it builds character, plus I love older buildings.

Thoughts?

[Kris]

Individual buildings of interest should be preserved but I don't like the idea of "historic districts". They become theme parks.

[Eugenius]

Of course certain older buildings should be preserved. *This includes older, but shorter skyscrapers, and buildings of historical and architectural significance.

However, I am against preserving otherwise nondescript and insignificant squat buildings simply because of their age. *That is akin to ossification.

[Derek2k3]

I think historic districts are a good idea. I see what many nimbies are saying when new buildings degrade a neighborhood. I don't think their height *is the problem though but rather thier ugliness and how cheap they look. Historic districts or districts with many nimbies seem to prevent this by making a developer produce something architecturally grand so it's possible to get approval. Thanks to nimbies and these districts, buildings such as Hearst,The Perry West, 828 Washington, and the Seasons have been proposed. If these buildings were in areas that faced little opposition do you honestly think the developer would spend so much money. Obviously in the areas where developers are allowed to build what they want haven't produced anything great. Look at the new residential buildings in Chelsea and Midtown for example, not one notable one.

I feel only buildings that pass a certain architectural standard should be built in these districts

[dbhstockton]

I think historic preservationism is essential to the vitality of NYC. *Greenwich Village is a wonderful neighborhood that would have been paved over by Robert Moses if no one put up a fight. *It does get way out of hand in Manhattan, though. *There are people who won't stop until all of Manhattan island is a museum. *These people have no sense of NY's history.

[Kris]

NIMBY's don't elevate the architectural standard, far from it. They demand buildings with the most insignificant impact possible, that blend in. The result is that developers usually propose contextualist projects. The examples Derek gave caused rage among the concerned communities precisely because of their prominence and distinction. They don't want their neighborhoods to change and are a plague for good architecture.

[Agglomeration]

Many of these NIMBY's still think that Robert Moses was THE Antichrist and that real estate developers are his evil servants. It's sad really. I don't mind certain areas and buildings being preserved, mainly for their architectural and historical importance, but they want to keep their neighborhood on a time warp for some reason. Their hatred of all skyscrapers, even old, decorative ones like the Chryler Building, is one major symptom. I'd hate to see them calling for a crack house or a row of crack houses to be preserved the way it is just because it's 100 years old.

[dbhstockton]

I'd hate to see them calling for a crack house or a row of crack houses to be preserved the way it is just because it's 100 years old.

That sounds like exactly something they would do. *
New York, 2085: *"Here is historic crackhouse row, restored to its vintage mid-1980's appearance, complete with grafitti and rubble-strewn vacant lots."

[TLOZ Link5]

Quote: from dbhstockton on 3:09 pm on Jan. 26, 2003


That sounds like exactly something they would do. *
New York, 2085: *"Here is historic crackhouse row, restored to its vintage mid-1980's appearance, complete with grafitti and rubble-strewn vacant lots."

ROFL, Stockton!

In my opinion, NIMBYs have their place, but their problem is that they continually overstep their boundaries. *Saving Grand Central Station is one thing, but pushing for the cancellation of Westway because of its "environmental impact" is just ludicrous.

[NYatKNIGHT]

It wasn't NIMBYs who saved Grand Central Station, it was Jackie Kennedy.

[TLOZ Link5]

Quote: from NYatKNIGHT on 4:17 pm on Feb. 8, 2003
It wasn't NIMBYs who saved Grand Central Station, it was Jackie Kennedy.

And then she became a NIMBY. *She protested the redevelopment of the Coliseum site for fear of the shadows it would cast on Central Park.

[NYatKNIGHT]

Quote: from TLOZ Link5 on 10:47 am on Feb. 9, 2003
And then she became a NIMBY. *She protested the redevelopment of the Coliseum site for fear of the shadows it would cast on Central Park.Which proves she wasn't a NIMBY because it wasn't in her back yard. She just deplored developers running rampant over the city without any public input. But you're right, protesting the shadows on the park was such a terrible argument - I can't believe it worked.

[TomAuch]

Nimbys can do some good for NYC, like in the case with the Lower Manhattan Expressway. But at times, they can get out of line, like with Minskoff's Tribeca Tower, which isn't 70 storie like they've said, but it's only 30+ stories.

[Kris]

Civic activists saved Lower Manhattan. NIMBY's' civic activism consists of preserving a status quo in which they're privileged at the expense of the collectivity. This leads them to systematically fight change that would discomfort them in the name of the public good.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Proposed Minskoff building is 600 ft, with purchase of College of Insurance (now St Johns) air-rights. He may have lopped off 4 or 5 storeys.