Page 4 of 48 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 713

Thread: The Landmarks Preservation Commission

  1. #46

    Default


  2. #47

    Default

    I hope the schmucks at LPC landmark the buildings on Washington Street that a developer wants to raze together with the adjacent 18th Century buildings on Greenwich Street that the creep Chang wants to level.

  3. #48

    Default 511-513 Grand Street

    October 30, 2007, 5:22 pm
    A Whole New Set of Landmarks

    By Jennifer 8. Lee


    The Landmarks Preservation Commission voted today to give historic status to a 19th-century Brooklyn pencil factory complex and landmark status to seven buildings.
    They include the Lord & Taylor building and a modernist Manhattan high-rise where Grace Kelly and Benny Goodman lived. The designations, covered in detail by City Room on Monday, bring the number of historic districts in New York City to 89 and the number of individual landmarks to 1,180.
    By borough, the eight newly designated sites are:
    • Brooklyn: The Eberhard Faber Pencil Factory complex
    • Manhattan: the Lord & Taylor Building, Manhattan House on the Upper East Side, and 511 and 513 Grand Street in the Lower East Side
    • Staten Island: The Standard Varnish Works Factory and Gillette Tyler Mansion.
    • Queens: The Voelker-Orth Museum, Bird Sanctuary and Victorian Garden.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	511   513 Grand Street.jpg 
Views:	419 
Size:	60.8 KB 
ID:	5066   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2007_07_511grand.jpg 
Views:	420 
Size:	75.1 KB 
ID:	5067  

  4. #49

    Default pencil factory is silly

    It's garbage - they should tear those buildings down if they want to. Sure, its old, but there are plenty of representative old factories. This one doesn't seem particularly attractive or worth saving. Saving it is even dumber than saving 184 Kent. It also raises the danger of landmarks blocking the development of manufacturing districts if we allow mediocre buildings to be landmarked.

    The other landmarks seem appropriate, especially the Lord and Taylor building.

  5. #50
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    No they shouldn't, and now they won't.

    Regarding Lord & Taylor, I wonder if it includes the beautiful annex which has even more detailing than the main building.

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MidtownGuy View Post
    No they shouldn't, and now they won't.

    Regarding Lord & Taylor, I wonder if it includes the beautiful annex which has even more detailing than the main building.
    It does not. Therefore, that masterpiece will be razed a replaced by a cheap, Macklowe-esque box.

  7. #52

    Default

    The landmarked structures are identified as "424-434 Fifth Avenue aka 1-11 West 38th Street, 2-14 West 39th Street." That includes both the original L&T store and its annex.

  8. #53
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    That's great news!! They did something right.

  9. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ManhattanKnight View Post
    The landmarked structures are identified as "424-434 Fifth Avenue aka 1-11 West 38th Street, 2-14 West 39th Street." That includes both the original L&T store and its annex.
    Thanks. I read somewhere this morning that the annex was not included which would have been a disaster!

  10. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ManhattanKnight View Post
    The landmarked structures are identified as "424-434 Fifth Avenue aka 1-11 West 38th Street, 2-14 West 39th Street." That includes both the original L&T store and its annex.
    Ugh, I really hope you're wrong. If not, the NIMBYs win another round in their efforts to make Manhattan as ugly, boring and economically unproductive as possible. According to them, any new development is evil and anything built from 1880-1930 needs to be preserved in perpetuity, especially if it is underbuilt, underutilized and on prime land.

    Considering the owners actually supported the landmarking, I think the listing of the annex is mistaken, because I think the owners plan on building an office building on the annex site and an addition on the original site.

  11. #56

    Default

    ^Sadly, after looking deeper into this, I have to retract this morning's interpretation of yesterday's LPC determination. The so-called "annex" has not been landmarked. What's now the L&T annex is an older building that was on that corner before L&T went up around it. When L&T opened in 1914, the corner building, after a remodeling, was occupied by Vantine & Co., a firm which followed L&T uptown from their old Broadway/18th Street location.

  12. #57
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Shwarz said:
    Ugh, I really hope you're wrong. If not, the NIMBYs win another round in their efforts to make Manhattan as ugly, boring and economically unproductive as possible. According to them, any new development is evil and anything built from 1880-1930 needs to be preserved in perpetuity, especially if it is underbuilt, underutilized and on prime land.
    Ugh, I really hope you're hospitalized soon, because someone who really thinks that is a reasonable statement should be checked out. What a hateful, antagonistic, idiotic comment. Had a bad day, shwarzy? That isn't my position, and I support landmarking the annex, so I don't know what you're problem is, aside from being a materialistic shmuck who would drill his own mother's teeth if he thought there was value to be extracted. Stop misrepresenting the positions of those with whom you disagree. Many human beings place value on things besides a dollar symbol. If you aren't one of them, that speaks to a problem with YOU, not with people who actually know how to keep things in perspective in this life.

  13. #58

    Default its a good compromise

    Midtown, at the end of the day, somebody has to pay for the city services. So if you landmark a building, that's an opportunity cost to create a job for someone that needs it in an office building, or to raise taxes for schools and parks, etc. I think your comments are unreasonable unless you're volunteering to pay all of our taxes. After all, you, oh benevolent one, don't care about money right, so it shouldn't be a problem for you to pay my tax bill.

    I think this is a good compromise. The main building has more history, and the annex will give way to job creation in the city, and maybe a nice tower. I wonder if LPC designation prevents a tower from being built on top of the building, like with the Hearst Tower. The base is so large, and they built such sturdy buildings back then, I would think you could make this work. Then you get the best of both worlds, assuming they do a good job like they did at Hearst Building.

  14. #59

    Default

    ^
    Landmarked property accounts for about 5% of all city land, and that includes places such as Central Park. It's absurd to think that a particular piece of property that's landmarked is going to cause a loss of jobs.

    Landmarked property generally increases in value, returning more tax revenue to the city.

    Unless of course, you think a model city is one that's built out to its maximum potential.

  15. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Unless of course, you think a model city is one that's built out to its maximum potential.
    No place ever is. You can always add more.

Page 4 of 48 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Greenwich Village Preservation Watch - Be on the alert!
    By OKoranjes in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 24th, 2015, 03:17 AM
  2. Here, Preservation Meets Imagination - Corbin Building
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: August 30th, 2013, 12:39 AM
  3. A Preservation Dilemma
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 11th, 2005, 01:22 PM
  4. Preservation of Buildings Too New to Be Landmarked
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 21st, 2004, 02:26 PM
  5. Preservation Tax
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 9th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software