Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 384445464748
Results 706 to 713 of 713

Thread: The Landmarks Preservation Commission

  1. #706

    Default

    ...the idea that New York has to compete, that the city has to keep growing, that it has to be the best. That's a very corporate notion, and it's a foreign concept to me. If we just keep growing and competing and winning, where do we end up, ultimately? With a city filled, from borough to borough, with nothing but gleaming skyscrapers. And then the city will die.
    Couldn't have said it better. This sums up every moronic argument that NYC should have the tallest skyscrapers on the planet, or some of the most dense neighborhoods with no street life. What's depicted of the future is just that: the future. Well beyond our lifetimes and well beyond our comprehension. For now, we must retain at least a fraction of our history. NYC will not be NYC without at least some form of a timely progression.

  2. #707

    Default

    I'm sorry but Moss' attitude is idiotic. NYC became what it is because the people driving the city had the proper attitude (ie the one he disdains.) If he wants to live in some quaint little historic town, he should find one an move to it, and not try to screw with NYC's future.

    NYC is one of the great world capitals of commerce, media, and art. If it wants to stay that way, it has to grow. If that means crushing some of it's historic quaintness, so be it.

    ...the idea that New York has to compete, that the city has to keep growing, that it has to be the best. That's a very corporate notion, and it's a foreign concept to me. If we just keep growing and competing and winning, where do we end up, ultimately? With a city filled, from borough to borough, with nothing but gleaming skyscrapers. And then the city will die.

  3. #708
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    So I went to the show. There are some pictures on my album from the trip (https://www.flickr.com/photos/779990...7650036096104/). It was good, and well laid out, but smaller than I expected. There was also what appeared to be a real strong attempt to highlight development that has happened in historic districts as proof that they still allow such things. And while they do allow such things, unsaid was the fact that there are probably more units in a building like NYbG than there have been built in all the historic districts in town. This is certainly the case outside of NYC, where in a place like Rochester, the University Ave Historic district is happy to laud that only a handful of units have been located there in 30 years (and this is a good thing as far as they are concerned!).

    Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the show is not very big, I would not travel for it. Even combined with the Paul Rand show (which was itself very good), it's probably not enough to come in from out of town.

  4. #709
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    See previous post from 2012 in the Endangered NYC - Lost & Threatened Treasures thread.


    Preservationists Fight Developers Over Historic Tribeca Clock

    June 19, 2015, by Jeremiah Budin



    A group of preservationists has filed a suit against developers Elad Properties and the Peebles Corporation, who purchased 346 Broadway from the city for $160 million, in an attempt to stop them from making the building's iconic clock, designated an interior landmark, inaccessible to the public. Under the developers' plan to convert the building to condos, the clock portion would be turned into a triplex penthouse, a move that the preservationists say is unprecedented and constitutes a slippery slope. "There is a larger public policy issue at stake," said Michael Hiller, the lawyer for the preservationists. "This constitutes the privatization of public assets. It's likely the first time ever that the city has allowed an interior landmark to be sold off for use as a private living space, to be completely fenced off from public view."



    Wealthy real estate developers want to close historic Tribeca clock to public and give it to rich condo buyer: suit [NYDN]

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/0...beca_clock.php

  5. #710
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    How the heck did this get approved?


    Steinway Mansion's Grounds Torn Up for Upsetting Warehouses

    July 13, 2015, by Jeremiah Budin



    Photo by Christine Spagnuolo/Queens Chronicle

    Queens preservationists are growing increasingly frustrated in their quest to save the Steinway Mansion—or, more accurately, the land around the Steinway Mansion—from new owners Sal Lucchese's and Philip Loria's plan to surround the landmarked building will 11 small warehouses. The trees surround the mansion were chopped down back in May and now a "seemingly endless amount of dirt and debris covers the hill the mansion sits upon," Queens Chronicle reports. Though groups like Friends of Steinway Mansion have objected to the changes, they are legal as long as the landmarked mansion itself isn't altered, and local politicians are reticent to get involved. "This is willful desecration of the first historical landmark to be named in Queens, and it is definitely a tragedy," said a board member of the Greater Astoria Historical Society. "If the mansion was located in Manhattan, this would never be accepted."



    Steinway Mansion concern continues [Queens Chronicle]

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/0...warehouses.php

  6. #711

    Default

    There's a bill pending to put a time limit on Landmarks to make decisions about landmarking proposals. Of course all the usual suspects are opposed.

    If they can't get rid of landmarking in it's entirely, at least they can do this...

    http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...alert-20150901

    Showdown looming over controversial landmarks bill

    The real estate industry and preservationists are girding for battle over a City Council bill that would impose deadlines on decisions about the historic status of a building or area.

    Opponents and supporters of a City Council proposal that would impose time limits on the Landmarks Preservation Commission are girding themselves for a public hearing next week.

    Preservation groups including the Historic Districts Council and the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation blasted out an email Monday criticizing the bill, which would give the commission a year to decide on an individual landmark and two years on a neighborhood or district once a proposal for historic status has been made. The bill was introduced by Councilmen David Greenfield and Peter Koo in April after it was discovered that more than 100 proposed designations had been languishing on the commission's to-do list for decades.

    "We see this as an incredibly serious threat to the integrity of the landmarks law," said Andrew Berman, head of the Village preservation group, in an interview.

    But on the other side, union, real estate and affordable groups, along with the Archdiocese of New York and the Manhattan and Brooklyn chambers of commerce, are amassing support of their own and are also expected to testify in favor of the proposed legislation.
    "Nearly every important city process like this has a timeline," said a spokesman for the Real Estate Board of New York. "Property owners should know what they are getting into."
    The way the law works now, anyone can ask the commission to consider a property for landmarking. If the commission takes up the case, it puts the item in question on its calendar, and can take as much time as it wants to make a decision. In the meantime, the property or structure cannot be demolished or altered without the commission's permission, meaning it is effectively landmarked without the commission ever voting.
    The bill would give the commission 180 days after an individual property is calendared to hold a hearing, and another 180 days to vote. It would have a total of two years to decide on an entire district.
    Preservationist groups from across the city will argue that the bill would have a chilling effect on complicated applications that require more time to analyze, and would give anyone looking to demolish a building the tools needed to stall and circumvent the process altogether, as any proposal that is rejected wouldn't be eligible for consideration for another five years.
    But groups including REBNY have stated that the commission already meets the deadlines, and the bill would simply give property owners more consistency.

  7. #712

    Default

    If they can't get rid of landmarking in it's entirely,...
    To do that would be a travesty! How about properly funding and staffing
    so they can do their job in a more timely manner?

  8. #713
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Hear, hear, SM!

    If passed, this could lead imo to a gradual but persistent erosion of landmarks law and the role of the LPC.

    It's common knowledge that the LPC lacks the required resources. If the powers that be are actually genuinely serious about preserving NYC's architectural history, it's about time they got serious about facilitating and supporting that process properly. Otherwise, what's the point of the LPC's existence? And anyway, imposing time constraints on its activities isn't going to alleviate the resource issue, surely.

Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 384445464748

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