You Got To Fight For Your Right To Landmark
We received a disturbing email from the Dumbo Neighborhood Association over the weekend. According to the community group, a handful of big developers are pressuring the Landmarks Preservation Commission not to landmark the historic area. Chairman Bill Tierney has told DNA to demonstrate as much support for the designation as possibleby writing Tierney a letter…
We received a disturbing email from the Dumbo Neighborhood Association over the weekend. According to the community group, a handful of big developers are pressuring the Landmarks Preservation Commission not to landmark the historic area. Chairman Bill Tierney has told DNA to demonstrate as much support for the designation as possibleby writing Tierney a letter (suggested text on the jump) and/or emailing him.
DUMBO Seeks Landmark Status [BH Blog]
Dear Chairman Tierney,
I am a resident property owner [or business owner] and I support
Landmark status for DUMBO without further delay. Destruction of
important 19th century industrial buildings is happening right now.
Please act immediately.
Sincerely,
Your Name and Address
Mail it to:
Chairman Robert Tierney,
Landmark Preservation Commission,
9th Floor, 1 Centre Street,
New York, NY 10007
many of these comments are depressing… Although much has gone wrong in DUMBO, I think a lot positive can still happen via Landmarking. I’m there 2-3 times a week and it does have a very nice historic vibe that is created by the old wharehouses. It would be a big loss to NYC to let them all get torn down…
To the question, “Why is an old industrial building better than a new residential building,” not all of them are. But the collection of industrial buildings in the core of DUMBO define the built form of the neighborhood and deserve protection. Still plenty of development sites just outside any historic district.
its too late, bya least a year. Its already gone.
Well, yeah, Jeremy, except that nobody would want to live here if NYC wasn’t NYC–meaning, if it had no character or history. As I think you’re arguing, we all need to be reasonable. Historic preservation via landmarked districts (at minimum) is reasonable–and essential–here.
You can tell how much historic buildings are worth to activist types by how much of their own money they put up toward the effort. They’ll throw $100 or so in a pot and fire off a letter if it’s likely to buy them the state’s gun pointed at the owner of a property that they’d prefer to still be able to walk by and look at occasionally. If they had to really put their money where their mouths are and cough up thousands in a pool of millions to protect historic buildings, the debate would be over. And before I get flamed, let me just point out that the latter situation does happen. People pool resources to buy pristine land and keep it form being developed, and people pool resources to save old homes from the wrecking ball. But a lot more often, they just bitch at the government to mug the owners. Disgustingly selfish.
I like old brick factories too but they’re not mine. When faced with a choice of championing property rights or saving some pile of bricks just so some hoity-toity loft owner can roll their spoiled babies past it and have something cool to look at, I will pick property rights every time. When lives are threatened by the irresponsible exercise of property rights, then give me a call. Until then, I don’t see any intrinsic value in a building just because someone built it a long time ago.
Even ignoring morality, it’s practically stupid — we need more housing in this city because demand is through the roof and supply is slow in coming.
I agree with anon of 12:36. What are they talking about?
I think the cow left the barn already in Dumbo.
Why does this group imply that a 19th Century building is better than a 21st Century building? Why is an old industrial building better than a new residential building. I am not taking a contrarian attitude, I just wonder what the argument is here for decrying the removal of the current buildings?