Saturday, August 4, 2007

Oh, Lord, part 2

In Manhattan, the Lord & Taylor department store is about to be landmarked, for it was once owned by Samuel Lord!

In Queens, when it comes to the Lord name, it's more like, "Oh, Lord!, they can't be serious! This shouldn't stand in the way of some new crap!"

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gee, why doesn't the 'established' preservation community note this stuff?

Everytime you go there, with a chuckle, they suggest you write a letter about it to your community board and city councilman.

That experience ought to discourage the budding community preservationist, right?

Now we have a Queens head of HDC that should change, right?

Anonymous said...

This is an outrage to Queens. Why has no one but Crap exposed this?

It seems like anyone who has a shred of power somehow got the message to take advantage of the people they serve in Queens. If we have so much pride in this borough as our power figures claim (a hint, stupid things like the politically imposed dragon boat races are NOT the source of our pride) then lets hear about stuff like this:

newspapers? elected officials? community boards? civics? anyone out there ready to come to bat for Queens?

Anonymous said...

Lord willing, NYC's municipal landmark law gets overturned or amended to exclude its rampant discriminatory practice of showering some neighborhoods (and boroughs) with designations while abandoning others !

Either the law equally serves everybody or it shall serve no one !

Maybe that group that's been seriously gathering evidence and consulting on the feasability of filing a discrimination lawsuit against the LPC has got the right idea in mind!

Is this not, in fact, a civil rights issue ?

mazeartist said...

Why is the city landmarking private businesses? I concede that while the Macy's building is indeed landmark-worthy, so are the Nunziato Florist of Maspeth, Lemon Ice King of Corona, and Jahn's of Richmond Hill.

They must be preserved before they close for good. Nothing lasts forever.

Anonymous said...

Is there a way to find out exactly why the LPC settles on landmarking one building but not another? It would seem like they should be required to document this, so residents could at least review the decisions they make and try to make some sense of them.

Anonymous said...

"Is there a way to find out exactly why the LPC settles on landmarking one building but not another? It would seem like they should be required to document this, so residents could at least review the decisions they make and try to make some sense of them."

The thing I do not understand, is why HDC or MAS or similiar body cannot even acknowledge this discrimination.

Perhaps the next time they hold a conference, instead of covering topics like how to live with development, they can do something useful like examine this topic.

OF COURSE, IF THEY CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT, THEY RUN THE RISK OF BEING ACCUSED OF COVERING IT UP!

Anonymous said...

To hell with MAS and their "mas vino" (and cheese) parties !

Anonymous said...

As Pogo the Possum used to say,

"We have met the enemy and they are us"!

Do you suppose he was referring to
the official complacent "preservation" movement (hysterical societies etc.)
with their various 3 letter acronyms ?