Sunday, June 20, 2010

Boro historian not a fan of landmarking

From the Daily News:

Pledging to connect with the public instead of library shelves, Jack Eichenbaum said he will offer scavenger hunts to help students learn the under appreciated legacy of their neighborhoods.

It's among several novel methods Eichenbaum vows to embrace in the prestigious post he assumed last week - at a crucial time when overdevelopment threatens Queens history.

Eichenbaum said he will also undertake digital research to determine, for example, how much of Queens' green space has been paved over in recent years.

Borough President Helen Marshall told the Daily News that she has already lined up a project for Eichenbaum: starting a one-room Queens history museum at Borough Hall in Kew Gardens.

Marshall said the display could feature items from the eclectic collection of the Queens topographical unit, such as a 1686 Bible and teeth from a famous Woodhaven racehorse named Dexter.

Marshall also hailed Eichenbaum's passion for leading walking tours past significant sites. "When people see that history and get into it, they don't want it to be destroyed," she said.

Eichenbaum stressed he will embrace an "educator" role rather than becoming an advocate who leads landmarking rallies to save "just every old building."

Pressed on whether he would seek landmark status to protect historic sites, Eichenbaum replied, "I don't see myself championing those types of causes."

Instead, he said, he will refer preservationists who seek advice on landmarking causes to other experts or museums.

He even dismissed some calls for historic preservation as residents fearing change.

Eichenbaum also bemoaned the "frozen-in-time" approach to the city's historic districts, which protect select blocks from major alterations or demolitions.


I think it's becoming abundantly clear why this chap was chosen for the role. Forget the buildings. Display the horse teeth!

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Such statements should be met with protests!

Anonymous said...

I dont understand the Crapper. Eminent domain is theft, but its not ok to use your land in the way you want. So the govt can take land at a diminished price and that is wrong. But it is ok to devalue their land and render it pennies and dimes above worthless.

Anonymous said...

Just a follow up. Eminent domain and landmarking are the same animal. Eminent domain is a govt takeover of land they want to use for the future. Landmarking is a govt takeover over land they want to use to preserve the past.

Maybe the latter seems more noble, but they both use the same calculus to value properties. I KNOW THAT! If anything, they over value the offers to owners of landmarked properties to avoid political pressure.

Babs said...

Landmarking a building is COMPLETELY different than eminent domain.

No one is FORCED to landmark their building - no one is forced to purchase a building that is slated for landmarking as in the case of the RKO Keiths.

I like that Eichenbaum has chosen an "educator role", but I am concerned about his proclamation of non-advocacy in the preservation of our beloved nabs.

On the other hand I don't though think it is his role to be involved - perhaps that question was out of line and his answer reflects more his job description than his personal feelings.

Queens Crapper said...

Landmarking does not devalue land.

And if you don't like landmarking, you must HATE zoning. Yeah, you should be able to do what you want with your property. Let's build power plants next to people's homes and slaughterhouses next to your kid's school...

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jack-off was never a proponent of anything but conducting his useless tours.

Come to think of it...all the past borough historians just sat on their asses while Queens history perished!

They wore their titles on their already swelled heads and fattened their asses with quotes and photo ops in the media.

Most likely...a condition of Eichenbaum's selection for borough historian by that dimwit Marshall was that he wouldn't espouse landmarking as a solution to razing deserving sites in Queens.

He's just a lazy tit baby who's too old for the job.

But isn't that what is wanted by burro hall?

You don't want an activist burro historian...ust a geriatric mantra doter:

"Educate the public about our history"...and that's all folks!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like some idiotic "libertarian" troll is posting their uninformed anti-landmark shit.

Go throw one of your useless"tea parties" you yutz!

No sugar or milk please.

Babs said...

I for one am thrilled that we have a Flushingite like Eichenbaum as boro historian.

Education is a very positive step in future preservation of our nabs.

I wish College Point could have been spared the demolition - the loss of Flessels is comparable to the loss of a friend to ALL the original residents or to those with roots there like myself.

An old building holds more value to us when we hear the story it has to tell.

And what a story Flessels had to tell - housing veterans in the rooms above the bar/restaurant from the Spanish American War - the Civil War, the two World Wars.

The day they demolished it someone from the construction crew noticed an old wine bottle hidden away in the ceiling from 1850 - some soldier probably left it there to open upon his return . . . .

JO said...

I think he's just de-emphasizing landmarking, not trying to create a war against it.
how could you knock on his tours? I went to one the other week. It was free and there were about 30 people discovering history in a neighborhood most people probably wouldn't have realized they were there. These real life tours do much more than an expose article will do.

landmarking is a difficult issue. If my home was landmarked, I would feel like my hands are tied behind my back. who cares if it's worth more money? but still, the developers who take over old buildings are dicks.

Anonymous said...

Eichenbaum seems like a real asshole.

Anonymous said...

I for one am thrilled that we have a Flushingite like Eichenbaum as boro historian.

---

Babs, I hate to tell you, but this is the third borough historian from Flushing and the third involved with Terri Osborn's Queens Historical Society.

The difference between this one and the other two is he has a little intellingence, which is dangerous.

Instead of helping communities save their heritage, he will push bullshit Queens Marks and do borough hall's bidding.

And we know what that is about.

Anonymous said...

Shoulda been Kevin Walsh from forgotten-ny.com

Babs said...

JO - there many advantages to owning a piece of history:

Property owners in historic districts are sometimes eligible to receive benefits not available to others in the city and are usually able to take advantage of preservation experts who work and volunteer for the city.

Grant money may be available for professional design assistance, fa├žade renovation and other projects to help preserve the area as well.

Local, State and Federal tax incentives also become available to designated Historic District properties to encourage owners to improve their buildings and bring investment to core neighborhoods.

And last but not least - owners have the security of knowing that neighboring properties will not suffer unsympathetic changes.

Babs said...

And thanks for telling about me the previous boro historians from Flushing -

SPY VS SPY said...

myth
I think he's just de-emphasizing landmarking, not trying to create a war against it.

REALITY
QUEENS ANTI-LANDMARK STATUS (ALONG WITH BEING AN IMMIGRANT SLUM) MAKES US NOT ONLY LOOK BACKWARD, BUT TRUELY A LAUGHING STOCK.

WHERE DO THE DEVELOPERS, BANKERS, ARCHITECTS, CITY PLANNERS LIVE?

VAN LOON STREET IN ELMHURST OR PRESIDENT STREET IN BROOKLYN HEIGHTS.

myth
how could you knock on his tours? I went to one the other week. It was free and there were about 30 people discovering history in a neighborhood most people probably wouldn't have realized they were there.

REALTY
I FOR ONE AM TIRED OF OUTSIDERS COMING INTO MY COMMUNITY AND CALLING IT AN IMMIGRANT SLUM. THE GUY IS NO HISTORIAN - MISTAKES ABOUND.

AND I WAS ON A TOUR ONCE WHERE HE JUST WALKED INTO A COFFEE SHOP WITHOUT ANNOUNCING IT WAS OVER. AFTER A FEW MINUTES ALL 5 OF US JUST DRIFTED AWAY.

myth
These real life tours do much more than an expose article will do.

REALITY
GO ON A KEVIN WALSH TOUR OR A JUSTIN FERRATE TOUR TO SEE A REAL PRO.

myth
landmarking is a difficult issue.

REALITY
ONLY FOR THE BRAIN DEAD QUEENITE. TAKE A LOOK AT COMMUNITIES LANDMARKED. ANY EVER SAID IT WAS A MISTAKE. THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS OF THE CITY LIVE IN THESE DISTRICTS. AND DISTRICTS LANDMARKED ARE TRYING TO EXPAND.

myth
If my home was landmarked, I would feel like my hands are tied behind my back. who cares if it's worth more money?

REALITY
WHY, DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT BASEMENT EXTENTION FOR 'GRANDMA?'

WHY DONT YOU JUST GO OUT AND BUY A NEW HOUSE? MAYBE YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE HAPPY YOUR HANDS ARE TIED.

myth
but still, the developers who take over old buildings are dicks.

REALITY
YEA, LIKE THE BULLSHIT WE HEAR THAT WE LOVE OUR HOUSE BUT HAD NOT CHOICE BUT SELL TO A DEVELOPER FOR A TEAR DOWN.

Anonymous said...

On the other hand I don't though think it is his role to be involved - perhaps that question was out of line and his answer reflects more his job description than his personal feelings.
--

let jack reflect the wishes of the preservation community, not boro hall or his own.

and he has hell to pay if he uses his position to personally benefit.

frankly he should give up his side tour business and his seat on QHS' board.

Anonymous said...

Crapper's argument is:

1. You are wrong.

2. I will make up a myriad of positions you do not hold to make you look foolish.

"Landmarking does not devalue land."

Yes it does. When you have to apply to the NYC LPC to paint a decrepit interior wall, it affects the value of the building. Yes, that does happen. It frustrates businesses, mostly small ones. To say it doesnt is not being honest.

You can make a legitimate argument that the benefit of having a community based, historically preserved neighborhood outweighs the cost of new construction.

But what business doesnt want to be in a location where they cant expand? If they want to expand, they are wholly dependent on the approval of the NYC government. Is that an appealing prospect to a property or business owner?

Babs as usual doesnt understand what she is talking about.

Calling me a libertarian just makes me know how silly you are and how you dont understand what I am saying.

Spy, your spelling is so cringeworthy, I cant get through your post.

Queens Crapper said...

"When you have to apply to the NYC LPC to paint a decrepit interior wall, it affects the value of the building. Yes, that does happen....To say it doesnt is not being honest."

You do NOT have to apply to the LPC to paint an interior wall. You are full of shit. I know because I OWN a landmarked building.

Anonymous said...

The vast majority of landmarked buildings are not businesses, they are residential properties.

You do not have to apply to the LPC to paint a landmarked building, interior or exterior. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is false. Only a handful of buildings have their interiors designated by the LPC, and those must be spaces open to the public. If the paint color is the same, there is no approval needed. Most buildings have only their exteriors landmarked, so your argument about getting approval to paint an interior wall doesn't hold water.

Queens Crapper said...

Crapper's argument is:

1. You are wrong.

2. I will make up a myriad of positions you do not hold to make you look foolish.


I don't need to make you look foolish; you're doing a fine job on your own. Landmarking, in the vast majority of circumstances, raises property values. That's why so many communities want it so badly.

Anonymous said...

Communities want it not because they love pretty old buildings, but because they want less traffic, development and congestion. And I dont disagree with them for it.

I have represented several property owners trying to alter landmarked buildings so I know the machinations of the system much better than you.

But somehow because a Bloomberg croney says 'landmark' makes it more valuable then I have to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Restricting the ability of a property owner to alter that which is on his property, inflates the value of his property.

Orwellian is overused. What is the next degree?

Queens Crapper said...

Which communities have higher property values?

I rest my case.

And please quote us the statute that says an interior wall needing paint in a designated building requires LPC approval.

You don't even have to allow DOB inside your building if you don't want to, so how would LPC know you painted a wall?

You're talking bullshit. Plain and simple.

Babs said...

Anonymous: "Restricting the ability of a property owner to alter that which is on his property, inflates the value of his property."

Who is forcing anyone to buy a landmarked property?

Who is forcing you to apply for landmark status for your home?

Babs said...

BTW - I didn't call anyone a Liberatarian - I don't freakin' CARE what side the fence you are on AND this forum has NOTHING to do with left and right philosophies.

Babs said...

AND I will agree with Crappy and ADD - landmarked homes in the area INCREASE the value of your property - think Park Slope - it is extremely desirable to live in these areas.

You must be from another country to not know this.

Anonymous said...

QC, defender of the DOB, and NYC corruption.

What statute? Try NYCAC 25-309 which has been interpreted liberally. An extensive portion of your blog is devoted to the abuse of authority by reps of NYC and NY, yet you try and rest on NYC law when it suits your opinion.

The DOB cant enter your building, well, the DOT cant stand in front of your car when pulling out of a parking space.

Queens Crapper said...

The statute referred to has to do with demolition, not painting.

Try again.

Babs said...

BTW - I read recently that Douglaston is expanding its landmarked area!

Good for you Douglaston!!

Anonymous said...

Back to Jack:

He gives ok tours ...

I think he got the job because of his relentless flagging of the immigrant issue.

His stance on landmarking is inexecusable. I am tired of Queens looking backward and provincial.

And rather surprised it did not go to a person of color. This is not a life tenue postion and the beep would do good to rotate it around the borough.

Blabs said...

Is it all about me yet?

Kevin Walsh said...

>>>Dr. Jack-off was never a proponent of anything but conducting his useless tours.<<<

If Eichenbaum opposes landmarking, he's wrong.

But do you believe his tours, as well as ones by others, are useless? People want to know about the history and architecture of their communities.

At least, some do.

www.forgotten-ny.com

Anonymous said...

But do you believe his tours, as well as ones by others, are useless? People want to know about the history and architecture of their communities.

yes, but bad smarmy history is still no history.

Anonymous said...

But why did Jack feel the need to single out landmarking as something he wouldn't support? Is tnhat any kind of stance of a borough historian??