Saturday, December 11, 2010

Must be nice to live on the Upper West Side

From the NY Post:

A battle of historic dimensions is brewing on the Upper West Side.

The city's Landmarks Preservation Commission is considering a proposal that would extend protection to an additional 790 buildings between 70th and 106th streets west of Broadway.

The area already has 2,577 landmarked buildings in a series of seven existing historic districts.

"By making this aggressive landmarking effort, they will be hurting the economic future of the city," fumed Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York.

"Landmarking the entire city does not leave opportunity to grow."

Spinola lashed out at the commission, charging that members are using historic designation as a way to regulate land use -- a power held by the City Council -- rather than out of a desire to protect buildings of architectural significance.

"Using landmark designation to protect views from penthouse apartments, to freeze architectural-style preferences of a few current residents and to promote the self-interests of private parties is a misuse of the landmarks law," Spinola said.

A separate district, the Upper West Side-Central Park Historic District, covers a huge swath east of Broadway and is not proposed for landmarking expansion.

Richard Emery, one of the founders of the West End Preservation Society, accused the Real Estate Board of siding with developers who want to make a fast buck without regard for the surrounding neighborhood.

"They're trying to protect the right of developers to put up junk," said Emery.

"The landmark designation does not prevent development, it only prevents development which is discordant with the architecture of the community," he said.

_________________

I kind of lost interest after "The area already has 2,577 landmarked buildings"...

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think it's high time this city stopped growing until its infrastructure gets radically improved.

Anonymous said...

Overturn the landmarks law.

It discriminates against working people in favor of the elite.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said...

Overturn the landmarks law.

It discriminates against working people in favor of the elite."

Wanna 'splain that one, big guy?

How would making more historic buildings vulnerable make life better for you in your tacky little house.
All that it would do is further concentrate money where the "action is" -Manhattan.

Don't you worry now, ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

"How would making more historic buildings vulnerable make life better for you in your tacky little house."

You don't seem to grasp the point. Equal protection under the law doesn't mean life is better for one or another because a law is passed. It means everyone is treated equally, regardless of race or class, which isn't the case under the landmarks law. Therefore, it should go.

If the Landmarks Law were overturned, developers would tear down a lot of buildings in Manhattan, just as they do in Queens, and replace them with inferior junk. Why should certain communities receive tax deductions in return for preservation of their communities? Why should we have an agency that serves only the wealthy?

Anonymous said...

"Equal protection under the law doesn't mean life is better for one or another because a law is passed. It means everyone is treated equally, regardless of race or class, which isn't the case under the landmarks law."

Oh come on, you are grasping at straws trying to defend an argument that is really based on petty jealously.

I like the mid century buildings in Forest Hill along QBL near Continental..but realistically there is little likelihood of any of it being landmarked.

Fact is that most of the architecturally significant buildings are in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

You may have a fondness for some old church or movie theater, but that doesn't make it significant in the broader context.

The Landmarks Preservation act was written to address the wholesale destruction of buildings that have some importance to the character of the city and neighborhood.

It will never be repealed..only strengthened as a better educated public appreciates what has been saved vs what would replace it.

The best advice I can offer you is to organize and demand landmarking of buildings that -you- and your neighbors consider important..and don't forget the importance of -zoning-.

Queens Crapper said...

"Fact is that most of the architecturally significant buildings are in Brooklyn and Manhattan."

Holy shit, are you misinformed! But then again, you have been posting the same dumb comment for the past few years whenever this subject is brought up, so it's no surprise. (Just because you're posting under "anonymous" doesn't mean I can't spot you a mile away.)

The Landmarks Law, and I quote:

"A landmark is a building, property, or object that has been designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission because it has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation."

Based on history alone, many undesignated buildings in Queens would qualify. Having other people's neighborhoods preserved while yours is torn down is not "petty jealousy." And zoning is nice, but so long as you have a BSA that makes swiss cheese of the zoning code, it's not a panacea.

Educate yourself.

Anonymous said...

Funny how according to Mr. Uninformed, the upper west side is considered more architecturally important than Rickert-Finley houses in North Flushing or Victorian houses in Richmond Hill. Funny how West Park Church is more historically significant than St. Saviour's, the only wooden church in the city built by Richard Upjohn because a bunch of whiners with money said it was.

These real estate people make me guffaw when they peddle this crap and expect to be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

I love self-hating Queens people. Yes, let's landmark everything outside the borough because we're inferior and don't deserve to have our neighborhoods look nice, but people with a lot of money do.

Anonymous said...

(Just because you're posting under "anonymous" doesn't mean I can't spot you a mile away.)

Who am I?

When you are done with that....What is the meaning of life.

I understand that the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island often get overlooked when it comes to designation.

That was not the original point of my comment to that idiot who out of yes, petty jealousy, would repeal a law that protects places of cultural value just because he is pissed off at his area being overlooked.

Queens Crapper said...

The point is that a law should protect all places of cultural value or none of them.

Anonymous said...

Spinola is a disgrace to all of the hard working Italian-American working class that helped build this city at the turn of the last century. He forgot his roots because he is a greedy real estate bastard now. Greed has destroyed this city. Spinola, shame on you.