From the Daily News:Fearing the demolition of one of Woodside's oldest homes, preservationists are urging the city to landmark what they believe was a 19th century inn.
But the family that owns the 64th St. site disputes that it ever housed Shaw's Hotel. The family hopes to sell the land for $1.6 million, billing it as "a builder's delight."
A 1994 book about Woodside by local author Catherine Gregory said the hotel was on Woodside Ave. near 64th St., near where the Glaze home stands.
Gregory's book says that innkeeper Benjamin Shaw bought a 50-acre plot in Woodside for $5,530 on March 26, 1842.
Three homes were on the borders of the farm, including Shaw's Hotel. After he died, the land was auctioned as four lots in 1857.
Joanne Garahan, a board member at the Queens Historical Society, labeled the house "amazing" and said a photo from the 1800s proved it hasn't changed much.
Garahan wants the city Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the site, protecting it from destruction.
"Before things disappear forever, we should make sure LPC is doing everything it can," said City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Sunnyside), who supports the landmarking.
Glaze said she wants to sell to a group that will turn the home into a museum, but she doubted its worth as a historic site.
"There's trash all over," she said. "It's just not an area where I would consider that house being of value."
You mean the neighbors or actual trash? What a strange thing to say...
22 comments:
This is Queens, so it's already gone!
Bloomberg's suck-ups at the LPC---the Tierney/Betts team---won't consider landmark status for what's in their view a "significantly altered" structure.
If it was located in Manhattan, the site would already have been calendered for an LPC hearing despite the new siding applied to its exterior.
It's not very impressive and George Washington didn't sleep there, so why bother saving on its site?
Move it or it will perish.
NYC zoning permits denser development there so nobody's going to save a nondescript frame house
That, unfortunately, is reality.
The previous poster is a member of Community Board 1.
"You mean the neighbors or actual trash? What a strange thing to say..."
The woman is a bit of a snob. But this is the sort of person that will take an active interest in an old dump like that and you'll have to cater to them if you want anything to happen.
This case highlights a bigger issue that occurs in any of those older working class neighborhoods..that issue is the fact that property owners in those areas see a home as an investment -one that takes a huge chunk out of the family's finances.
When it come time to sell (or flip) they all think that old shack is gonna make 'em rich.
That is what you are up against in these zoning and preservation causes.
Well ... okay ... now what do we want to do beside implore and hope??
um????
Criticize the cult of development that has infected both the media and political establishment.
naw.
How about SUBMITTING an application for landmarking by the two organizations that serve this area: QHS or NHS?
naw, cause you know it will be rejected.
How about the Queens Preservation Council doing something about this? Four Borough? QCC?
naw, they are still thinking about the Koch Bridge issue.
How about the local 'community' board support preservation, and if the LPC application rejected, challenge the law.
naw, now I'm acting silly.
So folks, exhibit A of what is wrong with preservation in Queens.
It will, with out a doubt, get torn down.
This case highlights a bigger issue that occurs in any of those older working class neighborhoods..that issue is the fact that property owners in those areas see a home as an investment -one that takes a huge chunk out of the family's finances.
---
Not true.
This communities have owner occupied housing that regard property as a bit more than bricks and mortar.
The problem is the surrounding area is infected with absentee landlords and illegal conversions making the community a hive of transient residents.
Nothing exists at this time to encourage community building by encouraging people with a long term investment in the community.
They are, as a rule, antitweeding, demand quality of life issues, against unsupported development (pick up my damn trash and don't bring another 50 people next door if you can't take care of the people here already)
These are exactly the kind of people that stands against development.
How about moving the building? It's been done before... Looking at the photo, contextually it makes sense, if this is indeed an historically significant building.
Make a donation to the Historic Districts Council and have them advocate for you.
http://www.hdc.org/
Remember...."Don't tread on me"
The owner has the right to sell it and it not worth saving. Not every old building is worth saving.
Get over it.
Anonymous#9 said:
"Remember...."Don't tread on me"
The owner has the right to sell it and it not worth saving. Not every old building is worth saving.
Get over it."
Yes Mr/Ms troll "Don't tread on me" is precisely the message we want to send to Bloomberg and his developer cronies. Wanton destruction of our history and the character of the neighborhood is the sort of twisted thing that would delight philistines such as Mr. Bloomberg and yourself.
Increasing population density strains the existing infrastructure and ruins the overall quality of life for all. This overdevelopment rampage is a festering cancer growing on this borough that must be stopped.
This building is not unsound and is mostly uncanged. So what would be the reason for it's demolition other than to satisfy the greed of a developer who doesn't have to live with the consequences of his oversized crap constructs.
This is a pickle of an issue. You cannot change the rules willy nilly unless you are the mayor.
The owner of this property has a right to do as they please with it as long as the zoning resolution is followed along with other applicable laws and rules. If there are people who want to preserve it let them match the price someone else is willing to pay or let the city decide to buy it for a fair market value and place a lien type arrangement on it to prevent it from being knocked down or change in a significant way.
I agree with those who want to preserve our past but one family should not be saddled with that cost. Otherwise what you really have here is a confiscation of the property by the government. Nothing more, nothing less.
On the right side of the photo is an old factory turned into a church. On the left side is a house that rents out rooms illegally. My mom grew up on this block in the 1930's. Times have changed.
I agree with those who want to preserve our past but one family should not be saddled with that cost.
---
Cash out, and let your neighbors deal with the infratructure costs for the 30 people that replaces you.
Ya know what, maybe those that leave should have to pay that.
Assh*le.
No...actually I live in Jersey City which IS NOT covered by CB#1.
No...actually I live in Jersey City which IS NOT covered by CB#1.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY BOARD TO SERVE ON IT.
Anonymous said...The problem is the surrounding area is infected with absentee landlords and illegal conversions making the community a hive of transient residents."
You are missing the forest for the trees here.
Teardowns, absentee landlording, rent every nook and cranny are app symptoms of the underlying issue: people who go deep into debt longterm and, at the end, look for a big payout.
They leave the area and don't care, it's just TFB for who remains.
For those who follow, that high price paid for old housing which often has little desirability for younger "whites" means either it become a hive of multiple (usually immigrant) families or is redeveloped.
Places like Bayside are more insular (so far) and tend to have people who are better educated with better housing and care about "what comes after me". Change will happen there also, but it will never become a Woodside or Corona.
look, woodside, the best and most interesting way a neighborhood can begin to improve itself is to start saving it's history. this house at 39-73 64 st is not "significantly altered"! quite the opposite. it looks the just about the same as it did in a civil war era photo on page 42 of catherine gregory's woodside book. that's how it was recognized. and it is beautiful and well cared for. of course, the owner has a right to sell; this is not what this is about. please take a lesson from greenwich village. up until the 1950's, the neighborhood west of greenwich street(not avenue) was designated a slum. but it has had a wonderful re-birth because the residents began to fight to save their historic buildings. it took one housewife(i believe her name was jane siegal) to stop robert moses from plowing through the village. woodside has only one landmark, the moore-jackson graveyard on 53 st. we deserve others. not only this wonderful house (which is in sound shape considering it's antiquity) but st. paul's church, built in 1873, too. it needs help. remember, by destroying your history you are destroying yourself. do something good for woodside and fight for our history!
Anon No. 17:
Jane Jacobs.
"Queens Lost", is a book I'd love to publish someday.
It would not include a dedication to the NYC (Manhattan) Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Yawn, I should live so long!
Teardowns, absentee landlording, rent every nook and cranny are app symptoms of the underlying issue: people who go deep into debt longterm and, at the end, look for a big payout.
--
When we talk to people that live in old big homes, like those in Astoria Village (or the Steinway mansion for that matter) we find that their families bought the house decades ago for a song.
$20,000....$40,000...whatever.
They can have a handsome reward for selling the property at a markup undreamed by %95 of the country where real estate is flat or falling - from levels that are a fraction of NY's.
In most parts of the country, such property owners as a matter of pride will say "I can get a little more for it but I am proud of my community and love that house and hope it makes future families as happy and proud as we were. So I sold it insuring it will stand."
The problem is in NYC the real estate - not the public - dictates the pulse of community direction.
They are abetted by 3 factors:
1. the politicians (Jimmy if you love landmarking, why don't you conduct seminars in Sunnyside Gardens which was unnecessarily divided by the landmark process because your colleagues were less than helpful)
2. the media (isn't it nice to know that news is dictated by ad revenues?)
3. the preservation community (those that know aren't telling cause when the dinner bell rings and we don't hear it they get our portion - listen to the dean of NYC Historians, Kenneth Jackson act as an apologist for development. Please note Kenneth: just because they used to wantonly tear stuff down in the past doesn't mean we have to act stupid in the future.)
See Old Queens in Early Photographs and Queens Then and Now to get an idea of what's been lost.
How completely pathetic it is to say from what's left of 19th century Queens, 39-73 64th Street would be on anyone's list for preservation.
has this been torn down or does it stand? any update?
Post a Comment