LPC Response re Old St James Parish Hall
Showing posts with label mary beth betts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mary beth betts. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2015
LPC rejects Old St. James Parish Hall for not being old enough
"The Landmarks Preservation Commission does not think that a 1735 church remodeled in 1883 and restored (not recreated) in 2004 to its 1883 appearance is worthy of landmarking because it's not old or original enough? This is strange because the building only needs to be 30 years old and several buildings, such as Fraunces Tavern and the Theodore Roosevelt birthplace were torn down completely and rebuilt in a different style, yet designated. This decision seems to fall into the "arbitrary and capricious" category." - Christina Wilkinson, President, Newtown Historical Society
Here's what it looked like before the "20th century residing". I'd say the restoration of the siding is pretty accurate.
If this property isn't landmark worthy, than what is?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Is Betts biased against living landmarks?
From the NY Times:
...every so often the commission receives an unusual request. Some have sought, for example, an evaluation of a cheerless little spot underneath a bridge, or a seemingly unremarkable house in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, which happened to be the childhood home of the television host Larry King. The commission has also been asked to review manhole covers, an aging brick wall, and a wooded grove in Kissena Park in Queens. None of these proposals were accepted.
“Trees die, unfortunately,” said Mary Beth Betts, the director of research for the commission.
That's an interesting reason for denying landmarking to Kissena Grove, considering there is currently a landmarked tree in Brooklyn and there also was the Weeping Beech tree in Flushing, which was likewise landmarked. It did die, but its descendants have filled the void nicely.
A fellow preservationist put it this way: "Trees die, unfortunately? That's why there are several trees that are landmarked, and there are entire historic districts where trees CANNOT BE REMOVED because they're in an historic district (Douglas Manor/Fieldston/Riverdale/Stapleton).
It's not only the trees of Kissena Park that are important, it's that they are possibly the only remnant of a former commercial nursery from the most prominent family in Flushing that is still in existence ANYWHERE in NYC."
Buildings may burn down, too; maybe we shouldn't landmark those, either?
Photo from Bridge and Tunnel Club
...every so often the commission receives an unusual request. Some have sought, for example, an evaluation of a cheerless little spot underneath a bridge, or a seemingly unremarkable house in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, which happened to be the childhood home of the television host Larry King. The commission has also been asked to review manhole covers, an aging brick wall, and a wooded grove in Kissena Park in Queens. None of these proposals were accepted.
“Trees die, unfortunately,” said Mary Beth Betts, the director of research for the commission.
That's an interesting reason for denying landmarking to Kissena Grove, considering there is currently a landmarked tree in Brooklyn and there also was the Weeping Beech tree in Flushing, which was likewise landmarked. It did die, but its descendants have filled the void nicely.
A fellow preservationist put it this way: "Trees die, unfortunately? That's why there are several trees that are landmarked, and there are entire historic districts where trees CANNOT BE REMOVED because they're in an historic district (Douglas Manor/Fieldston/Riverdale/Stapleton).
It's not only the trees of Kissena Park that are important, it's that they are possibly the only remnant of a former commercial nursery from the most prominent family in Flushing that is still in existence ANYWHERE in NYC."
Buildings may burn down, too; maybe we shouldn't landmark those, either?
Photo from Bridge and Tunnel Club
Friday, January 27, 2012
Robert Tierney insults Broadway-Flushing
Tierney letter to Avella re: B'Way-Flushing
"Based on the staff's review, the Commissioners' responses and my own review, considering the merits, staffing and priorities, I as the Chair, make the ultimate decision whether to bring a matter forward for formal consideration. In this case, and based on the review I described, I determined that it was unnecessary to further consider the proposal."
Allow me to translate. Bob basically just said that Mary Beth Betts nixed it off the bat, her biased analysis swayed the commissioners, and he only has staff available to push for "priorities" (i.e. anything in Manhattan and rowhouses in the outer boroughs).
As for Broadway-Flushing having been too altered to retain a "sense of place," there are SO many districts that have been adopted that have much less integrity than Broadway-Flushing, even after the last decade where they've had about 40 buildings demolished or altered (out of 1300).
Well, at least the great Democrat, Peter Koo, is happy.
"Based on the staff's review, the Commissioners' responses and my own review, considering the merits, staffing and priorities, I as the Chair, make the ultimate decision whether to bring a matter forward for formal consideration. In this case, and based on the review I described, I determined that it was unnecessary to further consider the proposal."
Allow me to translate. Bob basically just said that Mary Beth Betts nixed it off the bat, her biased analysis swayed the commissioners, and he only has staff available to push for "priorities" (i.e. anything in Manhattan and rowhouses in the outer boroughs).
As for Broadway-Flushing having been too altered to retain a "sense of place," there are SO many districts that have been adopted that have much less integrity than Broadway-Flushing, even after the last decade where they've had about 40 buildings demolished or altered (out of 1300).
Well, at least the great Democrat, Peter Koo, is happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
