Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BP - "Callahan's Preservationeers" |
Date: | Fri, 21 Apr 2000 12:29:53 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[log in to unmask] forwards a plea to lie down in front of the
bulldozers to save a Greenwich Village building:
"The Poe House is sturdy, unassuming four-story brick residence currently used
for office space by the NYU law school. Its doorstoop was removed and its
lower facade altered sometime in the early 20th century, but otherwise the
building compares remarkably well with an early drawing showing the original
exterior."
The lower half of the house is completely gone, built out to the building
line with a 2 story projecting storefront (Hey, ya want fries wid dat
raven-burger, Mac?). Landmark designation would protect the upper 2 floors,
which are indeed intact. (This is a resonant issue: I have gotten a call a
month on this building for the last year and a half by various unconnected
individuals, many slightly ditsy but still clearly upset about this much more
than, say, whether South Street is over-restored.)
But I am unclear as to what the point of preservation would be - not that I
necessarily disagree with that. Is the goal just to hold on to the upper two
floors of Poe's house? Or is the goal to hold on to the building until an
owner came along who would "restore" the lower facade of the house? Would we
condemn such a "restoration", or applaud it? If we would condemn it, would
we actually prevent it? How should a preservation commission regulate the
lower floors of such a building?
Yes, I'll take the fries.
Sign me, Pit N. Pendulum
|
|
|