Chris,
I agree, don't need examples. And you are right on the mark with "why at the
11th hour?" I write this as I receive a notice of another public forum on
the future of 2 Columbus Circle (On Thursday, May 8, Community Board 5 will
cast its final vote on the future of this building by architect Edward
Durell Stone). This is a cultural problem - why else would we get to work on
so many huge restoration/preservation projects? By being late with
everything, we mostly are running around putting out fires instead of
getting ahead of the snowball. How boring would life be if people actually
maintained their buildings - periodically repointing and a dutchman here or
there. No-o-o, they wait until it is too late and then hire someone to
investigate, prepare huge complex reports, write grants, phasing schemes,
documents, etc. Lots of fun for me (I guess) and $$$ for contractors and
workers - keeps us all working. Ultimately detrimental to the building - the
wood trusses would not rot (less anyway) if the roof did not leak.
Eric Hammarberg
Interim Director of Preservation
Associate
LZA Technology
641 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10011-2014
Telephone: 917.661.8160 (Direct)
Mobile: 917.439.3537
Fax: 917.661.8161 (Direct)
email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Met History [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 12:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Saving a "Church"
In a message dated 5/6/03 9:57:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
Landmarks West has been engaged in trying to work with the Church and save
the
buildings for, I think, close to 1-year.
Eric, your points are taken, and I don't necessarily think there is anything
untoward in the present process - Landmark West! is indeed trying to reach
out to "save" ... well, whatever they want to save. But I note that: the
issue of the physical health of the church building has been current for
years, decades even. But could the preservation community (really,
plural, not a single preservation mafia) (despite recent proof of its
existence) have better served its constituents by seeking a different
approach until the "last minute" technique?
Recognizing the NYL Conservancy's wonderful work with church buildings over
the last two? decades, still: a) this building has been in obvious and
evident jeopardy for the same amount of time and b) wouldn't it be easier
if we had a different mechanism than just "wait until the owner proposes to
demolish and ruin the views of a good constituency"?
Whether the preservation groups are "at fault" in not developing such a
methodology is not my contention at this time. But I do note that
there is a reverse corollary which is true: that if an otherwise eligible
building does not "ruin the views of a good constituency" the standard
preservation groups frequently yawn. How many examples would you like?
Best, Christopher
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
The information in this email and any attachments may contain
confidential information that is intended solely for the
attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or
any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or
retained by any person without authorization from the addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender
immediately, and delete this message.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
|
