BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ken Follet <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS The historic preservation free range.
Date:
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 10:37:31 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (89 lines)
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From:   [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to:       [log in to unmask]
To:     [log in to unmask]
Date: 97-11-20 09:34:13 EST

Preservation-l folks:

Some news and views on happenings involving two important historic sites in
New Jersey. Obviously, I find troubling issues in both, but would be
interested to hear some online discussion from listservers.

-- Mary Delaney Krugman
______________________________________________________________________

ATP Site, Great Falls Historic District, Paterson.

The Great Falls Historic District, a National Historic Landmark, was dealt a
blow last night as the Paterson Historic Preservation Commission (5-1)
approved the preliminary site plan for proposed redevelopment of the ATP site
as market rate townhouses.  The HPC reportedly has been under substantial
political pressure to approve the project, and was given very little
opportunity to substantively reshape the design. It did, however, require
that a number of design conditions be met and assurances be given as the
project moves forward.

The Great Falls Historic District is considered to be of the calibre of
Lowell, MA, in its signficance to the industrial history of the US. The ATP
site is located on a promontory overlooking the Passaic River and the Great
Falls in the middle of a planned industrial district begun in the late 18th
Century.  Its early date of development marks the beginnings of the
industrial revolution in America. The ATP site includes the Colt Gun Mill,
where the famous Colt revolvers were manufactured, which under the plan is to
be retained and restored.

Public comment expressed opposition and called for a reexamination of
alternatives, but it was too little, too late to affect the outcome of this
project -- already three years in the making.  Concern was expressed as well
for the interpretation of this site -- so important to US industrial history.

NJ preservationists who have been watching this project with profound concern
hope that, in the course of continuing design review, the townhouses will
somehow evolve to respect the industrial context in which they are located,
even as they provide Paterson with a viable housing development.  In spite of
the best of intentions of the developer and city officials, inappropriate
design here is a hard pill to swallow.  It is regrettable that a more
creative solution could not have been found.

Those who have fight hard for the Good, the True, and the Industrial may well
have to settle for suburbia in the gritty but meaningful heart of Paterson's
historic factory district.


Riverbank Park, Ironbound, Newark

This week, NJ DEP Commissioner James Hall announced his refusal to list
Riverbank Park on the NJ Register of Historic Places, in spite of it having
been designed in the 19th Century by F.L. Olmsted -- famed architect of NYC's
Central Park, Brooklyn's Prospect Park, and others.  Hall reportedly [Newark
Star Ledger, 11/18/97] called it "disingenuous" to list such a property
because the status "would not protect it" (in spite of the DEP's power to
review and impose conditions, mitigation, or stop public undertakings that
encroach on NJ Register-listed properties).

Essex County and Newark officials last year proposed the park as the site of
a sportsplex, which met with substantial local opposition. County officials
shifted it to another site after contaminants were discovered and the NPS
issued a "cease and desist" order pending review of the project. The plans
for the stadium may not yet be dead, however, as a County Freeholder
yesterday called for a re-examination of the site for the sportsplex.

Some questions might well be asked:  Are we talking historical significance
here or are we talking politics?   Are threatened properties held to a higher
standard of evaluation, or is it just that the statutory and procedural
protections are afforded only those properties that don't need them?  There
seems to be some confusion on this issue, if reports of the decision in this
case are accurate (always a consideration!).

The potential loss of this historic park adjacent to the tightly packed
neighborhoods of the Ironbound have caused continuing worry for many
concerned with the history of Newark and its "livability." It appears that
local advocates will have to rely on the National Park Service to work to
protect the site -- or perhaps appeal the decision.


MDK

ATOM RSS1 RSS2