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
>

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