We’re not exactly sure how this relates to last year’s debate over landmarking 184 Kent Avenue, but it seemed like an interesting jumping-off point for discussion. In yesterday’s article in the Times, Herbert Muschamp writes the following in specific reference to 2 Columbus Circle:

A building does not have to be an important work of architecture to become a first-rate landmark. Landmarks are not created by architects. They are fashioned by those who encounter them after they are built. The essential feature of a landmark is not its design, but the place it holds in a city’s memory. Compared to the place it occupies in social history, a landmark’s artistic qualities are incidental.

So does considering 184 Kent’s social history increase the case for it being landmarked?
The Secret History of 2 Columbus Circle [NY Times]