« Flexible Standards at 5 Roebling Brokerage Switches Ain't Helping at 245 16th Street »

August 3, 2009

Fight to Landmark the Home of Nathan's

Preservation of Coney Island is such a charged topic that it has practically become an official Brooklyn sport. The next round in the game is one resident's attempt to save the Nathan's hotdog building by granting it landmark status and forcing developments to take root elsewhere. The petition, launched on Sunday, had 51 supporters at the time of this post, with a goal of 50,000. Note also that PetitionSpot, the site hosting the petition, has another, similar petition here, with 34 supporters and a goal of 100,000. Do you think the Nathan's building is worth the fight? For a little history, check out the Flickr posting of the above photo from Wallyg.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/10833

Comments

Looks like a classic clapboard Italianate under there. Lesser cultural icons have been preserved, why not this one? I don't know where it lies in terms of the "New " Coney Island, but if it's smack in the middle of assured development, perhaps it could be moved.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at August 3, 2009 10:29 AM

Yeah... we should protect this PoS and ALL of the bits and pieces that have been hobbled onto the structure... that 6ft wide addition on the right is certainly a thing of beauty and inseparable from the cultural icon that is Nathans!

Wait... isn't the icon the friggin' hotdog? I have NEVER heard the actual building ever ever ever ever mentioned in conjunction with Nathan's.

This is sooooo absurd. If the owners of Nathan's think it appropriate to bulldoze the building for whatever the hell they have planned down there... that's what should happen. There is NOTHING that nice or particularly special about that building.

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 10:39 AM

I think it is the new redevelopment plans that endanger Nahans- and while the building itself is no great shakes, Nathan's is an icon, as well as a huge draw. The hotdog eating contest draws thousands of spectators and tourists. It's internationally know. they bring in money and recognition. Nathan's is Coney Island- ever hear, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" Glossy, shiny, slick "New" Nathan's? try boring, bland, and I can eat a hot dog at the mall.

Does it ever occur to people that Coney Island- the Theme park may aw well be Six Flags? Meh.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 11:03 AM

How can this not already be land-marked? Go ahead, destroy history for some ugly new poorly built money grab. Generations have been able to enjoy this place and now, in some fight over large amounts of money that the earners will never be able to spend in their lifetime, future generations will never enjoy it. People just can't get their heads around the fact that they are only on this planet for a limited amount of time and that their actions have long lasting effects on what happens later. You can't take it with you man, and no one will remember you when you're gone.

Posted by: Kannerr at August 3, 2009 11:05 AM

In my film treatment of Brownstoner, Nathans's is destroyed when the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile crashes into it.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at August 3, 2009 11:05 AM

Snark, please please please cast me in the lead role so I can be the guy riding on top of the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile with a maniacal smile as it heads towards Nathan's a la Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove.

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 3, 2009 11:14 AM

Ummm... Nathan's is already basically "glossy, shiny, slick" on the inside. Really the only part anyone sees.

When is the last time you even noticed the outside of the the Nathan's building? The inside looks like a mall restaurant.

So ridiculous. Do you really think a new building (and no one says a new building is even being considered) would change the fabric of Coney Island!? I think it's funny that Coney Island has to be shabby to be acceptable. Maybe they should stop raking the beach as well so kids can step on some of New York's other "flavor."

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 11:18 AM

Biff, it's Slim Pickens who rides the bomb

Posted by: GHB at August 3, 2009 11:21 AM

Darn, what a faux pas. You're right GHB. Regardless, I want that role. I'll wear my new faux-hipsterish straw hat in place of Slim's cowboy hat.

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 3, 2009 11:26 AM

Biff -- you're thinking of Slim Pickens

Posted by: Jail_Bait at August 3, 2009 11:29 AM

May I add... I've ridden in the Wiener Mobile and it's awesome!

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 11:29 AM

To me, this place is a shrine, as worthy of preservation as any single NYC landmark you care to mention. I signed the petition.

When I worked in Secaucus a few years ago, the Weinermobile was often parked outside of our building at the Harmon Meadow corporate center. I never saw anyone drive it, or found out exactly why it was parked there so often.

Posted by: East New York at August 3, 2009 11:41 AM

Actually, I've been over there many times and know Nathans. So what's your point? That everything look like it was built in Disney Studios? I don't think Coney Island has to be shabby to be acceptable- but i do believe that knocking down everything with an historical presence deprives the area of character- something sorely lacking in the "new and shiny" plans they have for Coney Island. Coney Island has tons of historic character, it's evocative- shabby or not. (And by the way, food service concerns and raking the beach for safety is hardly going to stop by landmarking Nathans and other historic architecture in CI. Please come up with realistic comparisons,not red herrings.)

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 11:48 AM

Biff - I'll have my people call your people.

Posted by: DitmasSnark at August 3, 2009 11:54 AM

Thanks Snark.
*running out to go round up some people so Snark's people have people to call*

Posted by: Biff Champion at August 3, 2009 11:58 AM

Gee- it's good to see Snark and Biff answering to a Higher Authority - art :-)

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 12:03 PM

OK, bxgrl... "Coney Island has tons of historic character, it's evocative- shabby or not."

Nathan's IS shabby... so let's protect it. No, it's not being protected *because* it's shabby, but because it's "evocative."

I'm sorry, but evocative only goes so far. There are buildings that are truly historic in the Coney Island area and deserve protection. BUT the shanty town buildings like the one that houses Nathan's is not one of them.

ALSO... I will repeat... there is a BIG difference between a building having the *possibility* of being knocked down (and being prevented by marking it as a landmark) and a building ACTUALLY being demolished. If the charm and "evocative" character of the Nathan's building is the right business decision, then it will stay there. If the business decision is to knock it down and build something new... well, that seems appropriate too. AND guess what, a new building doesn't mean they'll stop making hot dogs and having events where Joey Chestnut eats a disgusting amount of them.

An abandoned Munster Family house that's falling down is spooky and "evocative" and can add lots of "character" to a neighborhood... but should it be landmarked?! Or should the owners of the property have a choice about what to do with it?

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 12:24 PM

Well. tyburg- I guesss I like originality and character. I'm one of those who doesn't see the need to flatten everything that isn't new or trendy or upscaled just because it offends some people's visual sensibilities. And most people who love Coney Island love it for its character and history- warts and all because its a real NY place, not a disney version of it. After all, it's Nathans that keeps plugging itself as the Original. So they knock it down and build a New! Improved! Nathan's, the Shiny. So not the same- but I seem to be in a dwindling group of people who loved New York for its grit, reality, art and people- warts and all. It was unique. If i want to visit NYC the theme park I can visit that hotel in Las Vegas- which has about as much character as a piece of cardboard.

Look what happened to South St. Seaport- That was a fascinating place- now its another food court that could be in Podunk as well as anywhere. Instead of playing off its strengths, they decided to make it "touristy"- so now its crap. Maybe you like it that way- I certainly don't- I remember when you could walk into the food court and actually meet a real seaman and the place smelled of fish and the water. Now it just stinks.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 12:48 PM

Trust me bxgrl, I totally get you and understand where you're coming from. I love a lot of the grittiness and quirkiness of NYC too. But you don't *landmark* places to keep the grit. You landmark buildings because they special. The Nathan's building is not special. Nathan's is special. It's the hot dogs and the location. Not the building.

You're right, South Street Seaport is a different animal now. But the seamen are gone. NYC doesn't have a port to speak of. That is the real mistake, a lot more than making a mall.

But this stuff isn't always bad. Have you ever been to Faneuil Hall and Haymarket in Boston? That place was run down on the verge of collapse (literally) -- it was no longer being used as the warehouses and public markets as it had been for a century or more... it was a derelict site in the hear of Boston. And even Faneuil Hall was in a state of neglect even though it was on the National Register of Historic Landmarks (gotta pay for it!)

Then a smart developer realized the three market buildings could be transformed into an amazing public space (basically a mall). it saved the historic buildings and created a public space for the city.

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 1:03 PM

Tyburg- I haven't but I've only heard good things about Faneuil Hall and Haymarket. How did it go so wrong in Soth St. Seaport? I remember talking to some of the really old guys- one had been on a whaler, a sailing ship. Some of them still did beautiful shell work. I don't want us to live in the past- of course we can't- but I so hate losing so much of it, the people, the memories, the skills- it's everyone's loss and there's no getting it back.

Have you ever read Robert Ruark. On the frontpiece of his book "Something of Value" he quoted an old Basuto proverb:

"If a man does away with his traditional way of living and throws away his good customs, he had better first make certain that he has something of value to replace them."

I never forgot that.

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 1:14 PM

I like that quote... and it's true. Starbucks, Restoration Hardware, American Apparel and $2,500/mo studio apartments seem to be the NYC of the future (err... present)

Maybe we have to bring a good ol' fashioned crime sprees to the city... I'm game. I just wanna be able to pay my rent!

:-)

Posted by: tybur6 at August 3, 2009 1:46 PM

"Buildings don't make a neighborhood's character, people do."

Old Bensonian Proverb

Posted by: benson at August 3, 2009 1:54 PM

By all means, lets destroy another part of Brooklyn history in the name of "progress." Maybe the Mets or some other borough can rebuild "the original" Nathan's so as to continue the long line of other identifible Brooklyn historic markers than have been appropriated by others.

Ever been to the horrible abortion of a Junior's in midtown? Was Jackie Robinson a New York Met? And who can forget the "Brooklyn Diner" in Manhattan?!

Posted by: DrPangloss at August 3, 2009 2:26 PM

Sure it's worth it! It's Nathan's... A real classic and NY landlmark.

Posted by: DarciG at August 3, 2009 2:36 PM

> I've only heard good things about Faneuil Hall and Haymarket.
> How did it go so wrong in South St. Seaport?

How can you tell the two apart? Aren't they both on the list of places like Fisherman's Wharf that function as virtually identical tourist traps, with slight variations in regional cuisine?

Posted by: DitmasSnark at August 3, 2009 2:41 PM

In the 40s, Dodge City, Kansas, tore down what was left of Front Street in the name of progress. Within a few years, westerns became popular. Dodge City realized it had a bit of a tourist bonanza (so to speak) and built an exact replica half a mile away -- a movie set version of the real thing. Could have kept the real thing, but . . . .

Not saying the situation is the same here, but it is hard to imagine Coney I w/o Nathans as is (and I don't care about the interior -- who eats inside?).

Posted by: slopefarm at August 3, 2009 3:53 PM

Snark;

Well put.

From a purely "preservationist" POV, Fisherman's Wharf is wonderful. They've even installed some old electric trolleys along the main drag there (forgot its name). All of it is false however. I was there a few months ago, and felt like I was in one big (nauseating) mall.

Hence, my old proverb:

"Buildings don't make a neighborhood's character, people do."

Posted by: benson at August 3, 2009 4:27 PM

some problems i cant solve but this one i can...

1. dont landmark the building. save the interior including the counters, decorations, etc., and put them into storage.
2. rebuild coney island in a way that doesnt suck...
3. include a spot in the new development for a new nathans that recreates the interior of the original...

The building is worthless, but the nathans experience can be protected w/o landmarking the building.

Posted by: slick at August 3, 2009 4:34 PM

"The building is worthless, but the nathans experience can be protected w/o landmarking the building."

Only if you can't tell the difference between an original and a reproduction. And please tell us how to rebuild Coney island in a way that doesn't suck- who decides what that is?

Posted by: bxgrl at August 3, 2009 6:26 PM

Slick: That's like saying that the plan to reconstitute the internal fixtures of CBGBs inside a Vegas casino means "the CBGB's experience can be protected."

Posted by: big green van at August 3, 2009 8:57 PM

« Flexible Standards at 5 Roebling Brokerage Switches Ain't Helping at 245 16th Street »

August 3, 2009

Fight to Landmark the Home of Nathan's

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions