What Makes a Landmark a Landmark?
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…
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]
The worst written pile of smelly nothing I have ever attempted to read….what I gather Huntington may have been gay and some gay people visited his museum that occupied 2 Columbus Cir. for its 1st 4-5yrs.
What IS the building’s history?