City Council Rejects 184 Kent as "Piece of Trash"
In a vote whose lopsidedness left no room for uncertainty, the City Council dealt the death blow to preservationists’ attempts to have the Austin Nichols building at 184 Kent Avenue in Williamsburg landmarked. 43 council members voted against the designation and 6 in favor; a handful of others couldn’t be bothered to get up to…
In a vote whose lopsidedness left no room for uncertainty, the City Council dealt the death blow to preservationists’ attempts to have the Austin Nichols building at 184 Kent Avenue in Williamsburg landmarked. 43 council members voted against the designation and 6 in favor; a handful of others couldn’t be bothered to get up to speed on the issue. In a quote that will hopefully follow him around until the day he’s voted out of office, Simcha Felder had this to say about the building: “This is a piece of trash. We should knock it down and put something nice up.” Gee, Simcha, wonder if Moishe Kestenbaum’s written you any checks recently. Affordable housing deal in hand, David Yassky was happy to do his part to ensure that a hideous rooftop addition would grace the Brooklyn waterfront skyline. “This is simply not worthy of landmarking,” said Yassky. What’s the point of having realtively knowledgeable and cultured people on the Landmarks commission if their recommendations can be shot down by a bunch of politically-motivated bureaucratic philistines?
City Council Stated Meeting [Gotham Gazette]
I don’t see in any place where I asked for your views on the use of force. However since you bought it up, force is also used by the government by allowing people to put up buildings that force other properties to deal with blocked light, added traffic, pollution, create noise, violate or not violate codes, and other additional sundry burdens on other peoples property.
Some of them are good, some are bad, that is called try to acheive some sort of reasonable balance of competing interests. Its also what grown-ups do. One of the main ideas of property law is to try and make the best use of land, to ensure that it gets used in some sort of efficent manner, and does not lay fallow, and it has been that way in the western world since 1066 when william the conquer took over england.
As for your idea of intrusive government, you belive, apparently, that government should only protect property owners. Well guess what, to enforce private property rights and contracts costs us billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money. Why should anyone else be forced to pay to protect your property? Is it my fault that you are too stupid/too incomptent/ or too wimpy to do it yourself? You bought it, you pay for it. If it burns down, too bad, you should be more careful. It someone takes it from you, too bad, you should have bought a gun and worked out so you could protect it. Its not my fault that you are too lazy and you didn’t do that. We should not subsidse your inability to take care of your business, right? because that would be force and aggresion right? and you are against force right?
It seems to me that you merely quarrel with where and to whom force is applied, not the actual notion of force itself, which makes you intellectually dishonest.
again iceberg, you merely rattle off empty slogans when I asked for facts about this building. You sound like a brokenrecord mao-ist quoting that loser ayn rand.
Anon 2:02 – the discussion regarding Gilbert’s original intent (and most of the material in that series) was in reponse to the owner’s assertions at the original LPC hearing. The owner’s historian argued that since Cass Gilbert changed his design, this building was therefore unworthy of designation – we were trying to make the point that that IS irrelevant.
Halden and fka — thanks for the background on why the building might be worth landmarking.
Frankly, I don’t know if aesthetically the building is so substantially of historic value that it deserves landmark status (and certainly the Waterfront Alliance’s discsusion of whether the final version of the building matched the originall Gilbert plans seems far less important than whether the facade in place desreves protection at all). While I appreciate the window groupings, I still don’t see any discussion of whether the building is sufficfiently noteworthy to make it worth landmarking. Perhaps if it was more of a public space in the first place I’d get more outraged, but a warehouse at the edge of mixed use area just isn’t going to get the avereage New Yorker agitated.
in an attempt to elevate the conversation –
the “preservationists” want the building’s facade to be protected against inappropriate alterations. Whether the building is to your taste or not, there some subtle details to the building that work with the monumentality of the massing which serve to distinguish it on an architectural and design level.
The zoning for the building is actually lower than what is currently built, so that the developer seeks to scoop out the interior of the structure and pile it on top in a number of towers. It goes without saying that towers on the waterfront will command the highest possible prices. Similarly, because of a lack of imagination, the renovation scheme will replace the pattern of three 3-foot windows with a single pane of 10 feet of glass, dumbing down a major design element.
The owner has legally removed most of the residents of the building and is looking to create more housing units. While it’s unfortunate for the people displaced, it was within his legal rights. Similarly, the Landmarks Commission had the legal right to designate the building as a landmark.
With regard to the corruption charge, the owners (the Kestenbaums) are large donors to the local councilman, David Yassky (again, legal). Large. It’s all public record on the Board of Elections website, plus remember that Yassy has fundraised for 4 campaigns since 2001 (2 council races, an aborted DA race & his current congressional race). Look for yourself – do a search under their name or people using 184 Kent Avenue as an address. Is this the price of doing business? Is this blood-money? If the preservationists felt so strongly should they have donated to Yassky? But on the other hand, the community did not have the financial resources of the owners, who stand to make $80 million on the project, and instead rallied public support for the landmarking – which was trumped by the voices of those who could afford access.
well iceberg do you have any evidence that preservationists are trying to force a landlord to do anything here? Do you have any facts? Do you have actual knowledge of anything involving this building?
It seems to me that you are just slandering people, and you do it alot. If you read what I posted you will see that facts and information are what I was asking for, not empty slogans.
As usual you flush the discussion right into the toliet, and I am entitled to comment on that, and if you are not on drugs then you are doing a good job of acting like it. Its not my fault your posts make you sound like a meth addict. Why you would blame others for your own words is beyond me.
I have no idea what I am talking about and am just running my mouth off …
my two cents are that the building is ugly, history or not, and that if someone is going to tear it down that’s fine, but….
I want someone in city planning to be able to force people to put up good looking buildings as opposed to the trash that keeps getting built. it can’t all be about esthetics but a requirement for a bit of landscaping on properties would go a long way
does anyone know what is wrong with this building and why it should be knocked down? Anyone besides iceberg the crystal meth guy who actually knows what they are talking about? Does anyone actually know the arguments, or is everyone just running their mouths off and accusing elected officals of being corrupt without any knowledge? Just wondering.
Also, what about that huge plot of empty land by Grand Army Plaza? Y’know, Prospect Park? I’m sure if you put that on the market, you’d have takers. Especially if you could insert the periodic sweat-shop and fire-trap.
What happened to us as a society that people are siding with a millionaire who is evicting families vs. the people who actually live in the neighborhood?
Yep, its a free country. Knock it all down. Push it into the river and make more land. Who needs history. Of course, the owner would really be made whole if we threw out the zoning too. I’m sick of “planners” trying to tell private landlords what to do. And what’s with all that fireproofing? Doesn’t that just cut into profits?
If you’re intersted in why Austin, Nichols deserved landmark status, start here: http://waterfrontalliance.org/Truth1.html