Mixed Views on Mayor's Veto Motives
Much is being made of Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to veto the City Council’s rejection of landmark status for the Austin, Nichols warehouse. Some say he’s it’s consistent with his reputation as the “cultural mayor”, others say it’s a feeble attempt for not defending 2 Columbus Circle and still others say it’s a gesture to protect…
Much is being made of Mayor Bloomberg’s decision to veto the City Council’s rejection of landmark status for the Austin, Nichols warehouse. Some say he’s it’s consistent with his reputation as the “cultural mayor”, others say it’s a feeble attempt for not defending 2 Columbus Circle and still others say it’s a gesture to protect and validate an important cultural institution. Our top nominee for Barbarian of the Year, councilman Simcha Felder, used the opportunity to reiterate his position on the issue: “This building is a piece of trash, and it should be knocked down.” What do you think? Is this just politics as usual or is the Mayor’s heart in the right place on this one?
Bloomberg, a Landmark and Veto [NY Times]
Babs – I’ve heard that Felder is going to work for the administration when his term is up in January.
Landmark-real-landmarks – there were actually quite a few fair-minded people with no relationship to Williamsburg politics & development who thought this building deserved landmarking (thousands of fair-minded people, even). In fact, the owner could only find ONE architectural historian to back his position, and he had to HIRE that one. More than a dozen historians volunteered their time to advocate for designation.
The designation stands on its merits, and most of the people directly involved in advocating for the building are trying to protect the building, not stop development.
to those opposed to this landmarking (specifically landmark-real-landmarks) why do you care if this gets landmarked? do you think it’s so ugly it needs to be changed to what the developer has in mind? I can understand having issue with what the landmark’s commission does (or does not do) generally, but why be bitter about the designation of a certain building? Even if you disagree with the designation, how does it harm you, or anyone?
I’ve got to say I don’t get this one at all — someone so seemingly uncaring, completely profit-oriented, totally disregarding of aesthetic sensibilities, etc., suddenly jumping in on this one — makes one think there must be an ulterior motive somewhere. I like JoshK’s theory about housing supply, also thoughts about Columbus Circle, but maybe it’s a personal thing — maybe he just plain hates Simcha Felder? Or maybe he’s secretly dating some Willimsburg preservationist? Remember, this is the former smoker who now hate cigarettes so much he wants to stop everyone from using them — maybe he’s seen the light here too?
I think I’m missing something.
Wasn’t the plan to add to the roof and modify the facade, not knock the building down?
If the mayor wants to ax the addition, so be it. These are still going to be sweet lofts with fabulous views. Why is scaling down a development project suddenly front page news?
A bit off Josh. I think the council is more in the hands of developers than Bloomberg.
He doesn’t need anybodys contributions. The council has some folks with higher political ambitions and they don’t have Bloomberg’s deep pockets.
Anon 9:25
Every designation has to pass the City Council, so if you are so concerned with time wasted on it, you should’ve made sure the commission shouldn’t approve it in the first place, because designating it is just the same waste of time, especially as everyone knew it would never pass.
And about your last statement, you should plain state that you want it landmark, because the owner is a JEW, and not only that, but a HASSIDIC JEW, that way you wouldn’t have a problem of trying to choose political correct words to hide your feelings, it’s a free country here, and nobody can kill you for that, so come on, be a hero and show you true colors.
Not that everyone who fights for it shares the same feelings as you, but yours is now on the record.
I think the question is how/why the council took this issue up – to reverse the Landmark commission. With all the issues facing NY – why spending the time over the designation of 1 bldg?
Smells like political pressure to me- from some
connected/influencial types.
I firmly believe that Bloomberg’s decision is pure politic.
Why?
Because no doubt that the designation is also pure politic.
There is no way in the world that a fair-minded person will agree that this building is of landmark status.
It’s politics true and true, as everyone who fights for the designation will tell you, their main concerns are the neighborhood will change, etc., so why choose that building to fight on?
This building is not a piece of trash yet; as it’s still out there, but hopefully will be soon one
It’s a lost case, thank G-d, and get out and look for a new victim.
I think that context is important. Where this building is located it is a major structure and an attractive one. I support the Bloomie.