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…
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.
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!
🙂
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.
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.
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.
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?
Gee- it’s good to see Snark and Biff answering to a Higher Authority – art 🙂
Thanks Snark.
*running out to go round up some people so Snark’s people have people to call*
Biff – I’ll have my people call your people.
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.)