NY Daily News Weighs In On Downtown Landmarking: “No Good Reason”

By on January 28, 2012 12:11 pm in Architecture, Brooklyn Heights, Downtown Brooklyn, Landmark Preservation, Real Estate

The New York Daily News published a to-the-point Opinion piece titled “The Battle Of Brooklyn” condemning the proposed Brooklyn Downtown Skyscraper District, which is heading for a full City Council vote February 1. The five-paragraph story calls the bid to protect the 21 buildings “transparently nonsense.”

The piece goes on, “No one has claim to freeze New York’s ever-changing silhouette” and claims that the buildings’ “demolition and replacement would, frankly, be quite beautifying. Here is a landmark case of abusing the landmarking process.”

Share this Story:

  • Jorale-man

    That’s a pretty ridiculous editorial. One can make reasonable arguments for and against landmarking but the News doesn’t offer any real evidence why it feels those buildings shouldn’t be protected (other than they apparently don’t like the way the buildings look).

    Did they consult any architects or historians before writing that? Or consider whether certain buildings there have historical merits and others don’t? I guess one shouldn’t be surprised this type of writing.

  • hw

    Sounds like someone at the Daily News stands to benefit financially from this not passing. The paper’s owner is a real estate developer…

  • BH’er

    I don’t get what all the hub-bub is about? What threat are we trying to run off here?

    Glad to see Boro Hall will be landmarked, but some of those buildings don’t appear to be going anywhere and the government buildings in the middle of Cadman are an abomination and should be torn down – they make the whole plaza dreadful

    Besides, naming it the ‘skyscraper’ district was the first nail in the coffin – no one in Manhattan would know what you are talking about with the buildings being on the petite side of even a slightly tall building

  • Muskrat

    As a reminder, from a few days ago these were the quotes from the REBNY, which sound like fear mongering: “Not only is this an inappropriate use of landmark designation, but it will end up costing the city much-needed tax revenue and jobs. This is another case of the city landmarking away its economic future….. In these economic times, when every dollar counts, landmarking threatens to send Court Street back to the ‘bad old days’ of empty storefronts and dirty streets.”

    Does anyone know why this will “cost” us tax revenue and jobs, as claimed?

  • stuart

    ridiculous editorial; makes no sense. How is landmarking notable buildings that are significant historically and architecturally, an abuse of the landmark process?
    It seems to me exactly what the landmark process is supposed to do.

  • eg

    There is another landmarking process attempting to be made for a lower east side parcel . the objections being made by residents for that was that landmarked buildings are more costly to change or repair because of the extra scrutiny attached to them. So people involved want more freedom to change and do as they please.

  • Andrew Porter

    Let’s tear down Lever House, the Waldorf-Astoria, the Woolworth Building and other places which could be enlivened by even larger, less attractive development. While we’re at it, Willow Street could be greatly enhanced with some nice, 85-story Frank Gehry monstrosities. While we’re at it, we’ll replace Judy Stanton with Snooky…

  • Willow St. Neighbor

    Andrew,
    It’s Snooki with an i!

  • David on Middagh

    Andrew put the “Why?” in “Snooki”.