As the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) noted yesterday, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) has agreed to expand the boundaries of their proposed East Village/Lower East Side Historic District study area to include additional streets and buildings called for by GVSHP, the Historic Districts Council, the Lower East Side Preservation Initiative, and the East Village Community Coalition.
The additions to the study areas include buildings along Avenue A, East Sixth Street, Second Avenue and East Second Street. Among the items of interest per the GVSHP: "101 Avenue A, an 1876 tenement of striking architecture which has housed everything from a German Social hall in the 19th century to a drag performance art space (the Pyramid) in the 1980s."
Read more from the GVSHP here.
Here is a letter from Tierney, chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, on the matter.
Previously.
7 comments:
This is crazy. Combine this with the original boundaries, & it's nearly half the neighborhood.
New York is a dynamic city & the constant change is part of that, even in our neighborhood. I've lived here since 1982 & while I'm sad to see some buildings and businesses go, I'm more excited by some of the new additions: Cooper Union, more restaurants, etc . . .
I can do without the crazy bar-hopping weekends, of course, but you take the bad with the good.
There are certain buildings that are worthy of being landmarked, but the entire neighborhood? That's how you turn the neighborhood into a historicized Disneyland, not by letting new businesses come in.
@Anon. 11:19 - Nothing says new businesses cannot come in; they simply need to make their plans work within the confines of smaller, neighborhood-friendly buildings that have afforded entrepreneurs an outlet for their livelihood for decades. What kind of businesses would want to come in here but could not do so if they had to utilize 19th and early 20th century buildings? A whitewater rafting course? Simulated moon shots? NASCAR? Restaurants, clothing stores, food shops - they have done just fine in the storefronts available to them for well over a century.
Curious as to just what kind of outsize concerns you would want here if it necessitated ripping down parts of EV history - more hotels and dorms?
So, Dunkin Donuts is included, but not my building, which hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. I don't get it. Is there a method for arguing that a building get on the list? What if a property owner is not available for a meeting? Do they automatically get excluded?
Well, that's stupid. St Mark's Place not included? St Mark's Church, Renwick Triangle, Stuyvesant Place, E 9 and E 10th Streets not included? Seems to me all that is a lot more historic than some of the anointed area...
why not do all of east 10th street?
"New York is a dynamic city & the constant change is part of that..."
There is nothing in creating a historic district that keeps out Change, but if you know something I don't, please share. This will just keep the buildings; the businesses can continue to change, and change, and change, and... But isn’t that what we’re all sick of? And since you don’t seem to be, then you need not despair.
And the historic district will be an economic engine going forward -- the small sacrifice we can make to pay our neighborhood’s way toward the City’s budget.
And although Teirney seems to be showing some love for the EV, he is clearly sticking to his marching orders on the Bowery – leaving it wide open to being torn down, so you’ll get your share of crappy modern buildings here.
Just happy that the horribly rude and inconsiderate Nativity Church on 2nd Ave is still not included.
Post a Comment