Saturday, November 7, 2015

Report: Preservationists speak out against making Union Square Park a city scenic landmark


[Photo from Oct. 30 via Bobby Williams]

Interesting story here via New York Yimby yesterday.

On Thursday, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a public hearing about designating Union Square Park a city scenic landmark. (While it is already a National Historic Landmark, that designation doesn't protect it from changes within the park.)

Per NYY:

Jack Taylor, speaking for the Union Square Community Coalition, said that designating the park as it is today “would be a historical travesty.” “And it pains me personally, as a committed preservationist, to take a position that seemingly dismisses landmark protection for a fabled but now flawed part of New York City history,” he added.

For starters, there is about one block of actual park ... and that has been altered already through the years. In short, it lacks "historical integrity," as a rep from the Historic Districts Council put it.

Head on over to Yimby for the full story and an archival photo.
at

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousNovember 7, 2015 at 9:21 AM

    I agree with not preserving Union Square Park in its current state. Thirty years ago, maybe, but not today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. blue glassNovember 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM

    there is no preserve the park in this designation
    it is merely a bunch of words

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousNovember 7, 2015 at 12:18 PM

    I agree with him, but also really dislike Union Square. I honestly don't see much worth preserving besides the green space, which people can't even access.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Edmund DunnNovember 7, 2015 at 5:28 PM

    Like Times Square, when using it as a short cut, I try to get through Union Square as quickly as possible. Even when I am purchasing at the farmer’s market, I get in and out fast.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousNovember 7, 2015 at 7:12 PM

    Harsh, dudes. I love walking though Union Sq on the way to work. Shrug.

    ReplyDelete

Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein. Your articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to an article are welcome.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that contains violence, racist comments and potential libel will not be published. Facts are helpful.

If you'd like to make personal attacks and libelous claims against people and businesses, then you may do so on your own social media accounts. Also, comments predicting when a new business will close ("I give it six weeks") will not be approved.