Why is JFK Airport exempt from Landmarks Preservation whenrailroads are not?

On Feb 22, 12:03 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 21, 5:16 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Why are nosy bodies given this opportunity of
> > infringing on personal property (or corporate
> > property) in the first place?
>
> Umm, are you familar with the outcry over the demolition of the
> headhouse of Pennsylvania Station, and how the Grand Central Terminal
> headhouse was protected by Jackie Onassis?

Landmarks Preservation was _invented_ because of the wanton
destruction of Penn Station.

I rather doubt that Mrs. Onassis protected GCT single-handedly.

> > If someone believes AA has a "public obligation",
> > let that someone pay for it.
>
> That's not how it worked in the case of GCT, even when the owner is
> bankrupt.

Is the building profitable today?

On Feb 22, 10:53 am, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>
> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >Why are nosy bodies given this opportunity of
> >infringing on personal property (or corporate
> >property) in the first place?
>
> When it has an impact, or would be of obvious benefit to the community
> at large. A landmark piece of art such as this clearly qualifies in my
> opinion.

Not if it isn't 50 years old, it doesn't.

> >If someone believes AA has a "public obligation",
> >let that someone pay for it.
>
> I'd go along to the extent that in such cases the taxpayers should pay
> for the preservation and/or storage of the piece. Since it is a
> 'taking', but a good one.

Do you have a precedent for the "taking" of artworks?

On Feb 22, 6:28 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> Of course, nobody offered to buy the building or help the PRR with
> taxes and expenses of running the building.  I doubt those advocates
> bothered to use PRR trains.

How do you know any of that? How do you suppose people traveled fifty
years ago?

On Feb 23, 1:21 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:40 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, nobody offered to buy the building or help the PRR with
> > > taxes and expenses of running the building.  I doubt those advocates
> > > bothered to use PRR trains.
> > How do you know any of that?
>
> Because I read numerous articles in the New York Times about the
> demolition of Pennsylvania Station and the issue of landmark
> preservation.
>
> It was very FEW people who were upset by the demolition.  The
> intellectual crowd who likes to tell everyone else to live*.  The
> everyday commuter or long distance traveller was happy to see the old
> building--which was in terrible shape by then--torn down.  The
> intellectuals admitted they didn't use the train anymore; but flew or
> drove.

So you'd be perfectly happy if there was no beauty or majesty anywhere
in the built environment. You'd be utterly comtent with bousing stock
(and everything else) that was precisely adequate and had no esthetic
qualities whatsoever.

You know where you can go for an environment like that? Warsaw.
Prague. Sarajevo. Presumably Dresden. Any city that was largely
destroyed in war and rebuilt under purely utilitarian guidelines by a
dictatorial regime.

Have a look at Kozlowski's movies (Decalogue, Blue/White/Red), if you
can stand them, to see the effects.

Then start rethinking your attitude toward monumental architecture.

> (*The same kind of people who castigated Levittown as "ticky tacky",
> utterly ignoring the issue of housing needs for the people who
> actually lived there and loved it.)

Of the thousands of Levitt houses, how many retain their original
appearance? When they needed one to landmark for the fiftieth
anniversary recently, they could barely find one whose residents
"loved it" so much that they hadn't changed it.

> > How do you suppose people traveled fifty
> > years ago?
>
> The Pennsylvania Station headhouse was demolished between 1963-1967.
> That's 40-45 years ago, not 50.  

Yeah, some great tide turned in 1958 that suddenly made all railroad
architecture obsolete and otiose.

> People of means travelled by plane or
> car.  In 1963 jet travel was well established between major cities,
> and pressurized prop planes between lesser points; air travel was
> bustling by then.  Many superhighways were built in the 1950s and open
> for traffic.  Further, New Yorkers who did go by train tended to use
> the New York Central, not the Pennsylvania Railroad.

That kind of depended on where they were going, no? I came back from
Christmas vacation 1965-66 in Miami Beach (don't ask) into Penn
Station (the only time I ever saw it) directly into the subway strike
(and somehow my father & his partner managed to find my mother and me
in the crowd -- I don't remember whether they'd rented a car or
somehow gotten a cab).

> Indeed, it was the construction of terminals such as the American
> Airlines one now under discussion and the TWA as well that contributed
> to the Pennsy's decision to replace the headhouse.

Right. 'Cause previously all the airline passengers had used Penn
Station for boarding.

On Feb 23, 10:43 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@> wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > It was very FEW people who were upset by the demolition.  The
> > intellectual crowd who likes to tell everyone else to live*.
>
> Neo-cons?

I don't think Philip Johnson was a neo-con in 1965 ...

On Feb 23, 12:14 pm, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:08:06 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@> wrote:
> >On Feb 22, 10:53 am, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>
> >> <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> >Why are nosy bodies given this opportunity of
> >> >infringing on personal property (or corporate
> >> >property) in the first place?
>
> >> When it has an impact, or would be of obvious benefit to the community
> >> at large. A landmark piece of art such as this clearly qualifies in my
> >> opinion.
>
> >Not if it isn't 50 years old, it doesn't.
>
> At only 2 years off, that's  more of a legal technicality than
> anything else.
>
> >> >If someone believes AA has a "public obligation",
> >> >let that someone pay for it.
>
> >> I'd go along to the extent that in such cases the taxpayers should pay
> >> for the preservation and/or storage of the piece. Since it is a
> >> 'taking', but a good one.
>
> >Do you have a precedent for the "taking" of artworks?
>
> No more or less than the 100's BoseArts, Deco or neo-Federal facades
> around New York that can't be altered.

"Facades" are integral parts of buildings. Artworks aren't.

It was quite controversial when a landmarked Mies _interior_ in a non-
Mies building in Chicago was _moved_ some ten years ago so that the
building could be demolished.

On Feb 23, 1:10 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 23, 8:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> > So you'd be perfectly happy if there was no beauty or majesty anywhere
> > in the built environment. You'd be utterly comtent with bousing stock
> > (and everything else) that was precisely adequate and had no esthetic
> > qualities whatsoever.
>
> That is totally irrelevent to the question.
>
> The real question is who pays for the preservation costs?
>
> > That kind of depended on where they were going, no? I came back from
> > Christmas vacation 1965-66 in Miami Beach (don't ask) into Penn
> > Station (the only time I ever saw it) directly into the subway strike
> > (and somehow my father & his partner managed to find my mother and me
> > in the crowd -- I don't remember whether they'd rented a car or
> > somehow gotten a cab).
>
> We went to Miami about the same time.  Were you the kid setting off
> fireworks in the trash cans behind the hotel?

No. I was the one who didn't get to go to the Jackie Gleason Show.

> Anyway, we flew by jet.  I could not help notice how nicely the
> airlines treated us compared to railroad service of that era.
>
> I had a friend who's family went down by train.  He said it was the
> "trip from hell".

My father refused to fly. He ended up not going anyway (my grandmother
went instead), so we could have flown. As it happens, my first
airplane trip was in 1971, from JFK to Ithaca after my best friend's
funeral. (Leukemia. The kind that's now curable. He was buried in a
long line of Vietnam servicemen who were also 19. Nothing to mark him
as not a soldier.)

The 25-hour train trip (each way) was unpleasant because we were in a
coach car and the heat wouldn't turn off. The food was excellent.
Returning, we passed through a cold front that looked _exactly_ like
the drawings in my earth science textbook -- great curved billows of
clouds stretching from horizon to horizon, sky to ground.

On Feb 24, 2:31 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:45 am, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.> wrote:
>
> > True, but I don't think that has anything to do with whether a given
> > architectural piece (be it structural or simply aesthetic) is worthy
> > of preservation.
>
> There was a bank building that was deemed a landmark.  The bank it
> housed is out of business and the building is now an hotel.  Fine.
>
> But the building had a large neon sign with the bank's name on the
> roof.  That sign was deemed part of the architecture and ordered
> preserved, and to this day it's there.  The initials have nothing to
> do with the current hotel, they only refer to a defunct bank.
>
> That is a great example of the idiocy in landmark preservation.
>
> If a sign in a certain style is integral, then at least the sign
> should reflect the current building's owner.
>
> Many people felt the Kodak transparency sign in GCT had achieved
> landmark status and should've been preserved.

Well, "many people" were wrong.

On Feb 24, 9:45 am, Agent_C <Agent-C-hates-s...@nyc.> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:42:22 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> <gramma...@> wrote:
> >"Facades" are integral parts of buildings. Artworks aren't.
>
> True, but I don't think that has anything to do with whether a given
> architectural piece (be it structural or simply aesthetic) is worthy
> of preservation.

No.It has to do with whether an artwork (in this case some sort of
window) qualifies for designation as an architectural landmark.

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@> wrote in message
news:4f9ae142-0a42-4745-a8b0-a06b28aaa323@28g2000hsw..com...
On Feb 23, 1:21 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:40 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, nobody offered to buy the building or help the PRR with
> > > taxes and expenses of running the building. I doubt those advocates
> > > bothered to use PRR trains.
> > How do you know any of that?
>
> Because I read numerous articles in the New York Times about the
> demolition of Pennsylvania Station and the issue of landmark
> preservation.
>
> It was very FEW people who were upset by the demolition. The
> intellectual crowd who likes to tell everyone else to live*. The
> everyday commuter or long distance traveller was happy to see the old
> building--which was in terrible shape by then--torn down. The
> intellectuals admitted they didn't use the train anymore; but flew or
> drove.

So you'd be perfectly happy if there was no beauty or majesty anywhere
in the built environment. You'd be utterly comtent with bousing stock
(and everything else) that was precisely adequate and had no esthetic
qualities whatsoever.

You know where you can go for an environment like that? Warsaw.
Prague. Sarajevo. Presumably Dresden. Any city that was largely
destroyed in war and rebuilt under purely utilitarian guidelines by a
dictatorial regime.

Have a look at Kozlowski's movies (Decalogue, Blue/White/Red), if you
can stand them, to see the effects.

Then start rethinking your attitude toward monumental architecture.

> (*The same kind of people who castigated Levittown as "ticky tacky",
> utterly ignoring the issue of housing needs for the people who
> actually lived there and loved it.)

Of the thousands of Levitt houses, how many retain their original
appearance? When they needed one to landmark for the fiftieth
anniversary recently, they could barely find one whose residents
"loved it" so much that they hadn't changed it.

> > How do you suppose people traveled fifty
> > years ago?
>
> The Pennsylvania Station headhouse was demolished between 1963-1967.
> That's 40-45 years ago, not 50.

Yeah, some great tide turned in 1958 that suddenly made all railroad
architecture obsolete and otiose.

> People of means travelled by plane or
> car. In 1963 jet travel was well established between major cities,
> and pressurized prop planes between lesser points; air travel was
> bustling by then. Many superhighways were built in the 1950s and open
> for traffic. Further, New Yorkers who did go by train tended to use
> the New York Central, not the Pennsylvania Railroad.

That kind of depended on where they were going, no? I came back from
Christmas vacation 1965-66 in Miami Beach (don't ask) into Penn
Station (the only time I ever saw it) directly into the subway strike
(and somehow my father & his partner managed to find my mother and me
in the crowd -- I don't remember whether they'd rented a car or
somehow gotten a cab).

> Indeed, it was the construction of terminals such as the American
> Airlines one now under discussion and the TWA as well that contributed
> to the Pennsy's decision to replace the headhouse.

Right. 'Cause previously all the airline passengers had used Penn
Station for boarding.