I support preservation in all cases. I however have education in art history that informs me of the value here. I'd surmise that 99% of people have no clue and hence get no impression, and therefore do not appreciate architectural detail beyond size and gross impression.
Therefore educating people (kids, adults are not open) on aesthetic value is a force multiplier for appreciation of the many forms of valuable architectural design. An example is the beating amazing brutalist buildings take from the great unwashed (think Boston City Hall). The mob would tear up everything lacking columns or brick.
Still supporting preservation, I suggest that this problem of public ignorance be given some attention. If a few thousand kids were gifted some hours of art education it would seriously increase the real visual value here over the long term and ease preservation fights.
4
As a kid growing up in the city I could never understand why, during business hours, someone wouldn't smash the plate glass and have easy access to the vault. That vault was practically in the street. When I got older, I waited in long lines to cash my paycheck at that bank. ATM's have done us justice!
I remember that building well growing up in the city during the 50s and 60s. I thought it was pretty cool then and was one on the things that made wandering around the city interesting. There’s always something different to see. Architecture is supposed to stimulate as is the case with art and the original building did just that with this young man. You need to preserve those special things so those in the future can benefit the same way I did .
14
I'm all for preservation, however buildings need to be kept safe and this requires flexibility when it comes to interiors when modernizing them. I don't know enough about the specifics of this case but it seems to me like there are bigger battles. Where was Mr. Grunewald when the iconic 1896 Bancroft Building was demolished just a few years ago?
Maybe the City should grant a development bonus for developers willing to preserve a building (that is historic but not landmarked).
Maybe the City should grant a development bonus for developers willing to preserve a building (that is historic but not landmarked).
10
Having been through a (losing) battle with a Preservation Committee to make a very minor alteration to the second story of my house, I would like to remind Mr. Grunwald and other vocal preservationists that most of us don't want to live in a museum.
History is important, but the world changes. If the building is well-maintained, and retains the general integrity of when it was built, I can't understand why any more is needed.
History is important, but the world changes. If the building is well-maintained, and retains the general integrity of when it was built, I can't understand why any more is needed.
7
@CJQ History is important. I assume you knew the rules about modifying your home prior to purchase. If so, well, there's no point complaining. If not, you should have done your "due diligence." I'm sure there are plenty of homes for sale without restriction.
12
I remember passing by this building so many times, and each time thinking about how it stood bank design on its head—glass walls doing away with the brick and opaque windows and curtains that banks had offered the public for literally 150 years.
But little by little, the landmark interior was whittled away by greedy property developers and uncaring owners.
Now perhaps we reach the level of a Philip K. Dick novel, in which a piece of paper with "bank vault" on it lies on a perfectly empty floor.
There's a nearby house—on Middagh Street, here in supposedly Landmarked Brooklyn Heights—which was so renovated that nothing remains of the original except the rectangular shape.
I expect this to be the ultimate fate of the Fifth Avenue structure as well.
But little by little, the landmark interior was whittled away by greedy property developers and uncaring owners.
Now perhaps we reach the level of a Philip K. Dick novel, in which a piece of paper with "bank vault" on it lies on a perfectly empty floor.
There's a nearby house—on Middagh Street, here in supposedly Landmarked Brooklyn Heights—which was so renovated that nothing remains of the original except the rectangular shape.
I expect this to be the ultimate fate of the Fifth Avenue structure as well.
12
Perhaps the preservationists can rent the space for their own purpose of preserving history as they like.
2
On an island that every day becomes less a vibrant city and more a privileged enclave for those with seven figure incomes I can't help but feel there are more important battles to be fought.
2
@G. Lovely
For you up there in MA, that may be true. But I live here, in this very vibrant city, and I remember that escalator in that building, and I think, in its own way, this is a very important battle.
Architecture, in many ways, helps define a culture. Fight on, Mr. Grunewald!
For you up there in MA, that may be true. But I live here, in this very vibrant city, and I remember that escalator in that building, and I think, in its own way, this is a very important battle.
Architecture, in many ways, helps define a culture. Fight on, Mr. Grunewald!
22
But as someone who lives in Massachusetts, a state filled to the brim with historic landmarked buildings, surely you can appreciate the concern of some New Yorkers who don’t want to see the character and flavor of their city destroyed?
12
Talking about Manhattan. Lived there in the 70s and 80s when it was an exciting mix of people, and they lived there. Now? Still a mix during the day, but at night it's just a high rise affluent suburb. The poor are gone unless they're working late in the kitchen.
1