Browsing this Thread:
3 Anonymous Users
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
Get back to me when you learn who Koolhaas is. Every time a 111 First thread comes up, up pop two shills - Joshua Parkhurst and DanL. Funny guys. L is for losers.
Posted on: 2007/2/15 3:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
 |
Poor injc. He loves to sling around insults but can't take a little snark. Poor little baby. He seems to think that 3 60 story towers in the middle of a warehouse district would be a good contrast with the Powerhouse, yet claims that others know nothing about architecture. Funny guy!
Anyway, having dispensed with the whining, let's get to the point. DanL, alb and others have done a fine job with respect to the significance of 111. Ultimately, these are subjective assessments. But considering that a) SHPO designated it as eligible, b) the Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted for it as part of a historic district, and c) Goldman's own consultant conceded that 111 had historic value, except that it had been "impaired" by its deterioration, then I think that those of us on the side of "historic" are in good company. Side note: Goldman's consultant sent the whole gallery into a fit of hysterical laughter when he tried to justify not designating 111 as historic based on the removal of the smokestack, which Goldman had insisted had to be removed just weeks before the hearing. Ian says that we shouldn't declare every other building historic. No one is doing so. Jersey City has only 4 historic districts, and has never taken action to protect any other historic resources in its city, despite a long list of eligible sites. Also, Ian says that not every warehouse is historic. I agree. The historic significance of 111 has been well documented by others above. One other thing to add. The building was the first of its kind in the district in that it was the first structure built for a national business. Prior to 111, all the buildings in the district were small independently owned metal works shops, woodworking shops, foundries, etc (only one such building is left, the Juan Ribon machine shop). The American Screw Company, later replaced by Lorillard was the first large business to establish its presence. Other companies followed, such as the A&P and Butler Brothers, which led to the development of industry on Jersey City's waterfront. On top of that, even if one building, by itself, does not carry significant historic value, such a building can be an important contributor as part of a larger district. Not every warehouse in Soho or Tribeca is so architecturally distinguished or so rich in history to warrant protection on its own, but the neighborhoods as a whole do. In any event, that's really not important in this case, since 111 merited protection on its own. Like Ian, I too would like to see the waterfront develop. That's what the Powerhouse Arts District redevelopment plan did. It took several warehouses that were underutilized and neglected by their owners. It upzoned the property so that these owners could make millions of dollars so long as they were willing to abide by the very reasonable conditions asked of them. The plan, which was the result of years of deliberation and planning between many different constituencies, in fact was working quite well. The J. Leo Cooke warehouse was as much as, if not more of, an "eyesore" and "pile of bricks" than 111 (with less historic value). Yet it was restored according to historic standard, and the result was a stunning combination of old and new, with the apartments selling immediately. Maybe the new 111 will be an architectural wonder. I do know people who, even though they were opposed to the settlement, felt that the selection of Koolhaas was good, because he has a streak of independence and is not simply a prestigious "developer's architect." Again, over the past 20 years, in Newport and, just closer, in the Hudson Exchange District, we have seen plenty of 30 story towers go up. If the city really wanted distinguished architecture in its high rises, it should have pushed for that where they were actually building the high rises, not smack dab in the middle of a district with mid-rise warehouses rich in history. Joshua
Posted on: 2007/2/15 2:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I respect the property rights argument, and I think the best outcome would have been if someone had bought out Goldman. Also: I don't necessarily object to whatever it is that Koolhaas is going to do. I'm the only one around who likes Grove Pointe. If I like Grove Pointe, then I suppose I'll love Koolhaas Pointe. But one issue here is that all the property owners in the historic-looking area (whether they're in the official zone or not) may have a property-ownership-type stake in whether the district continues to look cool and old and ends up attracting a bunch of cool shops and restaurants. My guess is that none of them really want to be in an officially designated zone, because that would limit appraisers' appraisal of the value of their property and hence their ability to get bank loans today or raise cash today through other means. On the other hand, they all have a stake in the other owners informally acting to keep the area looking cool and historic, because a cool, historic-looking area probably has a lot more potential to hold its value over the long run than, for example, the horrible, brutal, 1970s-ish redevelopment-type buildings in Newark do. Think about it: the former chairman of Goldman Sachs is governor of New Jersey. But even he can't get Goldman Sachs to really move to Jersey City, because there just any place for the Goldman Sachs people to eat here. Say all of the waterfront buildings together are worth $25 billion to $50 billion today. (Please give me a better estimate if you know one.) If they really were valued like Manhattan properties, then they'd be worth 2 or 3 times as much. So, in just 10 or 15 years, simply creating the illusion that the Jersey City is cool and has nice restaurants could make the property owners at least $25 billion on top of regular price growth. Now, that money would be split a lot of ways, but, if I had a chance to split $25 billion just by creating the temporary illusion that the Gold Coast was as nice a place to live and work as Battery Park City, I wouldn't just spiff up the Lorillard Building. I'd hire actors to go open fake restaurants and pretend to enjoy the food, if that's what it took to overcome the "where on earth do you eat over there" factor.
Posted on: 2007/2/15 0:12
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
well said jcwalkingman, pretty much in parallel with my thoughts.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 23:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
btone88 wrote:
Quote: But you lost the architecture argument so you resort to calling me names. He lost? Why, because he failed to adequately respond to this infantile gem: Quote: Joshua, do you know ANYTHING about architecture? [/quote] No, because he does not know who Koolhaas (Koolhaus to him) is and he thinks his architecture would better fit with Newport's. And when he loses an argument on merit, he calls people apologists and shills, a 6th grade namecalling tactic.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 23:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
The warehouse district had been previously declared eligible for historic designation by the state.
The most recent Jersey City Master Plan, the document that guides land use, zoning, development/redevelopment resulting from study and public process by City Planning, consultants, property owners and approved by the Planning Board and City Council called for the creation of the historic district. There are two national landmarks in the district, 150 Bay St ? A & P Warehouse and the H & M Powerhouse. The area had been previously zoned light industrial / warehouse. An overlay zoning called WALDO that permitted 50% market rate 50% artist live and work space failed to spur development. This area was never targeted for skyscrapers, or even high rises (more than eight stories). A redevelopment plan to create an arts and entertainment district that called for the creation of a historic district was based on a study that included input from all stakeholders including property owners, preservationists, educational organizations, nearby residents, arts groups, areas of municipal government and a national consulting organization was unanimously passed four times by the City Council which included Mayor Healy, Council President Vega, Councilmen Brennan, Gaughan and Lipski and Councilwoman Richardson. A notable key ingredient identified as essential to the plan?s success would be leadership from the top of Jersey City government to guide and fight off subsequent development pressures. This plan, PAD already included compromises necessary for approval including those amenable to most developers. As posted on this thread and else where, the plan was designed to benefit the city as a whole not just one area or the resident artists. While some artists bought into this idea, many were turned off by the commercialization of the area. The settlement with the owner of 110 / 111 First Street certainly does not appear to meet the definition of settlement. Many believe the settlement was used to break down the zoning laws of Jersey City and create precedent for other up-zoning throughout the city in conflict with the master plan. Keep in mind the public redevelopment process resulted in designating this area a historic district and a non-public process tore it apart without checks and balance or ensuring compliance with redevelopment law. With regards to those who believe that the property owner has the right to build what they want to build on their property, if you at least except some form of land use law, the owner of 111 First St. never had ?as right? the zoning to build a skyscraper. There are many things that I am sure people would not want built on that site. The changes to the redevelopment plan to meet the terms of the negotiated legal settlement only now give this as right. While I can understand that there are members of the public who like the idea of a skyscraper designed by a ?world class? architect (if his design is what is ultimately constructed) to replace a historic structure (by current accepted standards), while that benefits of the arts and entertainment district in historic buildings can be objectively made, the aesthetics are subjective. However, what I do not understand is accepting the city?s end run around the legal process and land use law to do so. At some point, the problems of Jersey City may affect you directly. You can view Civic JC?s objection to the 111 legal settlement here - Powerhouse Arts District to be Gutted by Legal Settlment
Posted on: 2007/2/14 22:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
|
Nobody was working there today, not even the guard. I just took this over the fence at Bay/Warren. It was too miserable out with the storm to poke around.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 21:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I searched some more and found that, when the building was built, it wasn't a warehouse, but what must have been, for the time, a sophisticated, high-tech factory: See this excerpt from the journal of a canal boat journal (which I just discovered, and which contains hundreds of references to what Jersey City was like from 1861 to 1895): http://www.lcmm.org/images/img_education/ img_educator_resources/ bartley_journal/bartley_pg_1-300.pdf (spaces added to the URL at the line breaks) Quote:
Posted on: 2007/2/14 21:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I did more Google-ing and found that 111 First Street belonged to the Continental Screw Company, and then the American Screw Company, even before Lorillard moved here. See: http://www.njcu.edu/Programs/jchistory/Pages/ L_Pages/Lorillard_Tobacco.htm (space deleted after Pages/ to keep a long link from messing up the page layout.) Quote: In the early 1870s, the Lorillard Company moved to 111 First Street, Jersey City, and manufactured tobacco products as well as snuff. It took over a Greek Revival brick building that was constructed in 1866 by an unknown artist for one of the nation's first conglomerates, the American Screw Company, which fronted on Washington Street. Also see: http://www.invention.smithsonian.org/resources/ MIND_Repository_Details.aspx?rep_id=467 (space added after resources/ ) Quote:
The son later invented a well-known method for armoring battleships, and he has a Wikipedia entry. So, the guy who built the building is well enough known that he's in Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 21:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 3:17 Last Login : 2018/4/25 16:16 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
370
|
As a child as many other New Yorkers did, I spent many happy times with my family visiting what was the old Lorillard Estate in the Bronx, better known as the New York Botanical Gardens and the Bronx Zoo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Botanical_Garden The Old Snuff Mill with it's waterwheel is still there to be visited by the Bronx River. Remember centuries ago, snuff was considered healthy! It would have been nice to link the history of 111 to that site.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 21:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It seems a little silly to start declaring every other building historically significant. The Woolworth Building is historically significant. A common warehouse is not.
Also, it seems a little bit like second grade to start name calling people with different views. Anytime someone says anything positive about the redevelopment of the old industrial waterfront they are immediately labeled a "Developer Apologist." That's a bit silly now, sort of like calling all the "but the artists lived there" folks Communists. It seems a lot of people are under the impression that private property belongs to everyone.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 20:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I realize that some people on here like the "feel" of the industrial zone that used to be the PAD; it was truly unique with its massive mid-rise structures, cobblestone streets, and other remnants of the industrial era.
Others of us like the feel of the "big" city and are looking forward to the presence of more retail, a more noticeable skyline, and the feeling of being in the center of it all. I, for one, am looking forward to the creation of a new skyline element in place of the warehouse that used to occupy 111 First Street. A few more comments: alb - Lorillard was the owner of a tobacco company, not a development company. J. P. Lorillard was to this area's Industrial era what companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are to the area's present era (at least in some respects) - GS and MS both give their workers plenty of perks such as continued education, health care, bonuses, etc. (keep in mind that back then we had a surplus of manufactured goods and today we have a surplus of services, as we have changed from an industrial-based economy to a service-based economy - and if you disagree, take a close look at the numbers released the other day regarding our nation's trade deficit). -Also, as you (alb) suggested, Lorillard was nothing to be proud of - his products were responsible for the deaths of many, many human beings from horrible diseases ranging from cancers to heart disease (for those of you who weren't aware, the plant was a distribution facility for tobacco, which has been shown to cause the illnesses I have mentioned). Personally, I feel better with the destruction of the remnants of a company whose business led to the destruction of many lives; others of you may feel more comfortable with the preservation of that "death" factory. -Artists did not move into the building upon its closing; drug dealers and squatters occupied (and destroyed) at least parts of the building before any artists arrived (maybe some on here weren't around before the waterfront became a safe place?). -In addition, anyone who knows anything about the buildings knows that they were pretty much crap architecture thrown up quickly based on the demand at the moment (as evidenced in the fact that if you looked along Warren Street, the buildings' windows were staggered at different heights from ground level since the plant was composed of several buildings built in several phases and not very well-planned). I will not disagree with anyone that Goldman is a greedy, self-centered bastard looking out for only his own interests, but I personally like the idea of having another skyline element in JC.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 20:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Ditto.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 20:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
Joined:
2005/11/29 14:59 Last Login : 2011/8/11 19:06 From Paulus Hook
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
40
|
Quote:
But you lost the architecture argument so you resort to calling me names. He lost? Why, because he failed to adequately respond to this infantile gem: Quote: Joshua, do you know ANYTHING about architecture? I don't know s**t about architecture but I take a great deal of interest in the aesthetic and design of my neighborhood. I don't quite know how to feel about the slew of development that is underway and I'm sure I don't fully agree with JP's outlook on the subject, but I find his input on this thread and others to actually be informative and shed some light on what is happeing in the area. For that I thank him and hope he continues to post.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 19:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What points would you make to support this argument? My impression, from doing a brief Web search, is that 111 First, the Lorillard Building, is a fairly famous building. See: http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/88121161-1180.html "Business: kept growing, and in 1875 Lorillard's production facilities were brought together in what, was then America's: largest tobacco factory. Located in Jersey City, N.J., it stood seven, stories high, covered more than two city blocks and employed upward of 8,000 workers, many of them women who wore long dresses with bustles as they wrapped and packed Lorillard products for shipment all over the country. In line with the traditional Lorillard stand on labor relations, the factory offered such progressive features as babysitters for women workers, an 8,000-volume library for all employees, a school that could take 850 of their children--all paid for by the company." Thoughts: - Maybe one reasonable reason to want the Lorillard Building to come down is that the merchandise made there killed a lot of people. I'm not that into restrictions on tobacco use, but, if I knew someone who'd died from smoking, maybe I'd think differently. - What's really interesting is that, way back in 1875, Lorillard was an awful lot better about taking the daycare and educational needs of workers and their children into account than any of Jersey City's current developers are.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 19:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So now you resort to this??? I don't know Goldman from a hole in the ground. But you lost the architecture argument so you resort to calling me names. You are pathetic.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 18:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Yes, a bit more than apologists for developers.
What's funny is that the shills for Goldman here have repeatedly argued stuff that not even he nor the city officials who cut the deal did. They at least had the honesty to admit that they were destroying the warehouse district, and that Goldman's proposal was completely incompatible with the neighborhood as planned. They claimed that they "had" to do this in order to avoid legal liability. Because only in Jersey City is upzoning an unconstitutional conspiracy to deprive someone of property rights that would entitle him to a $100 million lawsuit.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 17:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There is no way to blend architectural art which is Koolhaas with the depressing, bland, uninspiring architecture of Newport. It's much better to blend it with the Powerhouse, if just for the clash of the wonderfully-designed things old and new. Joshua, do you know ANYTHING about architecture?
Posted on: 2007/2/14 17:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Both the Historic Preservation Commission, and Goldman's OWN CONSULTANT conceded the historic significance of the building.
Old and new do need to mix, and there are different ways of doing so. Some examples of how it can be done: 1) The Majestic Theatre, which combined the resotration of the Theater in front with the new condominiums in back. The "new construction" there is a bit conservative, but it fits in well without trying to be an imitation. 2) The Grandview, at the edge of Grand and Greene in Paulus Hook. The building incorporates and pays tribute to some of the architectural elements of neighboring buildings. Some people criticized this as "faux-historic" and I understand the argument, but when you look at it up close and in contrast to the neighboring buildings, it fits in well. 3) The Bel-Fuse corporate headquarters on Van Vorst Street. The historic facade of the Brinkmann & Hauck Wheelwright shop was preserved, and a new section was added on which is modern architecture but complements the historic facade. http://www.lwdmr.com/galleries/4/ 4) In the Powerhouse Arts District itself, the renovation of 140 Bay street. The J. Leo Cooke Warehouse was restored, according to Sec'y of Interior Standars. The developer was allowed to build two additional stories with a setback, and the north of the building was new construction. Again, the historic and the modern complement each other. http://www.lwdmr.com/galleries/2/ What does not work is to completely tear down a historic and replace it with a 60 story tower. I'd love to see such a building in, say, Newport. And now that it's being built, I hope that it looks nice. But to say that, after a significant upzoning, the owner had a right or need to build higher than the original zoning and higher than his original building plans doesn't pass the giggle test.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 16:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I really don't know how to respond to this.
The 111 First buiding was a friggin ruin, was architecturally quite uninteresting, and economically unviable.
You are defending a no-name pile of bricks that is (was) 111 First from demolition and are against a Rem Koolhaas (not Koolhaus as you say) new construction in its place.
Blows my mind, but somehow I am not surprised.
Quote: Koolhaus may or may not design something wonderful. It's just inappropriate right in the middle of what was supposed to be a historic district<<
I disagree. Totally. Old and new need to mix.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 15:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Quote:
1) I believe Goldman owned the property as far back as the 80s, although it may have been the early 90s. There is plenty that a responsible owner could have done during that time to maintain the building. Just because prior owners were also irresponsible does not mean he was responsible. 2) I never said Koolhaus was building monotonous housing. Rather, the two and a half story pink brick monotony is the "progress" that we have received in most of the city. Koolhaus may or may not design something wonderful. It's just inappropriate right in the middle of what was supposed to be a historic district. Of course, now that the city has caved to Goldman, other owners who previously indicated they would abide by the plan are now lining up to demand the right to build 50 stories as well. I wonder how many more reports we will get saying that buildings in the district are in "iminient danger of collapse."
Posted on: 2007/2/14 15:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Quote:
Goldman was claiming that the building was in danger long before the squatters and drug dealers set in. He was claiming that was the reason to evict his tenants, the artists who had allowed him to receive income from a building that had no longer served the industrial use for which it was zoned.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 15:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
In fairness, when they first started tearing down the front half of the building, you could smell the rotten wood hours after they had finished for the day. I mean, wood that is rotting has a very distinct odor, and you could smell it two blocks in either direction the day they were ripping down the washington street facade.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 14:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Of course, it was the owner's own active neglect that led to such deterioration I'm sure the squatters and drug dealers that lived there didn't contribute to any of the deterioration. How much did they pay in rent?
Posted on: 2007/2/14 14:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
JPhurst wrote:
Quote:
1. Really? How long has Goldman owned 111 First? 10, 15 years? Is it possible to completely ruin a fairly sturdy brick building in that timeframe? I doubt it. The building (or, rather, a hodge-podge of inter-connected old buildings, as the current teardown reveals) was probably never properly maintained, or at least hasn't been for a long-long time, far longer than Goldman's ownership. 2. You are probably the first person in the world to accuse Koolhaas of building "monotonous housing" and cite his designs as an example of lack of evolution for a city. WOW. That from an "architecture expert".
Posted on: 2007/2/14 14:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Quote:
Maybe not, but it was determined to be a Pivotal structure and a landmark in the middle of the warehouse historic district. The owner's own consultant conceded the historic significance of the building, but simply claimed that because it had been neglected and run down, that it was "impaired" in its ability to project that history. Of course, it was the owner's own active neglect that led to such deterioration. That is akin to murdering your parents and then throwing oneself upon the mercy of the court as an orphan. Quote: I'd rather take my chances with people being free to develop new buildings than turn cities into museums. I'll miss 111 for sentimental reasons but for me sentiment doesn't trump property rights and the need for cities to evolve. That dichotomy is a false one. In this case, the owner lost no property rights, because his building was UPZONED as a result of the plan. 111 was formerly limited to industrial use only. If the redevelopment plan was invalid, then all the owner could do is revert to its prior use. The plan gave the opportunity to owners in the district to convert their underutilized industrial warehouses into lucrative residential and commerical space. All that was asked was a) that they restore the buildings in a way to keep their historic integrity and b) that they set aside a portion of the apartments for artist live/work space. The plan was in fact working, as the conversions of 140 and 150 Bay Street demonstrated. The owner's made or are making plenty of money, and the buildings look great. And no one thinks that these are museum pieces, rather, they are now modern buildings that have incorporated the history of the area to create something even more powerful. As for taking chances with developers "building something new," we're doing that throughout the city. The result has largely been the demolition of the historic buildings, the subdivision of the lots, and replacement with two pink faux-brick cookie cutters. Based on the feedback we have been getting from all over the city, residents don't like the chance the city has been taking. We simply do not need to speculate. The evidence is in plain sight. The warehouse district/powerhouse arts district WAS an example of a city evolving. Teardowns to build more monotonous housing is not. Joshua Parkhurst President Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy
Posted on: 2007/2/14 14:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/9/12 7:13 Last Login : 2012/5/16 16:22 From beneath the jumping sheep
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
442
|
Dev, I saw your 111 First photos, which were linked from ny6th. Good stuff! Excellent work, my friend. But you're pretty crazy to try to sneak in there, what with the demo and all.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 5:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
The security guard was sleeping in his car in the alley between 111 and the Morgan Industrial building. Looks like one half of the building is almost completely demolished, the other half is in the process of being gutted.
Thanks Scottacus.. I only played around with the white balancing (around 2750?K). Other than that they are straight off the camera.
Posted on: 2007/2/14 5:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Perhaps Penn would then be like Grand Central is today and the tower would largely be ignored. Most people pay little mind to the very large (2.8 million SF) modern tower (the PanAm/MetLife building) over GCT compared to the station itself. The tenants love the building because of its access to the station.
The old Penn Station is always cited with respect to landmarking things but on the other hand most old buildings aren't as nice as the old Penn and almost all new buildings aren't as ugly as the current one. Needless to say, 111 First is no old Penn Station. Property rights aside, I think it depends on whether one's attitude is that of a "caretaker" or a "builder". I'd rather take my chances with people being free to develop new buildings than turn cities into museums. I'll miss 111 for sentimental reasons but for me sentiment doesn't trump property rights and the need for cities to evolve. Quote:
Posted on: 2007/2/14 1:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 111 First Street - the teardown
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Devbeep, those photos are great. Well-composed, and I like the tones. It looks like you ran some sort of filter on them to de-saturate them a bit and maybe add a bit of sepia tone--is that right?
Posted on: 2007/2/13 21:16
|
|||
|
||||