"Domino Sugar Redevelopment Moves Forward"a bit of a mad-cap race to report this one, but a very interesting leap into the world of brooklyn's second-biggest development project. some backstory that didn't make it into the final copy: basically, the bland part is that the development corporation, like most developers, argues that razing/building will lead to cheap housing and a revitalized neighborhood.
but here's the twist—this little meeting was about aesthetics, not economics. note the dissenting opinion—it has nothing to do with gentrification or yuppification or any of the usual counter-arguments to development. her complaint was about the building being "too polite" and too "genteel" for the sensibilities of the site.
now, of course, that's the landmarks commission's job—they talk about landmarks, not about the larger scheme of urban planning. but one of the city councilwomen who was at the news conference after the decision made a thought-raising point: can you really separate "landmark" designation from the issue of housing and development? there was much talk at the conference about balancing "people" with "place," when it comes to "historic landmark" designations.
i suppose i'm not saying much that's original. just thought i'd raise the thought: at what point can a landmarks-certification board say that it is independent of thoughts about the larger scheme of urban development? at what point can it say that it is only dealing with aesthetics? is there a greater responsibility here?
Posts
