August 6, 2004: Iron Triangle 2
While we walked around, Mike and I got into an interesting argument about whether the Iron Triangle area was worth preserving. After all, it's easy to play Jane Jacobs and defend the West Village- but it takes a pretty hard core preservationist to defend this polluted little strip of auto parts places and junk yards. I argued that the site was worth preserving, because industry has to go somewhere, and the small business owners in this area had created a thriving auto repair district- one that provides a genuine service to the city. Mike argued that despite all that, and despite the historic roots of the area (it makes an appearance as the giant ash heap in the Great Gatsby), the area was due for demolition because it is ugly, an environmental nightmare, and the land could be better used as housing or as parkland (one of Queens' great parks is nearby). What do you think?
Comments
As much as I like Mike, I'm going to have to go with you on this one Jake.
new stadiums are all the rage in new york, so i say build that stadium for the mets they are always talking about.
Hey, I'm a preservation grad student (at least, I will be in a few weeks...)!
Once an environmental nightmare, always an environmental nightmare. Those things never seem to get cleaned up properly. If I recall correctly, Jane Jacobs would argue against the parkland most likely. Parks for parks' sake tend to be the crack havens in her mind. My not-yet-expert opinion is that if they area is being used and thriving in the state it's in, then keep it that way. How do you know what's beautiful if there isn't any ugliness? Of course, I tend to enjoy a lot of sites that many would deem ugly.
One problem that many [but not all] preservationists have is an attitude that tends to exult the architecturally pristine, that produced by the upper classes, places that would be "pretty" to the unthinking eye.
Simply put, it then comes down to save the brownstones, the Philip Johnson facades, but forget about vernacular architecture and the work of ordinary Joes. I think this is wrong.
Society will always need functional, utilitarian buildings and areas, and I see no legitimate reason to always squirrel them away behind fake fronts or grassy knolls and plantings.
Anyway, without them where would we get such vibrant and alive works such as you show here or Mike shows at Satan's Laudromat?
P.S. [full disclosure time] I serve as Chairman to my town's Histroic District Commission
I think that the last photograph is absolutely gorgeous.
These are great shots. Only you could look at cinderblock, bent tin, cement and figure out how to bring out the beauty.
An interesting preservation question, indeed. Warning: here comes the boring rant from someone who does this stuff for a living.
First off, these things don't become established willy-nilly. While preservation is totally messed up in all those class and social status ways, there are criteria.
If it were to be established as an historic district, you'd have to make a strong argument based on historic patterns of development and its significance at the local level. Gathering community support would be pretty tough, and although I'm not familiar with the NYC preservation regulatory environemnt, chances are that people wouldn't be psyched to know that those structures are protected for the long haul.
Moreover, evaluating the historic integrity of the buildings themselves would be a serious challenge. What would the character-defining features be? Original windows, decorative stone, and other materials associated with landmark-worthy buildings are harder to quantify and grasp on to.
Now that I've put you to sleep, let's just say this would be a real tricky one. And to the soon-to-be preservation student: good luck and welcome to this weird, weird world.
Leave a comment