Historic preservation newspaper coverage: The Washington Post vs. the New York Times

New York Times graphic identifying buildings and sites under threat or already demolished on the Brooklyn Waterfront.

Marc Fisher writes another not great piece, but in his blog, which means that 695,000 readers of the printed paper will never see it. (Fortunately.) See "Preservation Overkill: Fighting for What's Already Lost." This is in response to the DC Preservation League's release of the annual list of endangered places in DC.

In response to the National Trust for Historic Preservation's list of endangered places including the Brooklyn waterfront, the New York Times writes about how the historic character of the Brooklyn waterfront is being destroyed. See "Brooklyn Waterfront Called Endangered Site ."

Part of the problem with Marc's column and is seen in the understanding exhibited by the commenters, is the difference between saving specific buildings versus saving and maintaining the character of places. The latter is the whole point of the creation of historic districts.

I wrote about this in this blog entry: Who can you turn to when the most active, aggressive destroyers of the city's livable places are DC Government agencies?.


Robert Stolarik for The New York Times. The Graving Dock at the Todd Shipyards in the Erie Basin in Red Hook has already been torn down to make room for an IKEA store.


Brooklyn Historical Society, about 1930. Great ships once sat high and dry in Graving Dock No. 1, now poised to become a parking lot.

The Post is as bad as the City Government.