The Preservation Of The Brokaw Mansion

The fight continued and in 1945. As they inched closer to government approval, historians began surveying the city for historic buildings and potential preservation sights. By 1956, New Yorkers were joining architectural walking tours to learn about the city all while further validating the interest in preserving parts of the history that has made this city so rich with culture. As time passed, the developing economy often found historic buildings in the way progress. Many icons were demolished as sections of the city were redeveloped to accommodate new apartments and hotels.
After World War II, construction was on the rise and so was the anticipation for preserving historic sites. Concerned advocates were witnessing the loss or near loss of important structures. The loss of McKim, Mead & White’s Pennsylvania Station
in 1963 was the tipping point pushing lobbyists to demand a systematic plan for preservation.
The demolition of the Brokaw Mansion in 1965, described by the New York Times in an article entitled “Rape of the Brokaw Mansion,” in
1965 brought enough media attention to get the Landmarks Law signed and enacted within the year (New York Times; 1965). The new law affirmed the public interest in preserving irreplaceable buildings and districts for cultural, educational, aesthetic and economic benefits over the rights of the owners. The theory could be simplified to a matter of taste. This law was constituted with the understanding that tastes change but if we are constantly rebuilding everything to adjust to our new taste, we will lose things from our culture that we will come to think of again as important.
Still, the designation of a landmark under the new law would not guarantee a building’s security. It did, however, provide time to find appropriate preservation solutions. This exhibition does not solely promote the pure preservation of history as if it were a museum. Paul Goldberger, one of the leading advocates for the preservation effort explained, “a city that does not change enough is dead” (45th Anniversary of the Landmarks Law Luncheon; Paul Goldberger). The efforts of the Landmark Commission were not intended to force New York to stand still in time nor were they focused only on the aesthetic beauty of historic sites. Their proudest moments have been instances of creative ideas to reuse and adapt the important parts of the past while allowing for the progress of the city. Goldberger perfectly summarizes their ideas about historic sites; “we should not be afraid to engage them with architectural dialogue with the present” (45th Anniversary of the Landmarks Law Luncheon; Paul Goldberger). Instead, Goldberger suggests recalling the values of the past to preserve the old wisdom about behavior patterns seen in great neighborhoods to inspire the present.
Great historic sites have a flow that creates a certain humanity we are frequently blind to with our current economical outlook on society. The simplest example of this is the relationship of architecture to the development of community within a neighborhood. Overlooked features like a stoop or front garden create neighborhood interactions and respect which would otherwise have been missed in the more isolated setting of a large apartment building. Old buildings preserve old wisdom, and in the best efforts to preserve such ways of life, the most significant innovations in New York were born.