This Must be Stopped! Astroland Closing?

Yavel wrote: The Coney Island DMV should annex the Astroland shooting gallery. After hours waiting in line to get a permit it was very therapeutic.

I'm glad they're at least saving the Cyclone and it would be a real shame if they got rid of the Wonder Wheel.

Does anyone know if they're keeping 'Bump Your Ass Off'? That's already indoors, so I imagine it would have year-round appeal.

It would be better if they annexed "Shoot the Freak." :twisted:

Bump Your Ass Off does, indeed, have near-limitless appeal. At least my sister and I think so.

Weegee took some great photos of Coney Island in the 1950s, some of which are posted here: http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/weegee07a.html

As an aside, is anyone familiar with the building all the way down the boardwalk, past the parachute drop? It's decorated with all sorts of mermaids and seahorses...maybe an old bathhouse?

I'm not touting them. I don't want to live there, which is why I live here. Raulism was asking me to justify my claim that NY is on the "less development-friendly" side of the scale, and I was using those as supporting examples. The discussion was simply a factual one: is NY development friendly or not? If you want to concede the point that the city is in fact a difficult place relative to other large American cities to build in, then we can move to whether or not that's a good thing.

For all the talk of tearing down pre-war treasures to put up "cheeply" made crap, I'd point out the bitter reaction to Onprospectpark, which by all accounts will be a well-built, quality structure by a renowned architect, and is merely replacing an empty lot. And I specifically remember in the discussion of that building that people asserted that Europe was more friendly towards modern development than America, contrary to points made above.

Does Astroland feature the ferris wheel with optional swinging carts? That near death sensation was so thrilling I didn't mind paying the $5.00. After all, what's more fun than spending five minutes dangling in the air from rusty machinery, inside a box of rotting wood, wondering if you are about to be splattered all over a parking lot? Despite the fact that I was probably closer to true death than I ever imagined, it was a lot of fun!

I love Coney the way it is, but it needs desperately to be cleaned up. I've been going all my life, and I'll miss the sleaziness:->.

Anyone see that incredible "American Experience" about CI on PBS? It really was beautiful at one point. Jumbo was publicly electrocuted there.

Some pictures from last August {06}:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redlipstick/sets/72157594247745562/

and 4th of July, 2002:
http://www.redlipstick.net/blog/c0.html

Why don't all the rich Brooklyn ex-pats get together and buy it? Like what Bette Middler did with all those community gardens. Larry David, Chris Rock, Woody Allen, um, Mel Brooks? Is Mel Brooks from Brooklyn? Well now he is.

When I get rich and famous I'm going to buy back Coney Island, knock down the condos and import the nations finest crackheads. Then I'll pave the Sheepshead Bay bridge with cruelty-free Canadian diamonds and buy the Botanic gardens, excavate and plant a whole new gardens just to say I did. Plus the walk of fame will be replaced with all new names (just my name over and over again actually).

sarajean8 wrote:
wow. After traveling in europe for some time and noticing the LAYERS and layers of history that are still standing to this day (from an era that precedes NYC) I was in constant admiration of the way some other cities preserve and restore, rather than demolish and rebuild. The new structures in NYC, more often than not, are cheaply made, with little character or artistic appeal. It's such a shame....

No one knows how to build things to last anymore. Look at all those old buildings -- every single one of them has stood the test of time. Like the ones from the 1200s on Gamle Stan in Stockholm for example that are still standing: that proves it. Or the pyramids of Giza. Those guys clearly knew what they were doing. These monuments to history demonstrate that Europeans and Egyptians must have been immune from shoddy construction and tearing down and rebuilding down the centuries in ways the adolescent American culture has failed to grasp.

escap wrote: And yet the construction of tall buildings is perhaps the most vehemently protested development of all.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Brooklyn Yards proposal, yes?

If so, it's not the simple "building of tall buildings" that is causing the furor. It is the fact that in order to build those buildings, according to some of the development plans, smaller buildings would be razed -- and those smaller buildings happen to have people living in them, and those people are of lower-incomes. And they will be kicked out, and forced to find homes elsewhere in an already competitive real estate market. And while the taller buildings will have some residences in them, they will all be too expensive for the thus-displaced folk to live in them.

So it's not so much that people are protesting the building of tall buildings. They are protesting the fact that people will be evicted in order to FACILITATE that building.

friendlypitbull wrote: As for Coney Island - while I understand the nostalgia; it is incorrect to claim that it is so 'unique' to NY. It is now b/c it hasnt been updated; but honkey-tonk amusments and a boardwalk were staples of many seaside towns. The real difference is that other similar places were either renovated or have gone out of buisness entirely.

Playing devil's advocate here -- if this is the case (and it certainly is), isn't this all the more reason to preserve it in some fashion, then? Yes, it's honky-tonky, yes, it's something that was found at most seaside towns -- but the very reason that these sorts of places were set up 100+ years ago was to create an amusement park for the city folk who didn't have country homes and thus couldn't get out of town. They weren't set up for the convenience of people in the city, they were set up to give the middle- and lower-class something fun to do, and to give the people who didn't have a summer home in the Hamptons or on Lake George a chance to get out by the water.

Yes, it was a big, big part of the scene in all seaside towns -- but, as you say, it's vanishing in many cases. And shouldn't something that was once a big part of our culture be kept from disappearing entirely, even if you've only got one boardwalk left on the Eastern Seaboard?

(Again - this is just me being devil's advocate. As far as Coney Island is concerned, I'm pleased that the Cyclone will still be there, but slightly worried that that quiet stretch of boardwalk I went to last year may be all lined with hotels and get crowded itself. I'm not fond of huge crowds, as a rule...)

friendlypitbull wrote: Do you really think that the ESB or the Woolworth Building or the Dakota etc.... wont be here in 100, 200 or 300 yrs? (assuming we arent all underwater or some terrorist doesnt pack a nuke in his luggage)

I don't think anyone meant THESE buildings ( I didn't) were shoddy or poorly built, but that MOST modern day structures are often about cheap materials & labor and functional design, and not as much about innovative architectural or aesthetic design.

First of all - other than looking at it from a distance (or a quick walk-through) how would any of us know if the ESB, Woolworth Building etc... were built well or shoddy - and the same goes for new construction. What is the definition of 'shoddy' being used - is it simply plaster vs sheetrock walls?

That being said, there arent thousands of Buildings from the 1200's standing in Europe either - a few remain and the rest for hundreds of reasons are gone. So if in 500yrs only the ESB and Woolworth Buildings remain will our moment in history be remembered for quality construction?

Throughout every period in history, people have built shoddy, crappy buildings - some have been fixed and remain, most are gone - our point in history should be no different.

queencallipygos wrote: But the very reason that these sorts of places were set up 100+ years ago was to create an amusement park for the city folk who didn't have country homes and thus couldn't get out of town. They weren't set up for the convenience of people in the city, they were set up to give the middle- and lower-class something fun to do, and to give the people who didn't have a summer home in the Hamptons or on Lake George a chance to get out by the water.

But as you said parts of the 'old time' CI are beiong perserved, at the same time dont the people today who dont have a Hamptons house deserve a nice place to go with their family?? While the plan does call for some luxury hi-rises, they are also putting in an amusment park that I doubt will be filled with the Trump's, Hiltons and Welchs of the world.

friendlypitbull wrote:
[quote=queencallipygos]But the very reason that these sorts of places were set up 100+ years ago was to create an amusement park for the city folk who didn't have country homes and thus couldn't get out of town. They weren't set up for the convenience of people in the city, they were set up to give the middle- and lower-class something fun to do, and to give the people who didn't have a summer home in the Hamptons or on Lake George a chance to get out by the water.

But as you said parts of the 'old time' CI are beiong perserved, at the same time dont the people today who dont have a Hamptons house deserve a nice place to go with their family?? While the plan does call for some luxury hi-rises, they are also putting in an amusment park that I doubt will be filled with the Trump's, Hiltons and Welchs of the world.

No, the amusement park won't be filled with the Trumps and Hiltons, but I have a hunch it may also be priced a little bit above the reach of many too. Not that Astroland is free -- but the price is still within the reach of a good-sized number of people. I suspect that the price will be a liiiiiiittle bit higher, and a good-sized chunk of people wouldn't be able to afford it any more.

I'm not saying to preserve the whole thing in amber and leave it as it is, mind. I'd just rather that any development be done carefully, and in keeping with the theme of what is there and what has been there historically, rather than doing what it sounds like is turning the thing into yet another Six-Flags-esque kind of place. Rather than that, why not restore some of the buildings that are there and have been abandoned, preserving some of the original architectural detail? You know, add new buildings, but keep more of the old ones (repairing as needed, of course).

I think many of the "please don't" folk are just afraid of something that is, admittedly, something that is now unique is going to be turned into another Six-flags clone. And while yes, that would be safer, something unique would be gone.

queencallipygos wrote: [quote=escap]And yet the construction of tall buildings is perhaps the most vehemently protested development of all.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Brooklyn Yards proposal, yes?

If so, it's not the simple "building of tall buildings" that is causing the furor. It is the fact that in order to build those buildings, according to some of the development plans, smaller buildings would be razed -- and those smaller buildings happen to have people living in them, and those people are of lower-incomes. And they will be kicked out, and forced to find homes elsewhere in an already competitive real estate market. And while the taller buildings will have some residences in them, they will all be too expensive for the thus-displaced folk to live in them.

So it's not so much that people are protesting the building of tall buildings. They are protesting the fact that people will be evicted in order to FACILITATE that building.

No, I was not referring to AY at all, as a matter of fact. But since you bring up the issue of property rights, I'd like to point out that it's the right of the current owners of Coney Island to sell it to whomever they please without government intervention, and for the new owners to build on the land that they bourght and paid for also without intervention. If you believe government intrusion into this right, without any form of compensation, is justified, then eminent domain--which at least provides compensation--seems like a good deal in comparison. So thank you for bringing private property rights up as an issue.

escap wrote:

Exactly. 50 years from now we'll be hearing about how the Ratner complex is a historical New York treasure that should be preserved at all costs as well. :roll:

Maybe, if it has some particular historical significance.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Coney Island was built by some benevolent society. But why something was built is not a criteria for preserving anything.

Coney Island's fucked up history is exactly one of the reasons it should be a landmark. The crux of the issue is that culture is becoming expendable. Sometimes it would be nice if culture, history and sentiment could come before business. Those things are priceless and really a good deal of what life is all about for a lot of us.

It's sad that the MTA just spend a ton of money to revamp the station for nothing...well, now for the benefit of a large company I guess. None of this is making any sense to me right now.

I've always loved CI and definitely think a revamp was in order (and that seems to be the general direction things have been taking). If I wanted clean, sanitized family-safe "fun" I'd go to six flags.

Thor Equities sucks. Ever visit their "successful" development on Fulton Mall. Not doing so well. They'll just probably throw up some more chain stores like they have in other "urban" (ahem, ghetto) neighborhoods and pat themselves on the back. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/040816/16eespotlight.htm

God, look at this shit: http://nymag.com/nymetro/realestate/features/14498/index.html
Is that Vegas or Brooklyn? I would gladly take dollar stores and carmel apples over that eyesore.