Wednesday, January 30, 2008

46. W. O. DECKER (tugboat)

A.K.A.: Russell I, Susan Dayton
Location: Pier 16, off Fulton Street
Built: 1930
Builder: Russell & Co.
National Register Number: 96000962
Listed: September 13, 1996
Visited: November 11, 2007 and January 12, 2008

The W.O. Decker

The W.O. Decker is the other tugboat in the South Street Seaport Museum's collection. It's less cute than the Helen McAllister, but still dandy-handsome, its wooden body decked out in ketchup and mustard colors. It seems far older than the other tug (I would've guessed circa Gilded Age), but in fact it's a good thirty years younger, having been built for a Queens towing company in 1930. Like the non-landmarked Peking and Pioneer, W.O. is available for private use: in this case, four-to-six-hour tours of New York's waterfront, from wildlife to industrial sites. Since I rarely get a good, close look at the edges of urban life, these tours are awfully tempting but mad expensive. For me, anyway. At $125 to $180, that's the kind of money I can't part with easily. It's also tempting and expensive enough for New York Magazine to position these trips as a choice for the discerning, Circle Line tours for people who have no patience with fat sweaty tourists and their fat sweaty fanny-packs. Ugh, is there anything NYM can't infect with its aspirational cooties?

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 28, 2008

45. ADMIRAL DEWEY (tugboat)

A.K.A.: Georgetown, Helen McAllister
Location: Pier 17, off Fulton Street
Built: 1900
Builder: Burlee Dry Dock Company
National Register Number: 02001619
Listed: December 27, 2002
Visited: November 11, 2007 and January 12, 2008

The Helen McAllister

For the first fifty or so years of its life, the Admiral Dewey used to carry coal barges around New York Harbor. After a stint in Charleston, the boat was purchased by the McAllister Towing and Transportation Co., who renamed it the Helen McAllister. (Nearly all of the boats in the company's fleet get the McAllister last name, like they were a maritime Ramones.) It was donated to the South Street Seaport Museum in 2000. Although the museum already had a tug in its collection (the W.O. Decker), you can see the wisdom in getting a second. Tugs are likeable, almost cute. They've got family appeal.

The Helen McAllister

There is a striking number of children's books about tugboats on amazon.com. Virgina Lee Burton's books for children (Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel, Katy and the Big Snow) suggest that even the most ungainly machine can be not just anthropomorphized, but made loveable. Tugboats, though, have quite a lot with which children can identify, however unconsciously: even though they're little boats in a world of big boats, sometimes the big boats need the little boats to get around. The look of the Helen McAllister, its Cat in the Hat stack and the huge beard-like mass on its prow--it's impossible not to see a content face in it.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, January 27, 2008

44. WAVERTREE

A.K.A.: Southgate, Don Ariano N.
Location: Pier 17, off Fulton Street
Built: 1885
Builder: Oswald Mordaunt & Co.
National Register Number: 78001887
Listed: June 13, 1978
Visited: November 11, 2007 and January 12, 2008

Wavertree panorama

Uh...ships! Yeah! I keep protesting that I'm fairly ignorant about wide swathes of architecture, but ships? If my brain goes limp at the vocabulary of Gothic architecture, it shuts down when faced with things as simple as "starboard" and "port." Skimming through the 1969 book The Wavertree: An Ocean Wanderer makes me regret this somewhat. "The Wavertree was in the jute trade from Chittagong, first: that meant plenty of Trade Wind sailing--where the flying fish roam--and just getting past Good Hope outwards..." This line is a drop in the ocean of facts, but the waves it produces builds and builds with suggestion of a lost world until there is no shore it doesn't touch. And that's only the foreword. Most of the book is devoted Captain George Spiers' personal account of his trip on the Wavertree as it sailed from Port Townsend in Washington to Chile to Portland, Oregon to tiny Runcorn in England, passing through rotten weather and rundown seaports no doubt transformed by time. This was from 1907-08, this when the cast-iron ship was already a relic and only a few years away from decommissioning. The book has pictures of it in its incarnation as a sand barge in Buenos Aires, its rigging gone. Even knowing just fragments of its tiny role in an industrious world gone by, you could genuinely be saddened by this emasculation--and touched (yeah, touched) by its loving restoration by the museum.

Wavertree, with gull

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, January 26, 2008

43. South Street Seaport

Location: Bounded by John Street, Peck Slip, and Water and South Streets.
Built: Multiple dates, mainly from about 1790-1850 or so
Architect: Multiple architects
National Register Number: 72000883
Listed: October 18, 1972
Visited: January 12 and 13, 2008.

South Street Seaport panorama #11

I'm not a native New Yorker--I'm a native Long Islander. (Actually, I was born in Memphis, but that's a lot to explain.) However much I am intoxicated with New York City, I am a Long Islander to the bone.

Dad went to work every day in Manhattan in the middle of its ungovernable era, and kept doing so until he retired shortly after 9/11. If he voiced any complaints, I don't remember them. His ease with the city initially gave him a stategic advantage after the divorce. When he left our house for work the last time, I was somewhere between late 12 and early 13; like a lot of Long Island kids do at that point in their formative years, I was increasingly aware of Long Island's limitations and the city's reputation as a celestial treasure chest of culture unavailable at home. In New York City, the buildings are taller, the stores bigger, the streets denser with possibility. But I was still a kid, I couldn't go alone. My dad, though, was a willing vehicle for these dreams. Dad took me to the late-lamented SoHo store Think Big! a couple of times. We went to MoMa more than a couple of times. The Whitney and the Guggenheim. The Museum of Holography. A Laurie Anderson retrospective (!), followed by Ghostbusters (!!). Mom could take me but didn't, at least not until some years later. She's never quite so phlegmatic about the city: the New York of, say, 1985 or 2008 isn't the city she grew up in, and she never gave herself much of a chance to innoculate herself against its terrors the way my dad did daily.

South Street Seaport panorama #17

We went to the South Street Seaport more than anywhere else. He worked only blocks away, at 140 Broadway. What did I love about it? It was lively, I suppose. It was filled with crowds and crowds of people, all the time. I think I was immediately attracted to it because it resembled an urban form I knew intimately well as a Long Islander: the mall. It's a mall. The South Street Seaport is a mall, though because it uses historically important buildings connected to New York City's sealife of way back when, it's a more respectable version of the Sunrise and Roosevelt Field malls where I would spend many longeurs and twenty-dollar bills in the eighties: rows of stores to walk past, to dip in and out of, to go buy buy buy.

South Street Seaport panorama #8

It was also very much like The Milleridge Inn, a restaurant I liked as a kid ONLY because it had these cute little stores in a "colonial" village setting. I think back to the village now, with its stores with "shoppe" in the name and Muzak piped from the trees, and think UHH ticky-tacky reifications of "colonial" dating probably from the '30s to '50s, maybe. I think my parents even told me as much. But as a kid, I don't know any better, so I used to just assume the Milleridge stores were all period buildings. Of course. The General Store had "Est. 1672" on it: case closed. I don't quite remember all the details, but I know the South Street Seaport confused me. Even after looking through the museum-y parts and hopping on the boats, it wasn't quite clear to me what its provenance was. I likely thought, as I did with the Milleridge Inn, these buildings were once frequented by Colonialists in breeches and tricorne hats long long ago. It's also possible I thought the reverse: that Schermerhorn Row, like the Bogardus Building and the Fulton Market and Pier 17, were new buildings using old-timey design elements, or old-timey buildings dressed in modern garb. Had we ventured a little further down Front Street, things might've been clearer to me. These are buildings, some Greek Revival, some Federal style, some with subsequent cast-iron mutilations or ornamental subtractions, some still with obvious testament to their use for fishmongering or warehousing, many very old, obviously old, like 1790-1850 old, rickety-looking-even-after-their-restoration old, fucking OLD for Manhattan, what with fire and development tending towards the heartless pulverizing of anything from that era or before.

South Street Seaport panorama #1

Initially the stores at South Street Seaport was envisioned as a place for recreations of stores from that time. When we first visited the Seaport, the new Fulton Market building was filled with market-style stalls selling fresh food, this in deference to the waterfront's traditional role for the offloading of goods from the sea. This idea was abandoned in recognition of the fact that the tourists who dominate the place aren't likely to buy a hunk of fine cheese or fresh fish. It had a brief existence as a kind of mall; I remember it had an Express store and a Sam Goody in the mid-nineties. Now it's the site of a seemingly ENDLESS exhibition of flayed and pickled human corpses. Bowne & Company Stationers still exist as a slim concession to the original idea, but whatever the Seaport's original (and current) pretensions to historicalish educamation, not only is it a mall, it's devolved into the kind of mall that always bored me, even as a kid, and the kind of mall that makes me avoid malls as an adult: stores with women's apparel, expensive gadgets, NYC souvenirs of astounding shittiness. The seaport may soon undergo some drastic, potentially awful changes--people in charge are thinking of tearing down Pier 17 and putting something taller--but I'm pleased to note a tiny trend towards the residential, especially as a whole block of buildings (the one pictured above, which is South Street between Beekman Street and Peck Slip) seems to be heading in that direction. They'll probably be inhabited by the same dismaying set of characters colonizing the financial district, but residences would by necessity make the neighborhood a little less mall-like, something that'd gladden the heart of even this unreformed Long Islander.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 12, 2008

42. Trinity Church and Graveyard

Location: 74 Trinity Place
Built: 1839-1846
Architect: Richard Upjohn
National Register Number: 76001252
Listed: December 8, 1976
Visited: September 28 and 29, and December 29, 2008

Trinity Church spire

This is New York City's third Trinity Church. The first burned up in the Great Fire of 1776; the second was demolished in 1839 after a series of severe snow storms (oh, those were the days) weakened the structure. Our current Trinity was the tallest building in New York City until the construction of the New York World Building in 1890 and the subsequent skyscraper arms race, one of whose consequences was the dwarfing of the church. Trinity still has pride of place in the neighborhood, though: as you can see in countless photos of Wall Street, the church stands at its head, staring down the heathen money-grubbers as they make their way down the Stock Exchange and the House of Morgan. It also has pride of place in American architectural history, being the first really famous American example of Gothic Revival architecture. This in spite of the fact that St. John's Episcopal Church in Cleveland predates it some. This is also in spite of the fact that Trinity diverges from certain principles of Gothic architecture: according to Goldstone and Dalrymple's History Preserved, the buttresses and the vaults are merely decorative, whereas according to the 19th century advocates of the style, all parts of a Gothic ecclesiastical building are supposed to have both structural and aesthetic purpose.

Trinity Church and Graveyard panorama

Sigh. You know, I've been avoiding this one for months. Part of the problem is that I have no facility in the architectural vocabulary of churches. Nave and narthex, chancel and clerestory--I can't use these words to say sensible things about Trinity. I can't yet understand how these individual parts make a harmonious whole. It's similar to how I have some facility of the way harmony works in Western music, but not enough to talk about classical music without relying on thin variations of "it's pretty" and "I like it." And I'm also not sure Trinity is pretty or that I like it much. It may be a little anorexic (read: tall and thin) for my tastes.

Trinity Church, from Greenwich Street

I also can't take good photographs of it, it seems. A good photograph of a building, I've come to realize, is not a trivial matter when writing about it: a good picture can temper my feelings for a building, giving me insights into its possible beauty I couldn't get from living with it, walking past it, passively drinking in its shape day by day. For example, I thought of the Equitable Building as an unlovable lug until I had a chance to savor my pictures of it tipped with sunset orange; 19 Rector Street didn't inspire much thought until I saw its hot colors on a computer screen. With its sandstone brown (black from pollution before its cleaning) and life in the shadows of bigger buildings, Trinity fades into the stony colors of its surroundings, making it harder for me to distinguish its virtues, whatever they may be, in the photograph and in my mind.

Trinity Church at night

Labels: , ,

Saturday, January 5, 2008

41f. Wall Street Historic District

Location: Roughly bounded by Cedar Street, Maiden Lane, Pearl Street, Bridge Street, South William Street, Greenwich Street, and Trinity Place.
Built: N/A
Architect: N/A
National Register Number: 07000063
Listed: February 2, 2007
Visited: December 30, 2007

37 Wall Street

The AIA Guide to New York City calls this the Old Morgan Guaranty Building (Francis Kimball, 1907), but just about nobody else does, instead preferring "37 Wall Street" or the "Trust Company of America Building." The fate of this Beaux Arts beaut neatly summarizes the evolution of the district: from a home of a financial giant (one that eventually lent its genetic material to what we now call JPMorgan Chase) to not only apartments (arrrgh, again) but a branch of Tiffany's. Along with the Hermès around the corner, this is yet another recognition that Wall Street (qua the location) is a tourist power point, a place to spend money, not make it.

Wall Street Historic District Panorama

How did this happen? Obviously, 9/11 had a lot to with this new state of affairs: once security checkpoints on Wall, Broad, Nassau and Exchange streets were in place, the New York Stock Exchange and its environs became virtually traffic-free, a walker's paradise in a city where most drivers seem to have an unconscious desire to simply run pedestrians down. Yet the tourist crowds of last week--when it seemed I was as likely to overhear people speaking in French as English--weren't here as recently as five years. (As far as I remember, anyway.) I think this may be due to the way the threat of terrorism has receded in our consciousness. Rather than a likely target for a suicide bomber or suitcase nuke, Wall Street feels safe, safe enough to walk through in the middle of the night without any trouble, something I did a lot last year to my great pleasure. (A pity most of the night photos I took came out all blurry 'n' shit. A tripod, next time.) In 2001 and 2002, Wall Street's social geography was determined by fear; in 2007 and 2008, it's determined by our collective forgetfulness of that fear.

Another Wall Street Historic District panorama

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

41e. Wall Street Historic District

Location: Roughly bounded by Cedar Street, Maiden Lane, Pearl Street, Bridge Street, South William Street, Greenwich Street, and Trinity Place.
Built: N/A
Architect: N/A
National Register Number: 07000063
Listed: February 2, 2007
Visited: December 30, 2007

Thames Street

It's dark, dark in the day time. This is Thames Street, between the Trinity and U.S. Realty Buildings. Right outside the frame of this picture were some guys nervously selling bootleg pocketbooks from a bundled bedsheet.

The historic district designation was also likely a gesture towards the preservation of downtown's oddball street plan. Drawn up in large part by the Dutch settlers with no thought to a future of skyscrapers and megalopolis-sized street traffic, their integrity has been compromised many a time (best detailed here--Hi Mr. Walsh!), eventually prompting the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission to landmark the street plan itself.

Marketfield Street

Nothing sadder than a Wiki page nobody edits. The kidsnyc.com entry for the alley pictured above, Marketfield Street, says it "was called Petticoat Lane in 1696, because it was the location of NYC's 1st hookers." Yeah, right--it took prostitutes seventy years to appear after the first European settlement? I don't think so. Otherwise, though, it's completely believable it was once a center of low living. Just look at it--even with the erection of the glassy 2 Broadway building on its corner, it still feels forboding, desperate. The street is obscure enough to ensure interesting results when you Google it: here's an 1879 NYT article about a random fight between two toughs outside a saloon; a morbid 1852 squib about how a gentlemen who worked in the alley "burned to a crisp" (their words, seriously) in a house fire; it also figures in a 1908 Black Hand bomb threat. OK, little of this has has much to do with the street, but...isn't the opening up of the NYT archive the greatest thing ever? I mean, Luc Sante--I love the dude, I do (he used to hang out at ILx, my former bulletin board of choice), but the sheer volume of antique sleaze the NYT offers us kinda renders Low Life completely redundant, doesn't it? Man.

Labels: