![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osaraba
It's a synogogue. How apropos.
http://synagogueforthearts.org/
According to a Times article from 1989, "it replaced an unusal 1866 neo-Grec loft building, startlingly interrupting an otherwise intact 19-century streetscape." On the one hand, it's kind of unfortunate that the streetscape was not preserved, but on the other hand -- we wouldn't have this awesome interesting building randomly in the middle of a street in Tribeca.
I don't think it's worth preserving everything old just because it's old. It wouldn't provide an opportunity to create new and interesting modern pieces, otherwise. In 100 years, someone might fight for the preservation of this building (if it isn't already considered a landmark), as an example of some cutting-edge idea that someone had in the late 1960s.
Why is one more worth preserving than the other?
