I’ve been complaining for some months about the headlines in the NYT and book titles in the Book Review. First it was because of the ubiquity of “How…,“ and then just the tenor of the headlines. The newspaper seems to be taking its headline cues from NY Magazine. Trivial matter, but It irks me.

I feel like all these titles, whether for talks, or article articles, have devolved into Magazine style titles. Declaratives. And “How… .” Am I just imagining this

It’s been confirmed that the sculptural installation will not be relocated.

Abdicating responsibility for a major collection of public sculpture, commissioned by same agency that may now destroy some of it, is not a good look.

Battery Park City Authority, unlike a City agency, is not required to adhere to same process, with accountability to the public, as required when a City-owned sculpture has to be relocated, for safety reasons, eg., and must be approved by Public Design Commission.

Given way in which (legitimate) climate resilience redesign efforts are being implemented, the other public art projects at #BatteryParkCity may also be at risk, yet there’s been no appropriate deaccessioning process established. Relocation’s one thing; destruction, another.

Reliable source says that that the artist did not want Upper Room demolished, and that his proposals for how to save it, provided over last few years, were ignored. There were/are evidently alternative ways to relocate or save the work.

The work was commissioned through a bona fide process, involving art experts, as a permanent work.

Ned Smyth’s 1986 “Upper Room,” one of earliest #publicart installations at #BatteryParkCity to be destroyed as part of @bpca_ny resiliency redesigns. No indication it will be relocated.