The Instigator
Adam2
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jdean1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Brooklyn Union Gas tanks should never have been demolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 55847
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Adam2

Pro

First round of acceptance. These tanks are what I'm talking about.
jdean1

Con

I accept this debate over the Brooklyn Union Gas tanks and set these rules:
1. Stay Courteous
2. Be Mostly Grammatically Correct
3. Support Your Claims
4. Good Luck & Have Fun!
Debate Round No. 1
Adam2

Pro

Here's a quick note for those who are going to vote: I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore. What I am suggesting is that instead of being demolished in 2001, they should have been registered as Brooklyn landmarks. I mean for all of you who grew up in Brooklyn, or in the Big Apple, or even in the Tristate area, who commuted to work in New York City, you can't deny that the stacks were a cult landmark. We grew up on them. Whenever we took a ride on the BQE, not only did we get a view of the Manhattan skyline, we also got a view of these fun-looking smoke stacks (sure they were in use at the time). They have been put in countless classic movies. It's a shame they couldn't designate these as trade marks. Who can forget the checkered formation on the top (which was used for airplane traffic). I'm not the only one who feels this way:
https://www.youtube.com...;(look at user neenykin and Leronia Boughton comments)
Even the New York times considered it a landmark back in 2001 when the demolition happened
http://www.nytimes.com...

I know this is the past. But I still am of the opinion that they should have kept them instead of demolishing them.
jdean1

Con

My opponent admits that: "I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore." In this he nearly concedes the debate, because this shows that the gas company, originally named Brooklyn Union Gas, can not benefit from them. Brooklyn Union Gas has since changed their name to KeySpan Energy. http://www.nytimes.com...

KeySpan Energy was losing property, space and money with these two tanks that were decommissioned in the 1990's. It was better for the company to demolish them economically, and the company is the only entity that lays any claim to the two towers, so legally it is fine to destroy them and in the interest of the company and all those who work there it is the best course of action.

Furthermore, my opponent argues many people miss the two tanks and they should have been made landmarks, yet according to the chief of staff of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission quoted at the time of demolition, 'We have not received any calls about this' (Terri Rosen Deutsch). Therefore, if nobody officially filed a complaint or expressed a desire for it to be kept a landmark, why should it have been?

Finally, every safety precaution was taking to assure no harm to the community by Controlled Demolition Inc. of Maryland. They had handled many demolitions of the sort before this with no accident. So there is no reason to believe any citizens were at risk. Based on these reasons you must vote in the negative.
Debate Round No. 2
Adam2

Pro

My opponent admits that: "I didn't say the tanks were useful anymore." In this he nearly concedes the debate, because this shows that the gas company, originally named Brooklyn Union Gas, can not benefit from them. Brooklyn Union Gas has since changed their name to KeySpan Energy. http://www.nytimes.com......
I didn't concede. I said that the tanks should have converted to landmarks, maybe a mini museum. It did gain a cult status amongsts many who grew up with the 50 year timespan of the Tanks. It was popular. As I said before, it was used in many movies. Me saying that they were not useful did not mean they should have been taken down. What I tried to say was they should have been converted to landmarks, with a mini museum on the inside.

KeySpan Energy was losing property, space and money with these two tanks that were decommissioned in the 1990's. It was better for the company to demolish them economically, and the company is the only entity that lays any claim to the two towers, so legally it is fine to destroy them and in the interest of the company and all those who work there it is the best course of action.

Again, look at the top. We're talking about unique looking tanks. Unlike the other tanks in Brooklyn, this one is very unique. There was a similar one in Queens, though not like this one, that was converted into a little park, also keeping in memory of those gas tanks. They were the Elmhurst Tanks (the ones in this picture).

Furthermore, my opponent argues many people miss the two tanks and they should have been made landmarks, yet according to the chief of staff of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission quoted at the time of demolition, 'We have not received any calls about this' (Terri Rosen Deutsch). Therefore, if nobody officially filed a complaint or expressed a desire for it to be kept a landmark, why should it have been?
I've shown you youtube videos in which two users said that they were going to miss them. Even the New York Times article stated that it was a landmark well know to those who lived in New York or commuted via New York.

Finally, every safety precaution was taking to assure no harm to the community by Controlled Demolition Inc. of Maryland. They had handled many demolitions of the sort before this with no accident. So there is no reason to believe any citizens were at risk. Based on these reasons you must vote in the negative.
That is irrelevant. We're not talking about the safety of doing this, but rather whether these two should have been preserved.

Like I said before, it would have been much more rad and wicked to keep these tanks as a museum and convert them to something that can be preserved, than just demolishing them.

jdean1

Con

BOLD=Quote from Opponent's Argument PLAIN TEXT=My Rebuttal

I didn't concede. I said that the tanks should have converted to landmarks, maybe a mini museum. It did gain a cult status amongsts many who grew up with the 50 year timespan of the Tanks. It was popular. As I said before, it was used in many movies. Me saying that they were not useful did not mean they should have been taken down. What I tried to say was they should have been converted to landmarks, with a mini museum on the inside.
You didn't concede, but you ignore the fact that turning these gas tanks into landmarks would put an unjust economic bruden on KeySpan Energy. And you NEVER rebutted that point. Who would have payed for this landmark and museum, and since nobody requested for them to be in an official setting why should they have been? You haven't any of these major questions and therefore I win this point.

Again, look at the top. We're talking about unique looking tanks. Unlike the other tanks in Brooklyn, this one is very unique. There was a similar one in Queens, though not like this one, that was converted into a little park, also keeping in memory of those gas tanks. They were the Elmhurst Tanks
Okay, so the tanks looked unique, that doesn't mean we have the right to place a burden on KeySpan energy or the tax payers to pay for such a museum. Nobody expressed interest in buying them or paying for the cost therefore they should not have been spared. Again due to an economic argument you NEVER rebutted I win this point.

I've shown you youtube videos in which two users said that they were going to miss them. Even the New York Times article stated that it was a landmark well know to those who lived in New York or commuted via New York.
So two youtubers and one article discussed a slight sadness they were going away. If they were so sad that they wanted landmarks, why did they never go and request they become one? Why did they never discuss this with KeySpan Energy? It is because they shouldn't be made into landmarks, even if a small group do miss them, KeySpan can't be responsible for a small group of people's sentimentality.


That is irrelevant. We're not talking about the safety of doing this, but rather whether these two should have been preserved.
This merely proves there are no cons to taking them down and no reason to keep them up.

Like I said before, it would have been much more rad and wicked to keep these tanks as a museum and convert them to something that can be preserved, than just demolishing them.
In the real world, just because something is rad doesn't mean it remains. Unfortunately we have to deal with money. In this case the only economically sensbile course was to destro them, therefore we can not debate that they should stay up because they are quote "rad."

Thank you for the debate, even if you do not thank me. I urge you to realize PRO has not backed up his case and ignored my main economic argument and sensibly vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.