Bloomberg Architectural Influence

On the morning of August 3rd, 2010, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) had voted unanimously to denounce the landmark status of a building located on Park Place based on the lack of architectural significance that the building would have. This site, which had yet to be completed, was going to be a mosque (a Muslim place of worship) and a community center. Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, had quickly come as the defender for the Muslim community. He had given his speech to inform his fellow New Yorker community of this preposterous denouncement that the Landmark Preservation Commission had made, and suggested the decision was based on something bigger than the architectural significance of a building.
According to Bloomberg,

Bloomberg mentions about a small Jewish community located in Lower Manhattan in the mid-1650s. The Jewish community had petitioned for the right to build a synagogue, along with support from the Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant, but the community was denied. Bloomberg proceeded into another example that took place in 1657; Quakers in Queens were banned from holding meetings due to a decree by Governor Stuyvesant. But when a group of non-Quakers came to the aid of their fellow Quaker neighbors, the organizer of the petition was thrown in jail and banished from New Amsterdam. The last example Bloomberg gave was in the 1700s, where Catholics and even priests in New York were prohibited from practicing their religion. It wasn’t until 1780 that the first catholic parish was established. All of the examples Bloomberg had provided were intended to logically demonstrate that the denial of sacramental practices do occur; while sometimes the discrimination isn’t inflicted by not the American people, but from those of authoritative positions (Eidenmuller,

As an American citizen, the best credible source that Bloomberg used was the document in which founded this country. Bloomberg references to the Constitution by saying, “But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship. And the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right, and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution (Eidenmuller, 2010).” Here, Bloomberg states that regardless of the denouncement of the mosque’s status, with the U.S. Constitution backing the Muslim mosque, the Muslim community can preserve their place of worship. So by the Landmark Preservation Commission not restating their status of a place of worship, it is considered unconstitutional. The committee is not only a violation of the law, but is an unjust motion that was put into