Leave David Schwimmer Alone
There is absolutely no chance that you are going to get through a Gawker piece on someone who was famous in the 1990s without it turning into a pissing contest about real estate or sex. In this case, it's about David Schwimmer and real estate. Coulda been worse.
The hard-luck sadboys and sadgirls of the Gawker staff have the ass for the idea that Schwimmer might want to live in New York City and do something to modernize or improve the community. By tearing down a home built in the early 1850s, he is now equal to the devil or some such bullshit. Of course, the idea that a townhome in New York is the same as a home built in Paris or London in the 1600s is kind of ridiculous. From a European perspective, 1852 is nothing; in New York, it's merely a firetrap and a public safety hazard waiting to happen.
Schwimmer, who made the mistake of not inhaling his money and throwing it into the wind, is thus not allowed to build a safe, modern, and valuable home where an unsafe, old, and less valuable home once stood. He is not allowed to add to the New York City tax base in a positive way and his is not allowed to improve the value of the place where he lives by investing money into making it better. He's not allowed to bring a building into existence that meets the modern fire code. He's not allowed to do something that demonstrates just how much he wants to live in a place and have a home there. No, we hates what we hates, and we hates the spending of the moneys, you see.
Celebrities and bullshit are a routine thing now, and it is nobody's business what Schwimmer does but we think it is because of envy and things like that. If he was my neighbor, I wouldn't spray paint anonymous hate messages about him because, well, who the hell does that anyway? The world is full of entitled, seething, hateful psychopaths and that's why we can't have nice things.