New York
Menu

Wellington Chen

Member, New York Landmarks Preservation Commission

We identified Chen’s voice at 19 meetings. Named SoHo most often: two times.

19 of 23transcribed meetings with their voice identified
3.7min a meeting at the Landmarks Preservation Commission, at least
20questions at the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Share card

Next Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting: Tue, Nov 10 · Agenda

What they talk about

Historic preservation took the largest share of Chen’s speech with a checked topic: 100%

By the topic two AI readers agree on for each stretch of their talk, at the Landmarks Preservation Commission. 85 of 85 minutes of their speech have a checked topic. How much they talk about it, not which side they take.

Historic preservation100%
Questions

Chen asked 20 questions at the 19 Landmarks Preservation Commission meetings where we identified them

At least this many: direct questions only.

Of Chen’s 2 questions to city departments at the Landmarks Preservation Commission, 2 went to planning and zoning.

Who they question: 2 questions to a department, 1 body · Oct 24, 2025 – Oct 8, 2026.

Landmarks Preservation Commission2 questions to city departments
Landmarks Preservation Commission: questions by department
DepartmentShareQuestions
Planning and zoning2
Neighborhoods Chen named

8 places Chen named in meetings

Lines where Chen named the place, read by two AI readers that both agree it means that place. Each dot plays the newest one; brighter means named more often.

New York
  • SoHo 2 times
  • Bedford-Stuyvesant 1 time
  • Douglaston 1 time
  • Greenwich Village 1 time
  • Little Neck 1 time
  • Park Slope 1 time
  • Queens 1 time
  • Staten Island 1 time

Places are drawn at the centre of their own boundary in the city’s 2020 Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs) file (NYC Department of City Planning, via NYC Open Data). A dot says the place was named, not where Chen was or what was said about it.

Meetings

Every meeting where we identified Chen’s voice

19, newest first. The date opens the meeting; the time plays the video at Chen’s first remark.

  1. Sep 15, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission7.2 min36:31
  2. Sep 1, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission4.1 min43:56
  3. Jul 28, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission1.2 min3:31:03
  4. Jul 21, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission4.3 min32:49
  5. Jul 14, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission5.3 min17:51
  6. Jun 9, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission2.7 min3:51:03
  7. May 12, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission5.9 min9:18
  8. May 5, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission2.6 min20:55
  9. Apr 21, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission3.9 min37:29
  10. Apr 7, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission7.7 min30:40
Show all 19Show fewer
  1. Mar 17, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission1.6 min1:37:30
  2. Feb 24, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission5.4 min1:01:29
  3. Feb 10, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission5.1 min49:34
  4. Feb 3, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission3.2 min1:03:56
  5. Jan 13, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission10.1 min54:27
  6. Jan 6, 2026Landmarks Preservation Commission8.5 min19:42
  7. Dec 9, 2025Landmarks Preservation Commission3.8 min2:42:44
  8. Nov 18, 2025Landmarks Preservation Commission1.2 min38:02
  9. Oct 28, 2025Landmarks Preservation Commission1.7 min39:56
How we identify who is speaking · blind check, pooled across five cities: of 340 commission lines drawn, 260 right, 4 wrong, 1 unclear, 75 couldn’t be judged

A meeting missing here means we couldn’t attribute the voice, not that Chen was absent. Claude and Gemini each read every transcript with that day’s roster. A voice gets Wellington Chen’s name only when both agree and a code check finds the name said on, or just before, their turn. Voices our transcripts merge with someone else’s are never attributed, so every count here undercounts what Chen said. For commissions, of 340 lines drawn, 260 were right, 4 wrong and 1 unclear, and the checkers couldn’t judge 75. We have since removed the voices behind 64 of those lines (3 wrong, 0 unclear, the rest we had already held for other reasons). Of the 276 lines we still publish, the checkers could judge 228: 226 right, 1 wrong and 1 unclear (90% lower bound 0.97). They couldn’t judge the other 48. The check is one sample pooled across the five cities, not of Chen or of New York alone.