Today Jade sent me a link to a New York Times article that reminded me of one of the wedding scenes in Sex and the City: The Movie. (The one where Carrie and Big finally make it official.)
The article was “Drab Setting, but Joyous Work: Making 2 Into 1” written by Fernanda Santos. It was about the Manhattan Marriage Bureau (MMB.). Apparently it’s quite the humble, but popular place, to get hitched in New York. And it’s about to get a makeover.
Why the New Look After 92 Years?
There are two reasons the MMB is slated for a face lift. (Besides the obvious –that 92 years is a long time to go without any major improvements!)
1. Dignity. According to the article, Room 257, which is where the MMB’s wedding chapel can be found, hasn’t changed much since its inception in 1916. It “looks as bureaucratically stiff as all the other Municipal Buildings.” In short, it doesn’t sound like the most romantic destination to exchange vows in.
2. Strategy. Because New York does not require brides and grooms to be residents of New York in order to get married there, it gets a lot of “outsiders” exchanging vows in the Municipal Building. They’re hoping that by updating the chapel’s appearance, they can market themselves as sort of a Las Vegas of the East –sans the more stereotypical Vegas wedding fare (like Elvis impersonators and drive-thru chapels). Basically, they’re hoping to cash in on wedding tourism dollars.
What Will the Improvements Be?
From the sounds of it, “conveniences” are the name of the game.
1. Dressing areas for brides.
2. An on-site flower shop to purchase bouquets.
3. No more X-ray machines or metal detectors to go through.
In addition to more conveniences, there will be more aesthetics. Marble, chandeliers, bronze doors, and Art Deco trappings. All of this will be found in the new building, which won’t be too far from the old one.
Surprising Info
I was sort of surprised to hear that Manhattan, known as such a hip, fashionable Mecca, was just now getting around to making justice of the peace ceremonies more mod. I thought they would have set the benchmark long ago.
I was also surprised to learn that weddings are done on a first come, first serve basis and that waits can be long. I’m not sure I’d be too crazy about subjecting my wedding to bureaucratic procedures of the variety “take a number and we’ll be with you when your number’s called,” but for some that’s more ideal than some of their alternatives. (But they do make exceptions for celebrities who opt to go a JOP route.)
Which brings me to the next thing I was surprised about: celebrities don’t always have lavish, well-publicized weddings. The article cited two examples: Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft in 1964. Matt Damon and the woman he married, Luciana Bozan, did i the JOP way in 2005.
Another thing I found surprising was why some had chosen a JOP ceremony. One couple came from across the pond because they found “the marriage requirements in the United Kingdom so stringent that it made more sense to marry in New York.” Another couple had gotten married in Costa Rica, but found registering their marriage in New York such a pain they opted just to do it again in front of the JOP for convenience sake.
Also, it only costs $25. What a bargain! (Although, there was some speculation in the article that the price will go up once the MMB gets situated in its new digs.)
Courtney Mroch also writes in Pets and Marriage. For a full listing of her articles click here.