Excessive landmarking threatens to make Manhattan a refuge for the rich

[M II A II R II K]

Preservation Follies


Edward L. Glaeser

Read More: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_preservation-follies.html

New York’s original Pennsylvania Railroad Station opened its doors in November 1910, with its towering Doric columns and a 150-foot-high waiting room based on the Baths of Caracalla in Rome. “As the crowd passed through the doors into the vast concourse,” the New York Times reported, “on every hand were heard exclamations of wonder, for none had any idea of the architectural beauty of the new structure.” But in the mid-1960s, the Pennsylvania Railroad tried to make up for falling revenues by razing the Beaux Arts structure—over the protests of architects and editorial boards—and replacing it with today’s drab station, the new Madison Square Garden, and rent-bearing office towers.

The beloved old station became a martyr for the preservationist cause. In 1965, Mayor Robert Wagner signed the law establishing the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Initially, the move seemed like a harmless sop to the activist architects. But the commission’s power soon grew, partly because it was charged not only with protecting beautiful old structures but also with establishing large historic districts. Today, New York City contains just 1,200 individually landmarked buildings, far fewer than the 25,000 buildings within its 100 historic districts. And in these districts—1,300 acres’ worth in Manhattan alone—almost every action that affects a building’s exterior must pass muster with the commission, from installing air conditioners in windows to mounting intercom boxes next to front doors. A tree can grow in Brooklyn, but not in SoHo, unless the commission decides that its leaves are no affront to that neighborhood.

It is wise and good to protect the most cherished parts of a city’s architectural history. But New York’s vast historic districts, which include thousands of utterly undistinguished structures, don’t accomplish that goal. Worse, they impede new construction, keeping real estate in New York City enormously expensive (despite a housing crash), especially in its most desirable, historically protected areas. It’s time to ask whether New York’s big historic districts make sense.

According to a law passed in 1965, to bestow historic-district status on a neighborhood, the Landmarks Preservation Commission must hold public hearings, vote, and then submit its proposal to the city council, which must approve the designation. Once that happens, the commission has enormous powers over the new district: it may “specify the nature of any construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any landscape feature which may be performed” within that district. The commission began landmarking speedily after the law was passed. From 1966 to 1981, it created 20 historic districts in southern Manhattan, at a rate of about 38 acres per year. (By “southern Manhattan,” I mean the island below 96th Street—the most expensive land in the city and some of the most expensive in the world.)

The largest of these districts was Greenwich Village, which was landmarked in 1969. The plan to submit the Village to the commission’s oversight was embraced by most of its residents, despite their well-known history of fighting the government’s use of eminent domain to seize their property outright. Mayor Wagner said that he was “deeply concerned and sympathetic with the people of the West Village neighborhood in their desire to conserve and build constructively upon a neighborhood life which is an example of city community life at its healthiest.” Mayor-elect John Lindsay and mayor-to-be Ed Koch, a Village resident himself, also favored making the Village a historic district. Two property owners did file a lawsuit against the city, and large property-owning institutions like the New School and Saint Vincent’s Hospital also didn’t want their future building options curtailed. But in the end, the proposal passed, and a similar groundswell helped establish the SoHo Cast Iron District in 1973.

[10023]

And what is it now?

I'm sure people are going to call me a NIMBY, even though that isn't what this is about, but this is ridiculous.

The Village and SoHo are very expensive places to live, but the qualities that landmarking protects are what makes them desirable. If you want a cheaper apartment, there are plenty in areas like West Midtown - but that's a hellhole, which is why it's cheaper. Development that destroys the "human scale" of the Village, particularly the West Village, would surely bring prices down but not just because of supply - fewer people would want to live here.

New York isn't like San Francisco, where there is actually a lack of available land for new construction. There is tons of new construction in Manhattan, it's just 30 blocks north.

If you want to address Manhattan's out of control rents, the first place to look is not landmarks, it's rent control and rent stabilization.

[llamaorama]

Besides, most buildings replacing the historic structures are likely to be more expensive on a per-unit basis right, since we are talking skyscrapers.

[10023]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Besides, most buildings replacing the historic structures are likely to be more expensive on a per-unit basis right, since we are talking skyscrapers.

A separate point but valid. Most of the luxury rentals that go up in the 30s or 40s are cheaper than luxury rentals in the Village (which are in very short supply and high demand). But new buildings wouldn't replace existing luxury buildings, they'd be replacing the pretty cramped, run-down tenement apartments were you can actually get a share for just $1000 a month.

[photoLith]

The NYC Historic Commission does a great job at protecting the cities history and irreplaceable historic structures. I am all for preservation and landmarking if that means the building is pretty much protected for good. This country has lost so much of its history to urban renewal that we need to protect all that we can. I cant imagine a high rise condo going up where a historic building once stood would be any cheaper, in fact, they are probably a lot more expensive than living in a landmarked district or building.

[urbanlife]

All of these points are excellent points and the reason why everyone should support landmark protections....it sounds like Edward needs a hard punch to the balls.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

it sounds like Edward needs a hard punch to the balls.