- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

Adam / Market Urbanism wrote (the added numbers are mine — BH):

Wow! I am surprised this isn’t making bigger waves in [1] Chicago, and [2] other cities.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Regarding [1]: But then again, as you also say, there are still appeals left. So at this point in the process, they only seem to have finished the sixth (?) inning. If I remember correctly, a New York State appellate court had also decided against the validity of the NYC landmarks law protecting Grand Central Terminal — but, in the end, the NYC landmarks law was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (where it really mattered).

Regarding [2]: And even if the landmarks law is overturned by the top court in Illinois, it’s my understanding that unless the case makes it’s way into the Federal court system, such a decision would not necessarily have any influence in the other forty-nine states.

- – - – - – - – -

If I remember the controversy correctly, in the case of Grand Central Terminal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the NYC landmarks law was not an unfair taking of a property’s value because the NYC landmarks law was essentially like a zoning law (which can also constitutionally diminish a property’s value for a larger public purpose). Also, if I remember correctly, the NYC law allows for the shifting and selling of zoning air rights and even allows for the economic hardship destruction of a landmark — so the value of a property is not entirely taken away from its owner, just “restricted.”

That being said, more and more it seems to me that it was a big PRACTICAL mistake for NYC to adopt this “zoning” type approach to landmarking, rather than to adopt a purchase of easements approach (like the one that you are suggesting). Using the current approach, it is too easy — and tempting — for the City to landmark buildings and districts. And as a result I think NYC is currently going overboard with landmarking. If NYC had to pay for the rights in cash, it would be more careful — and thoughtful, I think — with landmarking.

- – - – - – -

Like you, Adam/Market Urbanism, I am also skeptical about landmark districts. I think there are a few — very few — legitimate landmark districts in NYC, where the district as a whole is what is landmark worthy and should be closely regulated. But, more and more, community groups do seem to be trying to obtain landmark district designation in order to simply preserve the status quo and prevent change — and wind-up preventing the kind of density and diversity that makes the city great.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - –

Adam / Market Urbanism wrote (the added numbers are mine — BH):

Wow! I am surprised this isn’t making bigger waves in [1] Chicago, and [2] other cities.

Benjamin Hemric writes:

Regarding [1]: But then again, as you also say, there are still appeals left. So at this point in the process, they only seem to have finished the sixth (?) inning. If I remember correctly, a New York State appellate court had also decided against the validity of the NYC landmarks law protecting Grand Central Terminal — but, in the end, the NYC landmarks law was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (where it really mattered).

Regarding [2]: And even if the landmarks law is overturned by the top court in Illinois, it’s my understanding that unless the case makes it’s way into the Federal court system, such a decision would not necessarily have any influence in the other forty-nine states.

- – - – - – - – -

If I remember the controversy correctly, in the case of Grand Central Terminal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the NYC landmarks law was not an unfair taking of a property’s value because the NYC landmarks law was essentially like a zoning law (which can also constitutionally diminish a property’s value for a larger public purpose). Also, if I remember correctly, the NYC law allows for the shifting and selling of zoning air rights and even allows for the economic hardship destruction of a landmark — so the value of a property is not entirely taken away from its owner, just “restricted.”

That being said, more and more it seems to me that it was a big PRACTICAL mistake for NYC to adopt this “zoning” type approach to landmarking, rather than to adopt a purchase of easements approach (like the one that you are suggesting). Using the current approach, it is too easy — and tempting — for the City to landmark buildings and districts. And as a result I think NYC is currently going overboard with landmarking. If NYC had to pay for the rights in cash, it would be more careful — and thoughtful, I think — with landmarking.

- – - – - – -

Like you, Adam/Market Urbanism, I am also skeptical about landmark districts. I think there are a few — very few — legitimate landmark districts in NYC, where the district as a whole is what is landmark worthy and should be closely regulated. But, more and more, community groups do seem to be trying to obtain landmark district designation in order to simply preserve the status quo and prevent change — and wind-up preventing the kind of density and diversity that makes the city great.

I would say overall I am happy that they are being forced to revisit the ordinance. It needs work, but hopefully some protections will remain for those who wish to voluntarily occupy the districts or specific landmarked properties. I feel like landmarking in some ways goes against the free market and the mini-developer in me at time bristles when I find out a target property is landmarked, but if someone elects to have their property designated or to move into a district, wouldn’t it still be voluntary participation and not necesarily evil?

I would say overall I am happy that they are being forced to revisit the ordinance. It needs work, but hopefully some protections will remain for those who wish to voluntarily occupy the districts or specific landmarked properties. I feel like landmarking in some ways goes against the free market and the mini-developer in me at time bristles when I find out a target property is landmarked, but if someone elects to have their property designated or to move into a district, wouldn’t it still be voluntary participation and not necesarily evil?