Ralph Lauren had to get permission from the NYC Landmarks Commission a few years ago to tear down this:
…in order to build this:
About Stephen Smith
Comments
Trackbacks
-
[…] Multiple lines of response come to mind; you should think of them as separately as possible. The first is that Benfield not only makes an argument about Manhattan’s density, but also posts lovely images of landmarked streets in the West Village, which Glaeser wants to permit replacing with 50-story residential towers. In light of that, let us remember what historic districts are, in practice: they are districts where wealthy people own property that they want to prop up the price of. They are designated arbitrarily, make arbitrary rules, and protect clearly non-historic buildings. […]
But it got it, so why is this necessarily a problem?
Because a) someone wasted time applying and then determining whether this building should be allowed to be built for historical reasons, and b) ostensibly there are some buildings that would be allowed to replace that ugly two-story “before” building according to the zoning code, but that the commission might deem not in accordance with the historical district. It seems to me like anything would be an improvement upon what was there, and that any layer of bureaucracy on top of zoning can only be, at best, a small-but-completely-useless burden.
Post a link to Google Maps, eh?
888 Madison Ave.
Yeah we should use the LPC process for building that we know have historical significance. And only terrorists should have to go through the security line at airports.
I’m quite sure that the LPC approval for this project was not too difficult or costly. This would be a slam-dunk approval. It’s hard to look at the final building and worry that the owner didn’t optimize his dollars.
Not to say that there are not LPC horror stories, just don’t think this is one…
You might be sure, but you are quite mistaken. It is always difficult and costly. Think of a few months delay.
There is also the uncertainty. With zoning, you can build “as of right.” So, as long as you follow the law, you can spend vast amounts of time and money and care planning your project. With LPC, there is no certainty. That’s another ball game. Architects always ask, when you speak to them about your project, with a haggard look in their eyes, if the property is landmarked. It’s like having a high strung and unpredictable spouse who could blow up your project at any point, for any reason, and for none.
It’s also philosophically and morally immature to think that government taking of property rights is no loss to the owner of the property. And callow. As long as it’s not your property.
Clearly, those little windows on the top floor are the “affordable housing” requirement….
The problem with that logic is that it is intrinsically weighted towards new development over owners of existing buildings. The “loss” that you are positing is based on a value of the property that is highly tied to the neighborhood. The value of the property has been raised artificially by the admittedly harsh standards imposed by LPC. If the “taking” of property rights is “morally and philosophically immature” then so is the “giving” of property value by the preservation of the neighborhood.
It would be negligent for your architect NOT to ask if the building was landmarked. If they have a haggard look in their eyes, perhaps you need a new architect.
Look, I’m not trying to argue that the system is perfect, but what is the alternative? How could there possibly be anything approaching an objective judgement in an area as nebulous as “appropriateness?” Perhaps it wouldn’t be called the LPC, but every community worth maintaining develops SOME formal or informal mechanism for judging a new development and whether it fits or doesn’t. It’s what happens when people live near each other.
I’d would honestly like to learn of successful mechanisms for maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods without some type of appointed board. How could you do it? Has it been done?
Perhaps it wouldn’t be called the LPC, but every community worth maintaining develops SOME formal or informal mechanism for judging a new development and whether it fits or doesn’t. It’s what happens when people live near each other.
Well, there is one community that didn’t do that: The one in which the buildings preservationists trying to save were actually built. I’m sure that nearly 100% of all buildings in landmark districts were built in the place of incredibly beautiful and tragically-lost-to-history buildings that are much rarer than the stuff that’s currently protected. Of course, back then they had the benefit of lax-to-nonexistent zoning and a vibrant free market in mass transit, which I think explains why they’re so beautiful in the first place. I could live with some sort of grand bargain with historical preservationists where they get to quadruple the current area of the districts in exchange for total liberalization outside of those districts. Of course, I’m sure few of them would agree to that deal.
Protecting people’s choice of real estate investment is not an appropriate role for the government. The practical effects of such policy is to subsidize people who already own property in a neighborhood at the expense of people who would like to move in.
A good alternative would be to do the following:
1. No historic districts – only historic buildings. If Lower Manhattan can be covered with skyscrapers, so can neighborhoods that are 200 years younger.
2. Adding floors to an existing structure is free.
3. A property can be declared historic with a nontrivial application process, involving demonstrating actual historicity. Not every building in the Village was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory – and even that building could safely get retrofitted with extra floors, since the important bit of its history happened on the 9th through 11th floors only.
4. Historic properties require historic uses – at a minimum, a publicly accessible plaque.
There’s protecting neighborhood history, and there’s protecting rich property owners. The government doesn’t pass laws to preserve the value of people’s stock market investments, or to make sure every small business investment succeeds and none goes bankrupt, or to guarantee corporate bonds. Bailouts are extraordinary and used only as last resort, when it’s that or Doomsday, because it’s understood universally that those are parts of the economy it’s okay to leave to the free market.
“Protecting people’s choice of real estate investment is not an appropriate role for the government”
If you meant that a government should only act in ways that make markets more liquid, not less, you are stating a widely held, but not universal, opinion. Not a statement of fact, and I would argue not an opinion .
“The government doesn’t pass laws to preserve the value of people’s stock market investments”
Really? Do you mean it doesn’t, or you’d rather it didn’t?
The LPC did not arise out of a need to protect rich property owners. Subsidizing the existing owners may well be a side effect of the policy, I would agree there.
The LPC DID arise out of a “Doomsday” scenario in the mid 20th century where development pressures were threatening many historic pieces of the city.
It’s hard to tell how your suggested reforms would change the situation.
1. If there were no historic districts, only buildings, the zoning landscape would be much different….Many of the height limits would be written into zoning if they hadn’t been covered by historic districts. No city in the country allows density that was built in lower manhattan (I assume you mean wall street area), primarily for reasons of fire safety, but also light and air.
2. Free in terms of what? No review needed? I pretty much agree that adding floors should be allowed, in the sense that ugly architecture should be legal. I guess the upshot is that in some places, especially big cities, part of the cost of doing business is being regulated by the fashion police. If you want to deal with New York, you have to deal with New Yorkers. If that’s not free, I believe the term is “tough nuggies.”
3. “Nontrivial application process” This gets at the heart of the subjectivity problem. What keeps the “nontrivial” process from being exactly like the “trivial” process we have now? The same questions would come up…Historic to who? Architectural history? Cultural?, etc, etc….What you are really arguing for is a new *subjective* process (like the one that now exists) that uses a more liberal standard for appropriateness. Why not just fight for a more liberal standard to be used in the existing system?
4. Same problem. Historic to who?
Actually, many buildings in landmarked districts were greenfield sites.
“I could live with some sort of grand bargain with historical preservationists where they get to quadruple the current area of the districts in exchange for total liberalization outside of those districts.”
Isn’t that the deal you have now?
Outside of metropolitan areas, there are basically no restrictions. What you want is the benefits of a city’s cultural capital built (in part) by the inefficiencies of the preservation movements, without paying the costs. If there is no benefit to these districts, why do you need to work within them? Why are they the most expensive areas? Why not just develop outside the city?
By “outside of those districts,” I meant “outside of those historical districts,” not outside metropolitan areas altogether. So, like, allowing infinite development (i.e., no zoning) in much of NYC’s five boroughs, excluding whatever districts are designated as historical.
Why this conflation of LPC and zoning, though? There are plenty of limits to development outside of Landmarks. Even if there were no landmarked districts, there would still be FAR, bulk, yards, etc…
The BSA has a much more important role in limiting development than LPC.
Again, why the urge to unzone the city? There is plenty of unzoned land in the US. What reason is there to abandon zoning *in the city*?
The answer, obviously, is that LOCATION MATTERS. A developer is much more interested in building in the city than in the middle of south dakota, or whatever.
Location matters because of the people and buildings that are there.
Zoning protects the people and buildings that create that location.
That is why there has been formal and informal zoning in every non-nomadic civilization in history.
I don’t actually think that I disagree with much that you’ve written actually, but I do believe that there is an important distinction between “BAD ZONING” and “ZONING IS BAD”
Just like a bad law are not good arguments for anarchy, it is an argument for legislation.
(SIDE NOTE: That makes me think that PUDs are sort of like Hamsterdam from Wire Season 4. Small oases where the laws are not enforced to achieve a greater goal)
Zoning, landmarks, etc are all decisions made my communities through political processes, which are often messy and ugly. That doesn’t mean that they should be thrown out.
shame it wasn’t built like 5-7 stories taller with a hotel or something over it.
It’s four stories tall – it’s practically a skyscraper! And who would want to live in a shitty neighborhood like that, anyway?
What I meant is that nearly every investment other than housing is not government-protected, unless you choose to pay extra for insurance. Stock market investments are not protected by regulation: there are regulations for transparency, but no persistent intervention to make sure nobody ever loses money on stocks.
If the issue is that property owners want stability, they should pay for private property value insurance; since such a market doesn’t already exist independently of government regulations, I don’t have a problem with the government starting an opt-in system in which you pay a small percentage of your housing value in insurance in exchange for the government paying out the difference if you sell at a loss.
I know very well why the LPC was started. It doesn’t mean it’s used for the same purpose today, when nationwide, virtually every time a neighborhood improves, the residents petition for and get historic district in order to raise their property values.
re: my plan, you have:
1. Many non-historic districts of Manhattan do not have height limits, for example the Upper East Side. There are no fire safety or light and air problems there, although the population density is very high.
2. Free in terms of no review needed, yes. Under current rules, you need a review to add floors, even if the architectural context is the same as that of the building below.
3. Because the current system’s standards are not meant to be liberal – they’re meant to make it easy to petition for historic district and hard to petition for a variance to build in a historic district.
4. Historic to the users. That is, if your claim is that the building is important for its interior rather than its exterior (i.e. for an event, rather than architecture), then you need to make it available to the public. If your cellar was important in the Revolutionary War, you do not get to claim historic status to raise the property values and then use the cellar as inaccessible private property.
What zoning did American cities have before the 1910s? And what FARs and density limits did they have before the 1930s?