The other day I got some pushback from my weird (non-)historical preservation example, with some people saying that it wasn’t a great example of what’s wrong with preservation districts – the thing got built, after all! And of course I was being coy – that building was obviously going to pass the commissioners’ muster. But I noted that anything even the least bit more controversial – taller, say, or more modern – does not fly through so easily.
Welp, Curbed NY (your number 1 source for real estate porn) has heard your cry and presented me with a perfect example of how fucked up New York City’s historical preservation districts are: Meet the Gansevoort Market Historic District, in the heart of the Meatpacking District in Lower Manhattan
The image you see here is a rendering of a design that was actually rejected as being, among other things, too tall for the Landmarks Preservation Commission, despite it being very similar in height to buildings that were there about a hundred years ago. (And then, of course, there’s the Standard Hotel, a much taller building, right across the street!) So the architect lobbed off two stories (bringing it down to six total, which makes it less than half the height of lot of buildings in my suburban Philadelphia hometown), but still no go. The architect is going to go back for a round three at some point, but time is money, and these delays are only going to make the project more expensive.
Now, in general I think that additions should be allowed to nearly all historical buildings. If you can cram an 80-story skyscraper through the middle of the Dakota, I say go for it! I understand, however, that this is a minority viewpoint, but the case for preserving the “skyline” of a two-story factory with no architectural merit (there’s not even a friggin’ cornice!!) seems to me to be especially weak. This design looks very nice to me, even taking into account that renderings are always a bit nicer than the actual thing and it’ll look a little different once people close their blinds.
…in fact, I’d go so far as to say that it would actually be nicer without that totally non-historical warehouse that it has to be built on top of.
“the case for preserving the ‘skyline’ of a two-story factory with no architectural merit (there’s not even a friggin’ cornice!!) seems to me to be especially weak”
The ridiculousness is ample evidence that the “skyline” is probably not the real issue. I’ve noticed that following the $$ usually leads to the true explanation for these strange situations – and usually, that means one is dealing with people who want to sell their property for more $$ in the future. But “skylines” and “historical” buildings – no matter how dumpy – are the hook for getting what they want, so that’s what they go with, no matter how ridiculous the results.
Normally I’d be with you, but in this case, I can’t really figure out who would benefit from not letting this building go forward. The architect apparently won the approval of all his neighbors, so it can’t be that. What would the people on the Landmarks Commission stand to gain from rejecting this building? I’m not seeing a monetary or political motivation here – to be honest, they just sound like cranky assholes looking to take out their anger at what NYC has become on the one thing that they actually have control over.
My Urban Econ prof once said that he thought most urban planning bills should be titled
“A bill to regularize the process of the solicitation of bribes”
or something along those lines.
He said that was the only way he could explain how similar, when controlling for other factors, development is under any planning reg to places without the planning reg, except prices are higher.
I am pretty sure he was joking, but I am starting to believe it.
Bribes and votes. But of course exchanging real estate favors for votes is a form of bribe, so, I guess “bribe” works pretty well.
Interesting that the neighbors approve. I was neglecting the whole preservation district thing when I commented – but upon further reflection I think that’s the key to understanding this. These things started out with the noblest of intentions but I think they’ve since become almost a religion among certain groups – folks who happen to have a lot of power in local politics. The end result is that these districts are almost universally seen as a Good Thing that must not be questioned, regardless of their impact. A side-effect is the heaping tons of additional regulations that must be adhered to, because to do otherwise would be a Bad Thing.