On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark | Hacker News Reader

On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

strandbooks.com

135 pointsfortran7732 comments

For the full infuriating timeline: https://landmarkscomplaints.com/chronology-of-events/

Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21228237

There is clearly a real problem when private landowners suddenly face much, much lower property values at the same time residents ensure their own continued enjoyment of the historically valuable building.

The real irony will be if the Strand moves its bookstore elsewhere, or simply closes. The value of this building is largely tied in with the business, not only that New Yorkers love the facade.

Also this bit from a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610699

Not an effective website as a passerby.

I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark,

For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive.

This type of information should be at the top of the page.

Right - this is familiar to New York City residents but anyone unfamiliar with the local politics needs a primer. NYC does a lot of crazy stuff like this - it’s usually a thinly disguised cash grab. The Strand is a relatively huge chunk of real estate in a hipster part of town, this is probably someone’s scheme to force them out - wait until the press has died down then suddenly the sidewalk and facade inspectors show up, next thing you know there are tens of thousands of dollars in repairs that need to be done, and strand is forced to close since they’ll never find a like space to relocate to.

You often receive tax breaks when you own a landmark property to compensate for the increased difficulty and higher standard of maintenance, as well as the fact that you're effectively providing a public service. Many historic towns have an equivalent status. Why do you say it's a cash grab for the city? I could be wrong, but I don't believe the city receives any revenue for this.

Also, I wouldn't really describe NoHo as a hipster area. It's basically a commercial zone,albeit sandwiched in between two areas that might be considered hipster (East Village and Greenwich Village).

It's a cash grab if there's sufficient coordination for a pareto efficiency.

> For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive.

The reason they bury this line is that it's a lie. 826/828 Broadway was only designated for its exterior not interior (http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2615.pdf) as was widely reported at the time (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/arts/design/strand-bookst...). They can repair anything they want inside the building, small outside repairs are allowed, but anything that changes the character of the outside of the building must be approved.

This was a great move by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

That sounds pretty annoying, even just for the exterior. Right?

Annoying? Sure! Talk to anyone who lives in Europe and deals with such buildings all the time. It's not the end of the world.

The overreaction by the owners is simply because of greed. Their building is worth less because it's harder to change now. This doesn't materially impact the business.

The argument that their building wasn't in any danger of being demolished is totally crazy. That is not one of the criteria used by the Commission! No one cares.

You are the liar.

This is my favorite reply of all time. Beautiful absurdist humour. Thanks :)

>This type of information should be at the top of the page.

It is.

Where? Can you reply with a screenshot?

Sure https://imgur.com/wzliP5b

What amazes me is that they have the gall to do this against the wishes of the owners.

In a few years Amazon will buy the place as a "good will" gesture.

For those that don't know, Netflix recently bought and reopened New York City’s iconic Paris Theater (ostensibly to host limited showings of Netflix Original films so they're eligible for Academy Awards):

https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20982216/netflix-paris-t...

That makes sense. Probably will make money just showing Netflix content on the big screen. Netflix has also been trying to buy Grauman's Egyptian Theater in LA.

If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it. Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.

NYC has learned the hard way that there should be some preservation; destroying/modifying a building is a one-way act, and over a long enough time horizon someone will eventually make a bad decision that everyone regrets later. See for example Penn Station: a beautiful landmark that was demolished by a real estate company because they deemed it too expensive to maintain. In the act they created a horrible black mark on the city.

There are arguments to be made on both sides, this isn't a black and white issue. The history of preservation is fascinating. Especially after Penn Station's demolition, NYC went through a big debate on other landmarks like Grand Central: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/preservation-battle-g....

> While few doubted the significance of Grand Central, the terminal’s owners took issue with the law itself—how, they wondered, could it constitute anything other than an unreasonable violation of their rights as property owners? Preservationists like Onassis, working with groups like the Municipal Art Society, continued to insist that saving Grand Central and buildings like it wasn’t a mere real estate matter, but an issue of public good. On June 26, 1978, the United States Supreme Court agreed with them in Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. New York City, not just in regards to Grand Central but in the spirit of the Landmarks law itself...

In retrospect I don't think you could find a New Yorker who regrets that Grand Central was saved after seeing what Penn Station became.

The problem with Penn Station's destruction isn't the destruction itself, it's that the building that replaced it is so hideous. Most historic buildings aren't valuable because they're historic, they're valuable because they're beautiful. We can still build beautiful buildings again, but with modern materials and code. Modern buildings don't have to be soulless abstract nightmares.

I'd much rather have codes that require a particular aesthetic on a site than try to retain a particular object building in perpetuity.

On the other end of this is the proposal to redesign the Notre Damn to have a glass ceiling after the fire. A glass ceiling is actually surprisingly popular and would make the building look amazing both outside and inside it. Unfortunately, this proposal was shot down pretty quickly despite public support in order to stick to the status quo.

You're mis-interpreting Bostonian's argument. He said not that preservation is bad but that the city ought to buy the building. We've got eminent domain for a reason: the state can't force someone to keep his building the same for the pleasure of the public. What it _can_ do is pay him a fair market value, via eminent domain, to maintain it as a public good. That's the right thing to do, rather than saddling the owner with the upkeep and tanking the value with no compensation.

I think it's a bit more complicated. Some brief overview of preservation in the US:

There exists a National Register of Historic Places (operated by the Parks Service) with about 90,000 entries, and within that scope is the National Historic Landmark registry, with about 2,600. Both may trigger local and state preservation laws, but the latter requires the consent of the owner to be included. About 50% of places on the NHL registry are privately owned.

Private institutions are usually not required to keep up the property to exacting standards, as the laws that govern property rights still apply to NHLs. Many matching grants are issued for NHLs, but at the same time, many private properties designated NHLs do become abandoned and fall into severe disrepair. Most NHLs are afforded tax breaks based on the cost of preserving the property.

But in the Strand's case, it appears that the "landmark" designation that's been assigned is a "New York City Landmark" status, making it a local issue. NYC law allows for the Landmarks Preservation Commission's decision to be overturned if an appeal is filed within 90 days, and hearings were held and motions filed against it, but apparently the NYC LPC went ahead with the status anyway.

So it seems like there needn't be a new requirement for the City to buy the property, or fund it, but the City's preservation agency could perhaps mimic the federal government's initiatives and give owners more leeway. (However, this may lead to more properties becoming abandoned and decaying, as happens currently with NHLs)

Still, the Strand's main objective doesn't seem to be getting reimbursed for costs: it's time. Apparently they're saying they would need to spend a lot of time to go through complex bureaucracy just to get a permit for some repairs, in addition to legal costs. Going through all that could stall business long enough for small-margin operations to go under. Regardless of who pays for what, if the regulation is too onerous, they just don't want the designation.

Something like this happened to a house here locally. It was a run down 100+ year old junker eyesore house with "historic value". So it was deemed a historic house.

The owners didn't want it either, and wanted the land for their purposes. So one night, bulldozers came in and razed it. Next day, there was a nasty news article about the "Horrible people who razed historic house"... And later on a $135,000 fine.

But the moment the city lays a claim like "historic house" or whatever, that should be only subject to a eminent domain as laid out in the constitution. Doing this reduces value to nil, and in reality, poisons the property and deed. They should eminent domain it and pay fair market value if they really care about its historic worth.

Absolutely. The "historic value" of a particular thing is a positive externality; we have eminent domain so the state cannot compel the common man to produce a positive externality without compensation; the public cannot say that it really likes looking at your house so you must keep it that way.

Why is this here?

At the bottom of this page is a link called "guidelines". Click it. It says:

Hacker News Guidelines

What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups.

I'll bite. Because it's an interesting cultural story, with an intersection of several topics commonly fascinating to HN readers based on past front page action: books, bookstores, government conflict, public / private sector policy collision, underdog narrative. Independent bookstores are widely regarded as culturally significant.

This story is very, very obviously right up HN's alley. It would be more surprising if it weren't upvoted.

20-something year old technology tinkerer interests often broaden as the tinkerers gain repeated experience with the non-tech portion of the world.

To connect it to technology, statistics & economics could be used to evaluate the counterfactual property valuation should historical status for the home had never been declared.

You could make that claim about any random article from Reddit.

It's a factor in the insane cost of real estate in tech hub cities where many of us are attempting to live and work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com