Comment by rm999 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rm999 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com