Can a table of five powerful preservation and development voices come to agreement regarding landmarking and development? Crain’s New York Business held a forum earlier this week - “Is Landmarking Out of Control?” to address the issues from a variety of perspectives.

LANDMARKING IS NOT THE ENEMY – Peg Breen 
Peg Breen, President of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, emphasized that landmarking is not the enemy. Historic districts are important and landmarked buildings do contribute to affordable housing. Giving clarity to who should be making decisions about such things, Breen stated, “It shouldn’t just be the developers who have the say in whether a building should or shouldn’t be landmarked. Developers are not the only ones who invest in this city, we all do.”

Historic districts (which arose as an underlying development issue) are not, Breen emphasized, designated without the desire and agreement of the community, “the people who live here.” Viewing historic districts as pointless, Kenneth T. Jackson, Professor of History and Social Science of Columbia University, said that people are interested in individual buildings. He has never heard of anyone saying that they want to come to New York to visit a historic district.

LANDMARKING PROCESS NEEDS REFORM – Steven Spinola 
The main mantra of Steven Spinola, President of the Real Estate Board of New York, was the process of landmarking which he felt was overly aggressive and out of control. His concerns were felt by all on the board: The process is in dire need of change. The changes needed include a specific time frame so that development is not stifled by a prolonged indefinite process, consideration of job creation, revenue, impact on the city itself, and affordable housing.

In an attack on Spinola’s view of landmarking, a question was posed regarding REBNY’s survey of 500 buildings for potential designation resulting in not one potential landmark. But Spinola allayed the concern by explaining that as the buildings were reviewed one by one, they were either substantially altered, had a problem with structural integrity, or poor copies of the real thing.

Steven Spinola’s concern about landmarking reached beyond the process to a concern for owners who were uninformed of the requirements of upkeep. What is needed are design guidelines which, he informed us all, he had been requesting for many years without any results. It is a major issue for owners and they should know what specific changes are permissible for their designated property.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE & EFFECT – Ronda Wist 
Ronda Wist, vice president of Municipal Art Society of New York, attacked the main question in a congenial venn diagram approach, explaining that there were many things that all panel members agreed upon while having their own opinion on some aspects. She agreed permits being held up at the 11th hour should not be the norm. Moving away from numbers of how many affordable housing units were here or there, Wist chose to focus on cause and effect. In her own neighborhood, which is not landmarked, there wasn’t a single affordable housing unit concluding that lack of affordable housing was not the effect of landmarking.

TOP 10 LARGEST BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD, NYC HAS ZERO – Kenneth T. Jackson 
Kenneth T. Jackson, Professor of History and Social Science of Columbia University, had much to say about the detriments of landmarking. History, he claimed, is not about the buildings, it is about the people. “We need to expand our understanding of history.” Tossing out the idea of retaining old buildings, Jackson focused on affordable housing, progress and building “new.” “History is for losers,” he interjected at one point during the forum discussion.

He also noted that at one time New York City had 9 out of the 10 tallest buildings in the world; now we have zero. We are not building, what we have is too expensive, and we need more housing. If you want to live in a city, you need to expect change. This change should be decided by appealing to the 20-somethings who are around the country and want to move to New York.

A NEW GENERATION OF PRESERVATION & DEVELOPMENT - Nikolai Fedak 
Nikolai Fedak, founder and editor of New York YIMBY (Yes In My Back Yard), was in agreement that we need to build, but current buildings are not meeting the needs of the coming generation of young business entrepreneurs. Fedak was the voice of this new generation. He was clear and concise, stating that the city is about dynamic change; we need good development, not prohibitive development. While some buildings need to be preserved he noted, “landmarking is being used as a political tool rather than a tool to preserve what needs preserving. Politicians parlay to their own ends.” The new tech generation of business entrepreneurs need small esthetically pleasing spaces that are built to provide what is needed. Clearly forward looking, his focus was on finding ways to negotiate without compromising one’s stand on preservation and development.

BOTTOM LINE 
Toward the end, the floor was opened to attendees who seemed more bent on venting than asking questions. As the panelists gave their closing few words, it was clear that several issues were the concern of most: The city needs to progress; affordable housing needs to be included in all development, not just landmarked ones; the process of landmarking needs reform; landmarking needs to be a proactive process, not a reactive one; and it needs to be future thinking.

The best part of these events is having a moment to discuss issues one-on-one. I had the opportunity to speak with several panelists post-forum. It was clear that the wheels are turning on ideas of how to address the concerns voiced while integrating the needs of both preservation and development. As I stood outside the beautiful New York Athletic Club speaking with Nikolai Fedak, we agreed that the Hearst Tower on 57th is a great example of marrying the old with the new. “All buildings should be like that,” Fedak commented. And in response to my noting his very balanced view on preservation and development during the forum, he replied, “If we can’t come to an agreement, what is the point?”

Hear, hear!

If you think that your building has very little history, think again. Having recently researched a 5-story building which houses a diminutive store on street level with three apartments resting above it, unexpected history has been discovered. From the original purchase by a single woman in the 1820s to a gathering of citizens led by a senator who denounced loyalty to Lincoln during the Civil War, the hidden history of this quiet little building will soon be revealed in book form. Does your house have a hidden history? What secrets does it hold? Consider doing your own investigative work. Future blogs will give some clues on how to perform your own search. Send your questions.

Changes in the New York City skyline occur on a regular basis often without us knowing how it happened. But for every change we see is another which was not allowed to take place. Occasionally ideas die early in the planning stages, but sometimes the death or alteration of an idea takes place after architects and owners have collaborated and money has been spent. How are some plans accepted while others are not? For those who are unfamiliar with the process, you may be surprised that the yea or nay comes through the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Though ninety percent of nearly 8,000 annually submitted applications are handled by staff, there are some which require a public hearing.

Most likely you will never attend a NYCLPC hearing unless you have a building that is up for alteration, you object to the alteration that your neighbor is making on their building, or you represent a preservation organization.  My attendance was self motivated by my desire to learn more about all aspects of historic properties. I wanted to know who it was that watched over the sea of historic buildings and districts and who it was that could change the face of the city with a thumbs up or decisively keep a building from alterations with a thumbs down.

As I walked into the hearing room on my first visit I felt at least one person must be wondering what committee I was on, what architectural firm I was with, or what position I held with the Commission. It brought a slight discomfort that I was expected to be Someone, but I allowed them to keep guessing as I quietly took my seat and pulled the agenda print-out from my bag. The list of buildings being considered for alterations on a given hearing date is conveniently posted on the NYCLPC website about 3 weeks prior; this gives anyone interested time to look over any proposals that are of interest, visit the properties and view supporting papers the Friday before. 

PRESENTATIONS & DEVELOPMENT

Presentations usually included the tenant/owner and the architect of the building in question. Numerous Coroplast boards covered with photographs of before and after renditions and architectural drawings were displayed and discussed occasionally accompanied by PowerPoint. Commission questions to the presenter followed relating to materials being used, changes in the skyline and street view, architecture and preservation of existing material. A discussion among the Commissioners and an announcement of their determination closed each presentation.

CONSTRUCTION & HISTORY OF BUILDINGS

Quite a few buildings up for discussion that day were built in the 1800s and the Commission took the time to thoroughly consider things like whether or not the brick that a store owner suddenly discovered behind a façade should remain exposed. Along with learning about the basics of historic building construction, several presenters went through the entire history and evolution of their building. I was able to get a feel for the area in which the building was situated and learned about the people who make up this great city. Some presenters were just doing what was necessary to move on with construction while others were very concerned about the preservation of their building and wanted to gain the Commission’s assistance in alteration designs.

ONGOING

Believe it or not, the Commission runs through this routine 24-26 times three or four times a month. As part of New York House Histories communications, I plan on sharing some of the details of select buildings that come before the Commission. If you are interested in a particular area of the city let me know. In the meantime take a visit to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission website at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml  It is an amazing educational experience about those who regulate the city skyline.