By: Lorraine Arnold

In Why a House History Part I we explored some of the reasons to consider conducting a house history - simply curiosity, knowing your investment and for restoration or renovation projects. Here are a few more reasons to consider:

REAL ESTATE RESALE

Now more than ever, real estate agents or owners who are selling a property are looking for ways to find something unique to market properties. While reading its history will not be the main selling factor of most properties, it truly draws the attention of a buyer who has been looking at similar properties over and over with rote descriptions. Read some of the stories on www.buildingchronicles.com to consider how the nuances might enhance your listing, brochure or other marketing piece. Also consider conducting a complete house history to produce a historical prospectus for the building including its complete economic, ownership and construction accountings. Having a complete historical prospectus provides an understanding of one’s investment when it comes to negotiations and the confidence in fully knowing one’s property.

HISTORIC DESIGNATION

Historic property owners sometimes have mixed feelings about having their property officially designated due to potential restrictions. But if your property is worthy of being designated and you would like to do so, a complete history is required to officially obtain that status. The potential to obtain funding to restore the property, in addition to the fact that at times tax credits are available are a couple of the positives to historic designation. For some however, just knowing that preservation has been assisted through designation is reason enough to do so.

BUILDING A LEGACY

The final reason to conduct a house history that we would like to point out is to consider documenting your family’s legacy. If your family moves from house to house or has multiple properties or vacation homes, this is an avenue to record the history of the buildings as well as how your family contributed to their history. This can be performed for family businesses as well. It is a great way to have something tangible to show to future generations which details the story of their ancestors.

In the next few weeks we will expand these topics to consider how to conduct each house history and explore more about the benefits of each.

NEXT: How to begin researching a house history.

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!

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. So Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities begins. Just as Dickens’ book dealt with opposing forces, one might say preservationists and building developers are opposing forces when it comes to laws surrounding historic properties. Within the last few months concerns from both preservationists and developers have heated up in New York City. With hints of a proposal requiring delays of demolition on older buildings, the building industry is searching to find a way to counter it. Having recently met with England’s house historian, Ellen Leslie, over tea at the Grosvenor Hotel in London, I decided to check in with that city’s dealings with preservation and development. The problems surrounding demolition of older buildings is not new to Manhattan, nor apparently London.

London, similar to Manhattan, has had its issues with restrictions on buildings as well. Development often appears to be impeded by the process required to obtain permission to change or build an addition on listed buildings. Consent requirements have been updated recently to streamline the process of receiving permission for altering or constructing additions on locally listed as well as nationally Grade I listed buildings. (Grade I buildings are considered of exceptional interest and the highest rating of nationally listed buildings.) Christine Murray, an Architect’s Journal writer, believes this is a “kick-start development by eliminating some of the hassle of dealing with listed heritage.” While this may seem like the best of times, it is still anyone’s guess as to whether this truly resolves the struggle between progressive development and preservation. The dirty word, “demolition,” still remains untouched in the loosening of restrictive regulations.

And this is just what is at the heart of Manhattan’s issue. Progressive developers want to have full reign on being able to move forward to “bigger and better” which sometimes requires demolishing the old, while preservationists want to pull out all the stops in an effort to prevent any building over 50 years old from disappearing. In 2006 despite this being outside the purview of his position, Simon Thurley, chief executive of English Heritage, expressed his concern over the demolition of unlisted buildings outside of conservation areas on the local level in the UK. This is similar to what New York City preservationists are concerned about today; buildings not on a designated protection list, outside historic districts are threatened by potential demolition. These are the worst of times. Or are they? Could it be that gathering both preservationists and developers together to discuss the issue might provide a means to a resolution?

On May 20th, Crain’s New York Business will be hosting a forum and posing questions to five leaders in the industry from New York Landmarks Conservancy, New York YIMBY, Columbia University, the Real Estate Board of New York and the Municipal Art Society. The question in Manhattan is whether we can progress as well as preserve at the same time. Providing solutions which will satisfy both preservationists and developers may be the answer, but just what are the details satisfying to both?  

Charu Ghandi, head of design at Morpheus of London put it eloquently and succinctly in an interview with Corner Magazine. Commenting on sympathy toward historic context and development she said, “You have to strike a balance between being sympathetic but also creating a new history. We don’t constantly build history by being stagnant – there’s a fine line between preservation and going backwards. You have to work hard to preserve buildings that need preserving whilst contributing to what will hopefully become part of a legacy.” 

 Have preservationists considered that the new buildings are the historic buildings of tomorrow? Do progressive developers plan as if they are constructing a legacy of the future? The best of times, the worst of times. If a resolution can be found at the forum on the 20th perhaps London will follow...in the best of times.

Historic preservation organizations are learning the importance of reaching out to local communities to inform them of the essentials of caring for the history they hold in their hands. This past week I attended New York City Landmark Preservation Commission’s (LPC) first public workshop entitled Preservation 101 – An Introduction to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The LPC gave an overview of the history of NYC preservation efforts: what is required to have a building designated; the application process for working on a preserved building, along with information about grant programs, loans, and tax credits. 


WORKING WITH THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 

Contrary to concerns voiced by several attendees, LPC is very user friendly and will walk alongside an individual who is seeking to preserve their building as it is improved, maintained, or restored. Each application is assigned a docket number along with a specific staff member who is dedicated to the applicant during the process. Detailed information about the process can be found on their website: The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.  

WHAT ABOUT….?

The idea of performing work on a designated building can be intimidating.  Some of the concerns that were put before the Commission are as follows:

•  If I do interior work do I still need a permit? Possibly. There are times when interior work affects the outside such as putting in a new kitchen which requires a fan that must be vented to the outside.
  
•  How long are permits good for? Permits are good for 4-6 years unless issued for correction for a violation. In that case the violation correction permit is usually good for approximately 6-12 months.
  
•  Can an inspection be conducted prior to buying a building to see if there is a violation? The best way to discover this is by getting the designation photo which can be used as a guideline. Compare the photo with the current details of the building. Note: Recent designation photos are online at the LPC website. A request for a photo may take approximately one week.
  
•  If the property already has violations that I don’t want to correct, but I want to perform some restorative work that requires a permit, will the LPC issue a permit or do I need to correct the other violations as well?  The LPC will issue a permit for any restorative work regardless if there are other outstanding violations.
  
•  If I have performed work that is in compliance, but I didn’t obtain a permit, will the LPC approve the work? Any work that is in compliance will be approved. If the LPC issues a warning letter indicating that it is aware that work has been completed without an initial permit, the owner simply files an application. If the work is truly in compliance, the completed work will be approved. 
  
•  What if my community board has a problem with the work I would like to do on my building? LPC suggests that you present your plans to the community board prior to applying to the LPC.
  

THE NYC LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S DEDICATION

The LPC’s dedication and commitment to assist in the preservation of city buildings was evidenced as they remained on hand long after the workshop was over in order to answer additional individual questions. If your building is within the five boroughs and is not already dedicated, but you believe it may qualify, visit the LPC website and fill out a Request for Evaluation form. There is an enormous amount of information on the website and the LPC has indicated that there is more to come.

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.