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.