Pershing Square in Manhattan. Image Credit: LPC
Designations opposed by developers and hoteliers; transit advocates expressed concern that landmarking would prevent improved subway infrastructure and access. On July 19 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held hearings on the potential designations of five possible individual landmarks in the East Midtown area of Manhattan. Twelve items in total were identified by Landmarks as significant historic and architectural resources, as part of the mayoral administration’s Greater East Midtown plan. The plan to revitalize the area is intended to strengthen its position as a commercial district. The plan is expected to entail rezoning for greater density, improvements to transit and public spaces, and funding commitments for improvements and economic growth projects, in addition to the preservation of landmark-worthy fabric. Various stakeholders, including elected officials, business and real estate interests, and labor organizations are informing the plan, and a steering committee released a final report in 2015. (more…)
Steven Spinola, President of the Real Estate Board of New York
The Landmarks Law, enacted in 1965 to preserve the city’s architectural, historical and cultural resources, contains few standards about what merits designation and few rules governing the process. This has resulted in broad brush designations that are of questionable significance and that are impeding the City’s larger planning, economic development, and housing efforts. It is time to amend the Landmarks Law to bring designations more in line with other city policies, provide more timely information on potential designations, and earlier guidance on design options for historic districts.
The Law has enabled the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to protect a wide range of noteworthy properties, such as Grand Central Terminal and Lever House, as well as a collection of buildings that represent a distinct section of the city, such as Greenwich Village and Brooklyn Heights. The Law has also been used to landmark properties that have no architectural or historical merits, such as vacant lots, parking lots, and significantly-altered buildings. Needless to say, these are not properties of what the Law envisioned protecting when it was established nearly 50 years ago. (more…)
