New York's Aging Buildings

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Yes, and I'm sure you're an expert and an avid researcher on New York historical preservation. Counting the number of row houses and brownstones that are demolished every year, that number is probably well above 20. Surely, there must be some compromise?

Evidently, you have no concern for preserving New York's architectural history for future generations. There are countless other places in Manhattan where new mega skyscrapers can rise... Hudson Yards for example.

Sadly, it seems that no one has really learned from the demolition of the old Penn Station. Seems very odd...

First off, there are not countless areas where new towers can rise. The WTC and Hudson Yards, that's pretty much it in terms of large areas. I'll give you Downtown Brooklyn, but that's not nearly as attractive for companies as Midtown or even Lower Manhattan. There are underdeveloped sites here and there as well, but nothing like you suggest.

And what about research the number of new buildings that are landmarked each year? In the past month or so existing landmarked areas in Harlem were expanded, and areas existing landmarked areas in the East Village are likely to be expanded as well. In addition, since 2006 the LPC has set a goal of landmarking 16 new buildings per year.

You're looking at the loss of probably the Drake and soon the Hotel Penn, and the potential loss of a handful of buildings in the heart of the largest business district in the world, while not putting into perspective just how much of NY is landmarked. As of March of 2012, there are over 27,000 landmarked buildings in the five boroughs, 107 historic districts, 1,304 individual landmarks, 114 interior landmarks, and 10 scenic landmarks. All since the LPC's creation in April 1965.

The suggestion that NYers haven't learned from the loss of Penn Station, and that the city has no interest in preserving its historic architecture is just factually incorrect.

[Tyler Xyroadia]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Yes, and I'm sure you're an expert and an avid researcher on New York historical preservation. Counting the number of row houses and brownstones that are demolished every year, that number is probably well above 20. Surely, there must be some compromise?

Evidently, you have no concern for preserving New York's architectural history for future generations. There are countless other places in Manhattan where new mega skyscrapers can rise... Hudson Yards for example.

Sadly, it seems that no one has really learned from the demolition of the old Penn Station. Seems very odd...

HERE! HERE!
Skyhigh, I have been reading and watching you for sometime and I am proud to see someone else who "Really" understands what preservation is about!

People seem to think in terms of a few years or a decade at most... 'People' say "Oh, well we only demolished a few historical buildings this year, but we saved others!" Well as you say, fast forward a hundred years or so and very VERY quickly there shall be no history left!

There is a reason you call something Historical... it is because it is a part of HISTORY, IE, something made a long time ago. Historical buildings are Not a renewable resource! When you tear one down, there is nothing that can replace it! I don't care WHAT building you put in it's place, unless you are building a brick by brick replica of a past historical treasure, it can never take the place of what went before!

Originally Posted by yankeesfan1000

You're looking at the loss of probably the Drake and soon the Hotel Penn, and the potential loss of a handful of buildings in the heart of the largest business district in the world, while not putting into perspective just how much of NY is landmarked. As of March of 2012, there are over 27,000 landmarked buildings in the five boroughs, 107 historic districts, 1,304 individual landmarks, 114 interior landmarks, and 10 scenic landmarks. All since the LPC's creation in April 1965..

You better bloody believe I am looking at those shameful acts of vandalism!
If buildings like Drake and the Penn hotel, ye gods THE PENN HOTEL can be swept aside. NO BUILDING IS SAFE!
27,000 landmarked buildings you say? Well in another 50 years Maybe it's 20,000? And then when it is 10,000? 5,000?
People like you really do not grasp what "History" really means. We do not seek to save something for a few decades, but for ALL TIME.
The very idea that you lump the looming destruction of the Penn hotel as "just" a loss of a handful of buildings is both shocking and shameful!

Think I am being too harsh? Too alarmist in my warnings?
Just remember I am a bleeding Curmudgeon, it's my JOB!

[McBane]

Perhaps a good solution would be to offer a tax incentive to developers who convert the older office buildings into residential use.

Look, all new buildings going up are boring glass and steel structures. So wouldn't it be smart to reduce demand of new residential buildings by encouraging developers to reuse the older buildings? Slowly, businesses can leave downtown (where most of the older buildings are found) and make their way up to midtown. Older buildings can see new life, instead of the wrecking ball.

For better or worse, lots of Philly's old buildings are being repurposed for residential use. People love living in them - beautiful buildings on the outside with amazing marble lobbies with soaring ceilings and crazy details; but inside, the units have all the modern amenities.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Yes, and I'm sure you're an expert and an avid researcher on New York historical preservation. Counting the number of row houses and brownstones that are demolished every year, that number is probably well above 20. Surely, there must be some compromise?

Now you're totally changing the subject. The issue was preservation of Midtown prewar building stock. There are no rowhouses in this area.

The vast majority of 19th century rowhouse neighborhoods are landmarked, and those that aren't are usually in Special District zoning classifications, which prevents tear-downs.

Originally Posted by skyhigh07

Evidently, you have no concern for preserving New York's architectural history for future generations. There are countless other places in Manhattan where new mega skyscrapers can rise... Hudson Yards for example.

Right, just because I don't want 100% of NYC to be permanently frozen in time, I'm ok with the current majority of NYC that's basically frozen in time, so I must be an enemy of preservation...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

Well as you say, fast forward a hundred years or so and very VERY quickly there shall be no history left!

The funny thing is that if we really did what you're advocating (landmarking everything built during the prewar era), the result would be what you most fear: that history would disappear from the scene.

If you permanently favor a small snippet of a city's architectural history, you automatically disfavor all other periods of a city's archietcutural history. You would basically ensure that history stops in 1930, and there's nothing left. You might as well turn NYC into Colonial Williamsburg or Venice.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by McBane

Perhaps a good solution would be to offer a tax incentive to developers who convert the older office buildings into residential use.

IMO, this would be a terrible idea.

We have a huge shortage of office space in NYC. Why would we incentivize landlords to reduce office space further?

We need more office space, not less. There's no point to converting old commercial buildings to residential if there's strong commercial demand.

[McBane]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO, this would be a terrible idea.

We have a huge shortage of office space in NYC. Why would we incentivize landlords to reduce office space further?

We need more office space, not less. There's no point to converting old commercial buildings to residential if there's strong commercial demand.

Developers could still build high rises for commercial use. And NYC also has a strong demand for residential. Basically, the incentive makes it more economical for assembled land to be used for commercial high rises and older structures to be re-used for residential conversions.

Say you have a site where a developer would like to build a high rise residential building. If there is a tax incentive, the developer could have the option to convert an older building, rather than build a new building. That same plot of land (where the developer originally proposed to build condos), could then be developed into an office building.

The historic building is saved, the city adds a residential building, and essentially swaps out the outdated downtown office building for a new glass and steel structure in midtown.

It's not a perfect plan but it's an idea that could be further tweaked to meet NYC's needs.

[photoLith]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

You better bloody believe I am looking at those shameful acts of vandalism!
If buildings like Drake and the Penn hotel, ye gods THE PENN HOTEL can be swept aside. NO BUILDING IS SAFE!
27,000 landmarked buildings you say? Well in another 50 years Maybe it's 20,000? And then when it is 10,000? 5,000?
People like you really do not grasp what "History" really means. We do not seek to save something for a few decades, but for ALL TIME.
The very idea that you lump the looming destruction of the Penn hotel as "just" a loss of a handful of buildings is both shocking and shameful!

Think I am being too harsh? Too alarmist in my warnings?
Just remember I am a bleeding Curmudgeon, it's my JOB!

You seem to miss the point, once a building is landmarked, it cant be torn down. You also cant tear down buildings in historic districts or really alter them at all in NYC. If there are 27,000 landmarks, there will be 27,000 landmarks and much more in the future. They cant tear them down, which is a very good thing. I dont want to see any of NYC torn down but thats unrealistic, but its good to know that the historic districts and landmarks offer permanent protection for the buildings they include. Huge swaths of NYC are fully protected from demolition.

Heres a nifty map that shows pretty much anything and everything in NYC, zoom in halfway to view the historic districts of the city. http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/

[Tyler Xyroadia]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The funny thing is that if we really did what you're advocating (landmarking everything built during the prewar era), the result would be what you most fear: that history would disappear from the scene.

If you permanently favor a small snippet of a city's architectural history, you automatically disfavor all other periods of a city's archietcutural history. You would basically ensure that history stops in 1930, and there's nothing left. You might as well turn NYC into Colonial Williamsburg or Venice.

I'm sorry, but you say that as if it is a bad thing...

Don't kid yourself, if every pre war building was given landmark status and not torn down, that will still leave vast, VAST Swaths of land to build new buildings. There are thousands of small, inefficient and generally ill-conceived post war building that you are more then welcome to tear down and build as many ugly glass boxes as you want.

You seem to think that should all prewar builds become preserved, that suddenly there will be no more room left.

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

...You better bloody believe I am looking at those shameful acts of vandalism!
If buildings like Drake and the Penn hotel, ye gods THE PENN HOTEL can be swept aside. NO BUILDING IS SAFE!
27,000 landmarked buildings you say? Well in another 50 years Maybe it's 20,000? And then when it is 10,000? 5,000?
People like you really do not grasp what "History" really means. We do not seek to save something for a few decades, but for ALL TIME.
The very idea that you lump the looming destruction of the Penn hotel as "just" a loss of a handful of buildings is both shocking and shameful!

Think I am being too harsh? Too alarmist in my warnings?
Just remember I am a bleeding Curmudgeon, it's my JOB!

Ever seen the Hotel Penn in person? The interior used to be nice, but now looks like something you'd see in Reno. It's unbearably horrendous. That stretch of 7th alone has many similar buildings from the era. I'll give you the Drake, but in the largest business district in the world, preservation should not be expected, especially with so much of the rest of the city preserved.

And are you seriously suggesting the LPC will suddenly start to unlandmark buildings by the thousands? Has the LPC ever unlandmarked a building? What evidence do you have for such a wild claim? Let me guess. None.

You have no idea what landmarking even means, and the restrictions placed on even simple renovations in historic neighborhoods, forget about doing anything to a landmarked building. My father is an architect who specializes in renovating old, historic buildings while preserving as much of the older aspects of the building as possible. He's done projects people on here have undoubtedly heard of, or are familiar with, so I'm somewhat familiar with the process and it's unbelievable. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

Don't kid yourself, if every pre war building was given landmark status and not torn down, that will still leave vast, VAST Swaths of land to build new buildings.

This is completely false.

The vast majority of NYC consists of prewar buildings. This is especially true in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Therefore, if you landmark everything prewar, there will be no more development in most of the city.

Where I live in Brooklyn, if you did an automatic landmarking of everything pre-1945, there would be almost nothing built ever again on any of the streets near me.

I'm not sure what you're advocating. You want NYC to become a Charleston/New Orleans kind of place (tourism-dependent museum city)? Or you want NYC to remain a world city, but move commerce to Staten Island?

Originally Posted by Tyler Xyroadia

You seem to think that should all prewar builds become preserved, that suddenly there will be no more room left.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Your idea would completely eviscerate the essence of NYC.

There has to be a reasonable balance between growth and preservation. You can't have 90% growth or 90% preservation.