Dan Flanigan, Polsinelli

Several areas of serious conflict between the mutually desirable goals of landmarks preservation and new development are simultaneously emerging in our city.

Affordable Housing

Most agree that the development of affordable housing must be a top priority in a city that may be driving out the very people who are essential to making it function—those who protect, feed, teach, shelter, and take care of us when we are ill. In a study published in 2013, the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) pointed out that, with 9 million residents projected by 2040, an estimated 400,000 new housing units will be needed to meet the anticipated demand. However, according to the study, housing production is significantly lower in landmarked districts than in similar, but non-landmarked areas. With some neighborhoods in Manhattan approximately 70% landmarked, and others in Brooklyn more than 25% landmarked, large swaths of the city are essentially closed to development. According to REBNY, under the current law, landmarking entire districts means that sites with no architectural, cultural or historical value, such as vacant lots or parking lots, are also protected, thereby restricting new construction on these sites.

Jeffrey Kroessler, a historic districts council board member, weighed in with a vigorous critique of the REBNY report as unfairly and inaccurately scapegoating historic districts, asking, “which historic district do you think should be opened to redevelopment? SoHo, perhaps? Brooklyn Heights? Sunnyside Gardens? Greenwich Village?”

Moreover, the idea that contemporary and historic buildings can be indiscriminately intermixed without negative consequences may not work out so well. Strapped for cash, the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in Morningside Heights leased some of its surrounding land to a developer. A 15-story rental building now butts up against the cathedral. But many believe that the new modern building grossly clashes with, obstructs, and diminishes the majesty of the cathedral. That example should signal extreme caution when considering the possibility of infill projects that alter the aesthetic integrity of the urbanscape that was the point of the landmarking in the first place.

Intro. 775-A

A second battleground is what is known as Intro. 775-A, approved by the City Council on June 8^th by a vote of 38-10. The bill has been vigorously opposed by preservationist leaders. The core of the new law is the setting of deadlines in connection with the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) landmarking designation process. The centerpiece of the bill is the imposition of a one-year limit on proposals to landmark individual buildings and a two-year limit on historic districts. There can be a one-year extension on an individual building designation but no extension on a district designation. Having lost that battle decisively, the preservation community should push for more staffing and overall budget for the LPC.

East Mid-Town Rezoning Plan

A third battleground is the East Mid-Town Rezoning Plan, designed to result in larger and more modern office towers in the area. The plan is thought by some to be essential to maintain the city’s international business and financial preeminence. Others believe the plan creates yet another grave danger to the few remaining landmarks in the area. But the plan appears destined to be adopted next year. In May of this year the LPC responded, seeking protection for 12 buildings in the area.

Ironically, one of those 12 buildings is the Citicorp Center built in 1977, which would become the youngest landmarked building in the city. The Citicorp Center development was a joint effort between Citicorp and St. Peter’s Church, which occupied the northwest corner of the site. St Peter’s was an appealing Gothic-looking structure, but the new church is a treasure, a modernist gem, expressing the same soaring spirituality as the old church but with a modern sensibility.

Then there is the surprising saga of Sam Chang who has now preserved two significant historical building façades. The first, the Hyatt at 4^th Ave. and 13^th St., was completed several years ago and was voluntary. The second, now under construction, is the 110-year-old Christ Church, a brick building with leaded-glass windows and ornate stone arches on West 36^th St. between 8^th and 9^th Ave. The building was not a designated landmark, but when the local community board contacted the developer, he agreed to halt demolition of the façade, preserving it and incorporating elements of the original structure into the new design.

As the inevitable struggle continues, perhaps these examples offer some hope that the often conflicting goals of historical preservation and a constantly renewing functional city might be something other than a zero sum game.   

Dan Flanigan is chair of the real estate & financial services department and managing partner at Polsinelli, New York, N.Y.