February 23 was an important day for New Yorkers, although many did not know it. On this day, the Landmarks Preservation Commission granted landmark status to 30 properties, while refusing to protect 65 others. Although it might sound anticlimactic, the process of proposing and deciding landmark status is highly politicized. Hidden from the public eye and influenced by special interests, it is a battle for government favor — a battle that is inefficient at best and troublingly corrupt at worst.
To understand the incentives involved in landmark status, consider the 2009 controversy surrounding two buildings in Midtown. One of the buildings, a 100-year-old B.F. Goodrich building on 57th and Broadway, was granted landmark status. However, a connected building designed by the same architect was not. This was likely the result of pressure from the Extell Development Corporation, which planned to construct a hotel on the latter property.
Unsurprisingly, responding to these economic incentives, Extell, the developer for the hotel site, had donated to the campaigns of three of the four City Council Members – individuals who went on record as against landmark protection for the second building. A Landmark Commission member discussed the shamefulness of the Commission’s decision, saying “it’s embarrassingly transparent.”
Similar to the Commission’s decision regarding the Extell property in 2009, in Park Slope, Brooklyn, there have been cases where geographically identical buildings have not received landmark status. “Save the Slope,” a blog dedicated to “expanding the Park Slope Historic District,” describes the scenario in which there were 10 buildings, all designed by William Flanagan, on Union and President Street that were not historically protected. However, 13 buildings that were adjacent to the 10 were given landmark status. The blog partners with organizations like the Park Slope Civil Council, which wants to expand the district in order to “preserve our neighborhood’s special character.” Other groups advocating for preservation include the Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation and the New York Landmarks Conservancy, so, clearly, there is popular support for preserving districts and buildings.
Balancing these two competing forces of preservationists and development is something the New York Commission doesn’t do particularly well. The Commission’s opaque processes often lead to preservationists’ arguments that they get the short end of the stick. A New York Times article discussed how the Commission’s decisions and records are hard to follow, It also commonly fails to track the annual rejections of landmarks. “Dozens of cases seem to vanish into a black hole, critics say.” This unaccountability incurs serious costs, as it often undermines protection efforts for those buildings that genuinely deserve landmark status. When preservationists are forced into the Commission’s convoluted, lengthy, and sometimes biased process, owners of buildings often respond by beginning construction. By starting renovations and making substantial physical changes — all before the commission gives a response — they can avoid the cumbersome building regulations that come with landmark status, such as acquiring permission from the landmark committee before renovating any area. Due to government lethargy, deserving edifices go unprotected.
Mayor Bill de Blasio tried to tackle these problems by appointing Meenakshi Srinivasan as the chairwoman of the Commission. Srinivasan rapidly cleared all of the buildings that had been stuck in deliberations over their historical, some of which had been there for decades. But rather than balancing the playing field for preservationists, the rushed process ran roughshod over them. It failed to include the public hearings and analysis necessary for landmark status, and deserving buildings didn’t make the cut. The New York Times claims that Srinivasan’s decision to expediently clear the backlog was approved because de Blasio was trying to appeal to the Real Estate Board of New York, another influential organization that often desires to demolish buildings preservationists fight to save. If true, it would be another instance of perverse political incentives holding sway over landmark status.
Clearly there are many interests at play in determining the destiny of specific buildings and areas of New York. Many interest groups want to preserve architectural styles or buildings with significance, whether social or cultural. These groups have to combat the real estate moguls, landlords, and council members who are politically motivated to demolish landmark-worthy buildings because of the financial profits obtained by constructing new developments or by maintaining buildings that are free from landmark regulations.