How New York City's Landmarks Preservation Act Bulldozed the Future
The 50th anniversary of the Landmarks Act is an opportunity to mourn all the invisible buildings that will never exist because of a misguided law.
Once upon a time New York City's builders blithely turned spectacular monuments into dust. Henry James complained about Manhattan's "restless renewals," but in the old days nostalgia was for writers and poets. Developers were preoccupied with building the future.
This ethos of creative destruction allowed New York to become the world's preeminent city. And then on April 19, 1965, which is fifty years ago this Sunday, Mayor Robert F. Wagner signed the Landmarks Preservation Act. The law made it illegal to destroy any structure that the city's planning elite deem too important not to save. Today almost a third of the buildings in Manhattan, and more than 33,000 structures citywide, may as well be encased in a life-sized historical diorama.
To illustrate the damage done by this law, let's imagine that the Landmarks Act had been passed not in 1965, but in 1865, when the spire of Trinity Church still towered over Lower Manhattan. Modern New York wouldn't exist.
Consider Henry Hardenbergh's original Waldorf-Astoria, which was an architectural masterpiece and Manhattan's leading luxury hotel. If the Landmarks Commission had been around in the Jazz Age, surely it would have protected this great structure — and then it never could have been torn down to build the Empire State Building, which occupies the exact same spot.
If the landmarks commission had been around to save architect Stanford White's majestic Madison Square Garden, the second of four structures with that name, Cass Gilbert's New York Life Insurance Building couldn't have replaced it. Forget about the hustle of Midtown Manhattan—this entire block would still be home to Columbia University's pre-1897 campus. The old London Terrace wouldn't have cleared a path for the new London Terrace, instead of the Woolworth Building, Philip Hone's luxurious townhouse would still stand in the building's footprint, right next to the old American Hotel, and we might still have this old Madison Square Presbyterian Church instead of the celebrated Met Life Tower.
The landmarks commission not only protects individual buildings, but also 114 districts, meaning entire neighborhoods are essentially frozen in time. Manhattan's Upper West Side became a landmark district in 1990, but what if it had earned that distinction in 1890, to preserve its Gilded Age character? These hulking apartment buildings never would have replaced the distinguished brownstones and mansions that once occupied these blocks. The district certainly would have been expanded one block west to include the Apthorp House, which quartered General Washington among other colonial bigwigs and would still stand right here near 90th Street and Columbus Avenue.
Before landmarking, sure there were plenty of great buildings replaced by plain Jane skyscrapers, but that's also part of how cities grow and evolve. For example, would New York really be better off if Temple Emanu-el still stood right off Times Square?
In 1847, native New Yorker Washington Irving reflected with nostalgia on growing up in a city that was "a mere corner" of what it had become, and that corner "all changed, pulled to pieces." This 50th anniversary of the landmarks preservation act is an opportunity to mourn the opposite: all the invisible buildings that will never exist because of a misguided law. What if an earlier generation had outlawed the rise of skyscrapers and spread of asphalt pavement? Washington Irving would still feel right at home.
---
Video written and produced by Jim Epstein.
3 minutes and 30 seconds.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Modern New York wouldn't exist.
I'm not seeing the downside.
Heh.
The funny thing is, it still manages to have massive building turnover anyway. Last time I went back to my old neighborhood (Yorkville, top of the Upper East Side), which was probably 8 years ago, it was already so different that I couldn't rely on my knowledge of what stores were where because so many had changed. Beth Israel North, where I had my physical therapy, was gone. It was amazing.
Screw that. The landmarks regulations are indeed a political football and protect a lot of crap. But without them this town would probably look like a cross between Albany and Houston.
Oh noes, people might make their own decisions as to what to build!!!!!????
On their own property?! The horror!
True enough, it's their property. I don't have a legal leg to stand on. Someone who wants to preserve a building can buy it.
And Houston has had a pretty sucky history of preserving its heritage. Too many of its historic downtown buildings were torn down in favor of cookie-cutter skyscrapers or condos. And let's not forget the first-of-its-kind Astrodome, which I'm sure Epstein would love to see get hit by the wrecking ball. I'm all for property rights, but you can implement a reasonable historic-preservation code without having to go overboard about it like NYC did.
Reasonable historic preservation code is an oxymoron.
You can buy the property yourself and elect to not tear down the building. Why should you get to tell the property owner that he can't tear down a building he owns? If you and people like you really want to preserve historic buildings then use your own fucking money.
Reasonable Historic Preservation Code: if you like it so much then feel free to buy it with your own money and maintain it in current or restore it to a former condition.
"I'm all for property rights, but you can implement a reasonable historic-preservation code without having to go overboard about it like NYC did."
Im all for freedom of speech BUT ...
Im all for the 2nd amendment BUT ...
Im all for a right to privacy BUT ...
You like human rights until it conflicts with something truly important, like a picturesque skyline?
...this town would probably look like a cross between Albany and Houston.
Kinda sorta does already.
The inability of modern NYC to build anything but pinprick towers for oligarchs to hide cash in hints at the corrupt sclerosis underneath the 1% Manhattan sheen.
oooo you said 1% you must be an economix ekspert
I wish they had left the whole island nothing but farms, pastures, and woods with a village on either end.
If you want to preserve a building, the buy the fucking building.
I am all for preserving history to a point, but this landmark gets crazy. In Queens, Sunnyside Gardens falls under something like landmarking (I'm not sure if it is actually landmarked). Basically, people who own (That's right, OWN) homes can't do anything to them. They can't remodel, update, nada.
I wish Pierpont Morgan had bought the island of Manhattan and turned it into a private hunting preserve.
Twentieth Century architects deserve a lot of the blame for this. If modern architecture was not so anti-human and horrible, people would not be so keen on preserving the past. People want to preserve old buildings mostly because they are so much more aesthetically pleasing and human friendly than the new ones. In contrast, most of the old mid century modern buildings are now just as old and arguably historic as the buildings the historic preservation movement sought to save back in the 50s. Yet, no one but a few people who really do have fetishes about the past gives a fuck when they are torn down. That is because they are ugly and awful and most people are happy to see them go. If you tried to tear down the Old Executive Office Building in Washington DC, people would have a fit. If day comes when they want to tear down the crap around L'Enfant Plaza, there will be a party.
From the linked article: "Much fanfare surrounded [Emanu-El's] consecration on September 11, 1868."
September 11th, 1868, eh?
Something else happened 133 years later on September 11th, 2001.
Let's consider this. September is the 9th month and 11 is, of course, the 11th day.
9+11=20
Now, let us consider further that the digits of 1868 (the year of the first event under consideration) added together = 23
2001 added together = 3
What is the difference between 23 and 3?
Twenty, or 9+11.
9. 11.
Coincidence?
You decide.
P. S. How to make your own hat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS8dNzRhMgk
"Consider Henry Hardenbergh's original Waldorf-Astoria, which was an architectural masterpiece and Manhattan's leading luxury hotel. If the Landmarks Commission had been around in the Jazz Age, surely it would have protected this great structure ? and then it never could have been torn down to build the Empire State Building, which occupies the exact same spot."
Puh-leeeze. The ESB builders would've just picked a different spot, and bulldozed a bunch of who-gives-a-shit brownstones instead. Epstein sees no value in preserving history.
Exactly that. Places like Prague and Paris have managed to preserve their old buildings and still be modern cities. I am pretty sure New York can do the same.
This side of Historic Landmark registries is certainly an issue. But there's another side; such programs are one of the more effective ways of opposing some modernist deranged politician with his pockets stuffed with developer "donations" when he wants to eminent domain your property away from you. Also, as some people have suggested, preserving old buildings from the pre-modernist era would be less defensible if Modernist architecture was not so goddamned awful. A part of the 9/11 hagiography that has always annoyed me is the way people wax nostalgic over those damn towers. They were bug ugly the day they were built, and had't improved one iota since. If the only effect of the 9/11 attacks had been to get rid of them (no deaths, no disruption) we would owe the terrorists the thanks of a grateful nation.
so we should support the corruption of property rights because it will protect us from a corruption of property rights?
It was said that OBL, a studied engineer, hated the thoughtlessness of WTC and its redundant bare bones structural design, then to double the junk was just too much. Whereas he admired the Sears tower. The approach to the design of both buildings is very different.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.netjob80.com
This is what the World Trade Center replaced.
http://www.6sqft.com/radio-row.....de-center/
Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week......
..............http://www.Jobsyelp.com
Interesting piece, if misguided. Asphalt paving, really? Modern commercial architecture doesn't inspire a lot of love & flat planes of glass don't make for an interesting city. Nor do corrupt foreign officials in skinny towers on west 57th. That old American myth of inviolate property rights is as ready for a reboot as screw-the-poor everyone-for-themselves capitalism.
The Landmarks Commission (your "planning elite") are not perfect, but what is the alternative? Allow REBNY to make all planning decisions solely on the basis of rapacious greed? They seem to have quite enough sway w/our faux of-the-people mayor. Let's not tear down more human-scaled well-built masonry buildings for anonymous towers posing as "affordable housing".
We feel nostalgic for Penn Station or Madison Square Garden. They were grand, beautifully crafted, and made NYC streets exciting. Since WW2, we got the Guggenheim, Lever House, 600 boring white-brick low-ceiling apartment blocks, and indistinguishable glass office buildings. That cheapness and lack of imagination comes directly from the major NY real estate families.
We need not be ashamed of wanting to protect our neighborhoods, local landmarks and views of the sky. We don't need more crappy new highrises (tho we appreciate your bundling them at the WTC or freight yards, which are easy to avoid). Less so One Vanderbilt. We don't want to live in Shanghai or Dubai. Build something worthy of THIS city.
no, you lose
the landmarks commision is exercising power of dubious legitimacy to protect WAY too many things that don't need protecting
that's it, unavoidable facts, you lose
Just show them the wordless conclusion of Gangs of New York.
So, what the hell is so historical about a building that's been around for about a century? I mean, it's code for I think it looks nice.
What I gather from this thread is there's a lot of people who call themselves libertarians willing to say fuck property rights if it means they live somewhere that looks 'interesting' to them.
Anything built after about 1960, with the advent of minimalism, is utter shit anyway.
All the of the beautiful art-deco Californian bungalows are all being demolished in my area and replaced with the worst kind of contemporary architecture ever. It makes me want to vomit.
People actually demolish a beautifully built Californian bungalow, built when people still had the skills and ability to build properly, and replace it with god awful pieces of shit, made of balsa wood and paper mache. Insane.
I'm sure the modern homes use less than half the energy, function better for the inhabitants and made better use of material resources.
So it is all hunky-dory that, for example, Federal Hall (first US Capitol building and site of George Washington's inauguration) was just ripped out in the 1840's? I suspect the author of this piece would just say "creative destruction que sera sera."
As with everything, it is possible to go too far in one direction or another.
Also, tourism industry? What would Paris be without all the old buildings? People certainly wouldn't go there or otherwise transact business thereabouts for many other reasons.
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com