The Revitalist

The blocks and neighborhoods of New York City are in a constant state of demographic, cultural, and physical change.  As attitudes and tastes change, architecture changes with them, and new replaces old in a continuing cycle.  The clash of old and new in the City has helped shape the evolution of historic preservation in America -- for example, the demolition of Penn Station in the 1960s galvanized the preservation movement that was able to save Grand Central Station from a similar fate.  One result of the Penn Station debacle was the creation of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, the small City agency charged with preserving the City's heritage as expressed in its built environment.  Last week, the New York Times set out to evaluate how that agency is doing today.  Now is an important time to think about preservation, as the City has been enjoying a remarkable building boom in recent years and development pressure has never been higher.  

Unfortunately, the report shows that the agency is underfunded and understaffed to successfully pursue its mission in a City where there are so many people who care about the physical environment.  The LPC is forced to choose between "pursuing its own priorities" and being able to respond to landmark requests from the public, many of which reflect the real concerns of real people about the imminent loss of important parts of their neighborhoods.  The LPC lacks the resources it needs to protect the public good in NYC, and it appears not to leverage effectively the resources it does have -- the commissioners do not play an active role in what buildings come up for designation, for example.  A State Supreme Court judge recently ruled that unreasonable delays in responding to landmark requests undermine the very purpose of the LPC and must be addressed.  The City should take steps to improve its preservation agency while there are still landmarks to be saved.