This post appeared in a previous blog and is here for posterity’s sake.
The blue tower, originally uploaded by Goggla
John Lumea has makes a pretty good case about NIMBYopolis, or, Height Restrictions in the LES are Bunk, how the coming “contextual” rezoning of the Lower East Side is a very bad thing.
I don’t have the energy to respond to his main thesis, but one of his side points was this:
The fact is, New York’s preservation culture has become a luxury the City can no longer afford. The example of the Upper East Side Historic District points to a set of questions that should — sooner rather than later — prompt a wholesale reassessment of the City’s preservation / downzoning agenda:
- Why should City Planning and Landmarks Preservation continue to protect select neighborhoods from development and increase protections for others, when these neighborhoods can accommodate additional growth and while surrounding areas get buried in a thicket of oversized buildings?
- Why shouldn’t every neighborhood have to participate in sustainability?
- Why wouldn’t they want to?
Which struck me as an insight John should elaborate on; if by 2030 over 9.1 million (900,000 more) will live in New York City, this will create an enormous pressure on the city to find houses for the additional residents. This is, in fact John’s thesis that continual logistical and commercial pressure will mean larger buildings everywhere.
Except, of course, landmark districts.
Who live in landmark districts? Well, in Manhattan many landmark districts – TriBeCa, the West Village, Chelsea, the Upper East Side – are playground of the rich. In 2005 Forbes listed 10013 the 13th most expensive Zip Code – this is TriBeCa, and 10013 is mostly the historic district. This makes TriBeCa the most expensive place in NYC – no small matter.
The dynamic the city is setting up is clear: rich people located in “desirable” (which landmarks districts are – I live in one by sheer luck) areas which will never, ever, change. Surrounding these low-rise enclaves will be high-rise housing which will be necessary due to the increased economic pressure.
Much like Gramercy Park these landmark districts will become gated communities – de facto or not.
As for a solution, I don’t have one at the moment, but it is forthcoming.
Three points:
Historically, building & development in NYC has always been underpinned by logistical and commercial (a.k.a. economic) pressure. To oversimplify, the value of land–which far outpaces the value of the building in many cases–dictates the size/use/shape of the building since the economic purpose of the building is to recoup an investment. Landmarking and downzoning, by restricting the size/shape/use of buildings, actually drives up property values in non-landmarked areas, which necessitates increases in the size and scope of an economically successful project.
10013 also includes SoHo, parts of Chinatown, Little Italy and NoLita. With the exception of Chinatown, Tribeca really isn’t the only contributor to the upmarket vibe down in 10013, and a large portion of that zip is definitely not landmarked.
And finally, the Meatpacking District is a good example of a landmarked district that is being very heavily developed right now. Which is to say that landmarked districts can change. While it’s very easy to vilify the LPC, they actually work to find mutually agreeable solutions that satisfy the owner, the community, and the government when a case is brought before them. Shocking, I know, and while I’m not their biggest fan I do think they get unfairly demonized by people like the author you linked to in this article…