You must log in or register to comment.

The_Lone_Apple t1_jcyfae0 wrote

My law - designed to piss off developers - would be that no landmark building that is demolished may be replaced by one that does not mimic the original structure. You can also eventually expand that to include non-landmarks in the outer boroughs (esp Queens) which are replaced with monstrosities built by people with no taste.


pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jcyfra0 wrote

Sounds like most European cities.

And if you do replace a building legally you need to fit the location. Which may mean (gasp) spending money on ascetics and staying within a size envelope. Tourists may not even realize what’s old or new in some places. In most cities it can be hard to tell.


aMonkeyRidingABadger t1_jcypfr8 wrote

We need more goddamn housing. We're all rent burdened as fuck and adding more barriers to getting more housing built is only going to exacerbate an already dire problem. Landmarks are one thing, but throwing up even more barriers to developing non-landmarked properties is not the way.

I hate that a lot of new buildings are ugly as much as the next person, but I hate how much my monthly rent is even more.


The_Lone_Apple t1_jcys9b8 wrote

There are plenty of places to build within the five boroughs without having to make a historic block look like some imbecile with too much money crapped all over it. As for my borough of Queens, there too many one-family homes that are three stories with 116 columns and ugly as shit statues all over it. I mean, have some restraint.


aMonkeyRidingABadger t1_jcz0yg5 wrote

To be clear, I agree that being able to let a landmarked property fall into disrepair so you can demolish it is a loophole that should be fixed. It's a tricky problem to solve without creating unintended incentives in the process, but I would certainly like to see something done about it.

As for mandating aesthetics, landmark designated buildings aside, I just disagree with you here. Property owners should be free to build according to their own preference, even if that means we end up with ugly buildings sometimes. Do I like that midtown will soon to be home to this grotesque monstrosity? Not at all. This thing will be a blight on the city's skyline for many decades, but the freedom that allows this is the same freedom that has allowed such a wide variety of architectural styles to find a place in New York, and is one thing that makes it such a joy to walk around in this city.


The_Lone_Apple t1_jcz5fhm wrote

When it comes to private homes in a neighborhood, there's a certain calming factor of not having something stand out like the owner is screaming, "Look at me," 24/7.


JordanRulz t1_jdcy0qm wrote

You bought your piece of land, not your neighbour’s


The_Lone_Apple t1_jdczbd5 wrote

True. There's sometimes no stopping people with horrendous taste from vomiting all over everything.


Yevon t1_jd166bs wrote

Brick buildings at the time these were erected would have also been called an eyesore and not fitting with the "historic" look. Mass produced brick allowed for cheaper, mass-produced homes to come up and replace the older buildings, and we should be doing the same instead of holding onto an outdated building form factor.


Neoliberalism2024 t1_jcz3gui wrote

People like you think every single building and block is historic. That’s the problem.


The_Lone_Apple t1_jcz82oh wrote

People like me enjoy neighborhoods that don't have buildings that are hideous.


ScenicART t1_jczex7n wrote

plenty of fugly one story buildings around. keep the nice historic homes that add charm and character to a neighborhood and demolish the shit that serves no one... like that building that one story building that once housed a duane reade at the w4th street station. build a fuckin skyscaper there. lose a single historic house and piece by piece this city will be that fugly shit you see all over bk soon enough


TizonaBlu t1_jddz914 wrote

Redditors literally want high rises to be built in prime village lol.

First of all, even if a huge development is in the village, like Greenwich Lane, it will not be affordable and do anything to solve housing problem. Secondly, there are already developments in the village, they’re on far west village and there are many huge developments including Superior Ink.


Neoliberalism2024 t1_jcz3dc1 wrote

NIMBYism and making things harder for developers is the exact opposite of what we need during a record housing shortage.


Troooper0987 t1_jd0eh48 wrote

there are perfectly shitty one story crap boxes all over Manhattan. tear down those. renovate our history or itll be lost.


TizonaBlu t1_jddyh43 wrote

Yup. What’s happening here is very simple. The owner purposely neglected the building so that they can make DOB force a demolition so they get around Landmark. Developers have used that tactic for ages along with “accidental” fires that force them to destroy the building.


Few-Artichoke-2531 t1_jcy7qsg wrote

Over the course of many years the owner failed to maintain it. It was in danger of collapse so it was removed. Buildings don't last forever. Progress marches on.


TizonaBlu t1_jddy7gt wrote

More like the owner purposely neglected it so they can get around Landmark and demolish it. The same happened to the oldest house on Chelsea.


Few-Artichoke-2531 t1_jde98vo wrote

From what I remember it was once owned by an old lady who neglected it for decades. There was a deadly fire in the 90's in a basement apartment that the building never recovered from.