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.


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.