The Landmark Preservation Law

The Landmark Preservation Law

Introduction

A landmark is a structure that has a significant historical and cultural meaning, and as such, it has been given constitutional protection from destruction and alteration. Landmark preservation laws vary according to countries and states. However, all landmark preservation laws have a fundamental purpose of maintaining a building to its original condition over a long period. The first Landmark preservation law in New York City was enacted in 1965 (Allison, 1996). Primarily, the law meant to protect the numerous prehistoric sites from precipitate decisions that could destroy or alter the building’s characters. The law created and mandated a Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) that would be responsible for the designation of all landmarks. According to the law, a building or cite could qualify to be a landmark only if it has existed for over 30 years and possess some architectural or historical merits (Allison, 1996). After some years with LPC in operation, A New York City Board of Estimate was formed and tasked with the responsibility of modifying or disapproving designations made by the LPC. Owners of judicial landmarks could, therefore, review of LPC’s designation decision at the New York City Board of Estimate. Lastly, the law required that the owner of the designated landmark maintain the building’s exterior in good condition and seek approval from the LPC in case he or she needs to make any alterations.

The law was initially well-intended, but it has been currently faced with ambiguity problems that have not yet been resolved. One way to think about landmark designation is that it makes the city the official owner of the designated buildings. The city decides on how the building should be maintained or altered but excludes itself from the financial burdens of the decisions it makes on the building. The ambiguity here arises in the matter of who should now bear these financial burdens. However, in most cases, the burdens are incurred by the private owners of these buildings. Another case of ambiguity is on the law on the accessibility of these designated interior landmarks to the public. There is uncertainty on whether the interior of a designated building is accessible to the public since, in a situation where a private owner purchases a designated building, the law allows him or her to alter the interior of the building. A typical case that could have helped solve this ambiguity is Save America’s Clocks vs. The city of New York.

Case Summary

Save America’s Clocks vs. The city of New York is a case that sought to establish the legality of public access to interior landmarks. In this case, the Court of Appeal’s decision reversed the decision made by the Supreme Court that had rendered invalid the decision by the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) to grant permission to a private owner to reconstruct and redevelop the 346 Broadway. The 346 Broadway is a historic building that had been previously designated as a landmark by the LPC. The appeal Court held that LPC’s decision was not irrational and that it was not affected by the errors of the law.

One of the unique features in the 346 Broadway in Manhattan is that the building houses one of the few remaining mechanical clocks in the United States. The structure, including its clock and clocktower suite, were designated as landmarks in 1987 when the city still owned it. In 2013, New York City sold the building to a private owner. In the following year, the private owner sought to convert the building into private condominiums. As a statutory requirement, the private developer submitted an application to the LPC for a Certificate of Appropriateness, which was given. This meant that the owner could construct, reconstruct, or demolish part or the entire building. However, the private developer has applied explicitly for permission to convert the clocktower suits into single luxury units and make the mechanical clock electrical.

LPC’s decision to permit the private developer attracted the attention of many organizations dedicated to historic perversion who formed a coalition and took a proceeding to the New York County Supreme Court. The organization wanted the LPC”s decision to be annulled and stop any changes to the city clock. The main interest of the petitioners, in this case, was to see both the interior and exterior parts of the landmark remain unchanged. Alteration of any part of the building, they argued, constituted a change in the historical nature of the building, and as such, the value of the building would be lost. The court granted the petitioner’s request for the annulment of the COA on the basis that LPC’s decision was irrational. The decision was unreasonable because it had undermined the statutory purpose of the historic nature of landmarks.

However, these decisions were reversed by the court of Appeal. The court first agreed that the LPC, by approving the privatization of the clocktower, acted on a rational basis. Here, the court argued that the Landmarks law does not grant ongoing public access to interior landmarks. Judge Garcia, one of the judges of the court of Appeal, pointed out that public access to an interior landmark was a mere jurisdictional predicate. Secondly, the court affirmed that the electrification of the clock as planned by the private developer was rational. According to the court, the developer’s plans to preserve the exterior clock face and modernize the interior part was very rational. The court said that this act would maintain the clock for longer. Generally, the appeal court concluded that the Supreme Court had erred in holding that the LPC had acted on an irrational basis.

Ambiguity in the New York Land Mark Preservation law

The court’s analysis of the Save America’s Clock was purely based on agency discretion and statutory authority. As such, it failed to address the concern of whether granting public access to interior landmarks is lawful or not under the Fifth Amendment. Thus the issue of landmark preservation in New York City still lacks constitutional clarity. It should be noted that agencies rarely enforced the exterior landmark preservation laws before the Penn Central case. However, through this case, exterior landmark preservation laws were created and are still applied to date. Save America’s Clock presented a perfect opportunity to come with such laws for interior landmarks, but the courts failed to do so. The problem with silence on the accessibility of interior landmarks is that it makes the city’s landmarks suffer from the risk of privatization, which would see them removed from the cultural fabrics of the city.

The ability of agencies such as the PLC to enforce landmark preservation laws is entirely based on constitutional considerations. When New York City passed its Landmark preservation law in 1965, it gave the LPC the authority to favor the public in the regulation of private property (Harvard Law Review 2020). However, some uncertainties in the law made the agency to act with conservation and caution. For instance, the agency was uncertain about its perpetual existence since the law had not yet been tested. It was only after a decade when Penn central case affirmed that land preservation is constitutional and examined the effects of the degree of interfering with private property for the benefit of the public. After this case, LPC started to enforce its statutory requirements in earnest, an aspect which indicates the importance of constitutional clarity on the actions of protection agencies.

Accessibility to interior landmarks continues to exist in a state of constitutional ambiguity, just like exterior landmarks did before Penn Central. The Supreme Court in New York City often fails to address interior landmarks directly. Save America’s clock was a golden opportunity for the court to analyze the various factors that are uncertain about the preservation of interior landmarks.  For instance, the issue of physical takings should have necessitated the assessment of ownership rights of the 346 Broadway at the time of transfer. As the facts, in this case, point out, the owner purchased this building with the interior designation notice (Harvard Law Review 2020). This, therefore, suggests that the right to exclude, as granted by the law, could not be included in the rights of the building’s new owner. Secondly, the landmark status at the time of acquisition should have affected the economic interests of the original owner if the designation status was to be considered in court. If all these considerations were discussed in the court, then the constitutional stand on the accessibility of such landmarks to the public would have been established.

The court of Appeal’s act of avoiding the taking issue in Save America’s Clock has imperiled most designated buildings in the city. The ambiguity in the constitutional laws has also seen protection agencies to adopt the characteristic ‘conservation and caution’ approach that generally tends to reduce the extent to which these agencies can fully protect designated landmarks to the benefit of the public. As such, in the near future, it is highly likely that traditional artifacts that were accessible to the general public would be privatized and be accessible to only a few privileged individuals. This should not be the case because New York deserves better. Interior landmarks should not be privatized because this would be like selling the culture and history of the city to a few individuals. It would no longer be uncommon to see a public park turned into a private office or a public library being sold to a private owner for condo developments. All these would be possible if the city courts continue to be silent on the issue of accessibility of interior landmarks and the benefits that these landmarks pose to the general public.

One of the immediate consequences of the Courts decision to uphold LPC’s actions was that the 346 Broadway building was privatized. The block initially presented horological details that took significant attention to the city’s public life. After privatization, all things changed. The citizens who were at liberty to view the escarpment design, which marvelously moved the hands of the clock, were now forced to travel to as far as London Elizabeth’s tower where a similar feature is found (Harvard Law Review 2020). The interest of these individuals is often overlooked when the court ignores addressing the constitutional basis of public access to interior landmarks. As such, there is a need for the city to form ordinances that address accessibility of interior landmarks to the public. Essentially, laws that would consider the benefits of interior landmarks to the public should be formulated in the city.

New York City is mainly known for its famous, attractive landmarks. Examples of must-see tourists’ attraction in the city include the Empire State Building, Grand Central Terminal, the statue of liberty, and the Brooklyn Bridge (Dolkart, 2008). These are just some of the New York City’s numerous landmarks. Most say that a trip to the city would not be complete without a trip to these designated buildings. This is so because these landmarks define the city itself, there is no other city in the world with such unique landmarks. Privatization of these landmarks should always be out of the equation when it comes to the formulation of laws that regulate the accessibility to these landmarks. However, with the current state of the law, all these landmarks may be at risk of privatization, which would reduce their public accessibility. As such, the city could lose one of its significant contributing factors to the aesthetic value.  There is, therefore, a need for the mandated bodies in the town to form extensive laws and norms that could help in protecting the landmarks for the long-term benefit of the public.

Importance of interior landmarks to the city

Landmarks are often used as reference points in New York City. There is no doubt that landmarks form anchors in mental spatial representation or rather reference points. For instance, landmarks are often very instrumental for orientation and wayfinding, as well as in any spatial communication in New York. This is because, in most cases, they appear in descriptions of meeting points and sketches. Evidence shows that people tend to use landmarks quite naturally. When giving directions, people often describe a series of actions that a person needs to take to reach the desired direction (Harvard Law Review, 2020). In doing so, the speaker not only specifies what the person should do but also refer to landmarks located along the route. This, therefore, indicates that markers play a significant role in helping the public construct a mental representation, especially for environments they are unfamiliar with. As a result, the city should develop ordinances that address the accessibility of interior landmarks to the public to protect them from destruction or demolition.

Apart from being points of reference, interior landmarks are considered to be the heart and soul of New York City. Without landmarks, the city would not be fascinating to visit and be in. In New York, the interior landmarks are very significant because they not only impress but also educate as well as inspire the residents in a very substantial way.  This is so because they carry with them the history and life of the city that should be passed from one generation to the next.  Residents of New York tend to identify themselves with these landmarks because of the rich history as well as the cultural aspects they portray.  Nothing matters than sticking to one’s culture and always identifying with it. Since these landmarks are a source of inspiration and part of the city’s culture, the city must develop ordinances that would categorically address the accessibility of these internal landmarks to the public.

It is as well essential that the city develop ordinances to address the accessibility of interior landmarks to the public because of the value aspect that they bring with them. Apart from being considered as the heart and soul of New York City, interior landmarks also improve the value of buildings as well as structures around them. Evidence shows that the value of properties around landmarks is usually high because of the landmarks. Some of the property whose value increases as a result of landmarks comprise real estates. The resale price for most of these structures increases because of the landmarks. The value of such buildings always rises depending on the proximity of the landmark. Naturally, people value landmarks because of some of the aspects they portray and represent. This value is usually transferred to the buildings as well as other assets around the area. As such, interior landmarks should always be protected and ordinances that address such issues be formulated to ensure the continued preservation of these areas from demolition or destruction.

Interior landmarks are a source of pride for the residents of New York.  The city is endowed with several landmarks that identify the city and make it stand out. Evidence shows that landmarks in the city make the community proud because they tend to spur social, economic as well as cultural activities around the city (Dolkart, 2008). In addition, landmarks also revitalize the people in the city and motivate them to undertake activities for the prosperity of the city. In New York, landmarks are considered as a source identity and what glues the people of the city together regardless of their backgrounds and ethnicity. In other words, interior landmarks in New York inspires the residents to do what is right and for the good of the city as well as generations to come. As such, ordinances should be developed that protect all known interior landmarks in the city.

In view of the importance that designated landmarks have on the public, it is crucial that an extensive law that would address the interior landmark’s public accessibility be formed. The current law is very ambiguous, posing a lot of uncertainties to both the public and the agencies that are given the responsibility of protecting the designated landmarks.  The ambiguity has seen protection agencies such as the LPC to perform its functions inadequately. As such, most of the designated landmarks in the city may be at risk of privatization. This would not only reduce public access to these buildings but also alter the aesthetic value that these buildings offer to the environment. This should not be allowed to happen because it draws away from the life of the city, and some critical aspects of its history and culture may be forgotten. There is, therefore, a need for the city to form ordinances that would protect its historical artifacts and cultural heritage for more extended periods.

References

Hara, K., Azenkot, S., Campbell, M., Bennett, C. L., Le, V., Pannella, S., … & Froehlich, J. E. (2015). Improving public transit accessibility for blind riders by crowdsourcing bus stop landmark locations with google street view: An extended analysis. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (ACCESS), 6(2), 1-23.

Dolkart, A. (2008). Guide to New York City landmarks. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons.

Diamonstein-Spielvogel, B. (2011). The landmarks of New York: an illustrated record of the city’s historic buildings. New York, SUNY Press.

Allison, E. W. (1996). Historic preservation in a development-dominated city: The passage of New York City’s landmark preservation legislation. Journal of Urban History, 22(3), 350-376.

Harvard Law Review. (2020). Save America’s Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York. New York Court of Appeals Holds that Public Access Is Not Required for Interior Landmarks. Retrieved from: https://harvardlawreview.org/2020/03/save-americas-clocks-inc-v-city-of-new-york/