Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good. Wish the same happened to old Penn Station.
I've never seen these two buildings up close & personal nor were aware of it's history until now but they look nice especially the church.
Two Manhattan buildings have now been deemed official landmarks.
On May 18, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) unanimously voted to designate 70 Fifth Avenue, known as the Educational Building, in Greenwich Village and Holyrood Episcopal Church-Iglesia Santa Cruz at 715 West 179th Street in Washington Heights, as landmarks. According to LCP, both buildings embody the city’s diverse history and remain culturally significant.
70 Fifth Avenue recognizes the important contributions of the NAACP, as well as many progressive organizations that advanced social justice and equity and Holyrood Episcopal Church recognizes the history of New York City’s Latino community in Upper Manhattan.”
Built between 1911 and 1916, the Holyrood Episcopal Church-Iglesia Santa Cruz has been a significant pillar for the Washington Heights’ Latino community for the past 40 years. The church has provided facilities for the Dominican Women’s Development Center in response to the neighborhood’s large Dominican population, and the parish is currently involved in several programs for people of all ages, the LGBTQ community, the hearing impaired, immigrants, and the homeless and hungry.
I have a fundamental problem with landmarking. If the government is going to restrict what you can and cannot do with your property after the fact, the government needs to sufficiently compensate you for that (I argue that it's a form of taking and the takings clause should apply). It's one thing if you go into an equation where zoning requirements are known and you willingly buy a place despite those restrictions. But this is anything but.
I have a fundamental problem with landmarking. If the government is going to restrict what you can and cannot do with your property after the fact, the government needs to sufficiently compensate you for that (I argue that it's a form of taking and the takings clause should apply). It's one thing if you go into an equation where zoning requirements are known and you willingly buy a place despite those restrictions. But this is anything but.
As an aside, I know that the process involves public hearings and the such as a means for community input, but ultimately my issue is still with forcing someone to limit what they can do with their property, especially after the fact. I'd have no problem if individual landmarking or historic districts had buy-in from all affected property owners.
Note, I do like the outcome of historic district landmarking, but still think government should property compensate property owners for such restrictions.
I'm curious to know if the landmark process has ever been tested through a legitimate takings clause case (probably, but I'd have to do some research).
As an aside, I know that the process involves public hearings and the such as a means for community input, but ultimately my issue is still with forcing someone to limit what they can do with their property, especially after the fact. I'd have no problem if individual landmarking or historic districts had buy-in from all affected property owners.
Note, I do like the outcome of historic district landmarking, but still think government should property compensate property owners for such restrictions.
I'm curious to know if the landmark process has ever been tested through a legitimate takings clause case (probably, but I'd have to do some research).
Why do you think an owner of a Landmarked property would be limited, in your own words? I would like for you to expand on this.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
So your exact scenario happened to a guy I used to be friends with. He purchased a home in Staten Island that had been completed neglected for decades, but was originally built in the 18th century. When he started to demolish it, he was served with a stop work order which eventually morphed into a landmark designation. To add insult to injury, not only were his original plans to build houses rescinded, but he was ordered to restore the home. It dragged on for years in courts before a settlement where he agreed to pay to move the structure and some organization restored it.
Even with that settlement, he got screwed. He'd have never bought the property under the ex post facto scenario he ended up dealing with. He lost a lot of money in that deal.
So your exact scenario happened to a guy I used to be friends with. He purchased a home in Staten Island that had been completed neglected for decades, but was originally built in the 18th century. When he started to demolish it, he was served with a stop work order which eventually morphed into a landmark designation. To add insult to injury, not only were his original plans to build houses rescinded, but he was ordered to restore the home. It dragged on for years in courts before a settlement where he agreed to pay to move the structure and some organization restored it.
Even with that settlement, he got screwed. He'd have never bought the property under the ex post facto scenario he ended up dealing with. He lost a lot of money in that deal.
I have 2 questions.
1. Who complained? Lol.
2. Was the property already designated as LPC when he bought it, or was it Calendared when he bought it? (techncially 2 questions in one)
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
If I remember correctly, some neighbor was friends with the borough president. It definitely wasn't on anyone's radar until he started work to demolish it, that I know 100% because that's how he "won" in the end.
What "saved" him was the fact that he bought the house under his corporation. Since the city delayed his work so long, he had a legitimate bankruptcy claim. He basically said he'd just declare bankruptcy, let the house rot, and start a new corporation to build somewhere else. So the city cut a deal since of course they only want landmarks on someone else's dime.
So your exact scenario happened to a guy I used to be friends with. He purchased a home in Staten Island that had been completed neglected for decades, but was originally built in the 18th century. When he started to demolish it, he was served with a stop work order which eventually morphed into a landmark designation. To add insult to injury, not only were his original plans to build houses rescinded, but he was ordered to restore the home. It dragged on for years in courts before a settlement where he agreed to pay to move the structure and some organization restored it.
Even with that settlement, he got screwed. He'd have never bought the property under the ex post facto scenario he ended up dealing with. He lost a lot of money in that deal.
That's definitely a good example of where your friend should have been compensated fairly for it. It's either there's aid in paying for the restoration or an equitable amount paid for his initial purchase and some formula time and opportunity costs. I think the issue with something like that would be what the formula actually is and what kind of unintended consequences such as people then purposefully trying to acquire potentially landmark'able properties to get these bonuses / funding, so there will probably need some mechanism for assessing the impact of these rules and adjust accordingly.
Ideally, I think most if not all laws and regulations should have some kind of mechanism for review of effects and timeline for doing so.
Do you know what ended up happening with that home?
As for the buildings mentioned by the OP--good saves!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
