Monday, October 20, 2008

NY Times vs. the LPC

The Landmarks Preservation Commission should be a vital part of the planning process in New York City. Instead, it has become a bureaucratic black hole, the place where requests for evaluation — the formal nominations of buildings or districts to be landmarked — go to get filed and forgotten.

The Missing Landmarks Commission

There are hundreds of requests from all across the city waiting to be acted upon. Some have been held up for years. Moving as slowly as it does — and nearly always without public hearings — the landmarking process is routinely outflanked by developers. What is clearly missing is the political will needed for the landmarks commission to do its job. For that, it must have the full backing of the mayor, who appoints the commissioners.

No one wants to see the city frozen by overly rigid landmarking. But New York is such an extraordinary place because of both its past and its future. The commission — in full consultation with the public — should play a critical role in balancing the two.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Of course the NYT editorial singles out "Landmarks Pest's" favorite
subject/building being a travesty.

What about far more worthy sites throughout (need we say) forgotten Queens?

H-m-m-m, well that's another story!

Our borough is invisible except when Bloomberg and the clubhouse have to dragnet it for votes!

Anonymous said...

Tierney has been "out to lunch"
(with Bloomberg) since he was first appointed chair of the LPC.

Instead of being a leader in the planning process he's merely the follower/footman of Der Mayor.

Whenever Mike tugs at Bob's leash
he jumps up and licks his ass!

Good little doggy!
Would you like a cookie?

Anonymous said...

Now if all those emasculated hysterical societies and "preservation" orgs called for Tierney's replacement
we might see something happen.

But, alas, they're too busy quaking in their shoes for fear of losing funding if they speak out (or too occupied compiling useless studies and sponsoring poorly conducted walking tours).

Oops, I forgot all those
"whine and cheese" conferences!

Anonymous said...

Hey the 4 boros are having events in Manhattan.

Are they going after the Manhattan groups, or simply an excuse by the Manhattan groups to turn the rest of the city over to local talent.

miles mullin said...

They would never say this about sites in the outer boroughs.

Every time we call the Times, they end up interviewing the developer.

The bastards.

Chris said...

Landmarks has made significant progress in recent years, more so than under any recent administration. Look at the intense struggle over NOHO and DUMBO, and the eventual designations, and you can see what a commendable job the commission has performed. In the face of a negligent DOB and major upzonings and a pro-development mayor. I find it absolutely amazing. Of course, every preservation group cannot be appeased, but I must remind you that the Council vetoed LPC's designation of 117 Kent and the modernist bank on Queens Boulevard in Rego Park. So, I wonder what's behind NYT's story, who are they pandering to? Obviously, they haven't done their research.

Anonymous said...

Who are they "pandering" to? You must be joking. The vast majority who have applied to LPC for consideration have either been ignored or rejected. They are a roundly hated agency.

Anonymous said...

The law should be overturned.

For all intents and pursposes, most of the city is redlined and will never enjoy its support.

Yet all the city pays taxes to support its programs in (mostly) rich people.

The law should be overturned. It is the only way we can go forward.