Gothamist: In a Race Against Landmarking, Developers Rush to Demolish

Spiritof76

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:46:31 -0500

edEx, Landmark designation doesn't mean that much. It just means you can't change the building without approval. But you don't have to do a damn thing to it, like maintenance. You can just let it sit until it's so falling down rotten that the city orders you to demolish it as a menace to public safety. AKA "demolition by neglect." Sure, it takes a bit more time, but in the end, the result is the same. Developers get to put up their shiny, new condos.

GOP

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:33:26 -0500

SP = bad tenant (with ironic t-shirt)

SP

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:38:04 -0500

Landlords = scum

mocanlagunas

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:32:26 -0500

Eminent Domain=Good

GOP

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:19:20 -0500

SP = not a landlord

SP

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:05:33 -0500

GOP = full of shit

GOP

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:42:32 -0500

Landmarking = Eminent Domain.

r1b2

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:37:20 -0500

These buildings, while privately owned, are part of our city's collective worth. There should be stronger controls on a developers ability to plunder to suit his or her needs. I am not suggesting that properties be locked up and that the inherent value be denied the owners. But there must be some middle ground wherein developers can unlock value while retaining historical and public benefits.

edEx

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:56:13 -0500

Thankfully, the Windermere on 57th Street at 9th Avenue has been land marked. Now if only the city could force the Japanese owner Masako Yamagata of TOA Construction to renovate it. No such luck yet. (There is a lawsuit pending.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/edstern/49477881