Critics Say Historic Districting Hampers Growth and Development

Posted on 02. Nov, 2010 by Anne Byrnes in Uncategorized

When Robert Moses and his fellow architectural robber barons demolished the stately structure that was Penn Station in the 1960s, nary a New Yorker could argue against historic preservation.  Within a few short years, the historic preservation movement was at full steam and in 1965 the first historic district, the Brooklyn Heights Historic District, was designated.

The aim of historic districts is simple – to prevent the destruction or significant alteration of buildings that are historical and architecturally important.  But 45 years and 100 historic districts later, some are wondering if it’s too much of a good thing.

Nowhere is this more true than in Brooklyn, where five new districts or extensions are up for consideration – including a new downtown Brooklyn district called the Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District and an effective doubling in size of the Park Slope Historic District.

Historic districting can be a burden to property owners and developers.  While it helps to preserve the character of an established neighborhood, the barriers to renovation can be difficult and can make demolition for new construction virtually impossible.

“You’re preserving the past and ignoring the future,” says Michael Slattery, Senior Vice President of the Real Estate Board of New York.  “Neighborhoods lose out on a sizable amount of construction activity that could occur in those areas.”

Opponents like Slattery say the strict building and construction rules associated with historic districts can prevent larger developments from locating in an area because they can’t demolish the buildings necessary to free the land for new construction.  They also argue that small businesses are discouraged from moving to the areas because of the added cost of renovating the storefront to comply with landmark rules and regulations.  But not everyone agrees.

“The only negative effects to future development is that to some degree it creates a situation where large scale speculative development is more expensive,” says Simeon Bankoff, Executive Director of the Historic Districts Council.  “Anyone who’s interested in that type of development already comes equipped with a large group of designers and lawyers, so it’s not an added expense for them.”

For property owners, there are trade-offs, too.  A 2003 study by the Independent Budget Office found the properties in historic districts appreciate slightly faster than similar buildings without the districting, but found that historic districting did not cause the increase in value.  In many cases, the districting comes after the gentrification of a neighborhood, and therefore does not itself lead to the pricing out of lower income residents.

But historic districting comes with significant amounts of red tape, particularly for those interested in renovation of a property.  Any work that requires a Department of Buildings permit or alters the façade of a structure, is subject to review from the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission.  This includes anything from replacing the shutters on a townhome or adding a handicap accessible ramp, to renovating the interior or providing a stairwell for roof access.

The red tape is a source of consternation for designer Tricia Martin of the Brooklyn-based design/build firm WE Design.

“I think it oppresses good design and I don’t think it allows a great diversity of design choices,” says Martin.  “There’s a lot of other good development that could happen, like green or more affordable development, but it doesn’t fit into what the review board would consider historic.”

The barriers are enough that Martin and her husband, who’s also a designer, choose to avoid purchasing homes to renovate in historic districts.  Many middle and lower class buyers may also avoid purchasing in historic districts for fear of potential renovation costs.

Despite the restrictions, Martin still feels the designation is a good thing overall for neighborhoods seeking to retain their charm and character.

“It’s the best thing we have right now to ensure that really ugly, cheap development doesn’t happen.”