At a landmark meeting, hosted by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, committee officials deemed thirty New York City properties, across all five boroughs, worthy of preservation.
The ninety-five historical sites that were originally brought to the committee’s attention had faced up to fifty years of dilapidation from lack of city care, due to the dismissal of the buildings as monumental sites worth protecting. The buildings brought forth ranged from small- town farm homes such as the Lakeman House to larger, commercial sites such as the neon Pepsi sign on the Queens waterfront. With this diverse array of both heavily historic and more contemporary, renowned structures, the members of the committee faced big decisions when considering the standard of a landmark, and which structures fit the course description.
The reason for the excessively long battle for the structures to even be presented after an excessive stride to the committee, is due to the ongoing battle between property owners and preservationists over when, where and whether the city’s culturally and architecturally significant structures should even be salvaged.
Many City Council members elected to side with owners in their districts. Because the Council has final say on all commission decisions, it seems that there was already a considerable amount of predetermination before all ninety-five properties were presented.
It is further noted that each time a structure was presented, in addition to facts about the year in which it was built and the architect responsible for the project, the commission staff relayed whether the property had Council support, a non-dominant, but seemingly important factor that ultimately became imbued in the decision to be made.
In turn, the commission pushed forward on 12 of 40 properties in Manhattan; seven of 26 on Staten Island; six of seven in Brooklyn; three of 17 in Queens; and two of five in the Bronx. In total, the thirty properties that are to conclusively be chosen will be further considered in voting set to extend until December of this year. Properties that do not fall in the top thirty may be offered reconsideration if properly appealed to by a site director/property owner. Some institutions/societies involved in the preservation committee included: the United Nations, Municipal Art Society, church congregations, thespian/theatre clubs, etc.
On the contrary to the predetermined theory, the committee has reassured that in each of the decisions it makes, it stands by a democratic effort to jointly vote on each property’s future. As Michael Goldblum, one of the commissioners, noted, “We should vote, even if we know it’s going to get turned down. It sends a message. It puts us on record. Look, we can’t protect it, we can’t protect it, but the mere fact of our having designated it, even if it is reversed, it constitutes a fight.”
