I have recently been very observant of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and the local movement for the for designation and expansion of the Bedford Stuyvesant historic district.  While attending the LPC hearings  I generally sat quietly in the room looking on with curiosity trying to understand the arguments both for and against the proposed designation without trying to take sides. There were many who argued vociferously that the proposed landmark district would increase property values, preserve the heritage of the community and would not cost home owners any additional money if they wanted to renovate their homes. It could be said that the those who argued for the district would say that it was going to benefit property owners. Those who were against the proposed historic district generally argued that increased property values would drive longtime rental residents away, act as a billboard for increasing gentrification destroying the heritage of the community and that complying with landmarks regulations would increase the cost of renovations forcing many residents to sell before they could reap the full benefit increasing property values as a result of a landmarks designation.

Its not an easy argument and I can see both sides of the coin. Almost overnight the ability of Landmarks to dramatically affect property values and limit what property owners are allowed to do with their property is significant and worth understanding if you are either a renter or an owner. As a result of the hearings, the Bedford Stuyvesant historic district tripled in size. Once a defined area becomes “calendared” by the LPC it almost always passes as an irrevocable historic district. The increase in size of the Bedford Stuyvesant district covers a tremendous number of buildings, rental units and residents who are affected by the decision to landmark the area.

What I have also found more interesting and an argument that was not articulated very well or clearly during many of the hearings was the impact of historic districts on affordable housing. From reading this recent article in Crain’s, it is clear that was has happened in almost all historic districts is the elimination of affordable rents. While that in itself may seem not all that significant, after all New York is a big city, the truth is that landmark districts now affect almost 30% of the city. That is a whopping large number of buildings.

In a city that is supposedly in the midst of an affordable housing crisis, I am not sure how the mission of the landmarks commission is helping to support this agenda. Sometimes I wonder if landmarks were restricted to a fixed number of buildings, perhaps 25,000, as opposed to using vast districts to preserve our architectural heritage, if that would not be a better balance between real estate developers, affordability and residents who want to live in a nice city without being displaced. Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of preserving our heritage and driving up real estate value for owners, but don’t penalize other residents or developers who want to build in these areas.