New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status • Hacker News Board

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#51

Post by siruncledrew » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #18

I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station. And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it. BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business r…

Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business.

For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.”

Wouldn’t that just incentivize wealthy owners to buy up landmarks to hold them for ransom against the city, which seems contrary to the function of landmarks?

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#52

Post by nwallin » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:44 AM UTC

protonfish wrote: post #44

crazygringo wrote: post #18

I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station. And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it. BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business r…

Unconstitutional? I am not aware of any part of the constitution that prohibits landmarks.

The equal protections clause of 14th amendment prohibits unequal application of the law. The business next door can do anything they please with their building lawfully, but the protected landmark building is prohibited by law from doing the same things. There's literally a set of separate set of much more restrictive laws the owner of a protected landmark has to follow that a business not similarly affected does not.

Obviously much less is at stake here than having a separate set of laws for whites vs blacks, but it's the same principal.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#53

Post by TylerE » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

siruncledrew wrote: post #51

crazygringo wrote: post #18

I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station. And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it. BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business r…

Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business. For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.” Would…

The point of landmark status is that they can't do stuff like that. The planning will get turned down.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#54

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

protonfish wrote: post #44

crazygringo wrote: post #18

I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station. And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it. BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business r…

Unconstitutional? I am not aware of any part of the constitution that prohibits landmarks.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking property for government use without just compensation. Property is a bundle of rights—taking away rights from the bundle (like building a high rise) should result in compensation. Landmark designations, however, don’t typically compensate property owners for the lost value of their property.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#55

Post by rayiner » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:01 AM UTC

kevindkeogh wrote: post #43

jzwinck wrote: post #41

Isn't the real story here that this family bought the building in 1996 and would stand to profit perhaps a hundred million dollars if they sold it today? The landmark status might cut that value dramatically, maybe by more than half. Isn't this a more likely reason for the lawsuit than "We won't be able to do exterior renovations as easily"? Wouldn't you be upset if the city devalued your property by fifty million bu…

Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops. Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

You can have a say over someone’s property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone’s property (where the use doesn’t harm anyone else’s property) without compensation is stealing.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#56

Post by nullc » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:04 AM UTC

TylerE wrote: post #53

siruncledrew wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business. For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.” Would…

The point of landmark status is that they can't do stuff like that. The planning will get turned down.

The point of the grandparent poster is that turning down plans is a taking which could be remedied by compensation, the point of the parent poster was that this fix creates an extortion vector.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#57

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #55

kevindkeogh wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that we have a say in how our community develops. Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

You can have a say over someone’s property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone’s property (where the use doesn’t harm anyone else’s property) without compensation is stealing.

How constitutional are air rights such as in NY or transfer of development rights such as proposed for Calcutta in this article

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-arch...

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#58

Post by pmoriarty » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:30 AM UTC

gen220 wrote: post #40

pmoriarty wrote: post #7

The Strand used to be fantastic when it was just a gigantic used book store, but ever since it started focusing more on new books its become a shadow of its former self. So I can't say I'd miss it nearly as much now as I would have 20 years ago. That said, it's a sad day when any bookstore goes out of business, especially one with a rich history like The Strand (despite most of that history being behind it now).

I'm a relatively new New Yorker (I've shopped at the Strand for 6 years). Can you expound on this a little bit more? I've found that while the inventory on a given day might not be super stellar, the sheer volume of books that flow through their hands is the true value they provide to the ecosystem. I see them as more of a used book broker than a museum for used books. As an example to explain what I mean, 2 years ag…

It's not just their branding and marketing that focuses on new books. They have devoted a significant amount of shelf space in the store to new books. Virtually all that shelf space used to be taken up by used books, so the selection of used books available there was both much broader and much deeper.

That fantastic selection of books did not make The Strand a used book museum but rather a world class used bookstore -- a position they've suffered a self-inflicted fall from, though they're still relatively good, but only because so many other used bookstores have either gone out of business or closed their brick and mortar shops and transitioned to selling completely online.

So kudos to them for surviving as a brick and mortar shop, but we should recognize the price they and we have had to pay for that survival.

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#59

Post by gen220 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

pmoriarty wrote: post #58

gen220 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a relatively new New Yorker (I've shopped at the Strand for 6 years). Can you expound on this a little bit more? I've found that while the inventory on a given day might not be super stellar, the sheer volume of books that flow through their hands is the true value they provide to the ecosystem. I see them as more of a used book broker than a museum for used books. As an example to explain what I mean, 2 years ag…

It's not just their branding and marketing that focuses on new books. They have devoted a significant amount of shelf space in the store to new books. Virtually all that shelf space used to be taken up by used books, so the selection of used books available there was both much broader and much deeper. That fantastic selection of books did not make The Strand a used book museum but rather a world class used bookstore…

Genuinely curious because I only know the last few years, but virtually all of the "shelf" space is still occupied with used books, and the only new books are on the islands.

Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past? I can definitely empathize if that's the case; it seems like a solid 1/3 of the floor space is islands nowadays.

That being said, as you alluded to, I think it's a smart trade-off that's allowed them to stay afloat, seeing as the bulk of their revenue must come from new publications and the publisher events. However, I think I still hold on to my assertion that their selection remains deep and broad, but I willingly capitulate that it's been stretched over a wider span of time. The misplaced gems inevitably seem to surface there, given enough time.

I think that, as long as us good New Yorkers continue to sell our books to the Strand instead of Amazon, we'll be in decent shape. :)

Re: New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

#60

Post by TylerE » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 2:47 AM UTC

nullc wrote: post #56

TylerE wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of landmark status is that they can't do stuff like that. The planning will get turned down.

The point of the grandparent poster is that turning down plans is a taking which could be remedied by compensation, the point of the parent poster was that this fix creates an extortion vector.

I don’t get it. The owner tries to do something non-historic, the city/historical society tells them to pound sand. There is no extortion because the property owner has no leverage.