Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

strandbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 36 posts

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#21

Post by zxcvbn4038 »

quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

Right - this is familiar to New York City residents but anyone unfamiliar with the local politics needs a primer. NYC does a lot of crazy stuff like this - it’s usually a thinly disguised cash grab. The Strand is a relatively huge chunk of real estate in a hipster part of town, this is probably someone’s scheme to force them out - wait until the press has died down then suddenly the sidewalk and facade inspectors show up, next thing you know there are tens of thousands of dollars in repairs that need to be done, and strand is forced to close since they’ll never find a like space to relocate to.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#22

Post by jzwinck »

Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21228237

There is clearly a real problem when private landowners suddenly face much, much lower property values at the same time residents ensure their own continued enjoyment of the historically valuable building.

The real irony will be if the Strand moves its bookstore elsewhere, or simply closes. The value of this building is largely tied in with the business, not only that New Yorkers love the facade.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#23

Post by kirstenbirgit »

quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

>This type of information should be at the top of the page.

It is.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#24

Post by manojlds »

kirstenbirgit wrote: post #23
quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

>This type of information should be at the top of the page. It is.

Where? Can you reply with a screenshot?

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#25

Post by light_hue_1 »

quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

> For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive.

The reason they bury this line is that it's a lie. 826/828 Broadway was only designated for its exterior not interior (http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2615.pdf) as was widely reported at the time (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/arts/design/strand-bookst...). They can repair anything they want inside the building, small outside repairs are allowed, but anything that changes the character of the outside of the building must be approved.

This was a great move by the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#26

Post by acjohnson55 »

zxcvbn4038 wrote: post #21
quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

Right - this is familiar to New York City residents but anyone unfamiliar with the local politics needs a primer. NYC does a lot of crazy stuff like this - it’s usually a thinly disguised cash grab. The Strand is a relatively huge chunk of real estate in a hipster part of town, this is probably someone’s scheme to force them out - wait until the press has died down then suddenly the sidewalk and facade inspectors sho…

You often receive tax breaks when you own a landmark property to compensate for the increased difficulty and higher standard of maintenance, as well as the fact that you're effectively providing a public service. Many historic towns have an equivalent status. Why do you say it's a cash grab for the city? I could be wrong, but I don't believe the city receives any revenue for this.

Also, I wouldn't really describe NoHo as a hipster area. It's basically a commercial zone,albeit sandwiched in between two areas that might be considered hipster (East Village and Greenwich Village).

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#27

Post by xmprt »

moultano wrote: post #15
rm999 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has learned the hard way that there should be some preservation; destroying/modifying a building is a one-way act, and over a long enough time horizon someone will eventually make a bad decision that everyone regrets later. See for example Penn Station: a beautiful landmark that was demolished by a real estate company because they deemed it too expensive to maintain. In the act they created a horrible black mark…

The problem with Penn Station's destruction isn't the destruction itself, it's that the building that replaced it is so hideous. Most historic buildings aren't valuable because they're historic, they're valuable because they're beautiful. We can still build beautiful buildings again, but with modern materials and code. Modern buildings don't have to be soulless abstract nightmares. I'd much rather have codes that req…

On the other end of this is the proposal to redesign the Notre Damn to have a glass ceiling after the fire. A glass ceiling is actually surprisingly popular and would make the building look amazing both outside and inside it. Unfortunately, this proposal was shot down pretty quickly despite public support in order to stick to the status quo.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#28

Post by ajkjk »

light_hue_1 wrote: post #25
quacker wrote: post #18

Not an effective website as a passerby. I'm unfamiliar with both the Strand and the landmarking process. It took me to the third screenful of text to figure out why The Strand doesn't want to be designated a landmark, For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. This type of inform…

> For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. The reason they bury this line is that it's a lie. 826/828 Broadway was only designated for its exterior not interior ( http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2615.pdf ) as was widely reported at the time ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019…

That sounds pretty annoying, even just for the exterior. Right?

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#29

Post by Animats »

cpeterso wrote: post #20
ropiwqefjnpoa wrote: post #4

What amazes me is that they have the gall to do this against the wishes of the owners. In a few years Amazon will buy the place as a "good will" gesture.

For those that don't know, Netflix recently bought and reopened New York City’s iconic Paris Theater (ostensibly to host limited showings of Netflix Original films so they're eligible for Academy Awards): https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20982216/netflix-paris-t...

That makes sense. Probably will make money just showing Netflix content on the big screen. Netflix has also been trying to buy Grauman's Egyptian Theater in LA.

Re: On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark

#30

Post by light_hue_1 »

ajkjk wrote: post #28
light_hue_1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For every repair and every upgrade, The Strand would have to go through the slow bureaucracy of the Landmarks Preservation Commission which adds to the expanses to keep Strand alive. The reason they bury this line is that it's a lie. 826/828 Broadway was only designated for its exterior not interior ( http://s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/2615.pdf ) as was widely reported at the time ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019…

That sounds pretty annoying, even just for the exterior. Right?

Annoying? Sure! Talk to anyone who lives in Europe and deals with such buildings all the time. It's not the end of the world.

The overreaction by the owners is simply because of greed. Their building is worth less because it's harder to change now. This doesn't materially impact the business.

The argument that their building wasn't in any danger of being demolished is totally crazy. That is not one of the criteria used by the Commission! No one cares.

Post reply on HN