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

New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by jzwinck »

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.

Landmarking this building removes the choice from future New Yorkers to redevelop this bookstore-building into housing, offices, or even a park.

If you want to have a say in how the community develops, maybe don't limit your options for developing your community? If future New Yorkers decide they don't want this building turned into a modern skyscraper, they can reject the required applications for building permits at that time.

Or is it more about "old" New Yorkers trying to make sure new New Yorkers don't have a say?

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

#62

Post by rayiner »

selimthegrim wrote: post #57
rayiner wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The Supreme Court thinks New York’s landmark designation laws are constitutional, and the air rights system is less invasive than that: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104.

I think Penn Central was a fantastically wrong decision (Rehnquist and Stevens dissented in that case). Obviously, the fact that a regulation diminishes the value of property is not sufficient to amount to a taking. The government can ban diesel cars and if that renders existing diesel cars worthless, so be it. Height limits (and the concept of air rights trading) can be justified on a similar principle, but they’re closer to the borderline. But historical landmark laws are not laws of general effect that happen to impact property values. They are targeted takings of private property without compensation.

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

#63

Post by ISL »

TylerE wrote: post #60
nullc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is fine, as long as the city compensates them at an agreed-upon price for the lost future utility at the time that the historic designation is applied.

Conservation easements work this way, and both preservationists and land owners reach amicable agreements.

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

#65

Post by busterarm »

beerandt wrote: post #25
Causality1 wrote: post #22

How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.

We gave up that right when building permits became a thing. They were meant only to prevent city-wide fires. As with everything government, once the process was established, the purpose for using it could be stretched and expanded easily.

It doesn't just end there.

A store has to get a permit for an awning and also renew that permit any time they want to make changes to it or make any repairs that alter the appearance of that awning.

The cheapest awning permit is $6000 in NYC.

Even worse, frequently there are codes that change and businesses have to stay on top of the law changes but the DCA only publishes guides to stay current with the law every decade or two. In the meantime they just fine anyone in violation. They have all kinds of things they commonly fine for like not displaying your business license prominently in two places in your business, not putting your license number at the top of your receipt in a certain place, etc.

It's straight up grift.

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

#66

Post by busterarm »

nxc18 wrote: post #9
Nelkins wrote: post #4

Always interesting to see how alleged progressives seem to care more about buildings than about people. If the Strand loses their case I guess I can look forward to visiting the "historic" Chipotle, Starbucks, Walgreens, or bank that takes its place.

The only mentioned cost is that they can't change the sign without review. If a business is going to go bust because they couldn't change their sign on a dime, the business probably wasn't viable in the first place. This reads like a conservative business owner being annoyed that a government body is existing and doing its job well, which I suppose is a common sentiment. Also, the LPC has nothing to do with 'progress…

You can't change your sign without paying thousands of dollars in permits anyway.

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

#67

Post by cat199 »

gen220 wrote: post #59
pmoriarty wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

> Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past?

was never a newyorker but did briefly visit the strand in ~2002, and from my fuzzy recollection (wasn't in the market for a book at the time) it was pretty much entirely all giant stacks.

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

#68

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

That people bring out building more housing in NYC as their goto example of something awful that must not be allowed to happen is the most depressing thing I saw today.

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

#69

Post by CPLX »

jzwinck wrote: post #61
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.

Landmarking this building removes the choice from future New Yorkers to redevelop this bookstore-building into housing, offices, or even a park. If you want to have a say in how the community develops, maybe don't limit your options for developing your community? If future New Yorkers decide they don't want this building turned into a modern skyscraper, they can reject the required applications for building permits a…

This is patent nonsense. The same political process that created the landmark designation can remove or alter it.

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

#70

Post by beagle3 »

red-indian wrote: post #5

Every year around a certain date, the meaning of which is opaque to me, I receive a package sent from the Strand bookstore containing a very nice expensive book. First couple years I called to ask who the sender was, they read back my name to me. I asked them to describe the purchaser, it took a bit of doing but indeed someone remember them and described what I look like. I've never been to New York or the Strand, bu…

Obviously, your twin brother (of whom you are not aware, but who is aware of you and your whereabouts) is sending you a reminder for something (parent's anniversary? the day of his or your adoption?)
Post reply on HN