
On June 11th, the Strand was designated a landmark - fortran77
https://www.strandbooks.com/protect-strand
======
octbash
For the full infuriating timeline:
[https://landmarkscomplaints.com/chronology-of-
events/](https://landmarkscomplaints.com/chronology-of-events/)

------
jzwinck
Previously on HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21228237](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.

~~~
dang
Also this bit from a year ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18610699)

------
quacker
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 information should be at the top of the page.

~~~
light_hue_1
> 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](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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/arts/design/strand-bookstore-
landmark.html)). 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.

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

~~~
light_hue_1
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.

------
ropiwqefjnpoa
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.

~~~
cpeterso
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...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20982216/netflix-paris-
theater-movies-new-york-oscars-irishman-marriage-story-egyptian)

~~~
Animats
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.

------
Bostonian
If preservationists want a building to stay as is, they should buy it.
Otherwise they have no business dictating how others use their property.

~~~
rm999
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 on the city.

There are arguments to be made on both sides, this isn't a black and white
issue. The history of preservation is fascinating. Especially after Penn
Station's demolition, NYC went through a big debate on other landmarks like
Grand Central: [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/preservation-
battle-g...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/preservation-battle-grand-
central-180969446).

> While few doubted the significance of Grand Central, the terminal’s owners
> took issue with the law itself—how, they wondered, could it constitute
> anything other than an unreasonable violation of their rights as property
> owners? Preservationists like Onassis, working with groups like the
> Municipal Art Society, continued to insist that saving Grand Central and
> buildings like it wasn’t a mere real estate matter, but an issue of public
> good. On June 26, 1978, the United States Supreme Court agreed with them in
> Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. New York City, not just in regards to
> Grand Central but in the spirit of the Landmarks law itself...

In retrospect I don't think you could find a New Yorker who regrets that Grand
Central was saved after seeing what Penn Station became.

~~~
moultano
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 require a particular aesthetic on a site than
try to retain a particular object building in perpetuity.

~~~
xmprt
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.

------
robotron
Why is this here?

~~~
tomrod
20-something year old technology tinkerer interests often broaden as the
tinkerers gain repeated experience with the non-tech portion of the world.

To connect it to technology, statistics & economics could be used to evaluate
the counterfactual property valuation should historical status for the home
had never been declared.

~~~
new_realist
You could make that claim about any random article from Reddit.

