Barwick, Kent L.

DigitalCommons@Pace

Pace Law ReviewVolume 1Issue 3 1981Symposium on Historic Preservation LawArticle 16April 1981Remarks: A Symposium on Historic PreservationLawKent L. BarwickFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plrThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace LawReview by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact cpittson@law.pace.edu.Recommended CitationKent L. Barwick, Remarks: A Symposium on Historic Preservation Law, 1 Pace L. Rev. 661 (1981)Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol1/iss3/16RemarksKENT L. BARWICK*It is curious that during this conference many points to bemade on behalf of intelligent preservation have been made quiteeloquently by those who have previously imagined themselvescritics or opponents of historic designation. They turned out notto be opponents at all. For practical as well as aesthetic reasons,for reasons that relate to finances as well as to patina, the criticshave discovered that reuse of the past is not a sentimental exer-cise but a useful, important tool in the reconstruction of the Cityof New York and of other cities of this country.I have the good fortune to be the Chairman of the NewYork City Landmarks Preservation Commission at a propitioustime: it was particularly reassuring that the Supreme Court af-firmed the City in the matter of Grand Central.1 I have beenassociated with the Commission only since my appointment onMarch 1 of this year, but I have watched the Commission foryears. They have been reasonable, deliberate, and careful inchoosing and designating those buildings that are most impor-tant. The ten commissioners who serve without salary with mehave inherited an extraordinary record of tact, common sense,diplomacy, scholarship, and, above all, intelligence and fair playthat have prevailed in the administration of this pioneering leg-islation in past years.Another pleasure that belongs to the Landmark Commis-sion at the present time is that which derives from the success ofour landmark statute. The fears that occupied the real estatecommunity at the inception of the law have proved to be largelyunfounded. The complaint that six percent is not a reasonablereturn is significant as an intellectual debating point, but no de-cision has ever turned on that. Circumstances in history haveproved that the act has not turned out to be an imposition, butmerely a conservative act.Another reason why it is good to be the Chairman of theLandmarks Preservation Commission at this time is that the1PACE LAW REVIEWlandmarks law has changed, as indeed zoning has changed, froma series of negative strictures to a highly effective, cost efficient,and largely nonpublicly funded tool for urban revitalization.That it is largely unfunded by the public is important in thecontext of our fiscal crisis. Landmarks preservation, the preser-vation movement, and the individual homeowner or the privatebusinessman thus have little to fear from this municipal crisisbecause they have not received any financial assistance in thepast. The best the City has been able to do in the past is to getout of the way of communities in New York City that have im-proved themselves, such as the brownstone communities, the redbrick communities, and the Soho warehouse district.Not only has there been no public support, but there hasbeen only infrequent public acknowledgment. The federal, state,and local housing programs, the public assistance programs, andthe policies of private lending institutions and insuring organiza-tions have not contributed significantly, if at all, to the revitali-zation that is visible in this city. While it would be hasty andinjudicious for the City to rush into a massive investment in ur-ban revitalization, it would be a mistake to ignore the evidencebefore us. It is not being ignored. The number of people heretoday testifies to that, as does the extraordinary popular re-sponse that came forward at the time of the Grand Central Sta-tion controversy. Both are evidence of a deep-felt need in oursociety for preservation.The task of the Commission today is to take advantage ofthe extraordinary collection of assorted and largely uncataloguedopportunities that exist and to assist in the rediscovery of neigh-borhoods, of great structures, of scenic landmarks, and of wholeareas of the city. For the price of acknowledgment alone, theseneighborhoods can be made to prosper. I was struck recentlywith the testimony of the president of an association from East-ern Parkway. Eastern Parkway is in Crown Heights, an area ofthis city that is torn asunder with groups that frequently do notget along very well. It is marked with poverty. It also happens tobe the site of Frederick Olmstead's and Calvert Vaux's first in-vention, the first parkway in the United States and an extendedstrip of parkland.The communities in this area agree on little, but they didagree that it would be a wonderful idea for the City to acknowl-[Vol. 1:6612http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol1/iss3/16REMARKSedge the value of Olmstead's creation, the ragged park alongwhich they live. They came forward as a body - the Jews, theWest Indians, the American-born blacks, and the other membersof that community - to plead for a designation that broughtwith it no loans, and no grants, only acknowledgment.I had a lesson the other day on the dilemma of conflictingneeds in an urban society. At West Bathgate Avenue in theSouth Bronx, there is a precinct building, built by Horgan andSlattery, who were the architects of the Hall of Records down-town. Even in decay, the precinct building is a wonderful struc-ture, a little Renaissance palazzo located in the middle of proba-bly the worst crime area in this state. I was taken up on the roofof the precinct building by an Irish immigrant named Skelly,who had purchased a neighboring warehouse. From the roof Isaw evidence of crime, the likes of which I could not believe:thieves had somehow broken through masonry walls with acety-lene torches and steel bars. Skelly was pleading with us to dosomething with the precinct building because it was on thatbuilding that people climbed to reach the fire escape of thewarehouse to break into his building. He was bankrupt becauseof this. He was forced to sleep in his warehouse to protect hisgoods. He said that we must do something with the precinctbuilding. Then he said that we could not, of course, destroysomething as lovely as that precinct building. Skelly is a manwho has reckoned in a direct way with conflicting needs in theCity and has made the right judgment, that he would rather seesome thread of civility and of hope preserved in the Bronx, evenat some inconvenience to himself, than to acknowledge defeat.Occasionally, and especially in conferences that are technical,the human affection and the human economic reckoning areoverlooked.We have identified the benefits of preservation: the in-creased real estate tax assessments, the jobs, and the rehabilita-tion of older structures. The percentage of hand labor in rehabil-itation is much higher than it is in new construction. We canmake our case about the value of historic preservation in at-tracting federal and state grants when we meet with the Presi-dent of the City Council and the Mayor on the budget. We candemonstrate the ability of preservation to assist in stabilizingneighborhoods.198113PACE LAW REVIEWThere is another benefit which relates to the question of po-tency in a city. An environment which is amenable to changeand preservation may provide the spark to begin that change.Consider the South Street Seaport as an example. While theSouth Street Seaport is a financial failure today, awaiting theopportunity to become a success with federal help and with thehelp of the Rouse Corporation perhaps, in many ways it is al-ready a success.It was interesting to see the human reaction as most oflower Manhattan was destroyed. 20,000 people came forward inthree or four years to join in the Seaport project, making it over-night the largest history museum membership in the UnitedStates. It was the ability of the Columbia radicals, the agedsailors from Staten Island, the office clerks from Wall Street,and the presidents of Wall Street firms whose mutual supportcreated the project. Even William F. Buckley and Pete Seegerwere able simultaneously to tie up their boats there. There is alesson in this, and the price of potency should not be left unac-corded in any economic reckoning we may make.In general, it is a mistake to portray amenities in the City asbeing at odds with essential services. It is essential to have a firedepartment and a police department; it is also essential, if weare to have a publishing industry or an advertising industry, tohave a New York Public Library. It is essential, if we are goingto continue to derive an extraordinary number of dollars fromthe sale of art objects, that we have an art industry, that wehave museums where works of art are displayed, galleries wherethey are sold, critics publishing in papers, and houses where art-ists live and work.These needs are being given begrudging acknowledgment aseconomic issues, but any reckoning of the future of the Citymust look to our particular strengths. All cities have troublepaying for policemen and firemen. All cities do not have ex-traordinary public libraries and an unparalleled cultural estab-lishment of a wonderful collection of museums and a huge popu-lation of artists, publicists, lawyers and printers.We have to look at what attracts and holds people in ourcity, what middle management amenities play a role in the deci-sion to locate a plant or a factory or a white-collar institution inGreenwich, Connecticut, or Houston or in New York City. Cul-[Vol. 1:6614http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol1/iss3/161981] REMARKS 665tural institutions and libraries, linked to historic preservation,are essential to the life of this city.The wonderful thing about New York and about the Com-mission is that preservationists here are not antiquarians - theyare New Yorkers; and the real estate moguls are New Yorkers,too. The great hope for this city is that we recognize, as a com-monality of our received environment, the good sense, althoughwe cannot quantify it in economic terms, of maintaining the li-brary, Lincoln Center, and the Landmarks Preservation Com-mission. We will not merely survive, but we will prevail as a city.5NOTESRemarksKENT L. BARWICK* B.A., Syracuse University; Loeb Fellow, Harvard Graduate School of Design;Chairman, New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.Valuation of Historic PropertiesMARY E. MANN* J.D., 1948, Vanderbilt Law School; B.A., 1945, Vassar College; President, NewYork City Tax Commission.1. P.R. LAws ANN. tit. 13, § 551(o) (Equity 1978).2. TEX. PROP. TAx CODE ANN. tit. 1, § 11.24 (Vernon 1978).3. Id.4. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 18-6-13 (Supp. 1980).5. N.Y. REAL PROP. TAX LAW § 489(1)(a)(4) (McKinney Supp. 1981-82).6. Id.7. See NEw YORK, N.Y., ADMIN. CODE ANN. ch. 8-A, § 207-8.0 (Williams 1976).8. CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 12-127a (West 1972).9. CAL. REv. & TAX. CODE § 439.2 (West Supp. 1981); VA. CODE § 10-142 (1978); W.VA. CODE § 8-26A-5 (1976).10. VA. CODE §§ 10-139, 10-140 (1978).11. Id. § 10-139.12. Id. § 10-140.13. Penn Cent Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).Historic Preservation and the Law:Appraisals of Realty for TaxationEUGENE J. MORRIS* LL.B., 1934, New York Law School and St. John's University; B.S.S., 1931, TheCollege of the City of New York; Partner, Demov, Morris, Levin & Shein.1. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).2. N.Y. GEN. MUN. LAW § 96-a (McKinney 1977 & Supp. 1981); NEW YORK, N.Y.,ADMIN. CODE ANN. §§ 205-1.0 to 207-21.0 (Williams 1976 & Supp. 1981).3. N.Y. REAL PROP. TAX LAW 9§ 500-760 (McKinney 1972 & Supp. 1981).4. NEw YORK, N.Y., CHARTER 151-167, 1500-1527 (Williams 1976 & Supp. 1980);NEW YORK, N.Y., ADMIN. CODE ANN. §§ 153b-2.0 to 166-1.0 (Williams 1976 & Supp.1981).5. The American Standard Building located at 40 West 40th Street is an example of1981]6http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol1/iss3/16

Remarks: A Symposium on Historic Preservation Law

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=plr

Remarks: A Symposium on Historic Preservation Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@Pace