Not New York

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Lost in Beijing and in New York?

Monday, July 28th, 2008

Nicolai Ouroussoff wrote an interesting piece this weekend about the rapidly changing face of Beijing and the loss of their historic hutong neighborhoods, which reflects interestingly on what we are facing in New York.

“The explosion of construction activity that has transformed Beijing into a modern metropolis over the past decade also turned many of its historical neighborhoods — known for their narrow alleyways, or hutongs — into rubble. As grass-roots preservationists began sounding the alarm, the aging wood frames and tile roofs of the ancient courtyard houses that give these neighborhoods their identity were being supplanted so quickly by mighty towers that it was hard to pinpoint where they once stood.”

Ouroussoff digs a little deeper and goes on to say: “Now, as they labor to protect what remains, Chinese preservationists are facing a new, equally insidious threat: gentrification. The few ancient courtyard houses that survived destruction have become coveted status symbols for the country’s growing upper class and for wealthy foreign investors. As more and more money is poured into elaborate renovations, the phenomenon is not only draining these neighborhoods of their character but also threatening to erase an entire way of life.

Meanwhile the intense focus on the fate of the hutongs has eclipsed an equally pressing preservation issue, the demolition of Socialist-style housing from the 1950s and ’60s. The imminent threat is historical censorship: a vision of the past that is so thoroughly edited that it will soon have little relation to the truth.”

This point, not one regularly raised in the mainstream conversation about preservation is further driven home: “The results are striking in places like Nanluogu Xiang, a narrow hutong neighborhood in the Dongcheng district northeast of the Forbidden City. Once a thriving neighborhood of mismatched courtyard houses and shopfronts, it was purchased by a local developer who renovated its most decrepit dwellings and rented its storefronts out to tourist shops. Today it looks eerily like a Chinese version of Prince Street in SoHo: an open-air mall dressed up in historical facades. The street is lined with T-shirt shops, coffee shops and cafes catering to tourists. Foreigners walk aimlessly up and down the street, guidebooks in hand, soaking up the phony cultural atmosphere.

It is a familiar pattern in American cities. The sad truth, as any architectural historian knows, is that poverty is often good for preservation; poor people lack the resources to tear down and rebuild houses every generation. Once an affluent homeowner moves into a faded landmark, the first thing he or she does is bring in an army of restorers — or bulldozers. Preservationists, who tend to have limited economic clout, strike a Faustian bargain: better to save the basic architecture and let others worry about what goes on inside. Breaking the pattern without aggressive government intervention seems almost impossible.

Will New York City ever step up to save itself? and if so, how?

Yonkers Passes Demo Delay Bill (why can’t NYC?)

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

From Chuck Lesnick, Yonkers City Council President, chuck.lesnick@yonkersny.gov

At my suggestion, the Landmarks Board last week implemented an executive order by Mayor Amicone that called for the Building Commissioner to notify the Landmarks Board whenever someone applies for a demolition permit in Yonkers on a property 75 years or older.The purpose of the Demolition Review Order is to keep Yonkers historical properties intact as Yonkers continues to grow and prosper.

After receiving the application, the Landmarks Board will review the property according to a number of established criteria to make an immediate determination on whether or not the property has historical significance. If a house is merely old and not historic, no action will be taken.

If it is, however, a true gem of a historical property, then a 180-day moratorium on demolition will be put in place. During this time, the Landmarks Board will work to create a landmarking application, hold public hearings, seek advice from the planning board, among other things before making a final determination as to whether to recommend it to the City Council for landmarking.

This Executive Order and the actions of the Landmarks Board does not change the existing law or procedure for landmarking. It is only expected to apply to a dozen potential historic properties per year where demolition permits are requested.

The demolition review order is a result of legislation that I proposed last year to save our true historic homes and buildings while we allow redevelopment of others and build for the future.

I’m glad the Mayor and the Landmarks Board have established a mechanism to determine which properties are truly historic and which are simply just old and have no historical impact on Yonkers future.

San Francisco Gets Its Landmarks On

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

 Powerful New S.F. Landmarks Board Proposed

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A new San Francisco commission would be given wide powers to protect buildings and areas considered historically important, under a proposal to be reviewed at City Hall Wednesday.

Most large U.S. cities already have a separate group overseeing historic preservation. In San Francisco, landmarks ultimately are determined by the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, which also oversees development and other land-use issues. Under the proposal by Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, the Planning Commission would no longer have control over the preservation issues.

“San Francisco has not kept pace with other great American cities relative to having a robust historic preservation board, and this would take a step in that direction,” Peskin said.

The Planning Department and planning commissioners have expressed concern that the new board would have too much authority in instances where new development and historic preservation coincide. In such cases, the proposed Landmarks Preservation Board could have ultimate say over affordable housing issues, the heights of buildings and other zoning questions that are the purview of the Planning Commission.

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.

 

 

From the SF Chronicle

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/09/BAOP11LRES.DTL