In 1963, the original Penn Station – widely considered a masterpiece of the Beaux Arts style – was demolished to make way for a modern Madison Square Garden arena and office tower. The act sparked widespread condemnation and added urgency to concerns that runaway development and urban renewal efforts were endangering New York’s architectural heritage. Less than two years later, Mayor Robert Wagner signed the 1965 New York City Landmarks Law, creating a Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) tasked with identifying and protecting historically significant buildings and neighborhoods.

The LPC has the power to designate four types of landmarks: individual, interior, scenic, and historic districts. An individual landmark is the most common designation and can apply to any freestanding building or structure (e.g., Grand Central Station, the Coney Island Wonder Wheel). Individual landmark status, however, only protects the structure’s exterior. Thus, the LPC is also empowered to designate significant public spaces as interior landmarks (e.g., the Woolworth building lobby, the Ed Sullivan theater). On city-owned property, the commission can even preserve landscape features as scenic landmarks (e.g., Prospect or Central Park). Finally, the historic district category allows the LPC to place an entire neighborhood under its protection if the area typifies a particular architectural mode or period (e.g., Brooklyn’s Dumbo, Manhattan’s Carnegie Hill). Whatever the type, the only major criteria for a landmark under the law are that it be least 30 years old and that it exhibit “a special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation.” As of September 2008 the City was home to 1,194 individual landmarks, 112 interior landmarks, 10 scenic landmarks, and 106 historic districts.

Any citizen or community group can nominate a property for landmark status by submitting a Request for Evaluation (RFE) to the LPC office. The office can also initiate evaluations of its own accord. The commission’s chairman and staff then conduct a preliminary investigation and decide whether to pass the application along for review by the full, eleven-member commission. By law, the commission must include three architects, a real estate agent, a city planner or landscape architect, and a representative from each of the five boroughs (in addition to the salaried chairman).

When an RFE is passed to the commission for consideration, the LPC must notify the affected owners (whose cooperation is typically sought but not required), community boards, City Planning Commission, and Borough President. The commissioners then vote to determine whether a full public hearing will be conducted regarding the property. If, following a hearing, at least six commission members approve the application, landmark protections go into immediate affect. However, the City Council (under advisement from the City Planning Commission) has a 120-day window in which to modify or reject the designation.

Once a building is designated a landmark, or an area is designated an historic district, the owner of the property must obtain LPC’s approval for any alteration to an existing building or construction of a new building. The LPC can grant approval for such work in three ways. First, it can issue a “certificate of no effect”, which is issued when the staff of the LPC finds that the proposed work requires a Department of Buildings permit but will not affect the protected features of the structure. Second, it can provide a “permit for minor work”, which applies when the work will effect protected features of the building but is so minor as to not require a DOB permit (such as façade cleaning or door replacement). Finally, for major work that will both affect the protected features of the landmark and require a DOB permit, owners must apply for a “certificate of appropriateness.” This certificate must be granted by a majority of the LPC commissioners, and its issuance must be the subject of a public hearing.

If the owner is denied a certificate of appropriateness, he or she may apply to the LPC for a hardship exception. In the case of a for-profit enterprise, the landmark regulations must prevent the owner from making a reasonable return on the property. A non-profit organization, on the other hand, must demonstrate that landmark limitations prevent it from carrying out its charitable purpose. Though hardship exceptions are rare – only 13 have been granted in the past forty years – St. Vincent’s Hospital successfully petitioned LPC in October 2008 for permission to raze its flagship building and construct a new high-rise facility and condo tower in the Greenwich Village Historic District.

Opponents of landmarking claim that the restrictions placed on future uses and renovations of landmarked properties are onerous and antithetical to private property rights. In Penn Central Transportation v. New York City, Penn Central sued the city after its request to cantilever a 55-story office tower over Grand Central Terminal was rejected by the LPC. However, the Supreme Court found that, since the restrictions on development imposed by the Landmarks Law did not interfere with the terminal’s traditional use, they did not constitute a “taking” of the property under the 5th amendment and did not entitle Penn Central to “just compensation” for its lost profits.

Proponents of landmarking argue that, in addition to preserving vital pieces of the city’s past, landmarking actually can have a positive effect on property values. For instance, a 2003 study by the City’s Independent Budget Office, found that, in primarily residential areas, prices for buildings in historic districts were generally higher than those of similar buildings outside the district.

Apart from argument over whether landmarking should occur at all is debate over the landmarking process. The LPC’s choice not to hold a public hearing on the controversial renovation of Edward Stone’s “lollipop building” at Columbus Circle prompted renewed calls for a more transparent decision-making process. Further, even though the number of buildings landmarked annually has doubled under the Bloomberg administration (to approximately 400 designations per year), critics contend that the LPC remains too slow to act on many requests, allowing owners time to irreparably alter or demolish potential landmarks in order to avoid designation. In November 2008, a group of Park Slope preservationists sued the commission for a decision on their seven-year-old request for an expansion of the Park Slope Historic District. Trial judge Marilyn Shafer ordered the LPC to begin making timely responses to all RFEs, arguing that delay “defeat[ed] the very purpose” of the commission. The decision is currently on appeal.

Last Updated: January 15, 2009