TOW #12: NYC Landmark Law

Create an argument TOW

Choose and read an article/visual for a TOW.  Instead of treating it as an “analysis,” turn it into an argument by answering any of the following questions, or one of your own.  

1. To what extent do you agree with the main argument?
2. What do you think the author would think of X today?
3. What evidence challenges the author’s position and how?
4. To what extent do we fulfill the author’s vision (in this time/this context)?
5. If you could design/mold/create a new X, what characteristics would it have?

While scrolling through the New York Times Editorial page, I came across a piece with an extremely mundane title: “New York City’s Landmarks Law turns 50”. Wondering if the piece would match the utter dullness of the bolded heading, I clicked to read with much caution. Surprisingly, I actually found this editorial incredibly interesting and it enlightened me on an issue that I had never considered before. The NY Times Editorial board argues the ineffectiveness of the Landmarks law in NYC, thanks to the lack of aggression of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. I think that the main argument suggests a great point that not many people are aware of or consider. For example, the article discusses the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which sounds like a prestigious and important organization, but in reality, it is the city agency with the smallest budgets, $5.7 million, which I guess in government works isn't a large sum, and with the smallest staff. This examples shows how unpopular the commission is, which results in their inability to utilize the landmarks law effectively. What I find so incredibly interesting is that I think that this law is actually a great idea because it will helps preserve many historical places throughout the city. However, I think that the commission should attempt to find a balance in landmarking buildings or letting old ones go for the sake of efficiency. According to the article, they have already registered 1,700 landmarks in 2015 and 27% of buildings in Manhattan have landmark status. But with their small budget, do they have the capability to add more? The head of the Commission, Meenakshi Srinivasan, who was appointed by Mayor de Blasio, attempted to strike off dozens of buildings from their list of landmarks, for the sake of efficiency and to enable the commission to focus their energy on more important buildings. After much disagreement, it didn’t work out, but I think that Srinivasans idea was a good one. Why waste time and finances on so many buildings that potentially are similar to others in the city, when you can designate the truly important and architecturally remarkable buildings and landmarks to be remembered?