Landmarks agency to undergo refocusing after six decades of operation.

As New York City approaches the 60th anniversary of its Landmarks Law, a critical examination of this legislation reveals a troubling trend in the preservation of the city’s architectural heritage. Originally enacted on April 19, 1965, in response to the demolition of the Old Penn Station—an iconic example of Beaux-Arts architecture—the Landmarks Law was designed to protect historically and architecturally significant properties. However, recent years have seen a disturbing erosion of its effectiveness, with the city losing over a dozen landmarked properties in just the last two years.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission was established under this law to identify and protect structures of historical importance, regulating maintenance and preventing demolition except under extraordinary circumstances. Initially, the law was met with resistance from various industry stakeholders. Critics, including the Real Estate Board of New York, argued that the Landmarks Law would stifle urban development and progress. However, those concerns did not prevent the law’s passage, leading to a robust system of preservation.

In recent years, however, concerns have arisen regarding the increasing influence of developers over the Commission’s decisions. A report titled “Regulatory Capture” indicates that the Commission has shifted from its original mission, prioritizing development over preservation. This change has led to an alarming pattern: developers, often represented by lobbyists, receive significant access and opportunities to persuade commission members, while preservationists are often relegated to limited speaking times and written submissions that frequently go unread.

The imbalance in this process has resulted in a near-total victory rate for developers’ applications before the Commission over the past decade. In stark contrast, only a handful of new landmarks have been designated annually under the Adams administration, marking an over 80% decline from previous years. Landmark properties like the West Park Presbyterian Church have been put at risk despite demonstrations of community support and feasible restoration plans, with the Commission often favoring demolition over preservation.

As the City Council originally articulated, the protection of significant architectural properties is crucial for the health and welfare of New Yorkers. As we reflect on the last six decades, the need for the Commission to recommit to its foundational purpose has never been more urgent. If preservation efforts remain sidelined, city officials may find it necessary to initiate oversight hearings to ensure that New York’s rich architectural legacy is not further compromised. The imperative for restoring focus on landmark preservation is clear, as the city’s identity depends on these historic structures.