Historical Preservation: The Worst/Best Thing to Happen to Cities since Buildings

Penn Station was built in 1910 by the Pennsylvania Railroad. It was a triumph over nature and over their competitors. The PRR was the first to cross the Hudson River and take a train straight to Manhattan from the west. The building was a masterpiece of engineering and architecture, designed by McKim, Mead, and White. Its trusses and skylights allowed for the tracks to be visible directly from the concourse and to have a flood of natural light.

Fifty years later, the PRR was in deep financial trouble because of its new competitors: planes and automobiles. It decided it couldn’t upkeep the old building and needed to develop the land above the tracks  to bring in extra revenue. So the railroad demolished the station and replaced it with the underground sewers which make up the current station. Yale architectural historian, Vincent J. Scully Jr, wrote, “One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.”

Opposition to the demolition started before it happened, but swelled and swelled afterward until another proposal threatened to demolish Grand Central to make room for a tower. As a result, the Landmarks Preservation Commission was created to preserve historic buildings like Grand Central for future generations.

At first glimpse, it seems no one would want Penn Station to be demolished. It showed a rich part of New York and United States history and was a cultural icon. But many people believe saving old builds is a waste of space and money. They think saving historic districts and buildings is a scourge to cities, and to some extent they’re right.

Architecture is the only art where historical preservation can be a question. Famous paintings, sculptures, or photographs are valued for their cultural importance and are therefore almost unanimously agreed upon to be conserved. The amount of famous artworks we can preserve almost exclusively depends on the amount of money we are willing to spend to take care of them. The difference between artwork and architecture is threefold. First, architecture takes up space. This space is often valuable because the works were completed in cities a long time ago on relatively cheap land but as the city grew around the historic center, the more centralized, desirable space increased in value. Second, architecture must be lived in, so when a building becomes useless at the task it was designed for, it needs to be changed or will rot away. Third, architecture rots away much more easily because it takes so much more money to upkeep such large spaces and intricate structures. In the case of Penn Station or Grand Central, upkeep was too expensive for buildings which were losing usefulness due to the decline in rail travel, and it made sense to sell the land which had become so desirable in the half century after they were built.

The most commonly attacked historical preservation type is historical districts. These places are districts of a city where a certain era or style or architecture is on display and to preserve the character of the area there is a restriction on new building. Although some districts of the country are truly historic like Beacon Hill in Boston and even Downtown Bellefonte, many do not deserve this status. Most complains revolve around the second problem with historical preservation: that humans have to use architecture to live. Fans of small government often complain that their property rights are being infringed upon because they need permission to renovate or add to their house or property. However, the more common argument against historical districts is that they are put in place to increase the property values of the owners in the district. When no building and expansion can occur, supply of housing will remain constant and if demand for housing is rising (which it usually is), price will increase to compensate. This is great for property owners and landlords whose investments are increasing in value, but bad for renters and people looking to move to the neighborhood who must pay more to live in the same place. Historical districts can be hotbeds of NIMBYism (not in my backyard) which can make it hard to implement new transit routes or street improvements. Many of these neighborhoods are just nice neighborhoods that had good planning when they were developed, and we can make new nice neighborhoods if we do the same kind of intentional planning for the next century.

Although historic districts garner more backlash, plenty of hate is leveled at historic landmarks and buildings as well. Most of this criticism is unwarranted. Conservatives often don’t appreciate that their tax dollars go to these buildings which need constant upkeep and are often turned into museums because they can’t be reused without compromising their history. But I would argue more importantly, historic buildings take up land that could be used to create the next cultural icons. After all, a lot of the criticism of the demolition of Penn Station revolves around the downgrade of the new station. If the new station had been a 1960’s masterpiece like the TWA terminal at JFK, I’m sure there would have been far less backlash. And if we continue to designate historic structures on Manhattan, eventually the entire island will be static, the antithesis of a city. However, as long as we only allow historic buildings to be protected when they have true civic or cultural value and we are willing to revise the list as times change, historic buildings can remain an integral part of our cities and culture.

Although cultural icons and marvels are important to protect, historic preservation can inhibit cities from growing and striving. Historic sites keep society grounded by showing our past accomplishments and what we’ve overcome, but they can inhibit society by limiting interaction of different peoples and innovation. We need to protect only those things integral to our development and let go of history which might hold us back.

Note:

Submitted at 2:26 PM even though WordPress says 7:25 PM