Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY
Testimony by Stephen Crim, Member of the Public on reforming the Landmarks Preservation Commission
2:57:34
·
122 sec
Manhattan resident Stephen Crim advocates for reforming the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) process to better balance historic preservation with the need for housing and change. He supports proposals requiring LPC to consider housing impacts and suggests ideas like cumulative effects analysis or offsetting new landmarking with de-landmarking elsewhere.
- Crim values historic buildings but believes preservation needs balance.
- Supports changing the charter to mandate LPC consideration of housing supply/affordability.
- Suggests potential mechanisms:
- Analyzing the cumulative impact of existing landmarking in an area.
- Requiring removal of restrictions elsewhere if new ones are added.
- Believes LPC reform could be a positive and perhaps easier step than broader ULURP changes.
Stephen Crim
2:57:34
Okay.
2:57:34
Hi.
2:57:35
My name is Steven Crim.
2:57:35
It's getting late, and I'll be really brief.
2:57:38
I'm a Manhattan resident, and I'm excited that this, review commission is, working on housing and land use.
2:57:47
I want to call attention to some of the proposals you've heard about reforming or improving the Landmarks Preservation Commission, and historic preservation more generally.
2:57:58
I've support some of the proposals that you've heard about expanding what should be considered in the landmarking process.
2:58:04
I value the place of historic buildings in our city but I strongly believe it needs to be balanced against the needs to provide more housing and just opportunity for change over time.
2:58:13
I happen to live in a part of Manhattan that has a lot of historic districts and while it's very pretty I often walk around thinking I hope those don't get bigger, because I think that means that we're going to it to me means a decrease in the opportunity for growth and change.
2:58:29
I think the suggestion simply of changing what can be considered could be potentially powerful because then at least on the record there's some sort of consideration of the implications of landmarking and historic preservation rules on housing affordability and supply.
2:58:45
Perhaps like, some more specific ideas could be some sort of cumulative effects style analysis that's like, well, in this area, we already have this much of the land or land use or housing stock under landmark.
2:58:57
So, you know, we have to make a much there's a there's a higher bar to allow further landmarking or restriction on adjacent properties or perhaps some sort of, an idea that's, like, well, if you're going to put this much more housing under some sort of regulation, then an an equivalent amount needs to be taken out or something like that.
2:59:17
Specific recommendations like that are beyond what I can offer right now, but I just wanna say that I know a lot of the attention will be around ULIP, but, and I think it's very important.
2:59:26
But I do think that there's some really, positive, perhaps easier, reforms possible through landmarking and historic preservation.
2:59:36
Thanks.