Many people assume that historic landmarks cannot be demolished, however this may not always be the case.
Historic landmarks are protected from modifications that compromise their character, but without receiving federal funding, they may be torn down as is happening with Grand Prospect Hall.
1. They are a part of history
Numerous groups are protesting the destruction of historical landmarks. Their demands include pressuring city officials to work harder at preventing demolitions of these structures; more transparency between Department of Buildings, Landmarks Preservation Commission and public; as well as enhanced communication channels between these bodies.
They argue that historically designated buildings are being neglected and are being demolished to make way for new development projects, providing no sense of history to a city’s fabric and should be preserved for future generations.
They further contend that replacing historical structures with modern ones is unnecessary and detrimental to a city’s culture and economy. While some may argue modernization is necessary to spur metropolitan growth, this should only be undertaken as a last resort – historic preservation can provide local governments with a powerful way of protecting residents’ quality of life.
2. They are a symbol of a city
Historical landmarks are more than mere pieces of history; they’re symbols that represent a place and its people. When one is destroyed, it becomes an irreparable loss for everyone living nearby.
Historic preservationists worldwide support efforts to save and restore old buildings as an effective way of showing that a city has something unique and worthy of being seen by others.
But preservation can be challenging; especially in the US. Protecting historic properties from demolition or alterations that compromise their integrity is often challenging; for instance, Frank Lloyd Wright designed his son and daughter-in-law a home that has recently been considered for demolition despite it being listed as historic property; local preservation ordinances and regulations provide their best defense.
3. They are unique
Most historic landmarks you have encountered on your travels probably look much different now than when they first were constructed, having been destroyed, altered or simply left alone for centuries. Yet it can be much harder to take down buildings which have stood for so long than newer structures.
One way of protecting a historical landmark is to declare it a national historic landmark. But this doesn’t guarantee its survival; local zoning laws still must be adhered to and federal funding may not always be available.
National historical landmarks are only protected against demolition if they have survived for at least 100 years without being demolished due to progress; unfortunately this has been the case in numerous cities over recent years.
4. They are a piece of art
An historical landmark is more than a building; it’s an expression of art and should be appreciated and not defaced. Destroying historic landmarks is irreparably damaging history and culture; anyone responsible should be punished accordingly for such vandalism.
Renovations that obliterate historical landmarks are another means by which historical landmarks may be destroyed. This could involve altering the facade, tearing down walls or cutting them back a story; or by adding modern materials that don’t match with original style of building.
Chi Osse of Bedford Stuyvesant, Erik Bottcher of Greenwich Village/Chelsea/Hell’s Kitchen and Christopher Marte from Lower Manhattan joined preservationists at a recent press conference to criticize the administration for permitting demolitions of landmarked buildings, such as 1840s row houses in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District or Fort Bayard in New Mexico which became a National Historic Landmark in 2004 but is currently up for sale.
