Tour De Brooklyn: The Preservation Interview—Simeon Bankoff, Historic Districts Council

"Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves. Even when we had Penn Station, we couldn’t afford to keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tin horn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed." - "Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times editorial, October 30, 1963

History, Architecture and Preservation

One of New York City's lost architectural jewels, the original Pennsylvania Station, designed in 1910 as a railways transportation hub, was made in pink granite, steel and glass in the Beaux Arts architectural style - very Roman. 

In fact, St. Peter's Basilica, the nave in Rome's Vatican City, was the inspiration for Pennsylvania Station's main waiting room, that built to render the scale and grandeur of the Pope's domain, "marked by an imposing, sober colonnade of Doric columns." The main concourse was designed and rendered well in glass and steel, while enormous stone eagles, with a presence only to be described as "ominous" or "imposing", sat atop the 7th Avenue entry way.  Not only beautiful, but a transportation enterprise, built at the end of Industrial Age, set only for an exploding metropolis' foot traffic - New York City.

The original Pennsylvania Station, a most sustainable, well functioning, and beautiful structure stood for 53 years. That was before the 1963 wrecking ball.

Before then, in New York City, there were no designated historical landmarks. The Landmarks Preservation Law had not been been enacted, and it appears that we had no prominent, influential advocacy groups. In fact, throughout the nineteenth and early - mid twentieth centuries, building developers and other wealthy private citizens had destroyed thousands of private mansions, public buildings, and row-houses particularly in Manhattan. It seems there was a "culture of building destruction" here at home. Build, demolish, build and demolish again, at the whim of fashion, and almost that fast did formidable structures rise and fall.

By the late 1950's, Pennsylvania Station had become extremely costly for the city to maintain. Many believed that demolishing the station and building Madison Square Garden in its place, would be a profitable venture. And so by 1963 Pennsylvania Station was demolished, Madison Square Garden was built in its place and still stands today.

Soon after the station was destroyed, building developer Robert Morris set his mark on another of New York City's architectural havens: Brooklyn Heights. Demolition plans were in motion, again, this time the focus was on sustainable buildings and homes surrounding the Brooklyn Promenade. "Brooklyn Heights was almost destroyed, caught between urban blight and urban renewal, Robert Morris continued the inexorable march of "progress," says Montrose Morris in a Brennan Realty two part expose entitled "Preservation Primer", on the history of preservation in Brooklyn.  

In Brooklyn Heights, the outcome would be very different than that of Pennsylvania Station. This time, for starters, there was no wrecking ball in sight. Through a shadow of destruction, New Yorkers would protest like never before. Brooklyn Heights was saved.

In 1965, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Law was enacted. 

Today, the architectural tragedy at Pennsylvania Station, like a vandalism to end all others, should be a reminder to us all, that the historic integrity of our great city is most important and should be upheld by all accounts. 

Without the New York City Landmarks Preservation Law, the cause for strengthening preservation, our community involvement, the support of public officials, organizations like the Landmark Preservation Commission (LPC) and advocates like Simeon Bankoff, Executive Director of the Historic Districts Council, it is easy to imagine a New York City amidst the culture of building destruction - even today. 

Progress is inevitable. Preservation is everything, New York. 

The Interview

Robert L. Danforth: As a citywide nonprofit, what service does the Historic Districts Council provide?

Simeon Bankoff: The Historic Districts Council (HDC) is the citywide advocate for New York City’s historic neighborhoods. We, along with a network of over 500 community-based organizations, are dedicated to the cause of preservation and enhancement of our city.  HDC reviews over 400 projects a year, which include an evaluation of every single public proposal that effects designated landmark properties. The HDC may be called to testify in a public hearing, we work on legislative initiatives built to protect and enhance the New York City Landmarks Law.  At the local level, we are there to assist and support community groups, to organize and assist in the process of applying for landmark designation. Additionally, we have developed an ongoing education series with focus on the cause for preservation.

RLD: It is said that “historical civilizations are oftentimes recognized by their surviving architectural achievements.” Have we done enough to secure our place in history?

SB: That is a very general statement. Are you comparing, we as Americans, we as New Yorkers. 

RLD: We, as New Yorkers.

SB: New York is in a rare situation within the United States because it is one of our older cities. And therefore, has a richer architectural patrimony than a lot of New World places, particularly in America. One problem is that New York gives preference to industry finance, insurance and real estate.

RLD: Thereby devaluing what is truly important like our history. 

SB: Exactly. “Have we done enough?” No, probably not. The principle problem is that New York State has an "As of Right" Development Law which means there is no community input allowed when developers build new properties. Basically what happens next, is that these new projects build atop the communities history, with no regard and furthermore, no recompense. It’s not the right way to do things. 

RLD: Is it always better to preserve, or when is it deemed a more viable option to demolish and re-build?

SB: It depends. What are you building? If a developer wants to, for example,  demolish a gas station, to put in a newer, bigger gas station? That is a zero-sum gain to me.  Basically, it is rarely good to demolish anything of historic merit for speculative reasons. 

RLD: Regarding, overturning landmark designation, do Brooklyn communities, like Prospect Heights have any cause for concern?

SB: If Prospect Heights ever has its landmark designation status overturned, we will all have bigger problems. 

RLD: What does that mean?

SB: I mean, Prospect Heights would not be the first in line to be overturned. It would mean that the landmark process has been fatally crippled. It would put the parochial concerns of Prospect Heights far down on the list. 

RLD: On the subject of urban planning, recently I read an article by Edward T. McMahon,  which was re-posted on the HDC website. The title of the piece, “Density Without High-Rises? Thoughts About Positive Urban Growth”. One of the questions McMahon poses is, “Should new development shape the character of our cities — or should the character of our cities shape new development?”  How would you answer that?

SB: I happen to think that the character of our cities should shape new development. What makes a new project successful, on an economic and urban scale is the character of the city to begin with. People don’t want to live in nowhere.

RLD: Also on your website, as you well know, architecture critic Blair Kamin, in Preservation Magazine, quotes Chicago architect John Eifler in a recent article entitled "Historic Preservation and Green Architecture: Friends Or Foes?" by saying "Preservationists have to reinvent themselves-or they will become dinosaurs.”  Is that a fair statement? 

SB: No, this is not a fair statement. This is the voice of a short-sighted individual. Preservation practices are inherently sustainable. What can be more environmentally friendly than NOT demolishing and building something new? Don't get me started on climate control  - anyone with half a brain knows the best climate control is opening a window - which most new architecture bends over backwards to avoid - especially in large-scale buildings. This country was built on commercial architecture before air-conditioning existed. There used to be something called "air flow". I am not advocating for a return to Stone Age conditions but the "green construction" enthusiasts are exactly that: construction enthusiasts. 

RLD: Can you discuss some of the campaigns that the HDC has developed, like the Carnegie Libraries.  

SB: One of the commitments the HDC has made, when we have the time and resources, is to survey unprotected historic properties. Thus, one of our projects focused on the Carnegie Libraries, which is a wonderful collection of architecturally prominent buildings. Many of them designed by important architects, and best of all scattered throughout the city. In many cases, the Carnegie Library is the , a place marker to help create a community. Each library is a public building and not landmark protected. So, we did a survey of each library, so that when the library system upgrades, the process is conducted in a sensitive manner. Rather than unnecessarily adding on 3 new wings of glass and steel atop a limestone building, we hope to ensure the architectural integrity of each library by advocating for the original form.

RLD: Finally, regarding the current debate surrounding the LPC and the City Council's Proposal, is there anything prevailing, that you would like to say? And what may the public do to get involved in support of the LPC and HDC?

SB: Please pay attention to our website and contact your council member and tell them you are opposed to these damaging bills.