• About
    • Links to Articles, Academic Papers and Books
  • Market Urbansim Podcast
  • Adam Hengels
  • Stephen Smith
  • Emily Hamilton
  • Jeff Fong
  • Nolan Gray
  • Contact

Market Urbanism

Liberalizing cities | From the bottom up

“Market Urbanism” refers to the synthesis of classical liberal economics and ethics (market), with an appreciation of the urban way of life and its benefits to society (urbanism). We advocate for the emergence of bottom up solutions to urban issues, as opposed to ones imposed from the top down.
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Podcast
  • Economics
  • housing
  • planning
  • Transportation
  • zoning
  • Urban[ism] Legends
  • How to Fight Gentrification

Preservationists hyperventilate over extra story in Chelsea

January 6, 2011 By Stephen Smith

About a month ago I put a post where I discussed how overzealous historical preservationists were halting necessary incremental development, and in the long run guaranteeing that the buildings will have to be completely razed if cities are ever to regain a modicum of economic rationality. I mentioned the case of a building in Chelsea whose top story was added illegally (or so the city claims – the details are murky) and will now be torn down, and I was surprised to see that the NYT devoted a whole article to it in yesterday’s.

What’s interesting to me is all the hyperbolic statements that preservationists are making, especially considering that the building’s supposed significance (it was home to an abolitionist who helped slaves escape) has little to nothing to do with its architecture:

“It’s just come to this desperate situation,” said Fern Luskin, an architectural historian who lives on the block and has taken up the cause of protecting the historic integrity of the building, a Greek Revival house at 339 West 29th Street, between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. “It’s like taking a serrated knife and lopping off our history,” she said of the addition. “It will permanently disfigure the evidence of what happened there.”

Of course, except for the cornice at the top, there’s no “lopping off” going on here – it was an addition, for Christ’s sake!

And this I guess is why it’s so urgent to preserve the roof, which no one but the maintenance man will ever even see:

The Gibbonses, abolitionists before the Civil War, used the house as a meeting place, where they helped escaping slaves en route to Canada. “They were like the Schindler of their day, taking such a chance, harboring slaves that were running for their lives,” said Ms. Luskin, referring to Oskar Schindler, who rescued Jews during the Holocaust.

In a letter cited by the landmarks commission in its designation report, Joseph Choate, a friend of the Gibbonses, wrote that he had dined with them along with William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist, and a black man “on his way to freedom.” The Hopper Gibbons house was attacked and burned during the Draft Riots of 1863. Two of the Gibbonses’ daughters escaped the mob by climbing over adjacent roofs to a waiting carriage on Ninth Avenue, descending through the house at 355 West 29th Street, where Abigail Gibbons’s sister and her family lived.

But of course, like always, this is obviously more about aesthetics than the actual history:

Ms. Luskin, who with Julie Finch is a chairwoman of the Friends of the Hopper Gibbons Underground Railroad Site and Lamartine Place Historic District, said that on an aesthetic level the building’s alterations disrupt the street’s uniform cornice line.

…except, as you can clearly see with the NYT’s nifty little Flash app, there was no uniform cornice line to begin with!!! How the fact checker missed that one is beyond me – before I even read the article I noticed the uneven cornice line.

As usual, outside of attempting to contact the developer (who obviously isn’t going to speak on the record during ongoing litigation), the Times makes no attempt to seek out contrary opinions. If they had asked me (ya hear that, Robin Pogrebin?), I would say that by ensuring the neighborhood is preserved without additions, they are driving out, through artificially inflated prices, precisely the kinds of low-income (dare I say, black??) tenants that the Gibbonses would have championed.

Tweet

Share this:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Reddit
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: density, nyc, preservation

About Stephen Smith

I graduated Spring 2010 from Georgetown undergrad, with an entirely unrelated and highly regrettable major that might have made a little more sense if I actually wanted to become an international trade lawyer, but which alas seems good for little else.

I still do most of the tweeting for Market Urbanism

Stephen had previously written on urbanism at Forbes.com. Articles Profile; Reason Magazine, and Next City

  • Rhywun

    I think preservation of individual buildings on grounds of notable historic events is defensible; what is not defensible are the giant “districts” that artificially freeze whole neighborhoods in time – and incidentally ensure that only the super-wealthy can live there. Nothing against the super-wealthy – except when they use the power of government to enrich themselves….

  • Alon Levy

    The annoying thing is that adding floors to buildings is a much more humanistic way to increase density than the alternative, which is to knock down buildings and replace them with glass-and-steel towers.

    That said, is the issue here really historical preservationism, or is it NIMBYs who use historical preservation as an excuse to keep their property values high? That is, do general-purpose historical preservationists support this move?

  • Louis Haywood

    Amen to article and comment. Allow incremental additions. The whole city is historical at some level.

Market Urbanism Podcast

Connect With Us

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Recent Posts

  • Mini review: Vanishing New York, by Jeremiah Moss
  • The Distorting Effects of Transportation Subsidies
  • The Rent is Too High and the Commute is Too Long: We Need Market Urbanism
  • The Progressive Roots of Zoning
  • “Curb Rights” at 20: A Summary and Review
  • High Rents: Are Construction Costs the Culprit?
  • Cities Should Not Design for Autonomous Vehicles
  • Does Density Raise Housing Prices?
  • The “Geographically Constrained Cities” Fantasy
  • The Role for State Preemption of Local Zoning
  • Exempting Suburbia: How suburban sprawl gets special treatment in our tax code
  • old posts
My Tweets

Market Sites Urbanists should check out

  • Cafe Hayek
  • Culture of Congestion
  • Environmental and Urban Economics
  • Foundation for Economic Education
  • Let A Thousand Nations Bloom
  • Marginal Revolution
  • Mike Munger | Kids Prefer Cheese
  • Neighborhood Effects
  • New Urbs
  • NYU Stern Urbanization Project
  • Peter Gordon's Blog
  • The Beacon
  • ThinkMarkets

Urbanism Sites capitalists should check out

  • Austin Contrarian
  • City Comforts
  • City Notes | Daniel Kay Hertz
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Emergent Urbanism
  • Granola Shotgun
  • Old Urbanist
  • Pedestrian Observations
  • Planetizen Radar
  • Reinventing Parking
  • streetsblog
  • Strong Towns
  • Systemic Failure
  • The Micro Maker
  • The Urbanophile

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2025 Market Urbanism

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.