Monday, September 22, 2008
In many American cities, any famous and historic building that was more than 80 years ago, even if it had been remodeled thirty years ago, wouldn’t be torn down. Why? Because it would be designated an historic landmark, even if its owner didn’t want the designation. So why wasn’t Yankees Stadium, which hosted its final game last night, made a landmark? I’ve wondered this, and here’s the New York Times' less-than-definitive answer. Once can speculate that the owners didn’t want the designation, and the city didn’t push it on a building that is useful only as a baseball stadium, but one that is outmoded in an age that demands maximum luxury and profits from such a venue. Surely the city, which contributed to the cost of the new stadium complex, wanted the old building to disappear, even though some shed a tear.
What’s the lesson from this? Perhaps the lesson is that not all historic designations make sense, and that sometimes a building simply outlives its usefulness and demolition should be allowed. And not just for plans that will bring a lot of tax revenue and publicity to the city government …
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Jesse Richardson on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
- Samuel on Schleicher and Rauch on local regulation of the sharing economy
- Timothy Wayne George on Is Reed v. Town of Gilbert an important sign case?
- Jessie Owley on 10th Circuit Disallows Conservation Easement Deduction Where Mortgage Not Subordinated at Time of Donation
- "Basic Human Right" to Farm Your Lawn?
- CFP: Fordham Law: Sharing Economy, Sharing City: Urban Law and the New Economy
- Fennell and Peñalver on Exactions Creep
- March 11-13: Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute's annual conference: Western Places/Western Spaces: Building Fair & Resilient Communities
- Local Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing