« Tuesday On The Record South Slopers Protest Two Pending BSA Appeals »
July 12, 2006
Wednesday Links
Metal Skin, Bond Street. Photo by Alexis Robie
Moving Hamilton's Home [NY Times]
Explosion May Have Increased Property Value [NY Post]
Rain Delay for East River Park [Curbed]
Shaker Peg Trim [Apartment Therapy]
Are 'Liars' Loans' Bad for Country? [Hot Property]
National Foreclosures Up 72% [Haute Blog]
Comments
Brownstoner,
I guess that second article destroys any remaining shred of doubt as to the wealth-destructive effect of landmarking, if you still had any.
I'm sure you remember the Fieldston landmarking decision in which you praised the "cooler heads that prevailed" and derided the unfortunate homeowners "who are too stupid" to decide whether or not to landmark for their own sake.
Posted by: iceberg at July 12, 2006 9:39 AM
Well, depends on what the other zoning rules are and the context. This one property will be worth more if someone can put up a sliver tower, sure, but if every beautiful old building in the area was demo'd and replaced with ugly tall buildings, the area would become less desirable and valuable, certainly on a per square foot basis.
Posted by: brownstoner at July 12, 2006 10:35 AM
Iceberg,
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Fieldston, from memory, is an entire district in the Bronx. Landmarking of that district should indeed increase property values over time, as the various graphs that Brownstoner has posted in the past indicate.
Dr. Bartha, on the other hand, destroyed one townhouse in one historic district. Fine, he can rebuild and generate wealth, but that is inapposite as to whether to designate a district as historic from the outset.
And, assuming the graphs mentioned above are valid, one could argue that the increase in value associated with Dr. Bartha's ability to rebuild (which, by the way, assumes compliance with the landmark facade rules) stems, at least partly in fact, from his property's location in the UES historic district.
Posted by: Archiefina at July 12, 2006 10:38 AM
"Landmarking of that district should indeed increase property values over time, as the various graphs that Brownstoner has posted in the past indicate."
I am not arguing about the data, I am merely pointing out that you and many others have gleemed the wrong impression from the data.
First, repeat after me: Increasing prices or values are not indicative of increasing wealth. (Presuming of course that our societal goal is to increase the wealth)
So I question you, is the world richer or poorer when prices increase?
What happens here is a constriction of productivity, lowering output and raising prices, which makes all of society poorer for it.
It's all elementary economics, even though the Chicago school has totally missed the boat.
Posted by: iceberg at July 12, 2006 11:17 AM
I don't see 'wealth destruction'. I see house purchased in 1980 for a few hundred thousand worth many millions - and all that creation of wealth is the catalyst for messy bitter divorce.
And article speculated prop was worth about same with or without house and part of that reason is that interior of house was nothing great.
Posted by: Petebklyn at July 12, 2006 11:17 AM
Iceberg,
No matter how many times I repeat after you, I, and perhaps others, have gleaned "an" impression from the data, not the "wrong" impression from the data. I would argue that price movements are not the only indication of a world being "richer or poorer" and that, rather, having an historically appropriate neighborhood also makes the world a richer place irrespective of what your econ textbook tells you.
Posted by: Archiefina at July 12, 2006 11:39 AM
Insults of econmic analysis aside, the only objective method to determine the market prefernces for resource allocation is through the price mechanism, which is also the reason why government intervention is so dastardly as it distorts the preferences of the market as a whole and manipulates it in favor of the vision of a select handful to whom the use or threat of state-imposed violence is not problemtic.
Since it was the pro-landmarkers who brought up what they think is data supporting their position on their imposition of private property rights, I only thought it necessary to engage them on the level of dollars and cents, and to point out how their justification for coercion is not well-founded in any economic sense.
Surely there is value in architecture, but there is no objective measurement of such which would allow intersubjective utility comparisons to arise so that proper cost-benefit analysis can be applied to determine wheher society is better off or not in the course of some authoritarians imposing their vision of NYC architecture upon other property owners.
But to some, ignorance is bliss, so go on and insult the only dismal science that can help you make rational determinations whether a certain course of actions are warranted.
Posted by: iceberg at July 13, 2006 12:46 PM
"Intersubjective utility comparisons."
Say what?
Wait a sec, having just seen "An Inconvenient Truth," maybe I do get it. I think iceberg's position can be summed up as, "Mmmmm.... gold bars.... yum."
Posted by: anon2 at July 13, 2006 4:25 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.