Developers and social commentators have long attempted to blame the city’s housing crisis on historic preservation. But while the shortage of affordable housing in the five boroughs is undeniable, historic preservation has had nothing to do with it.
Only 4% of the properties in New York City have been selected for protection under the Landmarks Law. That means that 96% of the property in the five boroughs — 96% of all potential housing stock — is completely unaffected by the regulatory restrictions associated with historic preservation. Indeed, the notion that the designation and regulation of this relatively scant number of properties is somehow responsible for the city’s massive affordable housing crisis borders on completely absurd.
The city’s housing crisis began nearly a century ago during the Great Depression (more than 35 years before the Landmarks Law was even enacted), and has experienced a series of improvements and setbacks with the ebbs and flows of our developing and unpredictable economy. According to the April 2025 City Charter Revision Report, “New York City has been in a declared full-blown ‘Housing Emergency’ ” since 1960 — a full five years before the Landmarks Law was passed in 1965. Given this history, regulations implemented through statutes governing landmark preservation cannot rationally be considered responsible for our longstanding housing crisis.
So why the false narrative? Because historic preservation’s true competitors are luxury high-rise towers. The city’s landmarks — particularly those located in residential neighborhoods — are often situated in some of the more exclusive communities. This means that wealth-accumulating developers seeking to erect skyscrapers with expensive luxury apartments that feature the city’s most glorious vistas are the ones hardest hit by the regulatory restrictions that landmark designation typically imposes.
These restrictions include that individually-designated landmark buildings cannot be altered unless the work is done consistently with their original designs, which means that they can rarely be enlarged. Rules governing modification of buildings located in historic districts can be similarly restrictive, and include the additional requirement that any alterations of buildings within their confines be consistent with neighborhood character.
Consequently, if a developer desires to exploit a property, not for affordable housing, but rather for maximum economic return, the restrictions associated with historic preservation pose a significant impediment. And so, developers breed discontent by propagating the myth that landmarking has contributed to the housing crisis, not because they aspire to create affordable homes for the masses, but rather so that they can construct market-rate luxury apartments that generate the highest profit per unit.
Thus far, the luxury real estate industry’s strategic approach has been successful. One need only compare the skyline of today from that of just a decade ago to observe the extent to which luxury high rises have changed our cityscape from an assortment of contextually-developed neighborhoods into a vertically-driven urban sprawl, with stalk-like glass and steel buildings that now hulk over New York’s one-time idyllic communities.
While construction of luxury high-rise buildings has experienced virtually unimpeded growth, the housing crisis has, if anything, gotten much worse, with the average two-bedroom apartment renting for nearly $5,000 per month. In short, those spreading the lie that more high-rise construction and less preservation are the keys to solving our affordability crisis are the same people who are building market-rate housing that only the super wealthy can afford.
As an alternative, we propose developing landmark properties to bring about a substantial reduction in housing prices. This can be achieved by increasing housing stock through adaptive re-use of landmarks — specifically, permitting owners of these special properties to re-develop their interiors into affordable apartment buildings, while maintaining their exteriors consistently with architectural, cultural and historic character.
Providing owners of landmark-protected properties with economic incentives, including tax credits and abatements, to encourage transformation of building interiors into affordable apartments (while maintaining the historical and architectural integrity of building exteriors) could lead to the development of tens of thousands of affordable housing units rather than luxury pied-à-terres. Simple economic principles dictate that, once the number of available affordable housing units increases, prices will inevitably go down.
The potential benefits of adaptive reuse could well pave the way to making the city affordable once again, while maintaining the historical and architectural integrity that has made our metropolis the one-of-a-kind city it always been.
Hiller is an historic preservation lawyer and advocate. Brady is executive director of Save Harlem Now!