Even YIMBYs Can Support Preservation
By Alec Pruchnicki
There have been times when YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yard) like me, who want to build extensively, are at odds with preservationists and NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) who don’t. But there are also times when we can come together on a common goal, like preserving historic areas of lower Manhattan.
A recent magazine article seemed to suggest that building homes in Manhattan while preserving neighborhoods cannot occur simultaneously (“The Last NIMBY in a YIMBY Town ─ Andrew Berman’s crusade to preserve the West Village has put him at odds with just about everyone” by David Freedlander, Curbed, 9/24/26). The article initially focuses on Berman, the executive director of Village Preservation (VP). During my 20 years as a member and supporter of VP, I have argued with Berman on various housing issues and will probably do so in the future. However, I have always applauded his spectacular success in getting large areas of lower Manhattan and individual buildings designated as historic.
Although there are many inaccuracies in this article, let’s start with the title. Support for preservation up to the point of NIMBY opposition to some new construction is a lot more widespread than this assertion implies. Two recent major expansions of construction regulations were the City of Yes (COY) and the NYC Charter revisions. The COY passed the city council by a vote of 31-20 ─ about 60% ─ and the public referendum on the City Charter passed by a similar percentage. Forty percent opposition is not insignificant and so Berman’s success is partially due to major local support and not a lone quest by one person.
Where does this support come from? Freedlander argues that VP represents wealthy individuals who can afford spectacular homes inside and around the historic districts. Having a tiny one-bedroom co-op apartment a block from a historic district, and observing selling prices for nearby similar homes, I’m pretty sure the ridiculous market price my place will someday command will provide my heirs with a welcomed surprise. But most VP supporters of moderate income and assets who rent their apartments ─ and will never receive the financial benefit of historic preservation ─ make up the bulk of its membership. So how are VP policies made? Is it Berman’s dedication, VP staff research, decisions by the small prestigious board of directors, equal dedication by the large numbers of neighborhood residents, or some combination of these? In any case, Berman and VP are not at odds with “everyone.”
There are also some simple factual errors in the Curbed article. It states that preservation “prevents” renovation within the historic areas. I have sat in on several Community Board meetings where such renovations were presented and approved, although sometimes with a lot of paperwork, hurdles, and modifications. A few years ago, VP put out a booklet describing numerous renovations and modifications of buildings within historic areas. It also states that historic districts have lost about 1,000 housing units while nearby areas have added up to 65,000. If true, this is not surprising. Preservation is not supposed to expand housing but preserve what is already there, with some loss from deterioration with time, merging of apartments, or neglect.
But the major assumption is that preservation and housing expansion can’t coexist. Manhattan itself disproves this. Manhattan has the highest population density of any county in the U.S. by a wide margin ─ as well as one of the most extensive areas of historic preservation. Both usually coexist just fine, with occasional territorial disputes. In fact, this combination of development and preservation is one of the stellar attractions of Manhattan.
I have always felt that Greenwich Village is the most famous residential neighborhood on Earth. It has attracted countless artists, musicians, writers, actors, political movements, labor movements, and immigrants. It has been a relatively protected area for gays and Blacks when the rest of U.S. society targeted them. Often this was due to low rents. But that Greenwich Village is gone.
Yet, people still come. Why? Those of us who have relocated from the boroughs or from other parts of the U.S., like so many others, have put up with the high purchase prices and rents. Others were born and grew up here but have still remained, sometimes with the assistance of rent control or stabilization. Some managed to find run down town houses or empty SoHo lofts that hard work, time, and money have transformed into acceptable ─ and sometimes spectacular ─ residences. Gentrification throughout the area has made these options more difficult, but people still manage to move here. Some are wealthy, some trust-fund kids, some students sharing apartments, and some just get lucky and find the right place.
Most people will recognize these reasons and add some of their own. The countless bars, restaurants, shops, music/dance venues, theaters, and nearby museums and cultural sites have kept Villagers enjoying the late-night nature of the city that never sleeps. The bridge and tunnel people who come in from the boroughs and suburbs might work on Wall Street but they play in the Village, shop in SoHo, and owe much of it to preservation. Tourists, after their obligatory visit to Times Square, come downtown for the same reasons. From the dingiest dive bar or pizza joint to the most upscale restaurant, there is something for everyone. And shopping, lots of shopping.
And, they all bring money which keeps these places viable and adds to the city’s financial balance. The outrageous housing costs can result in outrageous real estate taxes. And if preservation increases homeowners’ value it will often pay for itself with increased taxes even in our archaic real estate tax system. This is why preservation is needed whenever possible. Exceptions occur, but that is a discussion for another day.
