To the Editor:
Re “Preservation Has Become the Enemy of Evolution,” by Binyamin Appelbaum (Opinion, Jan. 7):
We must destroy New York in order to save it? And discard our history and heritage for expediency’s sake?
New York City needs more, not less, historical memory. What we do not need is a return to the housing policies of Robert Moses.
Mr. Appelbaum writes that much of Brooklyn Heights has been fossilized. Would he say that Paris has been “fossilized” because its city leaders preserve its buildings? There’s no other place like Brooklyn Heights in the United States. But there are countless other cities around the globe with soulless, interchangeable skyscrapers. We mustn’t sacrifice what makes New York unique and beautiful simply for new buildings and for uncreative solutions to pressing housing problems.
We have lots of unused commercial and industrial buildings in the city that can be converted to housing. We have millions of square feet of office space that will never be used again, despite the desires of wealthy developers. The solution isn’t to destroy the homes that are already built and have been preserved.
The original Penn Station was demolished and replaced with a monstrosity of a train station and a nondescript office tower — and we are poorer for it.
I hope that we’ve learned something, and that our city’s leaders will heed the lessons of history — and not the proposals put forward in this essay.
Daniel Dolgicer
New York
To the Editor:
In pitting preservation against housing, Binyamin Appelbaum presents a false choice: Either New York can protect the historic buildings that contribute to its unique history and culture or it can build more housing.
His premise was directly contradicted by an Opinion guest essay the same day, “New York Has Room for Housing,” by Vishaan Chakrabarti, showing that more than a million new New Yorkers could be housed without “altering its historic districts.”
But just because New York could grow without touching its historic buildings does not mean it should. Most preservationists recognize that rehabilitating and reusing historic buildings for housing is key to addressing the country’s housing shortage.
Last month, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation formalized this view. It adopted a policy statement that will streamline its own review processes, which affect thousands of federally funded housing units annually. The policy statement also identifies tax, zoning, building code and other policy reforms necessary to fast-track office-to-housing conversions, increase residential density in historic districts and improve accessibility.
The Advisory Council stands ready to work with cities like New York to implement, test and refine progressive preservation strategies that allow more people to live in and benefit from the inspiring places that connect us to our past.
Sara C. Bronin
Washington
The writer is chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
To the Editor:
Re “Preservation Has Become the Enemy of Evolution” and “New York Has Room for Housing”:
As a former New Yorker and city planner, I read these articles with interest. No reasonable person could argue that New York City does not need more housing. Vishaan Chakrabarti’s article provides an intriguing path for this development, one that would respect New York’s rich urban fabric.
Yet it is myopic to focus on the city alone. New York City is surrounded by suburban areas with more population than the city itself. Much of this area is well served by rail and bus transit. While some communities have built housing around these stations, there are many others that have not. Low-rise and mid-rise housing could be built in these communities while respecting their character.
New York suburbs have been among the resistant to needed housing in the country. The New York metropolitan area has the second most restrictive zoning of 48 large American metropolitan areas, according to the National Zoning and Land Use Database. New York suburbs have been fighting furiously against Gov. Kathy Hochul’s sensible reforms to spur suburban housing, reforms with goals like those in California and Massachusetts. New York has a regional housing shortage that should be addressed throughout the region.
Nathan Landau
Berkeley, Calif.
Moving the Needle on Trump
To the Editor:
The editorial writers and columnists at The New York Times have repeatedly, and convincingly, provided reasoned arguments to an electorate that must reject a return of Donald Trump as president. There is no doubt that he is dangerous for our country, and likely for the world in general.
Yes, many of us Times readers likely agree with these sentiments, as can be seen in the daily letters section. But this is an echo chamber that may make us feel strong and committed to the cause. I imagine that it does nothing to sway the opinions of those who support Mr. Trump and do not read The Times.
As the “paper of record,” what can The Times do to get the message out to those who depend on Fox or Breitbart for their news? Is there a creative way to provide a clear and convincing message that may move the needle just enough to sidestep this impending disaster?
I look to you, the leaders in informing the public, to figure out a way forward.
Jonathan D. Glass
Atlanta
To the Editor:
Re “In Russia, Even the Smallest Dissent Is Silenced” (front page, Jan. 13):
Totalitarianism, Putin style, shouldn’t surprise us. One expects no less from a former K.G.B. officer with a tight grip on the reins of political power.
What is disturbing, as the article describes it, is that “people increasingly inform on their fellow citizens.” In Stalinist times, neighbors often snitched on neighbors for purely selfish reasons: grabbing the victims’ apartments or their communal spaces.
Contemporary reasons for snitching are apparently less personal but more insidious and dangerous; they reflect a form of the aggressive nationalism promoted by Vladimir Putin’s regime. Anyone seen as maligning “the special military operation” in Ukraine, no matter how trivially or privately, is somehow rendered an enemy of Russia.
Louis Menashe
Brooklyn
The writer is professor emeritus of Russian history, Polytechnic Institute of N.Y.U.
To the Editor:
Re “Turning to an Old Model to Cut My Screen Time,” by Kashmir Hill (Sunday Business, Jan. 7), in which she described switching to a flip phone for a month:
I’ve accomplished much the same thing, simply by removing myself from social media. I am not on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, anything. If it’s social media, I am not on it. I also turn on a phone feature that accepts no calls between 10 at night and 8 in the morning, except from select people.
As you are reading this message from my iPhone, I clearly use a smartphone. But in addition to the above-mentioned steps, I will set it down on the counter and walk away for an hour or more without regret.
Susan Hinton
Santa Clara, Calif.