Suppose you own a building that has some beautiful exterior features or historical significance, but it has not yet been landmarked? Would you destroy the beautiful features (or tear down the building and replace it with an ugly, purely-functional building) in order to preserve more control over your building? If many millions of uncompensated lost dollars are at stake, what would your business sense tell you to do?
Or suppose you are about to build a new building in NYC post-Penn Central. Do you instruct the architects to build it beautiful or to build it plain and functional? Which choice serves your economic self-interest?
The unintended consequences of legislation can be disastrous.
See the following Gotham Times article:
Preservationists See Bulldozers Charging Through a Loophole ("In a strategy familiar to preservationists, property owners rush to obtain demolition permits so their structures won’t receive landmark protection.")
See also: An Opaque and Lengthy Road to Landmark Status
