[Steve_Seattle]

"I don’t see anything about it being designated a “historic landmark”; so I don’t see how anyone could stop them."

I even have problems with the "historic landmark" designation. It is often applied to buildings that are not in fact historic in the normal sense, but which for one reason or another appeal to the historic preservation boards as worth saving in their original form. In these cases, the actions of the boards can be almost confiscatory, either placing huge financial burdens on the property owners, or preventing them from making changes to make the property suitable for the owners' intended purpose.

[bert]

-— the boards -—

The actions take on near religious fervor

[logic101.net]

I’m not a fan of “historic preservation” in many cases either; it tends to be overused.