Another solution was to call it a taking (which it was) and allow it after the city paid the property owners (which the city could have done). Basically, what

Another solution was to call it a taking (which it was) and allow it after the city paid the property owners (which the city could have done). Basically, what the Court did was signal to developers that they must never build anything pretty or legendary that 50 years later might get termed a landmark. And I say this even though I'm ecstatic that Grand Central Terminal was saved, and very sad that Penn Station was not. These two opinions can co-exist. IMO the city should just have paid for the taking, or found some other way to compensate the owners. And the Court should have said so.