New Updates from the Landmarks Preservation Commission

Glass boxes seemed to be the theme for February at the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

On February 5^th a proposal to alter windows and construct a five-story glass rooftop addition on the landmarked Domino Sugar Factory was presented. The pictures are truly worth a thousand words, but if you need words – the addition and its mechanicals are far too massive. In addition to the addition, the size and shape of nearly every window opening was proposed to be changed and more windows added subtly changing the look of the façade (if you are able to tear your eyes away from the roof long enough to look at the façade, that is.) HDC’s testimony questioned had these alterations happened before landmarking, the LPC may have declared it too altered to be considered for designation. The Municipal Arts Society, Williamsburg Greenpoint Preservation Alliance, Society for the Architecture of the City, and Brooklyn’s Community Board 1 amongst others spoke against the addition. Although some commissioners questioned why the addition was essential to enable the affordable housing component of the plan as the applicants claimed and a few began to comment on the size of the addition, the discussion was cut off and will continue at some point in the future (no word when exactly).

A week later, the proposal to add a glass boutique hotel to the Battery Maritime Building, the 1909 Beaux-Arts style ferry terminal that was recently restored, returned to a public meeting. Compared to the plan presented at a Public Hearing in October, this plan included adding replicas of the long-lost spires and setting the addition back a foot or so to accommodate them. Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz voted against the addition as she could not justify adding five stories to what is essentially a four-story landmark. Meanwhile, Commissioner Margery Pearlmutter voted against the proposal as she preferred a rooftop addition like that seen in the first proposal that did not act as a backdrop. Despite those two rather opposite opposing votes, the proposal was approved. Since the meeting, it has been announced that there will not be a food market in the terminal’s great hall as had been hoped for and a search for another public use continues. At least we can rest assured there will be a hotel.

Coming up on March 18^th is an all Research Department Day at LPC. We hear that Fiske Terrace-Midwood Park will finally be designated. The neighborhood of free-standing homes in Victorian Flatbush was calendared in September of 2006 and had a very positive public hearing in October of last year. FTMP residents, HDC looks forward to congratulating you in next month’s e-bulletin!

Rumored to be heard on the 18^th is the NoHo Historic District Extension. NoHo is defined roughly as the area between Astor Place and Houston Street and bounded by Mercer Street and the Bowery. About half of the neighborhood was designated as the NoHo Historic District in 1999 and the eastern stretch of Bleecker Street to Bowery was protected in 2003, but this left the rich historic streetscapes of Bond, Great Jones and East Fourth Streets vulnerable to teardowns and inappropriate new construction and a greater NoHo historic District has long been on HDC’s wish list. HDC and others advocated for more inclusive boundaries than what was presented at a community meeting in December, and LPC has now included two more buildings on the north side of East 4^th Street in the proposed district. We continue to ask that soft sites including empty lots and garages on corners and the north side of East 4th Street and along the Bowery. You can send a statement of support for the district to comments@lpc.nyc.gov. For more information on this neighborhood, you can also visit HDC’s Neighborhood at Risk.

While they might be a long shot for calendaring at the 18^th’s meeting, possible historic districts are brewing in West Chelsea, Douglaston Hill and Bedford-Stuyvesant’s Alice and Agate Courts.

HDC Releases 2007 Conference Summary & Evaluation

Just in time for this year’s Preservation Conference, Preservation 2030, HDC is pleased to announce the release of an official summary and evaluation of the 2007 conference, “Preserving the Past, Planning for the Future.”

The topics covered at last year’s event linked preservation to a host of other urban planning principles and new, progressive trends in sustainable design. This year’s lineup will likewise address new ideas and resources for community preservation, using the Mayor’s PlaNYC 2030 as a starting point. We hope that you will join us this year as we move the conversation forward, examining preservation and its importance to the future of our city.

Click here to view the entire document and click here to register for this year’s conference event, Preservation 2030.

Updates at the Landmarks Commission

While some of us pine for spring and digging in gardens, more than a few applications have appeared lately before LPC to dig for other reasons. It seems people have realized that LPC will not allow rear yard extensions that take up the full garden space, so why not build under ground?An application was presented in November to excavate the entire yard at 52 West 11th Street and build an underground regulation length lap swimming pool and wine cellar.

Neighbors expressed concern for the safety of their homes and the health of their trees, and HDC, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation and the Society for the Architecture of the City all spoke against the proposal. Commissioners were uncomfortable with that much excavation and asked the applicant to come back with a scaled down plan. They returned in December with the same plan and reassurances that it would be safe. Although the Commissioners were soothed by the applicant’s use of very reliable, respected engineers, they still wanted a less intrusive excavation. Besides concern for the safety of neighboring structures, there was debate among the Commissioners over how to keep the garden cores of historic districts like Greenwich Village green (although they were told by LPC counsel that that is not something the Commission regulates). In January the plan was approved two feet shorter in the rear (the set back was required after it was discovered that the building behind 52 had footings right up to the property line), the ceiling reduced a bit, a light and air shaft filled, and reassurances that all sorts of plantings including “serious trees” could grow in the 30 inches of soil that would be atop the pool.

In December, the owners of 61 Bank Street also presented an application that called for a significant amount of excavation in order to attach their Greek Revival 1840 rowhouse with the backhouse built in 1841 (the ultimate rear yard addition). Concern was voiced about the excavation, and the applicants were asked to narrow the connection and not go so deep. A commissioner or two wanted to see an alternate plan for an at grade connection also in order to avoid the whole matter. The revised proposal has not yet returned to the LPC.

The Commission did allow for the excavation and redesign of the back yard at 13 West 9^th Street. The owners, not looking to building anything, wanted to lower their yard about six feet so that the basement door opened into the garden. Vice Chair Pablo Vengoechea voted against the plan wanting terracing rather than a full excavation.

Last year HDC’s District Lines addressed the perils of excavations. The latest victim is 287 Broadway/55 Reade Street, aka “The Leaning Tower of Broadway”. In November excavation for a new structure on the adjacent property led to unsafe conditions in 287, closing the ground floor pizzeria and putting the residents out on the street. The individual landmark, just one door down from the edge of the TriBeCa South Historic District (that one door happens to be a part of the new building that wraps around onto Reade Street), is now rather precariously braced and tilting ominously. For conspiracy theorist out there – the building is across the street from the Department of Buildings at 280 Broadway.

The NoHo Historic District Extension was calendared for a March 18^th hearing. The map of the proposed district differs slightly from an earlier map presented at a public meeting. The new boundaries include 25 and 27 East 4^th Street, but omits large portions of the north side of 4^th Street, development sites along the Bowery and the Lafayette/Mulberry Triangle, all of which HDC and other advocates had asked to be included.

There was a nice change in the air in Individual Landmark land – property owners who are in favor of landmarking. The 1911 Congregation Tifereth Israel in Corona, Queens, had a favorable hearing and will be voted on on February 12^th. The Bukharian congregation has been working with the New York Landmarks Conservancy’s Sacred Sites program for the past decade on the restoration of the synagogue, and city landmarking would make the project eligible for further funding. The American Bank Note Company Printing Plant Building in the Bronx, first heard back 1992, also had a positive hearing.Its owners Taconic Investments, who also own the landmarked Child’s Restaurant on Coney Island’s Boardwalk, said they plan to create office space in the building. The former Fire Engine Company No. 54 at 304 West 47^th Street (home to Forbidden Broadway), nearly identical to the former Fire Engine Company No. 53 on East 104^th Street heard last October, was calendared.

Historic Districts Council Calls for Landmarks Hearing on Historic Queens Church

1840’s Church Designed by Architect of Trinity Church To Be Demolished Without Question Unless Action Taken By City

On January 22, 2008, notice was posted that Always Fast expediting firm will be obtaining demolition permits for St. Savior’s Church in Maspeth, Queens. A distinctive local icon, St. Savior’s has been under threat of demolition since being sold to Maspeth Development in 2005. Despite sustained public outcry and seemingly obvious merit, the 1847 church never received a Public Hearing before the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

The time has come for the City to act to save this important landmark before it is torn down and lost forever.

St. Savior’s deserves its day in court.

The Case For Landmarking

St. Savior’s was designed and built beginning in 1847 by a significant architect, Richard Upjohn. Upjohn (1802-1878) was arguably the nation’s finest architect of churches. Among his surviving New York City works are designated landmarks such as Trinity Church and Church of the Ascension in Manhattan and Brooklyn’s Church of the Pilgrims, Grace Church and the gates of Green-Wood Cemetery. The design for St. Savior’s was used as a prototype for other churches, and sketches very similar to the church were included in Upjohn’s influential 1852 book Upjohn’s Rural Architecture. The church was founded by prominent local pioneers, including U.S. Congressman James Maurice, poet Garrit Furman and the son-in-law of Dewitt Clinton, Judge David S. Jones. and its importance is increased by being a rare New York City survivor of a once popular building type, a wooden, village church. Finally, in addition to its architectural and historical significance, St. Savior’s is an archaeologically sensitive site. Uncovered artifacts date from the Revolutionary War and there are believed to be buried remains of both early parishioners and Native Americans. For more information about St. Savior's, see http://www.junipercivic.com/HistoryArticle.asp?nid=9

Lack of Rationale for City Inaction

After a 2006 Request for Evaluation, a staff committee of LPC ruled that repairs undertaken after a 1970 fire made the church ineligible for landmarking stating, “the original fabric of the complex has been altered beyond recognition”. This decision runs contrary to other findings and practices of the agency:

*A requirement of original fabric (or a certain percentage of) is not set forth in the Landmarks Law. The Law states only that a building needs to at least 30 years of age and be of architectural, cultural or historic significance.

*The architectural conservation firm of Jablonski Building Conservation studied the structure and concluded that most of its historic fabric, including the decorative wood shingles and other Gothic Revival details, remained intact.

*Among the church’s alterations is its vinyl siding, an easily removable offence. LPC recently held a very positive hearing for the Congregation Tifereth Israel in Corona, Queens. The 1911 wood-framed synagogue is now covered in stucco, and its wood porch has been replaced with brick steps. Many other landmarks throughout the city have had similar alterations. The synagogue is expected to be landmarked in February.

Landmarking is not only reserved for pristine buildings, but is used to promote and encourage the proper restoration of historic structures.

Another 2 Columbus Circle?

That the LPC has refused to hold a Public Hearing for St. Savior’s, regardless of its outcome, points to a failure of the City to fulfill its mandated responsibility of surveying, identifying and protecting New York’s historic buildings. This is not the first time in recent years that the Landmarks Preservation Commission has failed to respond to a community’s pleas to consider historically and architecturally significant buildings. Like the recent case of another architecturally significant building, 2 Columbus Center, St. Savior’s is an unfortunate example of an important building that mysteriously has not even been given a chance for survival. Unlike 2 Columbus Circle however, there is almost a unanimity of community, scholarly and political support for the designation. So what’s the hold-up?

The Path to Preservation

Over the past few years, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has stepped in at the 11th hour to save buildings from demolition. Wood-framed 19th-century buildings such as the Elwell House in Prospect Heights, the Elkins House in Crown Heights North, the Bedell House in Tottenville and the Richardson House in Arrochar are only still standing because of the courageous and principled stance of the LPC in bring these structures forward for consideration despite (in one case) a pending demolition permit. Consideration and even a hearing by the LPC is not a guarantee of preservation – the Dakota Stables, 150 Taylor Street and Mariner’s Asylum were all recently heard by the LPC and rejected for landmark status – but the integrity of the process and the agency were strengthened by these actions. Evidence should be openly submitted by both sides, people’s opinions should be heard, and the Commission’s decisions and reasonings should be made public.

HDC demands that the Landmarks Preservation Commission hold a public hearing to consider St. Savior’s Church in Maspeth, Queens as a potential New York City landmark. This important historic site is about to be torn down and so far, the public has been denied “our day in court”. The next move is up to the City and the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

HDC Response to AIA Zoning Text Amendments

The Value of Contextual Zoning to Communities

The Zoning Resolution determines the physical height and shape of New York City by guiding development. Among the various existing zoning districts, contextual zones have been specifically drafted to produce buildings that are consistent with existing neighborhood character. In an attempt to preserve their quality of life and the scale and character of their neighborhoods, communities throughout New York City, have worked long and hard to alter their zoning appropriately. Over the past few years , due to the unprecedented development pressure affecting every neighborhood in the city, the Department of City Planning and community groups have worked together to create balanced, contextual zoning on hundreds of blocks in all five boroughs. Numerous other neighborhoods have been working, in some cases for years, to try to gain these protections.

The citywide zoning text amendments proposed by the American Institute of Architects/New York City Chapter seek to undo this hard work and revert to blanket rules that not only allow but encourage out-of-context development. One-size-fits-all, blanket zoning measures do not fit the rich variety of New York City’s neighborhoods. The Historic Districts Council is opposed to the adoption of these amendments.

Flawed Proposal Process That Circumvents Public Review

In addition to objections to individual parts of this proposal, HDC objects to the way in which these amendments have been proposed, which sought to circumvent the public review process which allow communities to have a voice in guiding development in their own neighborhoods. These amendments, which affect the majority of New York City residents and property owners, have largely gone without review at the majority of New York City’s 59 community boards and are now scheduled to consideration of adoption by the City Planning Commission.

The AIA claims that it has been working on the proposed amendments for three years, during which time many communities were working on their own rezoning campaigns and unprecedented number of blocks within the city have been rezoned. However, the first public disclosure of their effort was in late October 2007, which did not allow for the issue to be brought up at Community Board meetings until December during the holiday season. In addition to Community Boards and neighborhood organizations, elected officials have also been caught off guard by these amendments and their timetable. Only once public concern began to mount, was the initially projected an approval date of January 7th revised. Since this proposal is coming from a private organization and not the City Planning Commission, the city is not responsible for necessary educational outreach these changes require. Instead, the AIA, an industry group which represents 4,000 professionals, has taken the lead in determining the development agenda for the city.

Regardless of any possible merit of any aspect of the proposals, HDC believes that the process by which they have been proposed is flawed in the extreme and runs counter to every notion of community-based planning.

Runs Counter to City Goals for Future Development

In addition to disregarding the years of work from communities about how the people of who live in neighborhoods would like to see them thrive, these amendments also disregard and ignore many of the planning principles articulated in Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC 2030. A principle tenet of the Mayor’s plan is the goal of making New York the world’s greenest city over the next generation. Three of the proposals (nos. 2,4 and 6) act to encourage the demolition of existing buildings to clear the way for larger development. Preservation and adaptive reuse is “green;” restoration produces less waste and less landfill than demolition, rehabilitating older buildings uses less energy than new construction and preservation efforts create a market for skilled local labor. As the AIA’s Newsletter of the Committee on the Environment noted in Spring 2007, reporting on the National Summit of the Greening of Historic Properties, “the greenest building is the one already built”. Furthermore, the decrease in open space suggested by two of the zoning amendments (proposals 1 and 6) would probably result in less plantings and landscape, which in addition to its esthetic detriment, would diminish needed absorption of ground water – a situation which the recently-approved yard amendments have sought to remedy. Finally, the overall probable loss of air and light due to many of these proposals (specifically nos. 2,3,4 and 5) certainly does nothing to improve the quality of life for residents.

Affordable Housing Trojan Horse

Additionally, PlaNYC 2030 proposes the development of affordable housing to remedy both the existing affordable housing crisis as well as the projected shortage. It should be noted that while affordable housing is mentioned as a goal of these proposed changes, nothing states that these must or will be used for such housing. Developers could just as easily, and most likely will, build larger, market-rate residences whenever possible. This is a given. HDC finds it particularly galling for citywide zoning text to be revised with such broad strokes for more “flexible design” and “more efficient floor plans” while ignoring the very real problem of providing adequate affordable housing.

What Should Happen

In the best possible scenario, this proposal would be withdrawn and the City Planning Commission would embark on a study of these amendments, which, if deemed desirable, could be introduced individually by the agency to all its community partners. Anything less would a betrayal of New Yorkers’ faith in our planning commission and an enormous and unnecessary concession to those who wish to spur development at any cost to the welfare and continued health of our city.

The Proposed Amendments

Note: None of these amendments increase allowable Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). What they do is maximize buildable F.A.R. by modifying and increasing the allowable building envelopes. In practice, this may result in larger building than what would otherwise be built. Also please note that all image and diagrams courtesy of AIA/NYC.

Proposal 1: Full Lot Coverage on Small Corner Lots in R6-R10

Proposal 2: Allow Multi-family buildings on Small Lots in R6-R10

Proposal 3: Allow Dormer on Rear setbacks in R6-R10

Proposal 4: Increase Maximum Base Height in R6-R10

Proposal 5: Allow Bigger Building Bulkheads

Proposal 6: Waive Side Yards Requirements in R3-1, R3-2, R4 and R5 (non-contextual)

Proposal 1: Full Lot Coverage on Small Corner Lots in R6-R10

Existing: 80% maximum lot coverage




Proposed: 100% lot coverage on corner lots of 5,000 sq. ft. or less.

The current zoning for residential zones R6-R10 allow for a maximum lot coverage of 80% on corner lots. This proposal would allow full 100% on lots less than 5,000 square feet. While this could potentially reduce the height of some new structures, it would in return decrease open space at the street level. Part of the characteristic rhythm of New York City’s streetscape are their irregularity. While many rowhouse districts do have unbroken street walls, most city blocks tend to have irregular gaps somewhere on the street. Although a desire for consistency is admirable, the resultant ceaseless solidity of the street wall has the potential to become over-bearing, especially when it leads to an extended commercial presence turning the corner from the avenue onto residential side streets, a pattern which is typical in many high-density rowhouse areas. In addition, this proposal could also have the unintended consequence of blocking side windows in adjacent buildings not presently blocked because of the set back. While windows at the lot-line windows of buildings are not protected even by current zoning, in many instances, these windows are existed in place for over 70 years and under current zoning, would continue to exist.

Proposal 2: Allow Multi-family buildings on Small Lots in R6-R10

Existing: Lots less than 18’ wide or smaller than 1700 sq. ft. limited to 1 or 2 dwelling units.

Proposed: Number of dwellings determined by density regulations. New building would be in the R8B envelope (75 foot height limit).

Current zoning regulations state that on building lots less than 18 feet wide or smaller than 1,700 square feet in R6-R10 zones, only a one- or two-family units can be built. The proposed amendments seeks to change that so that the density regulations would determine number of dwelling units, not exceeding an R8B envelope (a maximum of 75 feet).

This change has the potential to be extraordinarily detrimental to existing historic building stock throughout the city. While the typical New York building lot is 20 feet wide, it is not uncommon in older neighborhoods or areas with irregular street patterns to have existing buildings on smaller lots. Many of these buildings are multi-family and thus they are protected against demolitions by the current zoning. If multi-unit buildings were allowed as-of-right on smaller lots, there would be a large incentive to demolish the existing buildings (the majority of which are under-built according to their current allowable F.A.R.) and replace them with new, larger buildings. In addition to the potential damage to the city’s historic fabric, this scenario would cause displacement of current residents and is a back-door allowing the proliferation of uncharacteristically tall “sliver” buildings.

Proposal 3: Allow Dormer on Rear setbacks in R6-R10

Existing: dormer allowed in front setback, but not rear setback.
Proposed: allows dormers in rear setback.

Currently, “dormers” are allowed in R6-R10 zones only on front setbacks. The amendment would permit “dormers “ on rear setbacks. One specific problem with this proposal is the meaning of “dormer”, which is not defined under the building code. As it stands, this proposal would allow potentially massive incursions into the rear sky exposure plane, further cluttering the already miniscule backyards of apartment rows and diminishing the light and air of valuable garden cores. In addition, by raising the rear profile, these new dormers could block existing lot line windows in adjacent buildings and throw rear balconies into shadow. Clearly, the reasoning behind this amendment is to maximize the potential F.A.R. at the expense of the shared public realm.

Proposal 4: Increase Maximum Base Height in R6-R10

Existing: Fixed base height determined by zoning.




Proposed: Allow 25% taller maximum base to match existing buildings.

Currently, base heights for new construction are determined by zoning. In the contextual zones, maximum base height is mandated. The proposed amendment would allow a base height to be increased by up to 25% to match that of neighboring buildings. While this might seem like a reasonable nod to urban consistency, this amendment has the potential to transform whole streets into dark canyons of shadow. On many historic blocks, there are buildings which pre-date the current zoning and are taller than what is currently allowed. By matching new construction to the highest example available, a situation could evolve where the new predominant base height on a block was 25% higher than allowed by zoning. This domino effect would be devastating to our city’s historic streetscapes.

Proposal 5: Allow Bigger Building Bulkheads

Existing: Surface area limited to 4x street wall width.


Proposed: If set back 20’ from wide street and 25’ from narrow street, area limited to 8x street wall width.

Present zoning limits the surface area of rooftop structures, such as bulkheads, to four times the street wall width. The proposed would double the allowed surface area if the structure is set back 20 feet from a wide street or 25 feet from a narrow street. These larger structures would have an adverse effect on issues of light and air as well as visual clutter from the shared garden core. Under these new guidelines, a proliferation of multi-story towers could sprout from the tops of buildings. These impositions on the visual public realm would serve mainly to benefit building owners, who could then free up valuable usable interior space for rentals and other profit-making uses rather than the mechanical needs of the buildings’ residents.

Proposal 6: Waiver of Side Yards Requirements in R3-1, R3-2, R4 and R5 (non-contextual)

Existing: A side yard is required unless adjacent building is located on side lot line.



Proposed: BSA special permit side yard waiver when adjacent lots are vacant.

In R3-1, R3-2, R4 and R5 zones, side yards are presently required unless the adjacent building is located on the side lot line. The proposed amendments would allow for a special permit from the Board of Standards & Appeals to waive this requirement if the adjacent lots are vacant. While this would require a permit from another agency, it would regularize the process, thereby making it easier to get this variance.

This measure could encourage tear downs of existing buildings to create a situation for increased lot coverage. Subsequent buildings adjoining the new, full-lot building would be free from side yard requirements, and the result would be a continuous street wall in a zone intended to encourage semi-detached and detached houses. This would include a loss of vistas, diminished architectural diversity, loss of neighborhood character, minimal landscaping and inappropriately high density. Finally, this proposal seems in direct opposition to the recent proposed zoning amendments mandating increased yards in some residential areas, which was promulgated to increase healthful open space.

Carroll Gardens Landmarking Information Meeting

It feels unseemly to report on an event which I served on as an invited panelist, but the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association's Landmarking Forum last night was well-attended (at least 120 + people from where I was sitting). The LPC sent two representatives who patiently and consistently explained how buildings were regulated by the agency, which were the majority of the questions.

Council member Bill De Blasio was in attendance and expressed strong support for community-driven landmarking and downzoning efforts, as did Representative Joan Millman, who also spoke about proposed legislation she plans to introduce to aid property owners' preservation efforts in the coming year (which we've got to ask her about).

From an audience point-of-view, see Report From The Carroll Gardens Landmark Forum
by Katia from Pardon Me For Asking - http://pardonmeforasking.blogspot.com/

Report from the LPC DUMBO hearing

The DUMBO hearing at LPC went astonishingly well, over 30 people spoke in favor - including Jed Walentas. The BID, who had been problematic about the designation , spoke in vague support - mostly to ask the LPC to make sure that the area's Belgian block streets were protected (and restored) and asking that LPC be lenient to ground floor retail. Two representatives of a property owner of seven buildings requested that his buildings be designated as "no style" or "non-contributing" in the designation report that they could be redeveloped appropriately. HDC spoke after them and requested that if LPC was going to do that, they should be serious about their role in design review and also designate the parking lots and vacant lots next to the district to help guide appropriate development there.
LPC is is keeping the record open for a week, but it feels like the designation is definitely fast-tracked.

Summer Fun at the Landmarks Preservation Commission

Here's a look at what the LPC has been up to in July and August...

July 10th
Public Hearing
07-4488
175 9th Avenue – Chelsea Historic District
As you have probably heard, the General Theological Seminary applied to demolish an existing 1960 building and construct two new buildings on its campus. HDC approved of the demolition of the present building and of the idea of new construction, but we objected to details in massing, material and style of the two proposed structures. The design of the residential building on 9th Avenue was particularly at issue, with far too much glass and little detail that would tie it in with the Seminary’s other structures. The new building on 20th Street was better in massing and details, but we objected to the odd schist sidewall that looked as if it just was leaned up against the brick building. We were especially concerned about the new entrance to the close, a three-story glass atrium that would connect the new building to the West Building, the oldest in the complex and one of the earliest Gothic Revival structures in the nation. The Community Board, elected officials and neighbors, as well as preservation groups including Muncipal Art Society, Society for the Architecture of the City and Landmark West! expressed similar views. New York Landmarks Conservancy supported the proposal calling the plan “entirely appropriate.” Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz had questions for the presenters raised by testimony, but Chair Bob Tierney decided it was too late in the day and to continue at a Public Meeting the following week.

July 17th
Public Meeting
07-4488
175 9th Avenue – Chelsea Historic District
The applicant responded to the testimony given the week before. They tried to make a historic case for the glass atrium saying that the entrance to the close was originally on 20th Street. They failed to mention that the original was centered on the block and wasn’t squooshed between two other buildings. In general, the commissioners felt the proposed was fine, just the details similar to the public’s testimony (mainly that there needs to be more masonry and detailing on the 9th Avenue building.) Most commissioners supported the new 20th Street building, but a few did not like the glass connector and felt the West Building should be left alone. (Commissioner Stephen Byrnes said he wished the glass link would “go away.”) No action was taken.

July 24th
Public Hearing/Meeting
In the morning the Research Department was busy with item hearings (federal rowhouses at 511 and 513 Grand Street as well as the proposed Eberhard Faber Pencil Company Historic District), designations (McCarren Play Center, Sunset Play Center and Bath House, Thomas Jefferson Play Center, federal rowhouses at 486 and 488 Greenwich Streeet and the Henry Seligman and Frederick C. & Birdsall Otis Edey Residences on West 56th Street) and calendarings (11th Street Public Bath House, Elizabeth Home for Girls nearby on 12th Street, Webster Hall, Voelker Orth House in Flushing and the DUMBO Historic District).

07-7987
1182 Broadway – Madison Square North Historic District
Lately we’ve been worried that there have been too many 74-711 modifications of use or bulk granted with very little preservation in return. This was a surprising example of the Commissioners wanting even more than we thought we could ask for. Like so many other buildings in the city it seems, the 1908-1910 William L. Rouse Beaux Arts style store and office building is going residential. The application included the installation of new ground floor infill, restoration of windows on the second floor and replacing the limestone rooftop balustrade with a fiberglass reproduction. The storefront was rather generic (especially considering there were a number of historic photos included in the proposal) and HDC worried about the extent of the use of fiberglass on the balustrade. HDC requested that the storefront restoration go further to recreate the 1920s storefront, but the Commissioners did us one better. They felt that there was not enough restoration work to warrant a 74-711 and wanted the storefronts to return to their 1910 appearance which would include two center, 2-story columns that had been removed in the 1920s.

07-6650
35 East 76th Street – Upper East Side Historic District
HDC, along with SAC, Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts and Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, opposed a Master Plan for the future installation of single pane windows on the Art Deco 1929-1930 Hotel Carlyle. The building originally had 6 over 6 windows, but had primarily 1 over 1’s by the time of designation. 24% of the building now has single panes and the applicant tried to explain that those owners wouldn’t want to “downgrade” to 1 over 1’s, leaving the building forever with a mixture of window types. (Deputy Counsel John Weiss pointed out that they will need to get new windows eventually.) All the commissioners agreed that the windows contributed to the building’s character and the single panes were not appropriate. (RBG labeled it “aesthetically desecrating” while SB said it “looks like Donald Trump got a hold of it.”)

August 7th
Public Hearing
Issues of demolition and new construction stood out at this public hearing.

07-8732
11-13, 15 Leonard Street – Tribeca West Historic District
This proposal was to demolish two one-story, early 20th century commercial style industrial workshops and to construct a new 7-story structure. 11-13 was designed by Edward Schneider and built in 1921, while 15 was designed by Charles Goldman and built in 1924. HDC testified that these two buildings, purposefully built, small-scale industrial workshops, were an important part of the district known for its manufacturing history. Ironically, we actually liked the design of the new building, feeling that it was well articulated with a level of appropriate detail, massing and materials we would like to see in other new construction and alterations in historic districts. We only wished that it could be built somewhere else.

A few Commissioners regretted the loss of 11-13 Leonard. Tears for 15 were only shed by Commissioner Libby Ryan who felt they should not be demolished and instead be respected as a layer of history. Commissioners felt the design of the new building should be less formal and that the mechanicals and penthouse should be reduced (or at least made to blend in with the rest of the structure as this is an entirely new building not an RTA.) Due to an old easement, one bay cannot fully go up the height of the building and just a front wall was designed with nothing behind it. Commissioners felt the gap in the street wall would be preferable to a fake façade. No action was taken.

07-8721
402-404 West 13th Street – Gansevoort Market Historic District
The building proposed for demolition was built as two row houses in 1846-1847. Like many other structures in the area, a century later they were combined and altered for use in the market, reflecting the development of the area from a residential neighborhood to a commercial one. Strangely, it was deemed “no style” in the historic designation report while other similar buildings like the nearby 426-430 West 13th Street are called “moderne” or “utilitarian”. To top it off the proposed new building is pretty banal, less style than the “no style” building. It is primarily large windows, with really no feeling of the district. SAC also spoke against the demolition. MAS and GVSHP only had comments on the details of the new building’s design like the large windows.

The Commissioners didn’t seem to get that these buildings were designed for a very specific purpose and reflect the history for the which the district was designated. There was no objection to their demolition, but they had some comments on the design of the new building. It seems once labeled “no style” or “non contributing” a building is forever doomed (well, at least until it is demolished.) What was particularly creepy about the whole situation was that the head of the project, Sherida Paulsen, as Chair of the Commission back in the day helped decide what would be deemed “no style.”

There were also some troubling alterations proposed:

07-8046
55 Grove Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
1839 brick house is known to many as Rose’s Turn. The applicant seeks to remove a quirky arrangement of tiny, mid-20th century windows, symbolic of the building’s use as a piano bar and a time in gay history when the community felt the need to be secretive. In its place would be one giant show window. SAC and GVSHP joined HDC opposing the proposal. Commissioners agreed that the proposed was not in keeping with the district, but I didn’t get a sense that they were calling out for the retention of the old windows. We will have to wait and see.

07-9144
143 Spring Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
Even more disturbing than losing specific details of a landmark is the possibility of losing a landmark. The proposed alterations that would connect a Federal style 1818 dwelling to a two-story new structure next door called for the removal of at least 1 story of the rear wall. The big problem was that the Commissioners didn’t know it. HDC and SAC pointed out in testimony that the first floor plan shows the first floor of the building open through to the new structure, removing a wall that is presently there (an existing plan was not included in the proposal). When Commissioner Margery Pearlmutter asked if the wall was being removed, the architect answered a different question. Instead he rambled on that the piece of the 2nd floor wall now exposed on the exterior would be retained in the new interior. There was no mention of the ground floor wall. The Commissioners seemed happy enough with that answer.

August 14th
Public Hearing

Continuing the new construction theme…
07-5209
73 Pineapple Street – Brooklyn Heights Historic District
The new building proposed for an empty lot was appropriate as far as height and materials, but was terribly bland. In a district full of architectural details, this had nothing. It looked rather like a plain tenement (and not in the good, historic way) on a block of distinguished homes. The Commissioners all hated the plan and sent it back to the drawing board.

Bland architecture gets a thumbs down, but out-of-context modern architecture is exciting…

08-0312
34 East 62nd Street – Upper East Side Historic District
Remember the doctor who blew up his Upper East Side town house rather than let his ex-wife have it? Well, the plans to build a new house on the site are even more tragic. Unlike proposals where a new structure is designed for an empty lot, until the events of last summer, there stood on this site a landmarked building, the oldest on its block, a contributing part of the district. In our testimony, HDC reminded BT that he was quoted last July commenting on possible new construction, “We would look at what was there before and ask what would be appropriate for a historic district and it would probably be something like what was there.”

Other than the height, nothing in this proposal is “like what was there.” The design is too asymmetrical and sculptural, making no gesture to the scale and rhythm of details of other structures on the block. Two details that are particularly jarring are the projecting cement slab, that looms over the rest of the building like a high-dive platform, and the blank, recessed entryway with a door on the sidewall giving it a cold, empty appearance.

It was late in the day, no quorum, only about 5 commissioners left. So not everyone voting next time will have heard the extensive public testimony against the project which included FUESHD, NYLC, Carnegie Hill Neighbors Association, East 62nd Block Association, neighboring Links Club and letters from Ann Walker and Francis Morrone. Those Commissioners who were there, including MP, LR and Diana Chapin, loved it. SB thought it was striking but should be toned down to be less jarring. All were very excited about green aspect of the plans. Despite his comment last summer BT felt that a contemporary approach would be fine and the project would be revisited after “having a chance to digest the diverse opinions.”

07-7949
242 East 49th Street – Turtle Bay Gardens Historic District
The district is so perfect that no one could remember a C of A application in its four decades as a designated historic district. The proposed sought to make changes to the rear façade, usually a blank canvas in the eyes of the Commission. The situation is slightly different in Turtle Bay Gardens where both street and garden facades were carefully designed in the early 1920’s to compliment one another. A few of the Commissioners took issue with losing the first floor arches and the extension of the ironwork on the top floor. BT asked the applicants to work with staff on those parts of the proposal. The issue of rear facades in a large garden will also be an important one in the new Sunnyside Gardens Historic District.

LPC Declines Landmarking Renaissance Casino; calenders Mahattan Avenue Historic District

Went to the LPC this morning; heard the Manhattan Avenue HD get calendared (40 buildings between 104 –106th Streets, one block west of Central Park - map will probably be poste don LPC website soon). District is mostly rowhouses, built between 1885-1890 by three different architects, including C.P.H. Gilbert, in very good condition with nice details including terra-cotta and iron railings. Also included are two buildings associated with the New York Cancer Hospital (neighboring individual landmark on the park, longtime eyesore now ultra-luxury condos – we had a presentation about it in September as part of the “Sick in New York” lecture series).

The Renaissance Casino & Ballroom was de-calendared and the Landmarks Preservation Commission authorized a “no-action” letter on the properties. Chair Bob Tierney began the hearing with a prepared statement of how moved he was by Abyssinian Development Corporation’s commitment to Harlem and to architect Max Bond’s leadership on this project. He point to the broad support that the project seems to have from its public officials and the community-at-large. Taking these circumstances into account, he recommended to his fellow commissioners not to designate the building, and authorize a “no-action” letter on the properties to allow the housing development to move forward. Commissioners Joan Gerner, Tom Pike, Jan Pokorny, Stephen Byrnes and Margery Perlmutter agreed, although a number of them made statements that their support was contingent on their understanding that the North building would be appropriately restored as part of the redevelopment. Commissioner Roberta Gratz objected to the action; stating that buildings in Harlem, more than almost any other neighborhood in the city, are remarkable for their cultural as well as architectural significance and it is incorrect to cease consideration of officially preserving this significance to foster affordable housing when it has been repeatedly proven that designation and adaptive re-use can and do comfortably co-exist. The Commission voted 6-1 to decline designation and authorize a no-action letter.

Finally, although the published schedule advertised that a designation vote would be taken on the Sohmer Piano Factory and the Mt. Hebron School in Crown Heights North would be calendared, because of “mechanical difficulties” both actions were laid over to February 27 or March 6. (I did meet the Pastor of the school and he seemed amenable to the designation).

HDC Publishes Online Voter's Guide for City Council Race

Thanks everyone who came out last Thursday for the candidate forum. We thought it was a big success, with more than 100 attendees and 9 out of 11 candidates showing up (and staying the whole time!). For pictures, Xris at the Flatbush Gardner was in the audience and kindly posted photos, http://flatbushgardener.blogspot.com/2007/02/40th-district-forum-on-preservation.html for which we're very grateful since ours didn't come out nearly as well.

Prior to the forum, we had approached all of the candidates with a questionaire from the Coalition of Concerned Preservation Voters in the 40th District about preservation and development concerns (which was also made available to them at the forum). At press time, 8 out of 11 candidates responded and their answers are posted at http://www.hdc.org/District_40.htm. (We're continuing to follow up with the 2 candidates from the 51st District in Staten Island on their questionaire).

Remember, the special election is February 20, and it's winner-take-all (no run-off), so if you're in the district, vote! Learn more about this race and the race for the 51st at http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/issueoftheweek/20070212/200/2100