Earlier this afternoon, the City Council Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses voted 7-2 to affirm the landmark designation of the NoHo Historic District Extension in its entirety, including the controversial White House Hotel at 338 Bowery.  The Land Use Committee also passed the district with a vote of 22-3 and it was affirmed by the full Council at its stated meeting today.

The inclusion of the White House Hotel, one of the oldest existent lodging houses left on the Bowery, to the district was only due to the strong and persistent advocacy of Council member Alan Gerson who worked for months trying to find a balance between the community’s desire to preserve the character of their neighborhood, the property owner’s development plans and the humanitarian needs of the longtime residents of the hotel, who are currently living in substandard conditions. In his statement to his colleagues supporting the inclusion of the property in the extension, CM Gerson submitted four letters into the record: one from the property owners withdrawing their opposition to designation; one from the Landmarks Preservation Commission stating that the agency would work with the owners as swiftly as possible on their development plans (which will almost certainly include a hardship application, although one simpler than the ongoing St. Vincent’s case); one from the Council member pledging to work with the owners on their concerns and to aid the residents in finding needed resources to improve their living conditions; and one from a community group supporting CM Gerson’s efforts and pledging their support as well.

Council member Rosie Mendez, whose district includes both a portion of the Bowery and the Extension, also spoke strongly in favor of finding a solution that satisfied both preservation and humanitarian concerns; using as an example the Prince George Hotel in the Madison Square North Historic District which has been rehabbed, restored and converted into housing for over 400 low-income and formerly houseless individuals.  Subcommittee Chair Jessica Lappin thoughtfully guided the wide-ranging discussion of the subcommittee back to the issue at hand, the inclusion of a historically-significant building to a historic district. In the end, following Chair Lappin’s recommendation, the Subcommittee voted 7-2 to approve the entire extension as designated by the LPC in May 2008, and this recommendation was approved 22-3 by the full Land Use Committee which met immediately afterwards.

HDC thanks all the individuals and agencies who worked for years to make this designation possible; Zella Jones, Jeanne Wilke, Tizianna Hardy, Stan Reis, Chuck Close, Pi Gardiner, the NoHo Neighborhood Association, the Friends of NoHo Architecture, the numerous friends and residents of NoHo who have shown up at countless meetings over the years and sent goodness knows how many letters in support, and last but certainly not least, the Landmarks Preservation Commission, without whom the designation could not have happened.

HDC sends special thanks to Council Alan Gerson for his persistence and tenacity in supporting this designation, and his extraordinary efforts to create a consensus around a difficult issue. Together with local advocates, we met with Mr. Gerson back in August 2001 (at a sandwich shop in a building that no longer exists on the west side of Centre Street between Chambers and Reade Streets) while he was still a candidate in a six-way race for City Council and spoke to him about the need to complete the designation of  NoHo. Mr. Gerson pledged his support at the time and now, seven years later, he delivered on that promise.

Back in May, Councilmember (then-candidate) Como answered our questions for our League of Preservation Voters for District 30 and participated in our forum. It’s early days yet, but any meeting between a Councilmember and a city agency which is characterized by both sides as “positive” and “constructive”  can only be viewed as a step in the right direction.

New councilman Anthony Como vows to push landmarking in Queens

BY NICHOLAS HIRSHON, DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, August 4th 2008, 8:41 PM

Barely a month into his first term, City Councilman Anthony Como has boldly pledged to help landmark historic swaths of Richmond Hill and Ridgewood – and even areas outside of his eastern Queens district.

Como, picked in a June special election to replace Dennis Gallagher, made his vow days after what he called a “very positive” powwow with Landmarks Preservation Commission Chairman Robert Tierney – and months before Como faces another election in November.

“We live in the greatest city in the world and anything I can do to save its history and its culture, I’m all for it,” said the Middle Village Republican, adding his sitdown with Tierney last week was a way to form a relationship “from the beginning.”

During a two-hour meeting Tuesday at Landmarks Commission headquarters in Manhattan, Como told Tierney he supports historic districts in Richmond Hill and Ridgewood, as well as landmarking the Forest Park Carousel in Woodhaven.

The pair also talked about St. Saviour’s Episcopal Church in Maspeth, built in 1847 but denied landmark status when the commission ruled that repairs after a 1970 fire had altered it too much.

Kate Daly, a commission spokeswoman, said the meeting with Como was “constructive,” and that the agency was evaluating the sites he mentioned.

Dear Fellow New Yorker,

Bloomberg acted fast after the most recent crane disaster: He held a closed-door meeting with construction industry insiders. He came out with a proposal that is a watered-down version of Jim Brennan’s proposals from 2007 and 2008. Yet nobody is standing up for the community groups who have been following DOB reform for years.

Until now.

That’s why I’m asking you to join us in promoting DOB reform and community input on the City Hall steps.

When:    Thursday June 12, Noon (Please email Raul to confirm time)

Why:    To encourage the Mayor to incorporate community concerns in construction safety

Regards,
Raul Rothblatt
Executive Director, Four Borough Neighborhood Preservation Alliance Foundation
Raul@JumbieRecords.com  / 718-857-3150

# # #

Community support for DOB reform

In light of the Deutsche Bank building disaster and the two recent high-profile crane accidents, community activists and elected officials are coming together to demand reforms at the Department of Buildings. “Mayor Bloomberg’s recent proposals are a step in the right direction,” says Raul Rothblatt. “He is finally advocating for some of the reforms proposed last year—some of which he opposed. Now we urge him to work with community groups that have been advocating for DOB reform. Construction deaths are not limited to cranes, so it is important to address the bigger issues, and not just react to the news of the week.”

Dismayed at the steady stream of construction deaths and other accidents, dozens of these groups have been advocating for better enforcement of existing laws for years. The most pressing reforms include:

* Reinspect hazardous Stop Work Order sites. Currently, the DOB does not return to a construction site after every hazardous violation. Some offenders simply pay a fine, and the DOB does not check if the violation has been cured.

* End Self-Certification (a.k.a. “Professional Certification”). The crane disasters were not isolated events—they represent bigger problems with oversight of the construction industry. The Mayor needs to stand for safety all around New York, not just at high rise crane sites.

* Work with the community. After the most recent disaster, Bloomberg held a closed door meeting with construction industry insiders. The Mayor missed an opportunity to harness the expertise of community groups.

We cannot live in a city where everyone is afraid of every crane, bulldozer and jackhammer. This fear sometimes gets translated into a flood of 311 calls, but the City did not heed the warnings, with deadly results. Community groups can help sort out these complaints.

Some thoughts from our buddy Aaron of Greenwood Heights

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/nyregion/05safety.html

After chatting for about an hour about the Mayor’s and Speaker’s “brand new revolutionary safety 13 point plan,” I thought I’d let folks know where I stand (and hopefully some of you stand alongside on this tight rope the Mayor has strung).

I use the NY Times article as my foil:

“Building for the future and building safely are not mutually exclusive. We can and will do both. But public safety is our top priority.”

Gee, that’s a 180 from your discourse over the past 7 years that basically puts the Administration’s economic growth strategy at MAJOR ODDS with safety issues that not only affect the safety of the public, but the well being of neighborhoods and the preservation of the quality of life standards most NYers have come to enjoy…until now.

Encouraging construction/development in the City (especially in Bklyn) in the past 5 years with no consequence to the destruction unchecked development may cause is shameful. It is especially shameful when at the time of a crisis (one I might add has been evolving since 2003) due to 17 construction related deaths in 2008 so far, the Mayor chooses to take a reactive stance. Not after the March 15 tragedy, but after a second major crane collapse. Unfortunately the Mayor seems to only react to big news items (not to down play the deaths involved) and not to the on-going issues that affect the “small guy” projects through out the City that many civic organizations, elected officials, community boards and other City agencies have been calling for action for years.

“We will not compromise on safety,” even as construction continued…”

Really, again reactive rather than proactive Ms. Speaker, especially as “construction continues.”

“Bloomberg administration and the City Council unveiled a 13-point legislative package on Wednesday to broaden oversight of building sites, increase fines for violations and register all key contractors.”

Again, how thoughtful of the Mayor and the Speaker. Please understand one thing. I am ALL for the reforms (minus getting rid of the RA or PE status for Commissioner of Buildings so that we can slip acting Commissioner LiMandri in…not that I agree, just that there has been no open discussion with the residents of our City on the matter), but something stinks here…

For much of the 13 points, it seems the Mayor is again doing a 180. AM Brennan and his Committee on Cities in Albany proposed many of these same reforms both last year and this year…ain’t that funny. And what’s even funnier, the Mayor, at DOB’s request, asked Ex-Gov. “Party Boy” Spitzer to VETO THOSE SAME RELATED BILLS that contained much of what the Mayor is proposing. Again, shame on you Mayor Mike.

It wasn’t good enough for the State, the City and the Mayor’s constituents to get more enforcement power and accountability in the construction trades via a stronger DOB…until tragedy strikes close to home for the Mayor. Again, shame on you.

If much of the bill package AM Brennan has proposed last year (and again this year) had passed, we may have avoided what happened in March and so recently, not a 100% guarantee, but I’d place high odds. Not only at the 17 construction related deaths, but at the 100’s of construction related accidents through out the City due to unscrupulous developers and cowboy-style contractors who run rough-shod over neighborhoods they work in.

“the department had issued more than 1,200 stop-work orders and nearly 4,000 violations in the past 12 months. Still, that has not put an end to construction accidents…”

And that’s the real issue here. DOB can write all the tickets they want and issue stop work orders all day. But until the Administration (Mayor and City Council included) changes their stance from pro-development/economic growth to pro-YOU AND ME, and think of our safety before the all mighty tax dollar, none of the 13 points will matter. Developers in this City, with the go ahead of the Mayor, have found loopholes time and time again to exploit the DOB code and zoning resolution to their industries advantage. 13 new points will not change that MO for their ROI.

I would like to believe Mayor Mike and the Speaker…until I see job sites shut down and “…public safety is our top priority.” over more luxury development and unchecked growth in our City, I don’t believe the folks fighting-the-good-fight stand a chance.

There are several events in the works to protest the Mayor’s sudden opportunistic change of heart and also to hold he and the Speaker’s feet to the fire. i will keep folks posted as the come in-line and hope that you can show your support. This MUST include working with our local electeds to make sure promises are kept and progress is made…and not just talked about on the Council Floor.

Hopefully we won’t have to worry about more “change of heart” into a 3rd term for Mayor Mike.

As always, disgusted, but optimistic.

Aaron

--
Aaron Brashear
Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts.
aaron@ccgreenwoodhts.com
http://www.ccgreenwoodhts.com/
SUPPORT CONTEXTUAL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY!
Advocating for the Preservation of the Character of Our Neighborhood

From the Times Ledger

01/17/2008
City in talks with owner to landmark Jamaica bank
By Ivan Pereira

The City Council and the Landmarks Preservation Commission are waiting to see whether a landlord will allow his historical building in downtown Jamaica to become a city landmark.
For more than 30 years, the city has been trying to make the Jamaica Savings Bank at 161-02 Jamaica Ave. a permanent landmark, but it has been turned down by the City Council twice, according to Landmarks spokeswoman Lisi de Bourbon. The commission has been meeting with the building’s current owner, Morris Cohen, to try to work out an arrangement, but so far nothing has been agreed upon.

“We’ve just been in talks with the owner to help him understand the implications of landmark designation. We are still working on an agreement,” de Bourbon said.

Cohen could not be reached for comment.

Councilman Leroy Comrie (D-St. Albans), however, maintained that talks between the LPC and Cohen were going well and he was not balking at a landmark designation.

“My understanding is that during their initial conversations with the landlord, he said he was willing to designate the building,” the councilman said. “They are going over with him to get the pieces together.”

De Bourbon said the building has significant historical value not only because it was one of the oldest buildings in the commercial Jamaica district but also for its architectural beauty. The 109-year-old building sports a limestone facade constructed in a Beaux Arts style of architecture that was emerging in American during the turn of the 20th century.

“The architecture alone is just beautiful. The building is one of the few Beaux Arts buildings left in the city,” she said.

The LPC can designate a building to be an official city landmark without the approval of the owner, but that ruling can be overturned by a City Council vote, de Bourbon said. The Council overturned the designation for the bank in 1974 and 1992, according to de Bourbon.

She did not elaborate as to why the Council made those decisions.

De Bourbon did mention that the Council’s Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime Uses subcomittee listens intently to input from the Council member who represents the district where the building is located. Comrie, who sits on the Council’s landmarking committee, has agreed with the LPC that the building is historically significant but advised the commission to take Cohen’s wishes strongly into consideration.

“I must emphasize…that my approval is contingent on agreement by the property owner. The owner’s support is important in ensuring the economic viability and stability of this community,” the councilman wrote in a letter to the LPC Chairman Robert B. Tierney in May.

Reach reporter Ivan Pereira by e-mail at ipereira@timesledger.com or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 146.

©Times Ledger 2008

Mr. Comrie knows full well that a building’s condition is not a predicating factor for landmark designation. He is underlining the politics of the situation (by implying that unless he is satisfied with LPC’s answers – he will overturn the designation) and by doing so, undercuts the landmarks process.

From the Queens Chronicle

Historic Jamaica Building In Landmarks Tug Of War
by Matt Hampton , Assistant Editor

The Jamaica Savings Bank building in the heart of downtown Jamaica anchors a portion of the borough that has its fair share of history.

But after three attempts to landmark the building, it may be destined to see contemporary upgrades unless a deal can be struck between the owner and the Landmarks Preseveration Commission.

The building has seen better days, as trash collects in the grates on the lower floor windows, but the facade is still a striking contrast to many of the glowing neon beacons that draw the eye in Jamaica’s most commercial neighborhood.

Councilman Leroy Comrie said that he is in favor of seeing the century-old building landmarked, but only if it meets the structural and safety requirements. He is not aware if it was likely to do so, and worried about granting landmarking status and then having an accident occur.

“It may be the most beautiful thing, but if it’s beautiful and hitting you in the head, it’s still gonna hurt.” Comrie said. “If it’s possible to do, I’d like to see it. It’s a beautiful part of history if it can be maintained.”

The councilman said that all of his experience with the building was based on conversations he had with the Landmarks Preservation Commission. He exhorted the group to “get in there and do their job,” with respect to verifying that the building meets safety requirements, and fully informing the owner exactly what landmark status means for the property.

Lisi de Bourbon, Landmarks Preservation Commision spokeswoman, said that the office is very familiar with the building’s status, having tried to landmark it on two previous occassions, meeting a roadblock each time.

When the building was first up for landmark status in 1974, the move was overturned by the city’s Board of Estimate, a governmental body disbanded in 1989 that had jurisdiction over land use and finances.

The building’s second attempt at landmark status was denied by the City Council in 1990.

The facade of the old savings bank was “in no danger of collapse or anything like that,” de Bourbon said. Even if it is in trouble, the commission would gladly work with the owner to make necessary improvements to make sure the building maintains its historical accents, she added.

The building was constructed over the course of 1897-98, and has significance for the community both because of its unique architectural style, and as a symbol of a community that was starting to grow as the borough was incorporated into New York City, according to a report on the building prepared by the landmarks commission.

What this story neglects to mention is that the Landmarks Preservation Commission already designated this building not once but twice – and both times the designation was overturned by local politicians (the last one being Archie Spigner, Mr. Comrie’s former boss). Of course the LPC wants his assurances that he will support it!

Owner of former Jamaica Savings bank has not endorsed landmarking
BY NICHOLAS HIRSHON
DAILY NEWS WRITER
Wednesday, January 9th 2008, 4:00 AM

Former Jamaica Savings Bank Building on Jamaica Ave. is being considered for landmark status.
The owner of a 110-year-old bank in Jamaica may foil the city’s latest attempt to landmark the ornate Beaux-Arts building, which signaled the area’s emergence as a cultural center, sources said.
Morris Cohen, who owns the former Jamaica Savings Bank on Jamaica Ave., is reportedly being recalcitrant about designation by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which would require him to get city approval before he changes the facade.
Landmarks officials have met with Cohen so he’d “understand what designation means for the property,” said commission spokeswoman Lisi de Bourbon. Cohen, who also owns the nearby Conway clothing store, did not return calls seeking comment.
“He’s a hard-noser,” said Gloria Black, the chairwoman of Queens Community Board 12, who confirmed “some difficulty” in the talks. “He’s looking out for himself. Rightfully so. It’s his property.”
Landmarks officials believe they need Cohen’s approval to also win support from City Councilman Leroy Comrie, sources said.
But Comrie (D-St. Albans) told the Daily News he’s “flexible” and might reconsider his insistence on Cohen’s okay. He labeled the commission “a bunch of chickens” for relying so much on his [Cohen's] opinion.
“We’re eager to designate more landmarks in Queens, and look forward to working with Councilmember Comrie – for whom we’ve always had the highest respect – to achieve this goal,” de Bourbon responded.
Still, Comrie wouldn’t pledge his support for landmarking.
If Cohen “can show it’s economically unfeasible for him to maintain the building [as a landmark], we have to make sure we don’t leave that eyesore for another millennium,” Comrie said.
Meanwhile, city officials made their pitch on why Cohen should endorse the move. Landmarking often raises real estate values and “gives the wider community a sense of pride,” de Bourbon said.
But preservationists worry Cohen’s hard-line stance will thwart the process – eventually allowing developers to demolish the bank, and hurting attempts to save other historic sites.
“I’m afraid if that building is not landmarked, the efforts to landmark other buildings will be badly crippled,” said Jim Driscoll, president of the Queens Historical Society.
(c) Daily News

An addition atop the former Independence Bank Building on the corner of Court Street and Atlantic Avenue in the Cobble Hill Historic District proposed by developer Two Trees caused quite a stir this year. After some design modifications, the LPC approved the proposal but the plan still required several zoning waivers from the City Planning Commission, including eliminating the rear yard to build to the back of the property line and allowing the building to rise to 60 feet in a 50 foot maximum height limited zone. These permissions were fought against at City Planning by a strong coalition of community activists and preservationists, including the Cobble Hill Association, the Brooklyn Heights Association, the Society for the Architecture of the City and HDC. In addition, we were joined in opposition by Brooklyn Community Board Six and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Unfortunately, local Council Member Bill de Blasio was supportive of the waivers and had testified in favor of them at the City Planning hearing. However, after several meetings with CM de Blasio, we successfully made the case that the height variance had the potential to set a very dangerous precedent citywide for all of the city’s historic districts and he asked his colleagues at the City Council to decline permission for the height waiver, which they did. HDC is proud of our neighborhood partners in Brooklyn for their successful advocacy and very grateful to CM de Blasio for his open mind on the issue, open-door policy to community members and willingness to re-examine the situation.

Winning CM De Blasio’s support was an essential step in ensuring the integrity of this Limited Height District. Which is why, to facilitate the future exposure of elected officials to current preservation and land use concern, HDC launched the League of Preservation Voters Initiative in February. Beginning during the special election for the local council seat in Brooklyn’s District 40, HDC and the Coalition of Concerned Preservation Voters in the 40th District sponsored a public forum with candidates for the District’s special election and released a corresponding Voter Guide. Candidates discussed important preservation and development concerns including questions of landmark designation, community rezoning and building codes within the district.

As the 2009 municipal elections approach, HDC hopes to host similar forums in contended districts throughout the city. These forums will be nonpartisan and will not endorse any specific candidates. Rather, the goal here is to expose to the public the amount of knowledge candidates have on these issues, and to likewise demonstrate that these are genuine concerns of communities throughout the city. To read the sample Voter Guide released in February, and to check out the candidate’s responses, please click here.

The precedent is a positive one. Dr. Mathieu Eugene, the winner and new council member, has since been supportive, listing “Neighborhood Preservation” as one of his top priorities and having testified in favor of a handful of proposed landmarks in front of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

from The New York Times, the juxaposition is somewhat startling.

Columbia Expansion Gets Green Light
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and RAY RIVERA
A $7 billion project will transform a section of Manhattan now dominated by warehouses and auto body shops.
Graphic: A Plan to Expand

Columbia’s Historic Atom Smasher Is Now Destined for the Junk Heap
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
Columbia University has decided to junk a 70-year-old atom smasher that is the nation’s oldest artifact of the nuclear era.

From Crains

The Council was engaged in last-minute bickering Wednesday afternoon, ahead of its decision on the University’s plan to rezone 17 acres in West Harlem.

December 19. 2007 3:28PM
By: Anne Michaud

The City Council was engaged in last-minute deliberations Wednesday afternoon, ahead of its vote to approve Columbia University’s controversial plan to rezone 17 acres in West Harlem for an arts, business and science campus.

The council’s move to squeeze a decision in the final week before the Christmas holiday is an effort to keep a bitter battle in a community of color from stretching out into the New Year.

Two more members of the West Harlem Local Development Corp. – a board chosen to represent the community in talks with Columbia – quit Wednesday in protest over the rushed process. The LDC has been negotiating a package of housing, jobs and education benefits to compensate the Manhattanville neighborhood for the loss of residences and businesses.

Three LDC board members resigned last month in order to criticize the secret negotiations, which they say were designed to buy the community’s acquiescence. People who remain on the board have promised to keep the negotiations confidential.

Columbia’s plan marks the culmination of more than four years of work by the university, which has been buying up land and properties in the neighborhood of the campus-to-be and now owns more than 70% of the area. The university wants to spend $7 billion to build as many as 18 towers with classrooms, offices, student housing and laboratory space, which will give it the facilities to compete with other world-class institutions.

But community opposition has led Columbia to make several concessions in the hopes of pushing its plan through. At the request of Borough President Scott Stringer, the University agreed to endow a $20 million Manhattanville Neighborhood Preservation Fund, which, together with other measures, would preserve or create 1,139 housing units. The school will also provide $4 million to fund an anti-harassment legal assistance program to address indirect residential displacement.

The West Harlem LDC is asking for another $100 million in housing funds.

If the City Council approves of the plan, Columbia will have to submit a general project proposal to the Empire State Development Corp., which has the final say over whether properties can be taken by eminent domain, against an owners’ will. However, that may not be necessary. The three business owners who were refusing to sell to Columbia resumed talks with the university last Friday.