BROOKLYN SKATING RINK PUT ON ICE
DOT PLAN MEANS MAJOR DELAYS FOR PROJECT
By RICH CALDER

August 14, 2008

A much-anticipated ice-skating rink planned for under the Brooklyn Bridge is on hold indefinitely because the city Department of Transportation plans to use the prime real estate for storage, officials confirmed yesterday.

The 85-acre Brooklyn Bridge Park project now under construction calls for using this one acre of land under the bridge seasonally for an ice-skating rink in the winter and a public market or plaza during warmer weather.

But a DOT spokesman said the property can’t be turned over as parkland until at least five years of bridge rehabilitation work is done first. Besides needing the site for storage during the bridge job, he said there will be sandblasting and painting done under the span and that the public should be nowhere near the area during this time.

The former Purchase Building tract is DOT-owned, and was last used as a temporary home to the Office of Emergency Management, but DOT is supposed to give it up for the new waterfront park in DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights.

The old building, a 1930s-era Art Deco structure that local preservationists tried to save, was demolished last month to make way for the long-awaited park.

Sources said DOT and the city-state Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp. fought internally over the land, with DOT ultimately winning out.

This was described to us by a senior Parks Official as being the “money shot” of the Park.  We don’t think this was what was meant.  A more serious question is: why was there no coordination between the different city agencies about the disposition of this land? A fast search discovers this article from 2005 which talks about the need for maintenance of NYC’s bridges and even roughs out their proposed maintence schedules. It looks like a good and sensible plan - and one that should not have been a surprise to anyone paying attention (like, say,  people planning a park underneath the bridge).  As the saying goes, you reap what you sow….and the products of destruction shall be ashes (or sand-blasting, as the case may be).

‘Green Church’ sent back to drawing board

The city shot down preliminary plans for a residential building at the site of Fourth Avenue’s soon-to-be-demolished “Green Church” — but the rejection didn’t deter church officials and builders from their controversial plan to level the 109-year-old house of worship to construct condos and a smaller church.

Last week, the Department of Buildings disapproved plans that included a seven-story, 72-unit residential building, an 8,196-square-foot church, and a 42-car parking lot that would replace the Bay Ridge United Methodist Church at the corner of Ovington Avenue.

But developer Abe Betesh said the disapproval is more about revision than rejection.

“They are reviewing it,” Betesh said. “When you submit a set of plans and they disapprove it, they give you certain comments or ask you further questions — it means they are working on it.”

It is not immediately clear why the city shot down the controversial plans for the “Green Church” site, but a Buildings Department official told The Brooklyn Paper that plans are typically disapproved if they don’t comply with building or zoning regulations, or if they are incomplete.

Despite the disapproval, the planned demolition and development will continue, Pastor Robert Emerick said.

(c) The Brooklyn Papers

From the Brooklyn Papers

Bridge “Park” Can Find No Purchase by Mike McLaughlin

Demolition teams have made short work of the iconic Purchase Building beneath the Brooklyn Bridge to clear space for a piazza that will be part of the controversial Brooklyn Bridge Park project.

The $300-plus-million parkland and condo project along the DUMBO and Brooklyn Heights waterfront has long included destruction of the two-story Modernist relic built as part of FDR’s New Deal in the 1930s - and that’s a good thing, say project boosters, who are excited by the current plan for a piazza-like open space under the Brooklyn Bridge where the Purchase Building stood.

The brick-and-concrete building could not even be torn down had it not, in 2006, lost the protection it enjoyed as part of the Fulton Ferry Historic District. At that time, city officials lobbied the Landmarks Preservation Commission to cut the building out of the district because the historic building would obstruct views from the new park.

The building had many lives during its years in city service, earning its name after being christened as a warehouse for the city’s “Department of Purchase.” It remained a warehouse for other city agencies for decades, and, for a time after the 9-11 terrorist attacks, became the home of the Office of Emergency Management.

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

Brownstoner has photos of the Purchase Building being demolished http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2008/07/checking_in_on_11.php and frankly, it’s sickening.

HDC fought for this building for years, but in the end the building was doomed by the LPC, making a blatantly political decision which was frankly embarassing. See here for details: http://www.hdc.org/%20e-bulletin03_3.htm

We fight and try to put losses behind us, but recently we took a look at a copy of the LPC Binding Report which permitted the demolition and it re-opened all those wounds. Here’s the permit http://search.citylaw.org/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/doc/020803.pdf#xml=http://citylaw02/isysquery/586bae4c-f9cb-4207-9afa-9c9746b72e03/4/hilite/ and here are some quotes:

“In reviewing this proposal, the Commission noted that the Fulton Ferry Historic District designation report describes 11-85 Water Street as an Art-Deco style storehouse built in 1936. The Commission also noted that the special architectural character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District is defined by the collection of mid-and late-19th century buildings which reflect the commercial development of the neighborhood when its center of activity was the Fulton Ferry. The designation report states that the “golden age” of the district’s architectural development “ended with the opening of the Brooklyn Bridge” in 1883.” - suddenly there are eras of significance in designation reports? Was 980 Madison Avenue from the “golden age” of the Upper East Side? or the O’Toole Building from the “golden age” of Greenwich Village? This is incredibly bad reasoning. And what about all the approved changes to buildings that LPC allows every week? Do they weaken the protections of designation?

“Finally, the report states that the historic district contains “the last bit of actual waterfront near Brooklyn Heights readily accessible to its residents…(t)he revival and restoration of this waterfront area would provide an important amenity for the people of Brooklyn Heights and Manhattan …” Staff also notes that the Purchase Building complex is located directly beneath the individually designated Brooklyn Bridge, and adjacent to the Brooklyn tower of the bridge” - well, there you go. The designation of the district always intended to protect the openness of the waterfront, regardless of all those pesky buildings in the way. Why not get rid of the River Cafe as well? I guess a fancy restaurant counts towards public access.

“With regard to this proposal, the Commission finds that this complex of buildings, which includes the Purchase Building, its boiler house, garage and brick wall, is not of the period of primary significance of the historic district, and does not relate in its design or detail to the buildings which establish the special architectural and historic character for which the Fulton Ferry Historic District was designated;” - here we go with “period of primary significance” again. This is really, really bad language.

“…that the location of the complex obscures the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower, and detracts from its special architectural and historic character;” - the same could be said of the Lehman Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art - wait, the LPC allowed that to be built….

“that the presence of the Purchase Building complex between the anchorage and the tower diminishes the openness and visual clarity of the bridge’s eastern span; that removing these buildings will help establish a visual connection between the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores to the north, and the Old Fulton Street corridor to the south, which are the two groupings of significant buildings within the historic district;” - how does this jibe with the okay to build 122 Greenwich Street? Doesn’t that affect the “visual connection” of the buildings in Greenwich Village?

“that removing the buildings will reestablish the historic open character of the space beneath the bridge” - removing buildings always reestablishes open character - that’s why it’s called “removing”

“that the design of the entrance to the park will emphasize the importance of Old Fulton Street by creating a strong element at the intersection with Water Street; and will help to unite this new section of the park with the Fulton Ferry pier and Fireboat House; that the creation of the park area will make the base of the Brooklyn Bridge tower both physically and visually accessible; that the design of the park beneath the bridge places emphasis on the bridge tower; that the park design establishes a strong relationship between the small park near the River Café and the Empire State Park to the north, which are identified as significant features of the historic district; that the presence of this new park will enhance the visual relationship between the significant buildings in the historic district and the waterfront, which was the catalyst for their construction; and that the ultimate effect of this proposal will be to enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Fulton Ferry Historic District.” - I’d lay odds that if you suggested to the people (and the government) who developed the area that their purpose of the waterfront was for recreational usage rather than commerce, you’d be laughed out of the room and possibly flogged. But OK, changing times, who doesn’t love a park? at least the design will be good….

“The Commission requests that the applicants return to the Commission with final designs for the fixtures and finishes in the park, such as the fences, the fountain, benches, paving, lighting and signage, for the connection near the River Café; and for the paving at the River Café connection” - WHAT? There isn’t even a final design?

So, to sum up - in order to clear the way to build a park which isn’t even fully deisgned, the LPC rolled over for the Parks Department and the Brooklyn Bridge Park folks and not only countenanced the destruction of noted building in a designated historic district, but opened up some very scary doorways in doing so.

In a New York Times article about the LPC that came out around the time, Andrew S. Dolkart, Columbia University professor (and now Chairman) of historic preservation and author of the DUMBO Historic District designation report said, “This vote was the low point in the history of the landmarks commission. It’s disgraceful. I think the commissioners fell down on their duty, which is to preserve landmarks.”

Well, HDC went to the Public Meeting and the Press Conference this evening about the Admiral’s Row Section 106 process - and we were shocked at the misinformation that’s being propagated by the “Tear These Buildings Down!” crowd.  Here are a few real facts about the process and the site to counter the misinformation:

 - of the 11 historic buildings, 9 are structurally stable. The Beardsley Report (December 2007) states quite clearly that of all the buildings, buildings C and H have severe structural problems. The rest are in OK shape, the photos from the Beardsley Report support this, as evidence of historic floating staircases and the like are still standing and visibly stable.

 - restoration was estimated at $19 million for all 11 buildings. $19 million is a lot of money, but it is not hundreds of millions or billions as alleged at the press conference. That figure also assumes FULL restoration and of all 11 buildings, including the 2 with structural failure.

 - the supermarket is not going to be built “green”. The complex will include a 356 car surface parking lot. How is that “green”?  Let’s not talk about the century-old tree cover that will be lost because of this.

- it is against Federal Law to require that employees come from a certain Zip Code, to say nothing of assuring that all the jobs created will come from the nearby public housing projects.

- Asking the Federal Government to ignore national environmental laws is a foolish thing to do, so let’s  ascribe that to mere rhetoric and playing to the crowd. Still, it is inappropriate for lawyers and elected officials to do.

-  the Federal Government passed a law in 1988 to sell the propery to New York City, and then dropped the ball with regard to maintenance. The City sat on its hands for the last 20 years to take control of the property. There is plenty of blame to go around for the current condition of the buildings. Frankly, no one should be pointing fingers or throwing stones.

10 historic New York buildings now eyesores

By Ryan Chatelain, amNewYork Associate Editor | ryan.chatelain@am-ny.com
July 18, 2008

Crumbling historic New York buildings

It’s hard to imagine today that the eyesore at East 125th Street and Park Avenue once was one of Manhattan’s most picturesque buildings.

Passersby now are more likely to fixate on the collapsed roof and missing bricks than the Queen Anne Style and Romanesque Revival architecture that gave the former Mount Morris Bank building its charm when it opened in the 1880s.

“They need to do something, either destroy it or repair it,” said Alfred Harris, 50, a deacon who works two doors down from the city landmark, also known as the Corn Exchange Bank building, that has sat unoccupied and deteriorating in Harlem for the past 30 years.

While landmark designation is intended to protect historic or architecturally significant structures for future generations, dozens of neglected city landmarks or buildings in historic districts are in danger of being lost forever.

See 10 landmark buildings endangered by neglect:

http://www.amny.com/news/local/am-historic0718-gallery,0,5676570.photogallery

Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing

July 15, 2008

Item 1
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
08-8617- Block 617, lot 55-
20 7th Avenue - Greenwich Village Historic District
A contemporary institutional building designed by Arthur A. Schiller and Albert Ledner and built in 1962-63. Application is to demolish the existing building on the site pursuant to Section 25-309 of the New York City Administrative Code.

The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the application now before the Commission.

HDC would like to thank the Commission for continuing the Public Hearing and allowing for further public testimony on this very important, precedent setting matter.

In its presentation on June 3rd, St. Vincent’s clearly stated their charitable purpose, their dedication to their mission, their importance in this community and the need to upgrade. None of these matters have been in doubt. Still, HDC does not feel that the grounds for hardship exemption have been met to allow the demolition of the O’Toole building.

On the grounds of physical hardship, it was argued that St. Vincent’s could not have a new acute care and trauma facility at the O’Toole site without this building’s demolition, and so would not be able to fulfill the institution’s charitable mission. The O’Toole building has never before served as an acute care and trauma facility, has never before been asked to take on the core activity of the hospital’s mission. There should be no expectation that it could act in this capacity. O’Toole, purchased by St. Vincent’s after its designation as part of the Greenwich Village Historic District, has served the hospital well as an adjunct space. In addition, this Landmarks Commission reinforced that finding when the current Commissioners all deemed O’Toole a significant piece of the Greenwich Village Historic District, some even describing it as worthy of individual landmark designation. In addition, the State Historic Preservation Office has recently ruled that this building is eligible for individual listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places - which does not, of course, have any authority over the LPC’s decisions but furthers the point that this is a meritorious building and not a burden to be disposed of. While it may not be a hospital, the building, with some cleaning up after years of neglect, does have much potential for adaptive reuse. Alternatives to the demolition of a landmark should and must be studied carefully by the Commission.

Indeed, HDC feels strongly there has not been enough investigation of alternatives, or at least not enough made public, including the 40 or so other proposals received during St. Vincent’s bankruptcy proceedings. At the present time, St. Vincent’s still owns the buildings on the east side of 7th Avenue, and this space should be looked at as seriously as the O’Toole site to fulfill the charitable mission of the institution. Other hospitals renovate and continue to operate. Even St. Vincent’s somehow continued to operate when Seton was demolished and the Link and Coleman Pavilions were constructed some twenty-five years ago. So why not now? The recent closing of the nearby Cabrini Medical Center could be a serendipitous chance to decampdecant there while something is built to replace Link and Coleman two buildings everyone agrees should never have been built. Instead, the current proposal seeks to compound the error and demolishwhich another historic building in order to build yet another new facility. Where will it end? What will happen in twenty-five years when this new facility is possibly obsolete or insufficient? Working within historic districts, we must take the long view and think about the effects of alteration and regulation over the space of decades. Wouldn’t it make more sense - for the Greenwich Village Historic District - to explore reusing the current hospital space rather than extinguishing a known historic building?

While this suggestion and other plans might be more complicated and expensive than the proposed, it is not impossible. St. Vincent’s hardship application is on the grounds of physical, not financial, hardship. The mission can still be fulfilled, and both lives and buildings will be saved.

HDC also does not believe “Going Green”, as St. Vincent’s terms it in their plan, should be part of this hardship application. While it is certainly a respectable goal, it does not have anything to do with the hospital’s charitable purpose (it is nowhere listed in the institution’s mission statement) or with the mission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. If “Going Green” is to be discussed, let us remember the environmental factors of massive demolition and construction. Ripping down historic buildings is not Green, and it will never be Green, no matter how many times someone says it is.

HDC has previously expressed concerns over whether St. Vincent’s is asking the Landmarks Commission to apply the appropriate standard for granting a hardship exemption on a property that was bought with full understanding of its status as a City landmark or part of a City historic district and the restrictions and responsibilities thereof. We have yet to hear this issue addressed.

HDC believes that St. Vincent’s can still fulfill its charitable and extremely important mission while LPC fulfills its equally important mission.