Under General Growth’s new plan for the South Street Seaport, the 1907 Tin Building would be dismantled and moved from its historic location, the birthplace of the Fulton Fish Market to the far edge of the pier behind it. The 1939 New Market Building, which is not landmarked, would be demolished and the site would be cleared for two high-rise towers; a 12-story boutique hotel building and a 45-story residential/hotel building, both on public waterfront property. The Pier 17 mall, approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission and built in 1984, is also slated for demolition. The new development would wall off the seaport from the water, destroying the relationship of the rest of the district with the historic market buildings and the East River.

The South Street Seaport: Historic and Low-Scale

The South Street Seaport Historic District is one of the oldest sections of the New York City and the only extant remnant of the city’s first working waterfront. From its low scale construction (ranging typically from 4 to 8 stories) to its wide, open cobblestone streets and slips, to its direct connection with the East River and its piers, the area is a unique in Manhattan with a sense of openness rare in this ever-growing metropolis. Its 18^th, 19^th and 20^th century structures built as residences, counting houses, market buildings, shops, taverns, and hotels still evoke the shipping days while today finding reuse in many of the same activities. Although the wholesale fish market has left the area in 2005, the neighborhood remains a popular destination for tourists and local office workers. It has also become home to an increasingly large residential population.

 The Tin Building: Without Context or Precedent

 The idea of moving the Tin Building is unprecedented. Simply put, a building in a New York City historic district has never been relocated. There are rare cases of individual landmarks that are not in their original location, most recently Hamilton Grange whose move, planned for more than a century, from one relocated spot to another has placed the historic home in a much more proper context. Buildings within historic districts though gain their meaning through their relationship with other structures. It’s all about context.

 Putting the Tin Building alone on the edge of a pier is not putting it into context. Doing so would separate it from the district’s other market buildings and structures that housed other businesses that supported the fishing industry. While the FDR Drive does block the view of the middle floors of the building, the distinctive top is visible walking down Beekman Street and the ground floor market space opens directly onto South Street as it always has. The district was designated 23 years after the completion of this viaduct, the LPC acknowledging that the construction to the west and the east of the drive were one distinctive grouping, not split in half.

 The New Market Building: Unprotected and Under Dire Threat

 While outside of the city historic district, the demolition of the New Market Building would be a great loss. Its history is clearly stated across the front “FULTON FISH MARKET · CITY OF NEW YORK · DEPARTMENT OF MARKETS”. Opened in 1939, the building was touted in its day for its state of the art amenities and clean, modernist design. The building’s iconic history is undeniable and it should be considered for reuse.

 The Fulton Fish Market is history; moving the Tin Building and demolishing the New Market Building would be erasing that history.

 The Pier 17 Mall: Appropriate for 24 years, Doomed Today?

 While the Pier 17 mall may not be universally loved, it was approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission as an appropriate addition to the district. The AIA Guide to New York calls it “Gigantic, playful, adroitly detailed. . . An instant urban landmark. ” The structure was designed by Benjamin C. Thompson, winner of the highest honor in American Architecture, the Gold Medal from the AIA, chair of the architecture department for Harvard University, and a noted theorist of use of urban architecture to promote joy and social life. He is best known for his work in the Festival Marketplace architectural movement that was pervasive in America’s cities in the 1970s and 1980s, and which makes direct reference to traditional waterfront pavilion design. One can’t help but wonder if in the future, New Yorkers would regret its loss. The most obvious quality of its replacements is “the shock of the new”, but is this appropriate for Manhattan’s oldest neighborhood? And let us not forget that “shockingly new” rarely ages well, and the lifespan of historic districts is not measured in years., but in decades or even centuries.

 General Growth claims the new structures were designed with the district’s history in mind making references to fishnets and ship’s prows. The gargantuan scale and massing is like nothing found in the historic district and would create an imposing barrier between the seaport and the water. The materials and overly designed concepts for the buildings resemble s theme park, something that the district has long fought against becoming. In a district of straightforward, practical buildings, whimsy does not fit. A building should look like a building.

 Historic Districts Are Not Clean Slates nor Empty Fields

 This is part of a sad trend of developers who look at historic districts as clean slates for development and it must stop.

 In the early 1980’s, the LPC agreed to the notion that something had to be done to invigorate the South Street Seaport area and approved the filling in of the space between Piers 17 and 18 and the construction of the present mall. Now they are being told that this development did not work and another, larger development scheme must take place.

 At about that same time, in the late 1970’s, Saint Vincent’s Medical Center asked and received permission to demolish its 19^th‘century Elizabeth Bayley Seton Building which the hospital deemed out of date and to construct the larger Link and Coleman Pavilions. The LPC has been recently told that those buildings are now no longer useful and an even larger residential building should go in their place. Each time such demolition and new construction is proposed, the construction gets larger and more out of context, and our city’s historic districts suffer. Historic Districts are not frozen in time; 10,000 approved applications for work on landmark buildings last year alone dispels that myth. However they are not clean slates or empty fields, the buildings which exist have precedence over the buildings someone wants to exist. Landmarks mark the land - they are indelible. That is one of their primary characteristics. They are not placeholders to be demolished when the next bright idea comes along.  We cannot and should not allow our historic districts to be looked at as merely plots of developable land. To do so diminishes our history and our city.

HOW YOU CAN HELP:

Send a letter to LPC Chair Robert Tierney at comments@lpc.nyc.gov urging the Landmarks Commission to vote NO on the General Growth Properties proposal for the South Street Seaport Historic District and to protect the character of Manhattan’s oldest neighborhood.

Located within the Park Slope Historic District:

This 20th-century alteration by a well-known architect deserves the same protection the Commission regularly gives to similar historic alterations. There is no documentation (at least none provided) regarding the building’s appearance before the 1918 alterations took place, and it was not built as part of the row that neighbors it. The proposed dentilated cornice feels fussy and out of synch compared to the rest of the façade. The change in the division of the Palladian window cuts it in half, changing its proportions. Finally, no material samples were provided for either the cornice or the windows, an important consideration for any proposed work. We are lucky that 799 Carroll Street has retained Brooklyn architect George Chappell’s coherent design for a neo-Federal façade ninety years later – there is no need or reason to fuss with it. HDC urges the commission to reject this application.

Located within the Gansevoort Market Historic District:

Although small, this building has a history that distinctly reflects its time and place in the history of the Gansevoort Market. As described in the designation report, the “largely intact” building was built during the “last major phase of development in the district, when new low-scale buildings were constructed…for meat-related businesses.” The low scale redevelopment of the 1930’s was brought on by the construction of the elevated Miller Highway, elevated freight lines of the New York Central Rail Road, and Holland Tunnel, all of which allowed for easier access between the area and the metropolitan region. The designation report goes on to point out that such buildings are rare, late examples of the older market building typology constructed at a time when automobiles and super markets were quickly changing the look of grocery shopping throughout the nation. There are very specific reasons, related to the distinct history of this district, for why this building is low scale. The proposed alterations would change this historic building, its place in history and its relationship to other buildings in the district.

While this project could be interesting if not in an historic district, it is all wrong here. Too much of the ground floor is being opened up to make way for plates of glass. Reopening original openings is appropriate and welcomed, creating so many more is not. The adding of plantings does not take the character of the district into consideration, softening the building up too much to be recognized as a former meat market structure. The same is true of the greenery dripping from the balconies of the addition. In fact, it is misleading since the LPC does not regulate plantings as we are regularly reminded in applications in the suburban historic districts. The sheer size of the addition, roughly twice as tall as the existing building, makes it inappropriate. Before any consideration of how environmental or creative this addition is, you must determine its effect on the existing, contributing building. The existing historic building cannot compete with the proposed upper floors and will be ignored. The addition and facade alterations proposed are the visual equivalent of demolishing this landmarked structure, and HDC urges the commission to reject a proposal that would do any such thing.

An individual landmark and integral part of the Ladies’ Mile Historic District at 155 Fifth Avenue:

HDC is very happy to see the former Scribner Building moving closer to its historic appearance and we applaud the applicant on the steps they are taking towards this goal.

At first glance the proposal looks quite appropriate, but with a closer look it appears to be a rather watered down version of the vibrant original. As proposed, the storefront windows are too close to the façade. Instead they should be set back more to capture some of the depth and shadow seen in the historic photos. The columns do not have the same level of detail of the originals, particularly in the base. From the historic photos it appears as if these columns were located at the corner of the storefront windows and the entry recess, not placed within the windows as proposed. It then looks like a similar pair of pilasters was behind these at the corner where the entrance wall and the sides of the window met. However it is interpreted, there should be a greater level of articulation and ornament around the entrance. Also, the original iron work has a bit more flourish than what is shown in the proposed elevation drawing. Finally, the small, box-like canopy proposed bears no relation to anything else on the façade and we recommend this be removed from the proposal.

HDC is also hesitant to approve a project such as this that does not include material samples. We are particularly concerned about the ironwork that dominates this façade. The presentation boards only refer to the new pieces as “metal.” What kind of metal? A sample is needed to gage its heft and texture. The new should match the quality of ironwork found on the upper floors. In order to achieve the intended elegance, it is very important that high quality materials and production methods be used.

This proposal is a good start towards restoring this building that is both an individual landmark and an integral piece of the Ladies’ Mile Historic District. HDC encourages the applicant to go a few steps further towards creating a project which, like the original, is not just any common storefront but a piece of artful architecture.

New storefront infill and signage was proposed for the individual landmark at 222 Bowery:

HDC would like to compliment the applicant on a very thorough, clear presentation. We were particularly grateful for the material samples and the very detailed historic photos that predate the tax photos. The application does begin to move this building in the right direction, and it will be very nice to see the individual landmark presently hiding under all that signage and rolldown gates. With the clear, detailed documentation of the original first floor and the upper floors retaining their historic fenestration, it seems only appropriate though that the ground floor be kept as close to the original as possible.

HDC appreciates the reopening of the lower portions of the windows, but would like to see the wrought iron metal work also reinstalled. Without it, the base looses much of its strength. We question the need to move the transom bar of the windows down. The transoms now, as they historically have been, line up with the rusticated stone banding that acts rather like imposts to the slight arches of the window openings. Moving the transom bar takes away from the unity of the windows and this façade detail and splits the windows in half changing the proportions and giving them a squat appearance. If at all possible, it is important to maintain the existing entrance to this space off of the main entrance, rather than creating an entirely new one out of a window opening and removing historic fabric.

The pin mounted lettering proposed would compete with the “Young Men’s Institute” title in the brownstone band above, a sign seen in the historic photos dating back to the building’s opening. Instead, HDC recommends using a blade sign, as there seems to be some sort of signage perpendicular to the building in the c.1915 photo.

There is much in this proposal to be pleased about, and, with the changes recommended, HDC looks forward to the restoration of this fine individual landmark.

An 1870 Romanesque Revival style church designed by William B. Ditmars at 143-149 Kent Street. Application was for a residential conversion:

HDC approves of much of the fine work proposed to allow for the adaptive reuse of these historic structures. Our only concern is the visibility of the solar panels. While we understand and appreciate the benefits of the solar panels, it seems that they would be visible. Applications for solar panels are something the Commission will hopefully be seeing more and more of in the years to come, and we urge you to think carefully about the issue of visibility, the different types of solar technology available, and their impact on the appearance and character of landmarks.

July 15, 2008

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 has previously expressed concerns over the constitutional grounds and appropriateness of granting a hardship exemption on a property that was bought with full understanding of its landmark and the restrictions and responsibilities thereof. We have yet to hear these issues address.

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

presented with only a slight bias for emphasis, but unedited.

Admiral’s Row: The Smackdown

From the Brooklyn Papers

Houses along the historic Admiral’s Row at the Brooklyn Navy Yard have been decaying for years. Navy Yard officials want to tear them down, but preservationists are rallying to save them.

The debate over whether to tear down a row of historic, but severely dilapidated, homes inside the Brooklyn Navy Yard along Flushing Avenue has pit residents of the nearby public housing projects, who want a long-promised supermarket on the site, against historic preservationists, who say the homes can be saved and reused.

Both camps rallied at Borough Hall last week at a public hearing over the fate of the so-called “Admirals Row” houses. To further that debate, The Brooklyn Paper presents this smackdown between a supporter of the Navy Yard’s supermarket plan and an opponent.

Pro

Downtown Brooklyn is undergoing one of the most significant development projects in the country if not the world. However, the Public Housing Developments of Ingersoll, Walt Whitman and Faragutt are being isolated and cut off from the opportunities now available in the community.

Our government has the duty to protect its people. We have not been protected or respected by anyone to date. This is an opportunity for the government step in and to rectify this wrong being inflicted on our residents by allowing the removal of the Admirals Row homes now and use its influence to speed up process of building the supermarket.

Ed Brown, president, Ingersoll Tenants Association

Con

The Admirals Row Houses allow us to imagine what Brooklyn was, and what it can become. When Congress voted to offer to sell the property to New York City in 1988, the houses, although already vacant for years, were an extraordinarily intact row of mid- to late-19th century residential architecture, including superb examples of Second Empire, Italianate and Queen Anne styles.

Constructed between 1850 and 1900 the buildings were a dignified ensemble of homes for the officers of the Navy and their families, a role they continued to serve from before the Civil War until after the Vietnam conflict. These were solid, handsome buildings that housed people with the important job of protecting our country.

Just like bank buildings of the era were advertisements of importance and solidity of their finances, these buildings symbolized the strength of our nation and the importance of Brooklyn to our country. The symbolism and promise of these buildings remains intact.

It is a profound failure of imagination to insist that this row must be demolished for a parking lot instead reusing them for needed community amenities. There is plenty of room on the six-acre property for a supermarket and industrial uses behind the buildings, especially if the necessary parking is incorporated into the new buildings.

With regard to financing the buildings’ reuse, this site has the potential to be enormously profitable for any supermarket developer; Home Depot, Lowe’s and Target all have their highest earning stores in New York. In return for what is sure to be a wildly successful venture, the developer should be required to give back to the local community and the city by making good on the promise of Admirals Row and returning these buildings back to Brooklyn.

Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council

©2008 The Brooklyn Paper

The Juniper Park Civic Association (JPCA) is today claiming victory over notorious developer, Tommy Huang, (destroyer of the officially landmarked RKO Keith’s Theater of Flushing) who illegally constructed a house at 57-39 Mazeau Street in Maspeth in 2006.  The house was built contrary to plans presented to and approved by the NYC Department of Buildings and in violation of the R4-1 zoning for the area. Huang had demolished the garage on the premises without a permit and then constructed a 4-story, 3-family house on the site.  He has now removed the top story and a section on the side of the house that encroached on the lot next door.

“This is a big victory for Maspeth because it shows unscrupulous developers that the community is watching and they won’t be able to get away with this type of action,” said Robert Holden, JPCA President.

“This is like a cancer in the community.  Once the first illegal building is constructed, others are sure to follow,” said Tony Nunziato, Chair of the Maspeth-Middle Village Task Force.  “I am glad that the Department of Buildings has kept on top of this situation and has forced the developer’s hand.”

The permit for the property was revoked by Department of Buildings Queens Borough Commissioner Derek Lee after a November 15, 2006 audit which found 23 objections, including non-compliance with the R4-1 zoning code and misuse of the Community Facilities Provision of the zoning code. The Juniper Park Civic Association held rallies at the site in December 2006 and December 2007 with Councilman Tony Avella, Chair of the City Council’s Zoning Subcommittee, who has also been keeping a watchful eye on the property.  Together, he and JPCA pushed for an audit of the property and called for the house to either be legalized to conform with current zoning codes or be forcibly demolished by the City.

The NYC Department of Buildings again audited the site on July 6, 2007.  They still found objections at that time requiring correction.

“Right off the bat, you can tell this house is in non-compliance because R4-1 is a contextual zone that allows for no more than 2-family houses,” explained Paul Graziano, urban planner and President of the Historic Districts Council.

Manny Caruana, JPCA Board Member and Community Board 5 Member, lives in the vicinity and was the first person to take notice and report the problems at the site to the Department of Buildings.  “It took a long time to get results, and we only got this far because neither we, Tony Avella nor DOB caved in.  None of us stopped watching what was going on here,” he said.  “The fact that Huang has been forced to comply and not just pay a fine restores a little bit of my faith in DOB.”

The Queens Civic Congress (QCC) has also been following this story from the beginning.  “Queens Civic Congress calls on all would-be violators of the City’s Zoning laws and its Building code to be on notice,” stated Corey Bearak, President of QCC. ”No excuses.  Either comply with the law and the code or any illegal structure you build will need to be cut down to its rightful and legal size.  This simple message should resonate throughout the industry and we welcome this intervention by the Department of Buildings and thank Commissioner Robert LiMandri for following through on this and many other matters brought to his attention.  Special recognition and thank you goes to Juniper Park Civic Association for fighting for the community and never letting up.”

“It’s about time that DOB listened to the community and forced notorious developers like Tommy Huang to conform to the building and zoning codes,” said Councilman Tony Avella.  “It still is a shame that the community has to be the ones to force the DOB to enforce its own regulations.”

The house currently has a full stop-work order on it - with today’s date.  It was briefly lifted to allow for the correction of violating conditions.  Huang must prove that the house is in compliance with all DOB directives before being issued a permit to finish the structure.  JPCA and Councilman Avella will continue to monitor the progress of work at the site.

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.