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.

From Crain’s: Whitney Museum selling nearby townhouses

Theresa Agovino
Published: August 1, 2008 - 2:39 pm

The Whitney Museum of American Art is seeking to sell at least some of the townhouses next to its Madison Avenue location that were slated to be part of a now-defunct, controversial plan to expand on the Upper East Side.

A Whitney spokesman said the museum is in the early stages of exploring a sale and will use the money to fund the new building it is planning in the meat-packing district.
In 2006, the Whitney scrapped a plan to construct a tower behind the townhouses even though it had won the necessary approvals despite bitter opposition from some Upper East Side residents and preservationists. The townhouses were going to be incorporated in the expansion.

Well who would have expected this to happen? Especially after the Whitney went to virtual war with the Upper East Side to gain approval for their plan, eventually resulting in the New York Times joining the fray. (It shouldn’t surprise anyone that we were against it, stating that “in general, HDC does not believe that buildings should be demolished in order to create empty space” - a problem that we are continuing to struggle against with the Purchase Building and Admiral’s Row).

First the Hotel Pennsylvania and now this; score another for the shaky economy.

Dorm Looms Over Neighborhood
by Jillian Abbott , Queens Chronicle Reporter

Attempts to halt or even slow St. John’s University from building a six-story dorm on Henley Road in residential Jamaica Estates appear to have failed.

St. John’s confirmed that construction continues at the site, located at 172-14 Henley Road, despite an independent engineer’s report that identified 33 deficiencies in the plans and construction of the building. The independent engineer, Joel Miele of Miele Associates, warned state Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Bellerose) that there was little chance that his findings would stop the construction, according to Assemblyman Mark Weprin (D-Fresh Meadows). Miele found that the plans had inadequate provisions for handicapped bathrooms, fire safety, ventilation and lighting.
The 485-bed dorm, which is rapidly approaching completion, has risen above the height of one-family homes to tower over the neighborhood, dominating the view for several blocks around.

Approved because of a loophole that designates dorms as community facilities and allows then to be built to almost twice the height of zoned businesses and residences, the dorm has met with community opposition at every turn.

Upon receipt of the report, Padavan wrote to the Department of Buildings asking them to address the deficiencies and stop the construction. But following a meeting between the developer, David Belt, of H2H Residences LLC, and representatives of the DOB, the plans were found to be in full compliance with codes. Of the 33 deficiencies, all but one required only minor modifications, according to the DOB.

The one substantial change to the plans was the provision for a smoke door in a corridor that runs longer than 125 feet. A smoke door is a door or set of doors placed in a corridor to restrict the spread of smoke and to retard the spread of fire by reducing draft. A spokesman for the DOB said that while this was a serious issue, it had been addressed and other issues, such as the size provision for handicapped bathrooms was exceeded in the plan because they were eight feet wide and the code requirement is for seven feet. He was unable to explain why Miele found the plans inadequate in this regard when the DOB found them to be compliant.

©Queens Chronicle 2008

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.

FromThe New York Times

HISTORICAL SOCIETY DROPS PLANS FOR EXPANSION AND TOWER 

After a year and a half of controversy and intense opposition by preservationists and neighborhood groups, the New-York Historical Society at 77th Street and Central Park West has abandoned its pursuit of a $100 million, 23-story luxury condominium tower, along with a five-story annex that would have risen above an adjacent empty lot the society owns at 7-13 West 76th Street.

The calender has been posted, http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/calendar/07_15_08.pdf and if anyone is left standing after St. Vincent’s Hearing, part 4 (The Final Chapter;), the LPC will be calendering the proposed Prospect Heights HD and voting on the West Chelsea HD!

The St. Vincent’s hearing will be at Tishman Auditorium in the NYU Law School’s Vanderbilt Hall, 40 Washington Square West starting at 9:30am. The designation presentation (no public testimony will be taken on these items) will start at the LPC’s offices at 1 Centre Street at 1:45pm.