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.

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.

This is a great program that doesn’t get nearly enough credit. There are pretty stringent income restrictions for private individuals but non-profits are also eligible.

Landmarks Preservation Commission helps Mott Haven restore history

BY DORIAN BLOCK

Monday, August 4th 2008, 3:20 PM

Three Bronx historic districts are getting a fresh coat of paint to bring back their historical face, with a little help from the city.

Unbeknownst to many, in between the high-rise housing projects and old tenement buildings of Mott Haven, there are three historic districts lined with about 50 landmarked brownstones. The mini-neighborhoods are three of 10 historic districts in the Bronx.

Those historic houses that weren’t burned or torn down during the dark, burning years of the 1970s were often “fixed up” with painting over bricks or layers of stucco plastered over architectural details.

The city Landmarks Preservation Commission is now administering Community Development Block Grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to restore the facades - just as it has done for homes on Morris and Alexander Aves.

“As much as the historic districts in the Bronx are beautiful, there are a lot of buildings that need help,” said Tenzing Chadotsang, director of the Historic Preservation Grants Program.

The first grant in Mott Haven went to a resident on E. 139th St. this spring. It was for $15,000, which homeowner Ariane Randall matched, and Chadotsang oversaw the hiring of a contractor and the daily work of ripping stucco placed over brick, among other things.

Randall’s neighbor was so impressed that he applied and was approved for a grant.

“We do one building and then we might be able to get the next, and as a result the whole neighborhood suddenly realizes what the historic buildings look like,” said Chadotsang. “It does have a ripple effect.”

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.

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.”