Commissioner Roberta Gratz’s Comments on the St. Vincent’s Hardship Application

These are the comments of Landmarks Preservation Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz regarding the St Vincent’s application, delivered at the LPC public meeting on 10/28/08.

The application by St. Vincent’s Hospital for a constitutional hardship exemption in order to demolish a unique designated landmark is the most disturbing challenge to the Landmarks Law that I have witnessed since the Grand Central case in the 1970s.

St. Vincent’s is a worthy public service institution fulfilling a critical public need in a neighborhood without nearby alternatives. So as is too often the case, landmark preservation is pitted against another public good — in this case a matter of life and death.

But our responsibility is to protect historic resources in this city. We are not asked to judge the need or merits of building a new hospital, although we were inundated with testimony on this. We are not asked even to judge whether the hospital has alternatives to tearing down this particular landmark, although we were inundated with unpersuasive testimony in this regard. We have also had lengthy memos from our staff counsel that seems to support the hospital view, backed apparently by the Law Department, although we have not seen their comments. And, we have been inundated with information regarding financial hardship but that is not what the application for a constitutional or physical hardship asks us to evaluate.

Our sole responsibility — but an immense one in an urban world where new construction and development are as close to religion as one can get – is to protect the city’s historic resources when we find them worthy.

In this case, worthiness is unquestioned. The O’Toole Building – originally the headquarters of the National Maritime Union and one of the few remnants of an era when maritime commerce dominated the Manhattan waterfront – is a one-of-a-kind landmark of unusual distinction. Consequently, this commission voted unanimously to designate in May, concluding that it would be inappropriate to tear down O’Toole.

With that vote, we made it clear that only under the very limited circumstances of hardship could we find it appropriate to demolish this building. Thus, the only basis for us to allow such an outcome, no matter how much we sympathize with the Hospital’s plight, is if the Hospital demonstrated that the maintenance of O’Toole physically prevents or seriously interferes with the carrying out of St. Vincent’s charitable purpose.
The Hospital has never denied (or could it) that O’Toole can continue to be used for the purpose for which it was acquired – outpatient services and doctors’ offices, functions integral to the hospital’s operations. Thus, maintenance of O’Toole is not the problem and does not create the required hardship. Whatever problems the Hospital may face, the O’Toole Building does not create them.

Nothing could be clearer than this: Our decision that the demolition of O’Toole would be inappropriate could not constitute a taking because its continued use for present activities is viable. If we were now to allow demolition, notwithstanding that the criteria for hardship articulated by prior Landmarks cases, I am persuaded we would be acting in a discretionary way not authorized under the law.

What St. Vincent’s has argued is not that O’Toole creates the hardship but that the existing East Campus does and O’Toole is needed to remedy the problem. However, that is not the appropriate standard by which we are to judge. This is what I find most disturbing and, in fact, scary.

If that were the appropriate test, it would wreak havoc with the Law’s protections. Any charity in any historic district could claim it had a special need to fulfill its mission and that need could only be remedied by tearing down a landmark, even though the facility was purchased after its designation as a landmark. The fact that the historic structure was viable in its own right would not matter – the only issue would be the needs of the institution.

In my deliberations, I am always mindful of precedents and this would be a disastrous one. I shutter to think of what could be lost in this manner.

Over the years, we have seen the brilliant and creative reuse of the most challenging of landmarks. Advocates for the law always knew this would be the case but some adapted landmarks have exceeded expectation. O’Toole has great potential to both continue its hospital-related service or be sold and put to another viable, creative purpose.

Finally, I believe alternatives exist and that the denial of this hardship application will in no way lead to the demise of St. Vincent’s. We have heard testimony about many alternative sites and have discussed others not yet mentioned. Some may be more costly. Maybe. But St. Vincent’s does not seek its hardship exemption based on financial considerations, only on alleged physical constraints. This route is their preference, not the only one available.

I am confident that with the denial of this hardship application, the Hospital will find acceptable ways to modernize. I therefore vote against granting St. Vincent’s a hardship exemption.