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.”