NEWS: Press Reports on Sunnyside Meeting
From the Queens Chronicle
Sunnyside Debates Driveways, Democracy
by Jennifer Manley , Assistant Editor
Perhaps it would have been helpful if Lewis Mumford could have spoken for himself last Wednesday night at a meeting about landmarking Sunnyside Gardens that drew over 200 residents and lasted for nearly four hours.
Mumford, the social critic who lauded the planned community for its democratic design, was quoted by residents on both sides of a debate that has become the hottest topic in the neighborhood he once called home.
At issue is whether the city should designate approximately 600 buildings as a historic district.
The move would prevent tear downs and large additions, as well as protect the common gardens and maintain the 1920s architecture common to the rows of modest brick homes.
With representatives from the Department of City Planning and the Landmarks Preservation Commission in attendance, much of the residents’ inquiries were about specific regulations that districting would bring.
But a second more philosophical discourse also emerged: Can “neighborliness,” diversity and democracy be preserved with six over six windows and slate roofs?
“We all have one thing in common, we all live in the same kind of houses. And every time the exterior of another one of our houses is altered, this diverse community loses some of what it holds in common,” resident Michael Scarborough wrote in a statement that was read.
On the other side of the debate, residents argued that to focus on the architectural details was to miss the greater sense of the gardens. “It’s not the buildings, it’s the people, the gardens and the community … we do not need draconian rules on our homes,” John Ward said.
Abraham Marcus countered in favor of landmarking, offering a nod to the limits of personal freedom. “My right to swing my fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins,” he said, quoting the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Others agreed with Ward, asserting some dominion over their own castles, no matter how historically remarkable they may be. “I do not live in a museum or period piece and I don’t desire to live in one,” Ira Greenberg noted.
Michael Meola concurred that change is both good and inevitable. “This neighborhood is just not the neighborhood it was in 1925 — for good or bad — and I think for good,” he said. Meola recently built a dormer window on his 47th Street home that sparked a flurry of objections in the neighborhood. Meola’s street facing addition was eventually approved by the Department of Buildings, and stands for some as an example of change landmarking could, and should, prevent.
Wednesday’s meeting was peppered with inquiries about what kind of changes would be allowed. Can I replace the glass in my sliding glass door? Can I build a rear deck? Will the common gardens be protected? How much does Hudson River brick cost?
Sarah Carroll and Mark Silberman, of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, fielded most questions. (The answers, respectively, are yes, perhaps, absolutely, and don’t know.)
Carroll was adamant that the commission does not swoop in and demand that houses be returned to their original 1920s look. She also emphasized her staff’s flexibility and desire to accommodate changing and modern needs. “While we regulate work, we do not prevent change. We review change,” she said.
She also indicated that 95 percent of changes to homes can be approved simply and in a matter of weeks at staff level. Permission for more extreme changes must be granted by the full commission and can take months.
Permits will cost $50 for the first $25,000 of work and an additional $3 for every $1,000 worth of work beyond that.
John Young, Queens director of City Planning, was also on hand to discuss the existing special planned community preservation district, which would most likely be changed in order to avoid overlap in the rules.
Some see the protections of this special zoning as sufficient, though the rules are not particularly well enforced by the buildings department and are sometimes blatantly disregarded by homeowners. “We need that enforcement and that’s what has been lacking in the preservation district,” said Joe Conley, chairman of Community Board 2 and the meeting’s moderator.
The very person to field such complaints, however, was absent. Despite confirmation from the Department of Buildings that Robert Hudak was to be at the meeting, his chair sat empty. (Hudak was in Queens that night, at a meeting in Middle Village discussing a pilot project to enhance enforcement through the use of unarmed “sheriffs.”)
Enforcement by the landmarks commission includes warning letters and hefty fines for noncompliance, Silberman explained. That is enough to convince some citizens of its merits. Tony Rohling, a self described man “of middle means” said: “I would definitely support landmarking because landmarking has teeth.”
The landmarks commission is likely to calendar the district for a public hearing before the end of winter. Public hearings are generally held on a Tuesday, however, in response to a request to hold the meeting at a more convenient time for working people, a commission spokeswoman said, “it’s something that we definitely will consider.”
Once the district is calendared, all work permits will have to pass through the landmarks commission. If six of the 11 commissioners vote in favor, the proposed district is then reviewed by the Department of City Planning and goes on to final approval by the City Council.
Calendaring is a big step closer to designation: there are three instances of districts that have been calendared but have never been designated. The City Council has never disapproved a district in Queens.
Councilman Eric Gioia, who represents the area, has yet to take a formal position. “An attractive part of landmarking is that I think it’s a very special neighborhood and I want to see it preserved for at least my lifetime,” he said.
Gioia, who recently bought a house in Sunnyside, recognizes some “legitimate concerns and questions especially in a neighborhood that is not wealthy.”
Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan, who also represents the area, has publicly stated her support for landmarking.
An additional meeting in Sunnyside with all three city agencies is being planned.
For a list of established guidelines for historic districts and frequently asked questions for Sunnyside Gardens, visit www.nyc.gov/html/lpc .
©Queens Chronicle 2007
From the Queens Times-Ledger
01/25/2007
Sunnyside Gds. landmark plans spark debate
By Adam Pincus
Impassioned Sunnyside Gardens residents expressing opinions on both sides of a controversial city proposal to landmark their bucolic neighborhood said they wanted to maintain their community Ð they just differed on the way to do it.
Those in favor of the proposal cited the need to protect the neighborhood from illegal curb cuts and unusual dormers.
Opponents of the plan said the additional bureaucracy would be a burden on homeowners in a neighborhood that is special not for the buildings but for the people.
Marsha Butler was outraged when a Gardens neighbor built a controversial dormer through his slate roof on 47th Street after obtaining permits.
“I saw that the authorities we have now have no teeth,” she said.
John Ward moved to the Gardens 17 years ago and spoke again
st the landmarking. He said the architecture of the neighborhood was not particularly striking.
“It is not the buildings, it is the people, the gardens and the community,” he said that made the area special to him.
About 200 people packed a public hearing Jan. 17 at the Sunnyside Community Services, 43-31 39th St., leaving many residents standing in the back and turning a handful away after the capacity was reached.
They came to hear from representatives from city agencies involved with regulating the buildings in the Gardens and to express their views. A slight majority said they were in favor of the proposal as they gave their personal statements.
The city Landmarks Preservation Commission is considering a proposal to create a historic district for approximately 600 buildings on the tree-lined streets filled with mostly two-story brick homes built between 1924 and 1928.
Most of the area is in a special planned community preservation district, designated in 1974, which was intended to severely restrict alterations and has prevented any demolitions.
The new proposal also includes 472 units in the Phipps Garden Apartments, opened in 1931 and 1936, which were not included in the 1974 preservation district.
The passions were reflected in investigations and visual aids developed by residents.
Architect Laura Heim and her husband Jeffrey Kroessler, both passionate advocates for landmarking, created images of what a block could look like under the current regulations in zoning and special preservation district.
The color photographs showed a number of red brick homes on 46th Street converted from a uniform brick to a hodgepodge of vinyl siding, stone work and gaudy beach home colors.
Michael Meola, who built a dormer on his home, conducted his own study of the hundreds of buildings in the area, concluding that only a minority of them had the traditional-style window.
The city sought to minimize the impact of landmarking.
Sarah Carroll, the director of preservation for the Landmarks Preservation Commission, said “we regulate, we don’t compel.” She said her agency writes about 9,000 permits each year on the 23,000 buildings regulated.
Silberman said the commission had three full-time staff working on enforcement, which is driven by complaints received.
Some remained unconvinced.
“The original intent of Sunnyside Gardens was for working families,” said Michael O’Sullivan, as he left the meeting. “Do they get an opportunity to vote?” he asked rhetorically as he left the meeting.
Reach reporter Adam Pincus by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 154.
From the Queens Ledger
Some Boos for S’side Landmarking
By Francesca Ferreira
Dateline : Thursday, January 25, 2007
An overflowing room of over 200 upset residents of Sunnyside Gardens showed up in attendance at yet another Community Board 2 meeting discussing the possibility of landmarking in their area. The room became so full that a number of residents were forced to leave because of lack of space, with many residents having to stand shoulder to shoulder throughout the whole hearing.
“I didn’t move here because of the house,” said one resident. “It’s about the open space and the community.”
The Landmarks Commission stood before the full room of Sunnyside Gardens residents and discussed the whole process of designation. Mark Silberman, a Landmarks commissioner, said that they had been interested in Sunnyside Gardens for a long time and have had six meetings with the board to discuss it. One resident argued that they were private meetings and that residents were never received notices for these board meetings taking place until recently. “Nobody goes to community board meetings,” said the resident.
“The designation process is a long process,” responded Silberman. He discussed how the designation process has to be determined through review and research. He said they would have to take pictures of each of the resident’s houses and buildings and place it all into the “Green Book,” which will show what conditioneach of the houses were in before designation.
During that process of designation, the residents’ properties would be calendared in until it is approved by the Commission. During that period of time, the property will be marked under the letter “C,” then after approval will be marked by the letter “L.”
“Paving, fences, roof slants…would be subject to commission review,” explained Sarah Cowell, another Landmarks commissioner. “We don’t compel you to make changes. We write permits everyday.”
This statement was followed by a fluster of boos heard from the crowd. “A lot of people are not affected by designation day to day,” she insisted.
These changes are what have residents on edge, since they all acknowledge that any changes that are made to their houses and not grandfathered in around time of designation could be liable to fines, if not approved by the Commission for permits. Joked one resident from the crowd, “Are we going to have zoning police? cameras?”
Inappropriate changes that would need a permit include: current windows not matching historical windows, reconstructed or renovated front facades that do not use the original architectural material, and using ordinary bricks for their house or building instead of the original Hudson River brick.
A resident in the crowd said, “Not many people have permits, how do we deal with the transition if landmarking takes place?”
Silberman responded that everything that is present in the picture taken of the property prior to landmarking will be grandfathered in, but it must be legalized at the Department of Buildings first.
Another resident stood up and hollered, “We have not and are not given the opportunity for the democratic process.”
The resident noted that the Landmark Preservation Commission has 11 members that contemplate and deliberate their approvals and disapprovals for permits in a democratic way, but the residents of the neighborhood, in the question for designation, don’t have a right to vote on the future of the property that most have been living in for many years.
Not all residents are opposed to the designation. Herbert Reynolds, a resident who is for landmarking, spoke about when he used to live in Astoria with his wife and their neighbors were engaged in competition with reconstructing and altering their houses. He noted that it became a bad place to live.
“Sunnyside Gardens has architecture that is consistent and nice to live,” he said. “Sunnyside neighbors taught me to not out do my neighbors.”
Judith Sloan, a Sunnyside Gardens resident, spoke on how immigrants are not able to comprehend the documents of landmarking that are available in English only. She insisted on providing documents that are translated in different languages so that other residents would be able to comprehend what is going on in their neighborhood.