NEWS: Queens Chronicle Editorial in Favor of Landmarking Sunnyside
01/18/2007
Landmarking For Sunnyside Gardens
The relentless pace of residential and commercial real estate development has not been kind to Queens in recent years. It seems like every few weeks in this newspaper, a story is written about the loss of some historic structure or another, whether it’s a cherished movie house in Rego Park or the former borough hall in Long Island City. Almost invariably, these buildings are replaced with ones of far cheaper manufacture and far greater density. Entire Queens neighborhoods of tidy, single family homes have been lost to the wrecking ball, replaced by multifamily dwellings. We are all too familiar with the consequences that ensue: overcrowded schools, destroyed social fabric, ugly neighborhoods and a depressed quality of life.
But it does not have to be that way. While City Hall has shown no appetite for mandating new construction that actually looks halfway decent, we are at least able to retain our existing architectural heritage. The most comprehensive way to do this—landmarking—has worked wonders for Jackson Heights and Stockholm Street in Ridgewood. There is no reason why it should not also work for Sunnyside Gardens, which is currently being considered for protection by the city Landmarks Preservation Commission.
As the first “garden city” development in the nation, Sunnyside Gardens certainly meets the bar for historic significance. Built in the 1920s, the 17 city blocks were designed by Clarence Stein and Henry Wright. Each house, executed in the Arts and Crafts style, melds with neighboring homes to form a harmonious whole. On the street side, the houses create congruous sight lines punctuated only by towering trees; on the interior side, they create communal courtyards designed to foster a sense of cooperation. It is from this architectural basis that Sunnyside Gardens derives its unique feeling and spirit.
Virtually everyone in the neighborhood agrees that the Gardens should be preserved in some manner, but there are differences of opinion over whether landmarking is the best option. Landmarking does create some burdens, such as the need for permits if residents want to change their windows or replace their roofs. Materials that are true to the traditional aesthetic will almost certainly cost more. That said, the Landmarks Preservation Commission has insisted repeatedly that no one is required to return their home back to the original design—all existing features that are legal would be grandfathered—and that it will work with residents to find affordable alternatives.
Some opponents of landmarking have engaged in a campaign of misinformation that, regardless of their intentions, undermines their credibility. Gentrification is not a foregone conclusion of landmarking; high minded pronouncements about economic and racial diversity ignore the hundreds of renters—many of them people of color—who will continue to be attracted to the relatively affordable apartments. Landmarking would indeed protect the courtyards, and may actually increase neighborliness since everyone will be held to the same, unambiguous standards. Finally, critics who say the area’s architecture is not significant betray their elitism; just because Sunnyside Gardens homes are more modest than their counterparts in Forest Hills Gardens or Brooklyn Heights does not mean they are not worth preserving.
For too long, Queens’ cultural treasures have been underappreciated, as evidenced by the small number of borough landmarks relative to Brooklyn and Manhattan. The Landmarks Preservation Commission, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the city, state and federal officials who represent the area now have the ability to correct this historical wrong. Any risk that they perceive they are taking today will be soon be forgotten, but their courage will be plain to see for future generations in Sunnyside Gardens.