NEWS: Report from PS 64 LPC hearing
From the East Village Community Coalition
http://evccnyc.org
The LPC concluded its public designation hearing on
old P.S. 64, former Charas yesterday, June 6.
The room was again full with people standing. Additional community members spoke with some excellent testimony. Thanks to everyone who came.
Extending an agreement with the building’s owner, the LPC agreed not to vote to designate the building before June 21 and the owner agreed to do no work on the building in the meantime.
We are hopeful that the Landmarks Preservation Commission will designate Old P.S. 64 on June 21.
Three experts hired by the building’s owner spoke against designation. Most shocking was Andrew Alpern’s testimony. Mr. Alpern, an expert on the apartment houses of the very wealthy, presented a recent large photo of Old P.S. 64 and then flipped the photo to reveal a rendering of the building “scalped and denuded” of architectural detail. These renderings were consistent with plans prepared by the firm of Gilsanz.Murray.Steficek. http://www.gmsllp.com
The owner has a permit for this work and could legally undertake it even after designation though no mention was made that this work was in any way needed to repair or restore the building.
Dr. Robert Fogelson, an MIT professor of history and urban studies, presented unpersuasive arguments that the building and its history were unremarkable. The core of both Mr. Alpern’s and Mr. Fogelson’s arguments seemed to be that only the largest, grandest, and wealthiest of New York’s architecture, history, and culture merit preservation. Attorney Jeffrey Glen gave points from the building owner’s $100 million lawsuit against the city. These points did not appear to bear on Old P.S. 64’s merits as a city landmark.
In summary, we hope that the LPC will vote to designate in two weeks. We are concerned about permits that appear to exist only to destroy architectural features of the building, though we fail to see how the willful and senseless destruction of these features could allow an owner to reverse a landmarks designation.