REPORT: 980 Madison Hearing, in all its glory
Once again, we were treated to opulent surroundings and a better sound system in the offices of the Department of Cultural Affairs. Counting the room, there were probably around 150 people in attendance, with a reasonably heavy press presence (at least by LPC standards), although no TV cameras. The meeting started on time and Commissioner Bob Tierney explained what was going to happen. Since the applicants did not have a chance to respond to public testimony at the October 24th hearing (as they normally would), they would be given that opportunity now, the commissioners would have the chance to ask them any questions and then the commissioners would discuss the item and perhaps take a vote.
Norman Foster went first. He framed his presentation several times as a continuing (or evolving) process where he looked forward to working with the LPC to shape the project. Then he spoke about his decision that the most delicate intervention to the horizontal historic building was this delicate vertical addition. He felt the contrast between the tower and the base really emphasized the two objects. Mr. Foster went on to reference the Roche-Dinkeloo addition to the Met, the Rose Center and the Morgan Library as examples of glass interventions in masonry masses and how much everyone likes them. He spoke about the design process and how they carefully studied 50 different iterations of towers on the site and this version fit the space best, and how this proposal really fit the site and was really quite site-specific. He tried, in his words, “to resist talking about the Green agenda of the building”, but added “that red, white and blue is the new Green” ostensibly in reference to the growing importance of green architecture and energy efficiency in America. He concluded by saying that the building was not “transparent” but rather very much a sculptural building – but for the pedestrian on the same side of the block, it would be largely unseen except as you walk through the district, one would get “tantalizing glimpses” of the building. Then he was done and people clapped.
Commissioner Margery Perlmutter asked about the applicants about the precedent of such a proposal; how would they answer all the concerns that by permitting this addition, the LPC would be opening the floodgates to other proposals for towering rooftop additions?
Bill Higgins, preservation consultant to the project, addressed that concern, stating to begin with, he felt that every decision the Landmarks Commission made was an individual one based on the merits of the situation. In this case, he built the case that the application was appropriate because:
1. The Parke-Bernet Building was a building that took up a full block-front;
2. The existing historic building has been altered, so there’s an opportunity to restore it;
3. The existing building has a very horizontal geometry and this “contrapuntal” approach (of the vertical insertion) works for this building;
4. The streetscape of Madison Avenue is a microcosm of the historic streetscape of New York which has a “multifarious” nature.
Therefore this wouldn’t be a precedent for future applications. Mr. Foster added that the Parke-Bernet Building is unusual in its solid stone massing and flat roof which fit this kind of development.
Commissioner Pablo Vengoechea asked about the preservation purpose being served by the request for waiving the height and set-back requirements of the Special Madison Avenue Preservation Zoning District.
Michael Sillerman, attorney for the project, stated that the purpose of the special permit granted under Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution was to provide relief for property owners who might be economically burdened by landmark status interfering with their as-of-right development. If one accepts the proposition that the vertical solution is appropriate, then it follows that it provides a preservation purpose by allowing a more appropriate development with a “more harmonious relationship” than one which would be permitted under the current zoning. “Preserving the horizontality” of this “austere Moderne” building “requires the verticality” of this solution. Mr. Sillerman concluded by re-iterating that he felt the “as-of-right” development on this site would not be as appropriate as the current proposal and that the Board of Estimate, when they approved the Upper East Side Historic District in 1980, communicated to the LPC their hope that the agency should not stand in the way of development on Madison Avenue.
Commissioner Tierney then opened the Comissioners’ comments, complimenting the applicants on their presentation. Commissioner Joan Gerner spoke first from a prepared statement where she greatly complimented the design of the proposal, calling it “in of itself, an architectural masterpiece”. However, she then went on to say that the Parke-Bernet Building was “never intended as a base” and the proposed addition is inappropriate. Her specific issue was with the location of the addition on the historic building; the proposed towers are “elegant and sophisticated” and belonged on a vacant site where “people could directly experience them” rather than hiding them away on top of a building”. Commissioner Gerner felt that an addition could potentially go atop of the existing building, but one of perhaps 2-3 stories in height and set back. She also stated that she felt this application did not fulfill the requirements of the 74-711.
Commissioner Richard Olcott then spoke, beginning with the abstract question of whether it was possible to add anything to the existing building? He remarked on the great variety of architectural styles and buildings in the Upper East Side, some of which are now gone (such as the Clarke Mansion) and wondered aloud whether some of their replacements, such as the Whitney or the Guggenheim, would have “made it to the finish line” under the Landmarks process. Looking at the application now being proposed however, he felt in general it was just too big and that the primal issue here was that this was essentially a “tower on a base”. Commissioner Olcott recommended to the applicants that they re-examine the proposal and see if they could better incorporate the addition with the existing building, and make it more interwoven with the historic fabric of the building and district. He added that perhaps this is not the route to take to appropriateness, but he was interested to see what they could come up with, especially with a smaller version. He did state, however, that he felt that 74-711 was not an ideal vehicle for this project and he did not see a clear preservation purpose.
Commissioner Vengoechea agreed with Commissioner Olcott’s concern about height. He did feel that contrasting the vertical with the horizontal was the right approach, but the overall scale was inappropriate and the height overwhelmed the existing building. He further asked how this proposal related to the rest of the district; to wit are there any other sites within the district or even along Madison Avenue that could be developed in this way? Why here and not somewhere else?
Commissioner Stephen Byrnes stated strongly his feelings that the scale of Madison Avenue needed to be preserved. That it wasn’t an issue of density, i.e. the thin tower vs. a bulky addition, as much as scale. He did feel that the Parke-Bernet Building could use a restoration and enhancement and that he would potentially support a 74-711 application
on a modest rooftop addition or development if the restoration plan was done as proposed.
Commissioner Christopher Moore said that if this was merely an aesthetic decision, it would be easy but “the sign on the door says ‘Preservation’ ”. This is a beautiful building but it’s in the wrong place. He felt that something could be built atop the existing building, but it should be no bigger than 4-5 stories.
Commissioner Perlmutter began by stating that in previous tower proposals over landmark buildings, there were extenuating circumstances that allowed them to be considered – such as the Hearst Building always having been intended to be the base for a tower. In this instance, the only unique factor was that the Parke-Bernet Building was a full block-front, and that exists in other historic districts or potential historic districts. She worried that an approval here might lead to a similar application for a site above a row of townhouses or the like. Perhaps in some future time, “when the whole city is built out in a Blade-Runner like fashion”, the lack of developable space will cause the standards of appropriateness to evolve to consider this differently, but currently there’s lots of space in the city for this building that isn’t over a landmark. Commissioner Perlmutter further remarked that if the LPC were to approve this application, it would undermine much of the work the Commission does every day in regulating rooftop additions, often requiring applicants to make their proposals to be as minimally visible from the public way as possible. Finally, she disagreed with the notion of 74-711 intending to make property owners whole in terms of air rights, pointing to the concept of transferable development rights as another means of relief.
Commissioner Tom Pike remarked that as a clergyman, he was an expert in marriage and there are times when intended marriages make him nervous. This is one of those times. It was too bad, he said, because he wanted so much to support this project but he felt that this building would be more appropriate somewhere else and “the implications and precedent for the historic district and Madison Avenue would be unfortunate”.
Commissioner Jan Pokorny complimented the proposal and the restoration. He felt that this addition was actually a “new volume of construction” and that new construction and historic buildings could co-exist together well. He circulated a photo which from the back of the room looked with a scene with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and said that he could support this project.
Commissioner Libby Ryan stated that she judged this project by the standards laid out in the Landmarks Law of scale, massing and materials. With regard to scale, this proposal is larger than all but 3 or 4 buildings within the historic district, and was therefore inappropriate. Regarding massing, this proposal was an ovoid tower while the vast majority of buildings in the district were rectilinear, so it was inappropriate. Finally the materials of the proposed building were glass, which were at odds with the characteristic masonry of the district and therefore inappropriate. Commissioner Ryan also added that by the standards the Commission uses to judge rooftop additions on a regular basis, this would not be appropriate.
Commissioner Bob Tierney then concluded the hearing. He stated that this was a brilliant design and compelling arguments had been made on its behalf, but it was “ultimately not persuasive to me”. He stated his feelings that the present form and location were not appropriate, and in fact many of the arguments in favor of the proposal worked against themselves. He felt that the brilliance of the design worked against its appropriateness, in the sense that it drew attention to itself, and that to approve it in its current form would “not be consistent with the Landmarks Law was they were sworn to uphold it”. Commissioner Tierney further stated that this was a very hard case, and that he was concerned that it would make “bad law” and might set an uncomfortable precedent for less brilliant proposals.
Commissioner Tierney then closed the hearing, instructing the applicants to re-examine their proposal and re-study it in light of the commissioners’ comments. No action was taken and a date was not set for a further hearing.