REPORT: A Tale of Two Stables
For those of you who were wondering – one stable was landmarked, the other taken off the calendar. Here’s the story:
A Tale of Two Stables
A public meeting was held today to determine the landmark designation of the Mason (a.k.a. Dakota) Stable and the New-York Cab Company Stable, both located on the Upper West Side.
Over the past five or so months, when the stables were talked about the Mason Stable were always mentioned first. In this meeting, the New-York Cab Company Stable came first. So good news first, the New-York Cab Company Stable was designated. Everyone thought it was “beautiful,” “exquisite,” and in “remarkably good condition.” It was considered special not only for its architecture, but also for its building type and historic importance.
In September, the day after the Mason Stable was calendared, the wood windows were removed. Four days before its October 17th public hearing, demolition of the cornice began. Chair Robert Tierney began today by stating that the owner would proceed with his alterations as he legally could with his permits. As what will be left will be so altered and unrecognizable, Research and Counsel advised the Commissioners not to landmark a stucco box. The stable would be eventually demolished and the land become part of a larger development site. Tierney stated that Robert A.M. Stern will be the architect on that project, and he hoped that a “great, creative architect” like Stern could incorporate the stable’s envelope and features in the new design.
Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz read prepared remarks that urged landmarking. She felt that this was another test of the LPC, and that designation would send the message that defacing a building to impede landmarking does not work. Every week the commissioners hear and make decisions on restorations, and this building too could be restored.
Addressing the argument that if the building were important it would have been included in the historic district, Commissioner Gratz commented “we all know that many important buildings are left out of historic districts” for reasons of big development. Both stables together tell their history stronger, and the Commission shouldn’t designate just one. Preservation has moved beyond preserving the last, the best, or the only. She ended stating that the Commission should join preservationists who spoke in the last hearing in their concerns about the undermining of the landmarks law, not worry about what LPC counsel wrote in a memo.
Commissioner Stephen Byrns agreed with many of those points, but believed even before the damage that the building did not have enough architectural merit to be an individual landmark.
Commissioner Joan Gerner said she always feels bad when something was lost, but the Mason Stable was the less distinctive of the two stables anyway. Designating a stucco box would be “wasting our resources.”
Commissioner Richard Olcott was “appalled” with the developers’ “shameful” actions. The building was worthy of designation, but now it is not. While it was all completely legal, he blamed the Department of Buildings for not consulting with LPC when permits to strip are pulled.
Commissioner Christopher Moore was also bothered by the permit process that “circumvents the landmarks law.” He felt it was time to “draw a line in the sand” and designate the building anyway. “The Developer did what he had to do. We do too – we have to preserve this building.”
Commissioner Pablo Vengoechea noted that Chair Tierney’s hopes about the design of the new building are nothing more than hopes. The LPC has no say over anything that is not landmarked. He felt it is time to revisit the process. The Mason Stable will be “sacrificed” but maybe that’s what is needed “to get us to that point.” He recommended removing the stables from the calendar, but “this should be the last time we get in this position.” (Cynical laughs and murmurs from the audience followed.)
Chair Tierney interjected that they were working on a policy, but that it was very complicated. They were trying hard to avoid unintended consequences.
Commissioner Margery Perlmutter agreed that it was an unfortunate situation and the stables should be removed from the calendar.
Commissioner Libby Ryan also agreed, and commented that the developers “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” She said the cooperation of the administration and other city agencies was necessary to deal with the permit problem.
Commissioner Jan Pokorny is often difficult to hear, but seemed to reiterate those sentiments.
Commissioner Gratz asked if a moratorium on such permits could be imposed while the process is figured out. Chair Tierney answered the process was being thought out now.
So while everyone found the situation terrible, most considered the Mason Stable beyond the point of saving. The Commission voted to remove the stables from the calendar; Commissioners Moore and Gratz opposed.