Why the Austin Nichols Decision is Bad for Preservation

 

 

 

On Wednesday November 30, the City Council voted 43-6-1 to reject the landmark designation of the Austin, Nichols & Company Warehouse at 184 Kent Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. This is the second time in two months the Council has voted to deny a landmark designation (the Jamaica Savings Bank in Elmhurst, Queens was denied in October), and the two actions combine to paint a grim picture for landmark designations. This appears to be part of a very troublesome growing trend in Council deliberations that challenges the independence of the Landmarks process and gives more weight to a property owner’s approval of designation.

To hear the full story keep reading…or go to the end of this article to see how you can help us continue the fight for Austin Nichols.

In both cases that the Council voted to deny landmark designation, one of the loudest voices in the discussion was Council Member Simcha Felder, current Chair of the Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses. During the Council hearing on Austin Nichols, Mr. Felder stated, “This is a piece of trash. We should knock it down and put something nice up.” He went on to say that he was proud of his record of overturning designations during his tenure as Subcommittee chair; and that he was keeping the landmarks process pure from anti-development or other agendas. CM Melinda Katz, Chair of Land Use, chimed in, commenting that the outer boroughs would not accept a lesser standard of landmark. This begs the question of what specifically reaches her standard, as she was also an opponent of preserving the former Trylon Theater on Queens Boulevard. Both Katz and Felder’s opposition to the designation of the Austin Nichols Building was undoubtedly influenced by the persistent criticism of the building and its designation by Brooklyn Council Member David Yassky.

Mr. Yassky strongly opposed this designation despite much community outreach including postcard campaigns and requests for meetings, as well as expert assessments of the building’s significance. His reasons against preserving the building were numerous, but his most disturbing comments were that landmarking would have “gone against the waterfront revitalization rezoning [the Council] adopted six months ago”. That’s not what the City Planning Commission thought, stating in their report of November 2, 2005 that the existing building was actually double the allowable bulk of the new zoning, and that the “landmark designation does not conflict with the Zoning Resolution, projected public improvements or any plans for development, growth, improvement or renewal in the vicinity of the landmark.” So what’s the problem?

“The Building is an eyesore” and “a hulking relic,” stated former Council Member Ken Fisher, who was hired, along with former LPC Chair Gene Norman, by the building’s owners Louis and Moshe Kestenbaum to oppose the designation. A similar complaint arose, a little more sotto voce, with the Jamaica Savings Bank. There, the owners opposed the landmarking and the City Council turned down the designation (in that case, over the mild objections of the local Council member Helen Sears and the local community board). So where does that leave us?

The way things are arrayed now, any landmark designation which has strong owner opposition might well be overturned at Council, especially if the owner is well-heeled or well-connected. This is a very real concern. The last four historic district designations – Stapleton Heights/St. Paul’s Avenue, Douglaston Hill, Gansevoort Market and the Murray Hill Extension – all have had some degree of owner opposition, in many cases including testimony before the City Council.

In May 2002, when this Council was still young, The New York Times reported that during the Council discussion of the designation of the eventually approved Murray Hill Historic District, “debate veered from the neighborhood’s historical merits to property rights and the power of the state. ‘I would be concerned if the Council as a body started to take owner consent as a criteria for designation,’ said Sherida E. Paulsen, [then] chairwoman of the landmarks commission. ‘Not that they shouldn’t take it into account, but when the Council enacted the Landmarks Law in 1965, it was not a criteria for designation.’” At the time, a senior council member said, “The vast majority of the City Council [are] new members. People are enthusiastic and want to learn the subjects they are responsible for.” What’s the reason now?

Not all of the Council accepted the arguments employed by representatives of the owners of 184 Kent Avenue. Six Council members agreed with the preservationists and the community members and voted for the designation, with an additional Council Member abstaining. Please write to these Council members and thank them for voting to uphold this designation.

Councilmember Tony Avella: avella@council,nyc.ny.us or 718-747-2137
Councilmember Michael McMahon: mcmahon@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-556-7370
Councilmember Bill Perkins: perkins@council.nyc.ny.us or 212-662-4440
Councilmember Letitia James: james@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-260-9191
Councilmember Al Vann: vann@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-919-0740
Councilmember Vincent Gentile: gentile@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-748-5200

The fight is not over. In the next few days Mayor Bloomberg can veto the Council’s decision. Please call 311 or write to the Mayor and urge him to use this veto power. If he uses his veto, the Council will have the opportunity to overturn the veto. If you don’t see your councilmember listed above, then they voted against this landmark! You can contact your councilmember here and ask them to reconsider if the opportunity arises.