Hearing Date: 7/15/2008
LPC Docket Number: 088340
Manhattan, Block: 630, Lot: 48
501-501A Hudson Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A two-story building, altered in 1953. Application is to demolish the existing bulding and construct a new 6-story plus penthouse building.

HDC Testimony
We often hear applicants talk about the layers of history in an historic building and a district, or how a proposal is a part of that continuing evolution of the city. At 501-501A Hudson Street, we can clearly see those layers – Flemish bond of the original early 1800s structure, the 1840s cast-iron storefront (seen in the northern most portion on Hudson with possibly more beneath the existing storefront and signage) and, yes, even 1950's metal sash windows – and yet these layers are proposed not to be added to, but to be demolished. The applicant should investigate and fully consider what there is and work with the history of this structure, not against it.

The proposed building is too bland to warrant the existing structure’s demolition. This significant corner of Hudson and Christopher deserves something more than another box of glass. Greenwich Village is one of the city’s most special, most historic neighborhoods, and new construction should reflect and celebrate that fact. Instead, this structure looks rather like the one approved by the Commission in 2003 at 36-40 Gansevoort Street in the Gansevoort Historic District, described as fitting in perfectly with the former meat market. We can’t help but ask, why is this design now proposed for the Greenwich Village Historic District?

While the building’s present condition is not ideal, it is a product of its long history and what the district inherited. Rather than looking at the building as flawed and something to destroy, there is a chance to creatively use these layers of history to design a building fitting for the character and history of the Greenwich Village Historic District.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

Hearing Date: 7/22/2008
LPC Docket Number: 088046
Brooklyn, Block: 2104, Lot: 25
271 Adelphi Street - Fort Greene Historic District
An Italianate style rowhouse built in 1871. Application is to legalize a chimney flue installed without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
HDC supports the community board resolution. The added flu is not the problem, the bright red picket fence used to disguise it is. We recommend considering painting it black, dark green or leaving it a stained natural wood.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 7/22/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086693
Queens, Block: 78, Lot: 23
21-47 45th Avenue - Hunters Point Historic District
An Italianate style rowhouse built by Root & Rust in c.1870. Application is to alter the rear façade and construct a rear yard addition.

HDC Testimony
This is a rear façade is completely visible from 44th Avenue due to the wide driveway located directly behind 21-47 45th Avenue. The full width addition extends too far into the fairly well preserved garden space of these rowhouses. The majority of these houses do not have extensions, and none of them are as deep as the proposed. We would hate to see a domino reaction start with each rowhouse being extended a bit more than its neighbors. While we are happy to see the top floor fenestration preserved, the full rear facades of these homes seem relatively intact. HDC would like to see more preserved here and that the alterations be more in harmony with the original. The windows on the left side of the second and third floors should be retained. The terrace would benefit from a less solid treatment, possibly just a railing rather than primarily brick parapet. A smaller addition with fenestration that feels more like an historic enclosed porch would be more appropriate.

Due to the visibility of this façade and relatively well preserved rear facades and garden space of the row, HDC recommends that alterations and additions to this structure be minimal and designed with as much harmony as possible to the original.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 7/22/2008
LPC Docket Number: 081178
Manhattan, Block: 1030, Lot: 58
232-246 Central Park South - Individual Landmark Historic District
An Art-Deco style apartment building designed by Mayer and Whittlesey and built in 1939-1940. Application is to install fencing, gates and a wall at service entrance.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds the proposal to be a very heavy-handed answer to issues of security at this Individual Landmark. The rear wall fence in particular seems to be overkill and we recommend the applicant consider using shatter-proof glass in this location. Overall, we noticed no indication of existing or proposed security lights and cameras. HDC recommends that a combination of these monitoring devices and a lower fence similar to that seen in the historic photos be used instead.

LPC Determination:

Hearing Date: 7/22/2008
LPC Docket Number: 083155
Bronx, Block: 5812, Lot: 60
4595 Fieldston Road - Fieldston Historic District
A Mediterranean Revival style house, designed by Dwight James Baum and built in 1927-1928. Application is to construct an addition, install a pool and fence and alter the rear yard.

HDC Testimony
Although we approve of the yard alterations, HDC does not feel the addition proposed is appropriate to this charming house that the designation report describes as “an excellent example of the Mediterranean Revival style" with no apparent alterations. Built at a time when the neighborhood was being developed in a number of picturesque style following the strict design guidelines of the Fieldston Property Owners Association, the house was designed by Dwight James Baum, who was responsible for nearly a quarter of the district’s houses. A talented and versatile designer, Baum is remembered most for his suburban style homes in a variety of historic revival styles in Fieldston where he himself lived and worked.

Adding a second floor to the one-story addition seen in the 1940 photo would change the structure and its proportions, as well as detract from streetscape. Although the roofline is a bit shorter than that of the main house, the design of this addition is not subordinate enough. The eave and gutter line matches that of the house. The window is taller and much wider than those on the second floor of the house. Also the window is topped with a thick, detailed molding seen on the windows of first floor of the house, but not at all seen on those of the second floor or the addition. Finally the quoins that frame the proposed window are found on the corners of the house and its entrance, not around its windows. Losing the roof terrace on the small addition, would also mean the loss of a transitional living space between the indoors and nature, a typical part of the Mediterranean Revival style. If there is a need to add an extra room to this house, HDC recommends considering doing so in the rear instead.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 6/3/2008
LPC Docket Number: 088617
Manhattan, Block: 617, Lot: 55
20 7th Avenue - Greenwich Village Historic District
A contemporary institutional buildling designed by Arthur A. Schiller and Albert and Ledner and builtin 1962-1963. Application is to demolish the existing building and construct a new hospital building on the site pursuant to Section 25-309 of the New York City Administrative Code.

HDC Testimony
June 3, 2008
The Historic Districts Council is opposed to St. Vincent’s claims to a hardship as they are without precedent and would set a dangerous one for future demolition applications. The hardship cases of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, the Lutheran Church, and the Society for Ethical Culture which changed the hardship standard in the administrative code, were all brought as constitutional challenges against alleged violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution which prevent the taking of private property without just compensation. That issue simply does not apply to a case where a not-for-profit institution acquired property that was already protected under the restrictions of the landmark law. In fact, we do not believe that there is any issue of a taking, because the restrictions were already in place in 1975 when St. Vincent's acquired the property that it now wants to demolish. Therefore the original standard for hardship for a non-commercial use as found in the administrative code should be applied.

In addition, in the case of St. Bartholomew’s Church v. City of New York, the court upheld the LPC’s denial of hardship based on the Penn Central standard which considers whether designation impaired the continued operation of the property in its originally expected use. St. Vincent's is proposing to close its hospital at another site in order to move its uses to a new structure to be built at the O'Toole site (in a historic district) when in fact O'Toole was never used as a hospital. There is no suggestion that O'Toole is inadequate for its present uses. Allowing this would violate the standards in St. Bartholomew’s Church. Allowing the demolition of O’Toole under the landmark's law hardship provisions would not only be unprecedented, but would set a new and unfortunate standard. A not for profit, needing to relocate its facilities in order to carry out its mission, could acquire a landmarked site and then ask that the hardship provisions be applied to their new site. This would render every landmarked building as potentially unprotected. For these reasons, this hardship application of St. Vincent’s should be denied.

If the Commission finds otherwise and the hardship application is approved, changes must be made to the design of the proposed new hospital building. A new building in an historic district must be at least as contextual, if not more, than what it is replacing. This is not the case at the site of the O’Toole Building. Even at the reduced height of just under 300 feet, the proposed is simply far too tall for this district. As the proposal illustrates, it would tower over its neighbors for blocks. Every possibility should be studied to reduce the height, including considering building on the triangle and, as suggested by a Commissioner at the April 15th hearing, 12th Street.

Much of the proposed building’s style and details, while attractive, do not harmonize with the Greenwich Village Historic District. As pointed out by Commissioners’ comments on May 6th, the ribbon of windows give a horizontal feel (despite the building’s height) not characteristic of this neighborhood. The entrance on 7th Avenue, two stories tall, five bays wide and deeply inset, creates a gaping hole in the streetscape. In addition, the building’s elliptical shape, while interesting, is neither good for the hospital nor good for the neighborhood. The shape is not one found on buildings in the Greenwich Village Historic District. If the aim of this whole project is to consolidate hospital functions in one building and space is an issue, a squared off floor plan would seem to make much more sense. It would also allow for a shorter building, that would be more in context with its surroundings.

The granting of a hardship, if that is to occur, does not grant free reign over the design of a new building. The Greenwich Village Historic District stands to lose an important structure. At the last meeting on this subject, all the Commissioners called the O’Toole an important contribution to its district, some even called it Individual Landmark worthy. If something is to replace the O’Toole Building, it absolutely must fit the district in size, massing, style and materials.

July 15, 2008
HDC would like to thank the Commission for continuing the Public Hearing and allowing for further public testimony on this very important, precedent setting matter.

In its presentation on June 3rd, St. Vincent’s clearly stated their charitable purpose, their dedication to their mission, their importance in this community and the need to upgrade. None of these matters have been in doubt. Still, HDC does not feel that the grounds for hardship exemption have been met to allow the demolition of the O’Toole building.

On the grounds of physical hardship, it was argued that St. Vincent’s could not have a new acute care and trauma facility at the O’Toole site without this building’s demolition, and so would not be able to fulfill the institution’s charitable mission. The O’Toole building has never before served as an acute care and trauma facility, has never before been asked to take on the core activity of the hospital’s mission. There should be no expectation that it could act in this capacity. O’Toole, purchased by St. Vincent’s after its designation as part of the Greenwich Village Historic District, has served the hospital well as an adjunct space. In addition, this Landmarks Commission reinforced that finding when the current Commissioners all deemed O’Toole a significant piece of the Greenwich Village Historic District, some even describing it as worthy of individual landmark designation. In addition, the State Historic Preservation Office has recently ruled that this building is eligible for individual listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places - which does not, of course, have any authority over the LPC’s decisions but furthers the point that this is a meritorious building and not a burden to be disposed of. While it may not be a hospital, the building, with some cleaning up after years of neglect, does have much potential for adaptive reuse. Alternatives to the demolition of a landmark should and must be studied carefully by the Commission.

Indeed, HDC feels strongly there has not been enough investigation of alternatives, or at least not enough made public, including the 40 or so other proposals received during St. Vincent’s bankruptcy proceedings. At the present time, St. Vincent’s still owns the buildings on the east side of 7th Avenue, and this space should be looked at as seriously as the O’Toole site to fulfill the charitable mission of the institution. Other hospitals renovate and continue to operate. Even St. Vincent’s somehow continued to operate when Seton was demolished and the Link and Coleman Pavilions were constructed some twenty-five years ago. So why not now? The recent closing of the nearby Cabrini Medical Center could be a serendipitous chance to decamp there while something is built to replace Link and Coleman two buildings everyone agrees should never have been built. Instead, the current proposal seeks to compound the error and demolish another historic building in order to build yet another new facility. Where will it end? What will happen in twenty-five years when this new facility is possibly obsolete or insufficient? Working within historic districts, we must take the long view and think about the effects of alteration and regulation over the space of decades. Wouldn’t it make more sense – for the Greenwich Village Historic District – to explore reusing the current hospital space rather than extinguishing a known historic building?

While this suggestion and other plans might be more complicated and expensive than the proposed, it is not impossible. St. Vincent’s hardship application is on the grounds of physical, not financial, hardship. The mission can still be fulfilled, and both lives and buildings will be saved.

HDC also does not believe “Going Green”, as St. Vincent’s terms it in their plan, should be part of this hardship application. While it is certainly a respectable goal, it does not have anything to do with the hospital’s charitable purpose (it is nowhere listed in the institution’s mission statement) or with the mission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. If “Going Green” is to be discussed, let us remember the environmental factors of massive demolition and construction. Ripping down historic buildings is not Green, and it will never be Green, no matter how many times someone says it is.

HDC has previously expressed concerns over whether St. Vincent's is asking the Landmarks Commission to apply the appropriate standard for granting a hardship exemption on a property that was bought with full understanding of its status as a City landmark or part of a City historic district and the restrictions and responsibilities thereof. We have yet to hear this issue addressed.

HDC believes that St. Vincent’s can still fulfill its charitable and extremely important mission while LPC fulfills its equally important mission.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

Return to Testimony Archives