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