Council Member Simcha Felder, Chair
Landmarks, Public Siting and
Maritime Uses Sub-Committee
4424 16th Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11204
Re: The Cathedral of St. John the Divine
Dear Council Member Felder:
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate
for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods
meriting preservation. At two Landmarks Preservation Commission
(LPC) hearings in November and December 2002, the Historic Districts
Council testified in support of the designation of the entire
Cathedral of St. John the Divine site. In addition, I was quoted
in The New York Times in June 2003, criticizing the LPC’s
proposal to designate only a portion of the Cathedral close (see
enclosed).
Subsequently, on September 23, 2003, I attended
the City Council’s Landmarks, Public Siting and Maritime
Uses Sub-Committee hearing on the Cathedral designation. Following
up on the conversation held at that hearing, I would like to clarify
that the Historic Districts Council’s testimony at the two
LPC hearings testimony should not be construed as support for
the designation of only a portion of the Cathedral of St. John
the Divine site. I commend you and your fellow Committee members
for your astuteness at the hearing and for understanding that
the community is not supportive of the LPC’s proposed boundaries
for the St. John the Divine designation.
The LPC’s proposed designation for the Cathedral
of St. John the Divine omits some of the most important buildings
in the Morningside Heights neighborhood. These include the Synod
House, the Diocesan House, the Cathedral School and the Leake
& Watts Orphan Asylum Town Building, which dates from the
1840’s. In addition, two development sites were removed
from consideration as potential landmarks. This unusual action
was based on concern the Cathedral expressed with regard to the
desirability of the two development sites if they fell under LPC
jurisdiction. At the LPC hearings, the Historic Districts Council
noted that designation of entire neighborhoods in the city has
not at all deterred new development or investment in historic
properties. To the contrary, the prestige of historic designation
regularly seems to attract developers. There is no reason to believe
this will not be the case in this instance.
Designation of the entire St. John the Divine
site would ensure oversight by the LPC and would mandate public
review of new development on the close. Any new structures on
the Cathedral’s close must be designed and sited so that
they do not compromise the Cathedral itself. While new construction
in historic districts is subject to an additional layer of supervision,
the resulting review by the LPC, coupled with public review, results
in buildings that are far more likely to enhance, rather than
detract from, their neighboring historic properties. The importance
of this oversight is obviously understood by the LPC, in that
they have negotiated a deal with the Cathedral whereby representatives
of the LPC will sit on a design advisory committee that will review
and approve any new development in the complex. This arrangement
seems illogical and deliberately opaque. There is no discernibly
legitimate reason why the role of design review can not and should
not be undertaken by the agency as it usually functions –
in a duly advertised public hearing.
The Historic Districts Council remains firm in
its stand that the site of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine
was developed as various parts of a larger whole, and therefore
that whole should be equally protected under the Landmarks Law.
To do any less would be a blow to the integrity of the Landmarks
Commission and the Landmarks Law it serves.
Sincerely,
Simeon Bankoff
Executive Director
