October 21, 2008

Statement of the Historic Districts Council before the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing

The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the following application that was before the Commission.

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086946
Brooklyn, Block: 215, Lot: 13
58 Hicks Street - Brooklyn Heights Historic District
An early 19th century frame residence and rear building, altered in the 1950s. Application is to alter the facades and construct an addition.

HDC Testimony
While the project is at first glance a welcomed change, the proposed would in the end gussy up what was originally an elegant, but modest, house. Very good information can be gleaned from the tax photo, and these details should be used to design an appropriate fa?ade.

58 Hicks Street is made up of two important, distinctive parts, the main house and the horse walk. Moving the entrance to the side of the house, changes this arrangement and creates awkward moments. For example, the downspout, or at least the look of one, is strangely retained, but it would empty on to the porch. HDC is particularly bothered by the garage doors beneath the stoop, an arrangement not found in any historic district, let along the city’s first designated neighborhood. Placing the door and stoop in their original location and possibly altering them a bit to fit a garage door where a horse walk was would create a much more pleasing fa?ade.

Other inaccurate details are proposed including the ballustrade, window surrounds and door surround and less elaborate designs should be used instead.

In the rear, we would be sorry to see the sloped rear ell demolished, particularly considering its visibility. The addition would greatly change the shape of the house and again the details are too fussy.

58 Hicks Street is part of a row of very charming, modest early 19th-century houses. There is no need to fancy them up, just to respect and restore their original design.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 064323
Manhattan, Block: 1251, Lot: 7501
190 Riverside Drive - Riverside - West End Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style apartment building designed by Townsend, Steinle & Haskell and built in 1909-1910. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.

HDC Testimony
This two-story rooftop addition is far too large to meet the normal standards for minimal visibility. HDC urges the commission to continue its typical stance on such proposals and ask that it be reduced in size.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

 

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 090937
Manhattan, Block: 1386, Lot: 62
12-14 East 72nd Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A modern style apartment building designed by James E. Ware, originally built in 1890, altered in 1966; and a neo-Renaissance style residence designed by Rose and Stroe and built in 1892-94. Application is to demolish 12 East 72nd Street and the rear fa?ade of 14 East 72nd Street, construct a new building and a new rear fa?ade at 14; install a new entrance marquee

HDC Testimony
While it may seem initially a good idea to continue the row of Rose and Sotre’s neo-Renaissance style houses by building another at 14 East 72nd Street to do so would create a false history for this location. A rowhouse of the same series never existed at number 14. Instead, as the tax photo clearly shows a very charming Gothic revival rowhouse stood here. If something new is to be built, it should either be what was there originally or something compatible but different from the other existing rowhouses.

There are many issues with the design of the new structure, even as it attempts to mimic the neighboring row. HDC finds the central entrance, advertising the fact that the two houses are one, particularly inappropriate. The commission regularly requires that the distinction between individual structures be maintained on front and rear fa?ades, even if they are presently used as one unit. The rear fa?ade is too grand, resembling a front fa?ade, again with no distinction between the new building and the existing. Finally the top floor of the proposed structure would break the line of this row of houses.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 091478
Queens, Block: 1460, Lot: 14
35-18 87th Street - Jackson Heights Historic District
One of a pair of neo-Tudor style rowhouses designed by C.F. and D.E. McAvoy and built in 1926. Application is to replace roofing.

HDC Testimony
This home is part of a group 14 houses designed in the "a-b-c-a-c-b-a" pattern with three alternating roof profiles and cladding used to establish the pattern. The houses are McAvoy No. 3, Convertible Plan English Country Homes, a unique design patented by the McAvoy Borthers. The roofing characteristics - tone, texture, thickness, edge profile, installation patter, size and shape - must be maintained on this archictural grouping. HDC asks that the Commission carefully consider this proposal and the effect it may have, and that all work be closely guided and monitored by LPC staff.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 093798
Manhattan, Block: 73, Lot: 10&11
89 & 95 South Street - South Street Seaport Historic District
A modern pier and retail structure built c.1980; and a neo-Classical style commercial building designed by the Berlin Construction Company and built in 1907. Applciation is to demolish Pier 17, reconstruct the pier, relocate the Tin Building and construct seven new buildings and pavilion structures.

HDC Testimony
In response to the most recent threat to New York’s historic South Street Seaport, the proposal for Pier 17 by General Growth Properties, Inc., the Historic Districts Council has nominated the area for the Preservation League of New York State’s “Seven to Save” Endangered Properties Program.

Under the new plan, the 1907 Tin Building would be dismantled and moved from its historic location, the birthplace of the Fulton Fish Market to the far edge of the pier behind it. The 1939 New Market Building, which is not landmarked, would be demolished and the site would be cleared for high-rise towers; a 12-story boutique hotel building and a 45-story residential/hotel building, both on public waterfront property. The Pier 17 mall, approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission and built in 1984, is also slated for demolition. The new development would wall off the seaport from the water, destroying the relationship of the rest of the district with the historic market buildings and the East River.

The South Street Seaport: Historic and Low-Scale

The South Street Seaport Historic District is one of the oldest sections of the New York City and the only extant remnant of the city’s first working waterfront. From its low scale construction (ranging typically from 4 to 8 stories) to its wide, open cobblestone streets and slips, to its direct connection with the East River and its piers, the area is a unique in Manhattan with a sense of openness rare in this ever-growing metropolis. Its 18th, 19th and 20th century structures built as residences, counting houses, market buildings, shops, taverns, and hotels still evoke the shipping days while today finding reuse in many of the same activities. Although the wholesale fish market has left the area in 2005, the neighborhood remains a popular destination for tourists and local office workers. It has also become home to an increasingly large residential population.

The Tin Building: Without Context or Precedent

The idea of moving the Tin Building is unprecedented. Simply put, a building in a New York City historic district has never been relocated. There are rare cases of individual landmarks that are not in their original location, most recently Hamilton Grange whose move, planned for more than a century, from one relocated spot to another has placed the historic home in a much more proper context. Buildings within historic districts though gain their meaning through their relationship with other structures. It’s all about context.

Putting the Tin Building alone on the edge of a pier is not putting it into context. Doing so would separate it from the district’s other market buildings and structures that housed other businesses that supported the fishing industry. While the FDR Drive does block the view of the middle floors of the building, the distinctive top is visible walking down Beekman Street and from Fulton Street and the ground floor market space opens directly onto South Street as it always has. The district was designated 23 years after the completion of this viaduct, the LPC acknowledging that the construction to the west and the east of the drive were one distinctive grouping, not split in half.

The New Market Building: Unprotected and Under Dire Threat
While outside of the city historic district, the demolition of the New Market Building would be a great loss. Its history is clearly stated across the front “FULTON FISH MARKET • CITY OF NEW YORK • DEPARTMENT OF MARKETS”. Opened in 1939, the building was touted in its day for its state of the art amenities and clean, modernist design. Unlike the Tin Building, it still does sit directly on the water. The building’s iconic history is undeniable and it should be considered for reuse.

The Fulton Fish Market is history; moving the Tin Building and demolishing the New Market Building would be erasing that history.

The Pier 17 Mall: Appropriate for 24 years, Doomed Today?

While the Pier 17 mall may not be universally loved, it was approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission as an appropriate addition to the district. The AIA Guide to New York calls it “Gigantic, playful, adroitly detailed. . . An instant urban landmark. ” The structure was designed by Benjamin C. Thompson, winner of the highest honor in American Architecture, the Gold Medal from the AIA, chair of the architecture department for Harvard University, and a noted theorist of use of urban architecture to promote joy and social life. He is best known for his work in the Festival Marketplace architectural movement that was pervasive in America’s cities in the 1970s and 1980s, and which makes direct reference to traditional waterfront pavilion design. One can’t help but wonder if in the future, New Yorkers would regret its loss. The most obvious quality of its replacements is “the shock of the new”, but is this appropriate for Manhattan’s oldest neighborhood? And let us not forget that “shockingly new” rarely ages well, and the lifespan of historic districts is not measured in years, but in decades or even centuries.

Walling Off the River with Shiny Barriers

General Growth claims the new structures were designed with the district’s history in mind making references to fishnets and ship’s prows. But what is the point of blocking views of real ship masts with 120-foot walls? Why create a barrier, one taller and more solid than the maligned FDR Drive, between the water and the buildings where fishnets were made, fish was sold, and seamen regained their land-legs?

The gargantuan scale and massing is like nothing found in the historic district and would create an imposing barrier between the seaport and the water. The materials and overly designed concepts have no relation to any other structure in the district. The proposed buildings instead resemble a theme park, something that the district has long fought against becoming.

While retail beneath the FDR Drive could be appropriate to an area with market history, when combined with the other new structures the “jewel boxes” would serve as yet another barrier between the piers and the rest of the historic district.

The plaza, the celebrated open space between the Tin Building and the new construction, features paving, fountains, and tall, swirling sculptures. With all the distraction, one almost forgets that this is a pier.

Overall, the myriad of patterns and materials create a distraction from what is authentic, what is special about the Seaport. In a district of straightforward, practical buildings, whimsy does not fit. Rather than being forced to endure a pre-fabricated celebration, the visitor should be allowed to take in the area and enjoy it for what it means to them.

Historic Districts Are Neither Clean Slates nor Empty Fields

This is part of a sad trend of developers who look at historic districts as clean slates for development and it must stop.

In the early 1980’s, the LPC agreed to the notion that something had to be done to invigorate the South Street Seaport area and approved the filling in of the space between Piers 17 and 18 and the construction of the present mall. Now they are being told that this development did not work and another, larger development scheme must take place.

At about that same time, in the late 1970’s, Saint Vincent’s Medical Center asked and received permission to demolish its 19th’century Elizabeth Bayley Seton Building which the hospital deemed out of date and to construct the larger Link and Coleman Pavilions. The LPC has been recently told that those buildings are now no longer useful and an even larger residential building should go in their place. Each time such demolition and new construction is proposed, the construction gets larger and more out of context, and our city’s historic districts suffer. Historic Districts are not frozen in time; 10,000 approved applications for work on landmark buildings last year alone dispel that myth. However they are not clean slates or empty fields, the buildings which exist have precedence over the buildings someone wants to exist. Landmarks mark the land – they are indelible. That is one of their primary characteristics. They are not placeholders to be demolished when the next bright idea comes along. We cannot and should not allow our historic districts to be looked at as merely plots of developable land. To do so diminishes our history and our city.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

 

 

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 093680
Manhattan, Block: 846, Lot: 56
866 Broadway - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A Greek Revival style rohouse built in 1847-1848, and altered at the ground floor for commercial use in the 1850s. Application is to replace the storefront infill and alter the stair bulkhead.

HDC Testimony
On the whole, this is a very nice application. HDC feels however that the color pallet should be darker. We ask that paint samples be taken and used as a guide.

LPC Determination: Approved

 

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 093813
Manhattan, Block: 1389, Lot: 29
45 East 74th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A rowhouse built in 1879, and altered in 1957 by Sidney and Gerald M. Daub. Application is to construct a stoop, alter the fa?ade and construct rear yard and rooftop additions.

HDC Testimony
While the desire to create a fa?ade more in keeping with the 19th century styles of the neighborhood is commendable, HDC feels this application would create a false identity for this rowhouse. The very clear tax photo shows a structure with much different detailing than that proposed. Rather than pasting a collage of neighborhood details to the facade, the historic photo should be used as a guide towards a restoration.

This may be a minor point, but if there is no roof, the floors have been removed, the rear fa?ade is gone, and a new front fa?ade proposed, this sounds rather like a demolition and new construction. We would appreciate a clarification of this approval process.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 10/21/2008
LPC Docket Number: 091020
Manhattan, Block: 1393, Lot: 25
45 East 78th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A Neo-Federal style residence built in 1913-1914 and designed by Arthur C. Jackson. Application is to install a stretch banner.

HDC Testimony
Although a sliver of the building falls into the commercially zoned area, the majority of it is in a residential zone that would not permit such signage. Even in an area where zoning would permit such signage, the Commission has rarely approved a banner. The LPC has in the past year rejected similar signage proposed by art galleries in downtown historic districts. L&M Arts is a well-known art gallery with a strong presence here, but if signage is needed, a plaque rather than a banner sign would be more appropriate.

LPC Determination: Approved

Return to Recent Testimony