February 1, 2005

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: 2/1/2005
LPC Docket Number: 053977
Manhattan, Block: 1389, Lot: 21-25, 50
31-33 East 74th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A Modern style museum building designed by Marcel Breuer & Associates and built in 1964-66, a row of five neo-Grec style residences designed by S.M. Styles and built in 1876, a rowhouse built in 1876 and redesigned in the neo-Renaissance style by Alexander M. Welch, and a neo-Georgian style residence designed by Grosvenor Atterbury and built in 1901. Application is to construct a rooftop addition on the Breuer building, to demolish two rowhouses and the rear extension of one rowhousek, ato alter the remaining rowhouses on Madison Avenue and the two residence on East 74th Street, and to construct an addition.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council would first like to thank the Whitney Museum for taking the time to provide us with a presentation of this project. It is very encouraging when applicants make the effort to involve the community in their process.

We understand the Whitney Museum’s need and desire to expand, and recognize the incredible architectural challenge before them. Mr. Piano’s design is most certainly an improvement over the Graves and Koolhaas proposals, which made little effort to be sympathetic to this district and the existing Breuer structure. However, while the proposed design will certainly provide the Whitney with the space they need, and present an exciting experience for visitors, the Historic Districts Council cannot fully support this proposal. Our Committee finds that a number of aspects must be rethought and reworked before it is acceptable.

The following are the basis of HDC’s concerns:

Firstly, the proposed expansion will forever alter the roofline and massing of the iconic Breuer structure, one of New York’s finest Brutalist buildings. The rooftop addition will be highly visible from Central Park and numerous points of view as evidenced by the mock-up. And while we can appreciate the cleaning up and enclosing of the mechanical equipment, the bulk and height proposed will change the distinctive profile of the building.

Additionally, Breuer’s unique entrance, one of the character defining features of the building, is sidelined by the addition of a new, grand main entrance.

HDC further objects to the demolition of three buildings within the Upper East Side historic district. How can this be done without setting a terrible precedent within historic districts? What will prevent other community facilities from requesting to demolish buildings, and using the Whitney’s expansion as an example?

Regarding the building deemed “no-style” at 943 Madison Avenue, this structure was quite obviously identical to the other brownstones until it was altered, and its scale and proportions remain. 943, in addition to 941 Madison, are part of a unique row of six neo-Grec style brownstones. The demolition of both of these buildings severs the remaining historic brownstones from the their context. 941 Madison Avenue shares a decorative balustrade with 939 that will be essentially broken in half with the demolition of 941. In addition, the demolition of the rear 60% of these structures to accommodate the new tower further compromises their integrity. These buildings will stand as ruins, their character destroyed.

In general, HDC does not believe that buildings should be demolished in order to create empty space, even if they are considered “no style.” If a “no style” building must be demolished, it should be replaced with a new building, one that is sympathetic to the surrounding streetscape and historic district, not left simply as a void.

Furthermore, the breaking of the street wall in two places here sets another poor precedent. The structures proposed to be demolished should be incorporated into the design. We understand the need for space to accommodate long lines of visitors, but believe that this could be done without the destruction of buildings and puncturing holes in the street walls that define the historic district. The benefits of this new design do not justify the elimination of three buildings on one of the most visible corners in the Upper East Side Historic District.

Regarding the new tower, we are pleased that it is set back, but it is still 170 feet tall, the equivalent of a 17 story building, partly in mid-block, and does not conform to current zoning. It is difficult to make the claim that this building, at its current height, will not overwhelm the existing townhouses and Breuer Building. An addition to a building as significant as the Whitney Museum, must be more subordinate to the original structure. Additionally, the external fire escape, which is extremely wide, and highly visible, is not contextual to the Upper East Side.

HDC respectfully urges the Commission to ask the Whitney to rework this design. We believe that an appropriate solution does exist, one that will accommodate the needs of the Museum while affirming the importance of preserving landmark buildings and historic districts.

LPC Determination: No Action

 

 

Return to Recent Testimony