THE LANDMARKS OF NEW YORK

An Illustrated Record of the Citys Historic Buildings

Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel

Fifth Edition

This page intentionally left blank.

The Landmarks of New York

This page intentionally left blank.

The Landmarks of New YorkAn Illustrated Record of the Citys Historic Buildings fifth edition

Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogelstate university of new york press

For Carl D. Spielvogel

The endpapers photograph of tulips on a path in Central Park is by Bill Cunningham, used here by permission of Bill Cunningham and The New York Times.

Published by State University of New York Press, Albany 2011 State University of New York All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher. For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY www.sunypress.edu Production, Laurie Searl Marketing by Fran Keneston

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Diamonstein, Barbaralee. The landmarks of New York, fth edition : an illustrated record of the citys historic buildings / Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-4384-3769-9 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Historic buildingsNew York (State)New York. 2. Historic buildingsNew York (State)New YorkPictorial works. 3. New York (N.Y.)Buildings, structures, etc. 4. New York (N.Y.)Buildings, structures, etc.Pictorial works. I. Title. II. Title: Landmarks of New York Five. III. Title: Landmarks of New York, Fifth Edition. F128.7.D585 2011 974.7dc22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

2011006219

Contents

vii 1 48 663 669 727 728 732

Preface The Landmarks of New York, 19652011 Individual Landmarks Lampposts, Bracket Lights, and Sidewalk Clocks Historic Districts Acknowledgments Photography Credits Index

This page intentionally left blank.

Preface

Cities are most interesting when they combine the new with the old, and the traditional with the avant-garde. New York juxtaposes high rises with church spires, crammed spaces with green vistas, streets of shops with streets of houses, glass-and-steel towers with cast-iron buildings, or houses of brick and timber. The older buildings of our cities give us the possibility of visualizing the past, for they are, in a true sense, time capsules. The capitol building of Virginia, in Richmond, brings Robert E. Lee to life, Louis XIV is best understood amid the carefully calculated grandeur of Versailles, and the remnants of the Parthenon give voice to Demosthenes. So, too, in New York City, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building signify aspects of the vibrant history of our great metropolis. In the buildings, parks, and historic areas that survive in New York City and are recorded in this book, we see many facets of the citys architecture, its history, and its culture. The original Pennsylvania Station may be gone, as are the Bartholdi Hotel, the Athenaeum Club building, and the old Metropolitan Opera House; but the structures and sites that remain, and are protected as landmarks, are testament to New Yorks rich heritage. Daily living was as varied in the past three centuries as it is for us in the initial years of the twenty-rst century. And our schools, churches, and commercial structures testify today to this diversity, reminding us where we have been, and how far we have come, in a few hundred years. We see the untouchable past along with the un-built beginning, and new spires rising alongside the old. Historic preservation is more than the desire for permanence expressed through architecture; it is an embodiment of the relationship between urbanism and populace. One of the motivations for writing this book was to further enhance the level of awareness of the places we inhabit, and to encourage even more citizens to become involved in helping to revitalize their communitiesand not

vii

simply for aesthetic reasons. Landmarks preservation, I believe, improves the wellbeing of our citizens, not just by means of the resultthe restored and rescued buildings and sitesbut also through the process of involving large numbers of people and nurturing a growing constituency for civic concern and pride. It has not been, and will not be, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission alone, but the individuals and grassroots organizations that give voice and vitality to the movement that has transformed our cityaesthetically, culturally, and economically. Another reason for writing this book is to attempt to correct some misconceptions regarding landmark preservation, in particular the notion that a building is frozen once it receives landmark status. Hardly! In fact, as we accumulated data, our greatest problem was keeping track of all the changes that had taken place in a landmark since designation and determining the use of the landmark. Effecting changes in landmark structures is not only wholly possible, but has been constant and widespread. Because of repairs, renovations, and adaptation to landmarks, even their appearances can change, which proves that a landmark is not static and museum-like, but, as is true of almost any building in active use, constantly evolving. Far from seeking simply to preserve a bygone world, the members of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission accept the circumstances of a changing world and attempt to preserve the past without jeopardizing the future. No generation has the right to make the city a monotonous monument to a single moment. But while giving progress and change their due, we must not permit the best of our past to be buried or otherwise lost. This book attempts to provide a brief indication of the history and signicance of each of the designated properties in New York City, through June 2011. The text has been based in part on the designation reports of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Initially, my assistants and I systematically gathered and catalogued each report. Next we communicated, orally or in writing, with owners, city ofcials, historical societies, architects, preservationists, and citizens, requesting historical and anecdotal material. Then began the elaborate process of documenting the designated landmarks: cross-checking and authenticating the historical information, architectural descriptions, photographs, and fresh anecdotal material that we had gathered about each of them.

viii

The exhaustive research involved interviews, conversations, and digging in archives so that each building or site would be presented with its own story, its own intricate history. Exhaustive and repeated efforts to verify the accuracy of the material were made. This was not possible in every instance because of the inability to locate veriable sources. Therefore, it is our hope that if you have, or are aware of, veriable data or emendations that relate to any of these landmarks, you will share them with us. We hope to continue our researches and incorporate appropriate changes in future digital editions of this book. In an attempt to document New Yorks architectural history, the landmarks in this book have been organized chronologically by date of construction. In several instances, to accommodate all of the materials, this order is not strictly followed. This book reveals how the hopeful vision of a few has become a strong instrument for the protection of our architectural future, in recognition of our rich past. It represents our achievements in the structures that have been created and endured, and which continue to shape our City. Preservationists have long understood the benets of protecting the past from destruction. The architecture of New York City should be saved so that future generations can envision the past and experience the magic of stepping back in time. Preservation of our landmarks provides a sense of continuity between past and present, and an appreciation of the accomplishments that outlast the individual life. Every civilization is formed not merely by its own achievements, but by what it has inherited from the past. We are reminded that the values and aspirations these landmarks embody possess continuing relevance today, and make us aware of the pasts importance to the future. Barbaralee Diamonstein-Spielvogel

ix

This page intentionally left blank.

The Landmarks of New York, 19652011

I pray let us satisfy our eyeswith the memorials and the things of fame that do renown this city.

William Shakespeare

For most of our history, Americans have been fervent believers in progress, which has often meant, in the realm of architecture, tearing down the old and building againbigger, bolder, and taller than before. This is particularly true of New Yorkers, whose city, in its ceaseless ebb and ow, is a monument to transience, a moveable feast. New York Citys quintessential characteristic is its quicksilver quality, its ability to transform itself not just from year to year, but almost from day to day. Cast your eyes upward almost anywhere in the city: a forest of cranes challenges the sky. The French architect Le Corbusier saw New York as a white cathedral that is never nished, a geyser whose fountains leap and gush in continual renewal. He said of our city: It has such courage and enthusiasm that everything can be begun again, sent back to the building yard, and made into something greater. . . . A considerable part of New York is nothing more than a provisional city. A city which will be replaced by another city. This is New York: its motion perpetual, its details a blurred collage. Yet amidst this constant change, we have managed to preserve at least part of the citys legacy of great architecture. Until recently, it seemed that this would not be possible. During the rst three centuries of the citys existence, many of its ne buildings were destroyed. Not until the 1960s did an urban preservation movement emerge with the objective of conserving the best of our pastarchitecturally, historically, and culturally. Preservationists have long argued the intangible social benets of protecting the past from the wreckers ball. By conserving our historical and physical heritage, preservation provides a reassuring chain of continuity between past and present. And a sense of continuity, an awareness that some things last longer than mortal existence, is important to people. Cities, as the greatest communal works of man, provide the deepest assurance that this is true. This reality may

1

be the citys most valuable cultural function. Lewis Mumford put it most succinctly when he said, In the city, time becomes visible. Through the centuries, many of mankinds greatest buildings have been destroyed: some by acts of vandalism, others by not-always-benign neglect. The ongoing saga of destruction and construction, the endless clash between old and new, between tradition and progress, has always engaged poets and politicians. But in the last few decades, the delicate mesh that weaves the new into the old, continuing the layering process that creates a culture, has captured the interest of a far larger, and still-growing, number of people. Public attention has been focused not only on the protection of our fast-vanishing wilderness, but also on the urgent need to protect our architectural environmentfrom its irreplaceable structures to its cherished open spaces and parks. These natural and cultural resources, it has been said, are inherited from our ancestors and borrowed from our children. We are challenged to honor this pact and protect our legacy from human, industrial, and aesthetic pollution. Fortunately, we Americans have grown in our appreciation of our historical environment as being both beautiful and useful. For nearly a century, a dedicated army of women and men, some holding ofcial positions in public and private preservation organizations, others laboring in far less visible capacities, has had a remarkable impact on the character and appearance of our cities.

Historic Preservation in the United States

The need to protect and preserve our cultural resources was rst recognized by various groups of private citizens in the early 1800s, when voices began to be raised against the demolition of buildings identied with the nations history. Perhaps the most signicant nineteenth-century effort was the ght to save Mount Vernon, spearheaded by Ann Pamela Cunningham, a remarkable, dedicated, and persevering woman. Her success in saving that national monument inspired other efforts to protect and preserve historic sites and gave rise to a number of pioneering organizations and societies. In 1888, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities was formed to protect Jamestown. Such societies as the Daughters of the American Revolution and the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America began to center their efforts on preservation of notable historic structures of national importance before the turn of the twentieth century. The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, begun in 1910, rescued many important landmarks in that region. The idea of preserving larger areas also gained ground. John D. Rockefellers Colonial Williamsburg, which began in 1926, is an early, yet imperfect, model.

2

Although pioneering for its time, it was later subject to revisionist criticism, as it created a wholly contemporary reconstruction from the incomplete, existing building footings and a single original chair. The rst actual federal legislation resulted from the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorized the nations president to designate as national monuments those areas of the public domain containing historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and objects of historical importance that were situated on federal property. A decade later, in 1916, the National Parks Service was created to protect historic and national parks. Local governments, too, started to enact preservation laws authorizing the designation and preservation of local buildings and neighborhoods of historic signicance: rst Charleston in 1931, followed by New Orleans in 1937, and San Antonio in 1939. State governments also began to support preservation efforts. With the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the U.S. Congress proclaimed a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national signicance. Unfortunately, the declared national policy was by no means the standard national practice, and despite it, precious structures were demolished. Aware that its earlier efforts had been inadequate, Congress chartered the National Trust for Historic Preservation in 1949, to foster awareness and advocacy. In 1966, the National Historic Preservation Act called for preserving the integrity of cultural property of national, state, and local importance. At the same time, the National Register of Historic Places was created to encourage the identication and protection of the nations historic structures through an ongoing inventory of such landmarks. Preservations coming-of-age was most evident in the expansion of activity at the local government level. By 1966, approximately one hundred communities had established landmarks commissions or their equivalents. Two decades later, the gure rose to 1,900 local preservation commissions, and today, the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions estimates that there could be nearly 5,000 local preservation commissions. Clearly, preservation has come a long way from the early days of limited, ad hoc activity.

Historic Preservation in New York City

As far back as 1831, New Yorkers had begun to express concern that many important structures were being destroyed in order to make way for new ones. In March of that year, the New York Mirror carried a picture of an old Dutch house on Pearl Street, in Lower Manhattan, with the caption: Built in 1626, Rebuilt 1647, Demolished 1828, accompanied by a ringing editorial criticizing

3

the destruction. Just seven years later, Mayor Philip Hone had this to say about the citys penchant for tearing itself apart: The city is now undergoing its usual metamorphosis; many stores and houses are being pulled down and others altered to make every inch of ground productive to its utmost extent. It looks like the ruins occasioned by an earthquake. Not a bad way to describe the situation more than 176 years later. In its early history, the city grew by moving uptown in Manhattan, and outward in the other boroughs. But by the early 1900s, the land, at least in Manhattan, was largely lled. In most cases, the only way to build something new was to tear down something else, or to build on top of it. At rst, most New Yorkers accepted the destruction of the past as the price to be paid for progress. They had little use for Victor Hugos injunction: Let us, while waiting for new monuments, preserve the ancient monuments. Instead, they relished what Walt Whitman referred to in the mid-1840s as the pull-down-and-buildover-again spirit, which seemed to epitomize their city, and all of America. Yet some citizens fully endorsed Mayor Hones appeal to resist the temptation to overturn, overturn, overturn. During the prosperous postCivil War years, Americans who had traveled throughout Europe on the grand tour came home with a new awareness and appreciation of the indigenous American culture that had taken root, particularly its architecture. In 1904, Henry James returned from Europe to nd that his home in Boston had been demolished. This act of obliteration had been breathlessly swift, he wrote, and if I had often seen how fast history could be made, I had doubtless never so felt that it could be unmade still faster. About the same time, the writer Edith Wharton warned that if New York kept tearing down its great old buildings and putting up inferior replacements, one day it would become as much a vanishing city as Atlantis, or the lowest layer of Schliemanns Troy. In the October 23, 1869, issue of Harpers Weekly, a caption read: In a city where new construction is constantly in progress, demolition of the old and the excavation of the site are a commonplace to which New Yorkers have long been accustomed. Indeed, much of older New Yorks most treasured architecturein SoHo, in parts of Greenwich Village, and in Bedford Stuyvesanthas survived solely by chance. At critical moments, the development climate simply was not vigorous enough to make it worthwhile to knock down the older buildings in those areas and put up new ones. In fact, we owe it to accident, or benign neglect alone, that some of the most valuable artifacts of our past have survived. But

4

accidents are, by denition, sometime things. The sad truth is that of all the works of architecture in this country still standing in 1920, that we would now nd worth saving for historic or aesthetic reasons, almost 90 percent have been wantonly destroyed. Today, preserving our built environmentnot just the exteriors of structures but their interiors, as wellis less a matter of chance. All about us in New York are buildings that have been saved, in large measure due to the dedication of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, Municipal Art Society, New York Landmarks Conservancy, Historic Districts Council, and the vigilant work of citizen activists and neighborhood associations. The emergence of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission came about as the result of years of work by concerned citizens and grassroots organizations. Among them were members of two groups that helped to educate the public about the citys architectural heritagethe Municipal Art Society and the New York Community Trustas well as advocates from such community organizations as the Brooklyn Heights Association. The postwar boom in development put pressure on the surviving historic resources that remained untouched, and the concern for preserving elements of the citys past grew. While New Yorkers had for a long time agreed that specic sites associated with the early historic past of the city and country or architectural monuments deserved to be recognized, the widespread redevelopment occasioned by new highways, and urban renewalin particular Robert Moses plan for a Lower Manhattan Expressway and changes to the New York City Zoning code in 1961directly threatened historic neighborhoods in the same way that commercial development was impacting Lower Manhattan and Midtown commercial buildings. Between the late 1950s and the mid-1960s, the city lost some of its nest architecture to large governmental projects designed to modernize agging urban centers, as one glass-and-steel tower after another threatened to obliterate whatever old and good structures remained. Public concern was so manifest that the late modernist architect Philip Johnson, one of the leading practitioners of the International Style, joined other marching protesters to mourn the loss of Pennsylvania Station in 1963. Other important buildings were lost during the same period, but it was the destruction of Pennsylvania Station that accelerated the creation of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The original Pennsylvania Station, one of the acknowledged monuments of our century, was designed by

5

Charles Follen McKim, of the preeminent architectural rm of McKim, Mead & White, and modeled after the Roman baths of Caracalla and the basilica of Constantine. In our history there was never another building like Penn Station, wrote Philip Johnson. It compares with the great cathedrals of Europe. In 1962, its fate was determined when the nancially ailing Pennsylvania Railroad sold the air rights above the station to permit construction of a new Madison Square Garden (a building utterly lacking in distinction or quality). The station was torn down and replaced with a new, smaller one. What planners did not imagine at that time was that inter-city and commuter rail service would revive and that, in fewer than twenty years, the new station would be impossibly congested. The current Penn Station facility has undertaken a long series of renovations to accommodate its increasing number of daily passengers. The result does not sufce at peak periods, and even at regular levels, trafc is impeded by access ways that do not function. Since 1999, there has been a proposal to convert the Farley Building, the central post ofce adjacent to the Garden site, and its underground spaces to serve as a new station to be known as Moynihan Station (in honor of the late senator, Daniel P. Moynihan, who championed its construction), which would recall the grandeur of the lost 1910 structure. According to Nicolai Ouroussoff, of the New York Times, a new Pennsylvania Station would be a big step toward rectifying one of the greatest architectural tragedies in the citys history: the 1964 [sic] demolition of McKim, Mead & Whites glorious 1910 Pennsylvania Station, a monument to American democratic values, and its replacement by the dark, claustrophobic present-day station, one of the most dehumanizing public spaces in the city. In October of 2010, the Moynihan Station project broke ground with a recent federal grant of $83.3 million in place to kick off the $267 million rst phase of this ambitious multiphase project, which is scheduled to be completed in 2016. This welcome step forward inaugurates the long delayed plan designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, which will preserve the Farley Buildings main faade, with its grand staircase and row of Corinthian columns, and incorporate the current post ofce into a larger and much needed transit hub for the 550,000 people who daily use the current station complex. Preservationists, architects, and humanists were stunned that a desecration such as the destruction of Pennsylvania Station could take place. By the time they had rallied to save the building, however, it was too late. No legal mechanism existed, nor was sufcient public pressure generated, to ght for its

6

survival. The New York Times on October 30, 1963, wrote a wry farewell: Until the rst blows fell, no one was convinced that Penn Station really would be demolished or that New York would permit this monumental act of vandalism. . . . Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and ultimately deserves. Even when we had Penn Station, we couldnt afford to keep it clean. We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tin-horn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed. In reply to mounting public criticism, the president of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company wrote a letter to the Times asking, Does it make any sense to preserve a building merely as a monument? As Nathan Silver states in Lost New York, The station was sacriced through the application of real estate logic that often dictates the demolition of the very building that makes an area desirable. The absurdity and the iconoclasm of the act were noted by many constituencies: how could a city as civilized and culturally oriented as New York permit the annihilation of one of its most important physical legacies? Soon thereafter, the most important legislative and regulatory institution to preserve New York Citys built heritage was born. On April 19, 1965, Mayor Robert F. Wagner signed the legislation that created the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. The vision of preserving our past found permanence in the Landmarks Law, which has since its inception played a key role in shaping the evolving face of the city. Despite the fact that a hundred cities were already ahead of it, having established preservation commissions by 1965, New York became the leader in the preservation of its landmarks, its work encompassing a wide range and quality of architectural and historic resources. It is now the largest municipal preservation agency in the United States. By one estimate, New York has succeeded in designating at least four times as many landmarks and ve times as many historic districts, compared to fourteen major cities whose combined population is twice that of New York. The abundance and variety of these buildings is surprising, ranging from the best efforts of our nest architects, to excellent examples of vernacular building types. New Yorks landmarks encompass three centuries of urban sites which create an architectural record touching upon every aspect of life, providing evidence of our proudest achievements and a history of New Yorks citizenry writ large in buildings that express their most noble aspirations and deepest values. Numbers, of course, cannot tell the whole story. It is neither feasible nor desirable to measure the success of the preservation effort merely by the number

7

of old buildings that have been saved. Nor, for that matter, does it make sense to preserve structures by restricting their functions to what they had been in the past; the effect would be to create a city of mausoleums rather than one of functioning, evolving buildings that people actually use. With its mandate to conserve New Yorks architectural past, the Landmarks Preservation Commission is justiably proud that it has not wanted to make museums of all its historic treasures, but has vigorously promoted the repurposing of carefully selected buildings instead. The fact that landmark structures have undergone signicant renovation work or important additions and, in historic districts, new construction, approved by the Commission, testies to the Landmarks Laws ability to accommodate changes in use, to adapt to the needs of commerce and modern technology, and to grow with, and respond to, the needs of a building and the people whom it is meant to serve. It proves, with little doubt, that Landmarks are far from frozen in time. For example, at least ve new uses were proposed for the Astor Library, but it was theater producer Joseph Papps vision and imaginationin combination with the New York City landmarks preservation ordinancethat in the mid-1960s succeeded in saving the elegant structure from destruction, and transforming it into the Joseph Papp Public Theater, a thriving cultural institution, which in 2011, more than forty-ve years later, was again being adapted to revitalize its nineteenth landmark home for more contemporary uses and maintain one of the most vibrant theater spaces in the city. More recently, the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House (originally U.S. Custom House, built 19021907), designed by Cass Gilbert, which sits on the original site of the Dutch West India Companys Fort Amsterdam, the nucleus of the settlement of New Amsterdam, gained new life as the home of the George Gustav Heye Center of the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, as well as the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

What is a Landmark?

The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission is charged with identifying and designating landmarks and with regulating their preservation. The identication of structures and sites is an important part of guarding New York Citys rich past. Some sites represent events of historical signicance, peoples association with the citys history, or a certain style or period of architecture. Others are designated because they represent a way of life, a way of doing business, or a way of maintaining a community in an ever-changing world.

8

Among New Yorks landmarks are banks, bridges, apartment houses, piers, theaters, streets, churches, factories, schools, cemeteries, parks, clubs, museums, ofce towers, archeological sites, and even trees. As of June, 2011, designations include more than 1,136 individual exterior landmarks, 110 interior landmarks, ten scenic landmarks, and 103 historic districts, including sixteen extensions to existing historic districtsin all, over 27,000 structures. The vast majority of both individual landmarks and historic districts are in Manhattan: 909 individual landmarks and fty-ve historic districts and fourteen extensions. Brooklyn has 174 individual landmarks and twenty-ve historic districts and one extension; The Bronx has eighty-four individual landmarks and ten historic districts and one extension; Staten Island has 128 individual landmarks and three historic districts, while Queens has seventy-one individual landmarks and ten historic districts. Although this may sound like a great many, it actually accounts for only 2 to 3 percent of all the property in New York City. What makes a landmark a landmark? The Commission evaluates structures and neighborhoods from all ve boroughs representing a wide variety of eras, styles, materials, and purposes. The New York City Landmarks Law denes an exterior individual landmark as a structure, property, or object at least thirty years old, which has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation. Some examples include the Sailors Snug Harbor in Staten Island, the Wonder Wheel in Coney Island, Brooklyn, and the Second Shearith Israel Cemetery in Manhattan. The chief criterion for designating individual landmarks is architectural integrity, but, increasingly, a signicant number of structures have also have been designated for their historical signicance or for cultural reasons, such as being associated with celebrated people or events. The law further states: It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements and landscape features of special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people. The purpose is to effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and landscape features and of districts which represent or reect elements of the citys cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history;

9

safeguard the citys historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage; stabilize and improve property values; foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past; protect and enhance the citys attractions to tourists and visitors and the support and stimulus to business and industry; strengthen the economy of the city; promote the use of historical districts, landmarks, interior landmarks, and scenic landmarks for the education, pleasure and welfare of the city. An interior landmark is dened as an interior of a structure, or any part thereof, which is at least thirty years old, that is customarily open and accessible to the public and that has special landmark qualities. Some examples include the Bartow-Pell Mansion in The Bronx, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank banking hall in Brooklyn, the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia Airport in Queens, and the Ed Sullivan Theater in Manhattan. However, the law prohibits the designation of the interiors of places of worship. A scenic landmark is dened as a landscape feature, or a group of features, which is of special character or historical or aesthetic interest, and is at least thirty years old. It must also be situated on city-owned property. Some examples include all of Central Park (including every bridge, monument, gazebo, gate, lake, fountain, and walkway), Verdi Square on Broadway at 73rd Street, Prospect Park in Brooklyn, and, most recently, Morningside Park, designated on July 15, 2008 and the citys rst scenic landmark to be designated since 1983. With 25 million visitors each year to its 843 acres, which is larger than the entire Mediterranean municipality of Monaco, Central Park is the most frequently visited urban park in the United States. The Central Park Conservancy, a private not-for-prot organization that manages Central Park under a contract with the city, provides more than 85 percent of the parks annual $25 million operating budget and is responsible for restoring, managing, and enhancing the Park in partnership with the Parks Department. Since its founding in 1980, the Conservancy has overseen the investment of more than $500 million (more than $110 million of public funding and more than $390 million from private sources) to transform Central Park into a model for urban parks nationwide through a comprehensive management and restoration plan and programs for volunteers and visitors. It has set new standards of excellence in park care, emphasizing environmental excellence and thereby improving the quality of open space in the city. Through its example, numerous park

10

conservancies throughout the city and the nation now revitalize and restore our historic parks. Distinct from individual landmarks, a historic district is an area that has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest representing one or more architectural styles or periods and that constitutes a distinct section of the city or conveys a sense of place. Examples include: the Charlton-King-Vandam Historic District, on the site of Richmond Hall, once Aaron Burrs estate, which contains ne Federal and Greek Revival houses; the Ladies Mile Historic District, the fashion center of New Yorks Gilded Age, with its concentration of the citys rst department stores, including Lord & Taylor, B. Altman & Co., and Tiffany & Co.; the SoHo Historic District, with its distinguished collection of cast-iron buildings; the Prospect Park South Historic District, an example of the citys suburban development in Brooklyn, with its free-standing houses in a variety of eclectic vernacular styles; and the Perry Avenue Historic District in the Bedford Park section of The Bronx, New York Citys 100th historic district, which features worker housing in the Queen Anne style. The Landmarks Preservation Commission consists by law of eleven members, one of whom is a full-time paid chairman. The law requires that the Commission include at least one resident from each borough, three architects, one historian, one realtor, and one city planner or landscape architect. Members are appointed by the mayor for three-year terms, and the chairman and vice-chairman are selected at the pleasure of the mayor from among the commissioners. There has been, in general, an extraordinary continuity of informed and courageous leadership in the last forty-ve years, thanks to the six men and four women who have chaired the Commission: Geoffrey Platt (19651968); Harmon Goldstone (19681973); Beverly Moss Spatt (19741978); Kent Barwick (19781983); Gene Norman (19831989), the rst full-time paid commissioner; David F. M. Todd (19891990); Laurie Beckelman (19901994); Jennifer Raab (19942001); Sherida Paulsen (20012002); and Robert B. Tierney (2003present). The Commission has also enjoyed the support of the elected leaders of New York over the last four decades: Mayors Wagner, Lindsay, Beame, Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, and Bloomberg. The commissioners are assisted by a full-time, paid professional staff, including researchers, historians, restoration specialists, archeologists, lawyers, administrators, and support staff. In the late 1980s, the staff of the Commission peaked at approximately eighty members. Subsequent economic downturns and resulting budget cuts reduced that

11

number to a low of fty. Currently, the Commission has a staff of sixty-one persons and a projected annual budget for scal year 2011 of nearly $5.5 million. The workload of the Commission has increased continuously in the past two decades. Besides new designations, renovations of existing landmarks, and new construction in the city spurred by the real estate markets upturn have increased new work permit applications alone from nearly 7,933 in scal year 2000 to over 9,300 in scal year 2010, which itself represents a 5 percent increase over scal year 2009. The work of the Commissions enforcement staff to ensure compliance with the law resulted in the issuance of over 1,200 warning letters in scal year 2010, more than a 50 percent increase in the last ten years and a 10 percent increase over the prior scal year. While applications for permits are dependent, to some extent, on the real estate market, interest in achieving landmark status does not wane in harder economic times, and requests for landmark status have continually risen over the past decade. The Commission held twenty-four public hearings and twelve public meetings in the scal year 2010, and conducted numerous informational outreach meetings with owners of buildings proposed for designation and with local community boards to help improve public understanding of the Landmarks Law. Through the use of innovative procedures, guidelines, and master plans, the Commission has been able to just keep pace with its increasing workload.

The Work of the Landmarks Preservation Commission

The work of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is divided into three main functions: (1) identication, (2) designation, and (3) regulation. The identication function consists of a survey (an ongoing inventory of all the building lots in the citys ve boroughs), as well as research (evaluating requests for landmark status and determination of the histories and signicance of individual buildings) leading to designation. The regulation and preservation function consists of considering and approving or disapproving changes to already designated landmark structures and districts and enforcing the application of the Landmarks Law. For the rst decade of its existence, from 1965 to 1974, public hearings for designations were held every six months, and the Commission designated clearly important and obvious architectural works. In 1974, its jurisdiction was extended to include scenic and interior landmarks, and greater volume necessitated more frequent designation hearings. The Commission now meets several times a month to address Commission policies, establish guidelines, discuss and designate new

The Designation Process

12

landmarks, and act on permit applications. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, in response to the volume of prior designations and the development climate, the work of the Commission shifted away from designation to preservation and regulation, including, most importantly, the determination of appropriateness of new and extended construction on landmark sitesthus inuencing land development in New York City. With the beginning of the new millennium, a new focus on designation, particularly to increase designations throughout the ve boroughs and to recognize previously under-appreciated sites of historic or cultural signicance, has been at the forefront of the Commissions actions. Since 2003, under the Bloomberg Administration, the Commission has designated twenty-three historic districts plus six extensions, with sixteen of these designations in boroughs other than Manhattan, the most historic designations of any administration to date. Buildings are designated only after a process that was deliberately designed to be as thorough and exhaustive as possible. The ve stages of the designation process are: (1) identication, (2) evaluation and prioritization, (3) calendaring, (4) public hearing and further research, and (5) designation. Sources relied upon for identication come from interested citizens, property owners, community groups, public ofcials, Commission staff, commissioners, public ofcials, and surveys of properties conducted by the Commission, such as the 22,000-building survey recently completed by the staff. Regardless of who proposes a building, the Commission staff undertakes to evaluate its signicance, which often involves a eld visit, photographs, and research and deliberation by a committee consisting of the chairman, the executive director, the chief of staff, the director of research, and other staff members. A letter is sent to the person who submitted the request, informing him or her of the committees determination. After the committee recommends that a proposed historic property merits further consideration, the chairman will decide whether to bring the property forward to the full Commission for review, considering the importance of, and threats to, the resource, owner, and community, along with City Council support and agency resources and priorities. The staff then presents its ndings, with its recommendations to the commissioners in a public executive session. The commissioners then decide which buildings should proceed. For proposed individual landmarks, the staff usually contacts the owner to discuss the landmark designation process and potential issues. At a subsequent public executive session, the commissioners vote on which buildings to calendar

13

for a public hearing. A letter of notication and printed calendars regarding the hearing are mailed to the owner, to community boards, to public ofcials, to the Buildings Department and the City Planning Commission, and to those members of the general public on the Commissions mailing list. In 2008, occasioned by a seven-year wait for a denitive response to whether the Commission would move forward with a request to extend the Park Slope Historic District, a community group brought suit against the Commission to increase the transparency of the request process, arguing that the Commission had an obligation to publicly consider and render a prompt decision on every formal landmark nomination made by the public. While the trial court agreed and mandated new procedures, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed, upholding the Commissions process. In another case brought in 2010, the New York State Appellate Division reafrmed the Commissions broad discretion to decide when and what properties to bring forward for calendaring and validated its current procedure. The Commission conducts public hearings for all landmark designations at which the commissioners hear a staff presentation on the proposed designation, receive additional information from any other sources who testify or present written statements, and often hear the owners point of view. A decision is not usually made at this public hearing. Rather, staff members are instructed to continue research and report back with their ndings. Assuming the building or site is still proceeding toward landmark status, all of the research is then summarized in a draft of a designation report prepared by the research department that, together with information gathered at the hearing, is discussed by the Commission at a later public executive session where a vote is then taken. Six afrmative votes of the commissioners are needed to designate the proposed site a landmark. Once designated, the building or structure is fully protected by the Landmarks Law; all subsequent changes to it must be approved by the Commission before a building permit may be issued. In the last decade, the Commission received and reviewed requests from the public to designate, on average, 200 new individual landmarks and several historic districts each year, 100 of which come from the New York City 311 hotline. No information is currently available regarding the percentage of the requests received by the Commission in scal year 2010 to evaluate potential individual landmarks and historic districts advanced to public hearing or designation.

14

In recent years, the importance of the public hearing process has gradually eroded. It appears that sites with potential to generate long and acrimonious debate, and which are not certain to be designated, tend not to be calendared for public hearing. This produces a commendable success rate for the Landmarks Preservation Commissions designation process, and it may have the welcome effect, for some, of abbreviating what sometimes feels like the endless process of public review. However, it may have the unintended effect of stiing debate and raises questions about the integrity of the public hearing process. Also, there is the risk that a site that deserves landmark status may not be heard for a variety of reasons, including owner objections, and therefore not be designated in a timely manner. If calendaring a site for public hearing is tantamount to designation, then the public may effectively be denied full access to the process, and potential political and economic concerns may take priority over preservation concerns, creating a climate that threatens to undermine historic preservation in New York City. One such example is 2 Columbus Circle, the former Huntington Hartford Gallery of Modern Art designed by Edward Durrell Stone in 1964. Long the subject of conicting architectural assessments on its merits, and having a challenging design for adaptive reuse with its near windowless faade, Venetianstyle touches, and portholes, the structure drew passionate proponents for both its immediate designation and ultimate replacement. As the site became ripe for development and requests for consideration mounted, the Commissions refusal to calendar the lollipop building (as it is often known for its eponymous street level colonnade) led to much criticism of the Commission from community activists and noted architects alike. This prompted the then architectural critic for the New York Times, David Dunlap, to question the Commissions autonomy in the face of development and political pressures, and in turn the integrity of the designation process of the citys landmarks and historic districts in a 1996 New York Times article. The building underwent an extensive remodeling by the Oregon architect, Brad Cloepl, who was commissioned by the Museum of Art and Design to create its new home, which opened in 2008 with little of the original design remaining. The project stands as a monument to community defeat. Recently, it was apparent that politics affected the outcome of the proposed designation of two buildings on Manhattans automobile row, both designed

15

by the Chicago architect Howard Van Doren Shaw: 225 West 75th Street and the B. F. Goodrich Tire Company building at 1780 Broadway. The owner, Extell, proposing to construct a fty-story hotel project, opposed the designation and lobbied the City Council against the action, before the Commission reached a decision on the designation. While the Commission maintained that the landmarks worthiness (or lack thereof ) was the primary consideration for removing the smaller buildings designation, the Commissions chairman recommended the removal, which passed on a 6 to 3 vote, in light of the potential opposition from the City Council and the likelihood that the body would overturn any designation. Preservationists considered the action inappropriate. A vote by the Landmarks Preservation Commission is by no means the end of the approval process. The City Council is the nal decision-maker on designations. All landmarks decisions are required to go through a public committee process, as are any other land use matters. Within ten days of the designation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission must le reports with required city agencies and the City Council, and a Notice of Designation is sent to the property owner and registered in the appropriate land records. The City Planning Commission (CPC) also submits to the City Council a report on the designation and its potential impact, if any, on projected public improvements, and plans for development, growth, improvement, or renewal of the area involved. In the case of a historic district designation, the CPC also holds a public hearing. Next commences a 120-day period during which the City Council may, by majority vote, approve, modify, or disapprove a designation. Finally, the vote is led with the mayor, and the designation (with any modications by the City Council) becomes nal, unless disapproved within ve days by the mayor. A mayoral veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Council. Only ve times in the Commissions forty-six-year history has the City Council (or its predecessor the Board of Estimate) rejected or amended landmark designations. The Commission attributes the limited number of denials and modications to its careful process of review, and to detailed discussions with owners before a designation is made. In 1991, the City Council overturned the designation of Dvok House, home of the renowned Czechoslovak composer, Antonn Dvok, where he wrote the New World Symphony in the 1880s. The designation was strongly opposed by its owner, Beth Israel Medical Center. In fall 2003, the City Council voted to overturn the designation of the

16

Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine as an individual landmark (which had also been heard for designation in 1966 and 1979). At the heart of the matter was that the designation was for the cathedral alone, not the entire 11.3-acre site, which includes other signicant related structures and the close. The City Council favored landmark status for the entire complex, rather than just the cathedral itself. The City Council rejected the landmark designation. The Mayor vetoed the action but the Council overrode the veto and the result was that neither the Cathedral, nor the close and surrounding structures were designated. The diocese moved forward on a proposal to lease a part of the close to Columbia University for a twenty-story tower without commission review, and the future of another parcel, also optioned to Columbia University, is unclear. In 1992, and then again in 2005, the designation of the former Jamaica Savings Bank, a small, striking modern building built in Queens in 1968, was overturned. Also in 2005, the Council overturned the designation of the Austin, Nichols Warehouse, a 1913 Cass Gilbert-designed warehouse in the Egyptian Revival style, on the Williamsburg, Brooklyn, waterfront, which is currently slated to become luxury apartments. Most recently, in January of 2011, the Council voted to overturn the designation of the 1912 Grace Episcopal Church Memorial Hall by Upjohn and Constable, a two-story brick and limestone Tudor revival structure, one of the group of Queens landmarks approved by the commission in October of 2010. The designation of Memorial Hall completed the protection of the entire historic complex, adding to the 1967 individual designations of the Gothic Revival-style Church (Dudley Fields, 186162, enlarged; Cady, Berg & See, 190102) and graveyard (1734), which have played an important role in the Jamaica community since the congregation was founded in 1702. The congregation, which did not appear at the commissions hearing or object to the action during the entire process, successfully lobbied council members to stop the designation at the last minute citing nancial constraints. There have also been several modications of designations, such as the Tribeca West Historic District designation in 1991, and in 1990, the Suburban Homes Company York Avenue Estate buildings, a complex of unprepossessing buildings important for their planning principles and social history. In the latter case, the Board of Estimate removed four of the fourteen buildings from the designation to accommodate Peter S. Kalikows plan to replace a section of the complex with a very large apartment tower. A 1992 ruling by the Appellate

17

Division of the Supreme Court of New York rejected the Board of Estimates action, afrming the original landmark designation as a process with reason and integrity, and not one to be diluted to satisfy the competing political demands of powerful landowners. In June of 2010, the Appellate Division again addressed the Suburban Homes Company York Avenue Estate complex by upholding the 2006 designation of two additional buildings in the complex, despite the fact that the buildings had been signicantly altered with a cladding of pink-brown stucco. There has also been a single rescission of the landmark site, that of the former Knickerbocker Field Club, after the building was badly damaged in a re and later demolished. Over the past decade, there has been a qualitative shift in the focus of proposed designations. In the past, the majority of the Commissions designations were based on architectural or aesthetic qualities, many in combination with historic signicance. Recently, there has been a move to address issues of evenhandedness and geographic distribution; some would say at the expense of architectural integrity. The desire to recognize and preserve structures for historical or cultural signicance and to reach broader sectors of the city, such as the other boroughs and northern Manhattan, has taken on new urgency, as many believe that place matters, and that it is important to recognize such buildings as individual landmarks. Similarly, recent historic district designations primarily fall into a few categories: neighborhoods with signicant sociological importance, those that reect cultural/historical identities, and types or styles of development from particular economic periods. These include historic districts such as Perry Avenue in The Bronx, or the Ridgewood South Historic District in Queens. It is important to recognize the diversity of architectural, historic, and cultural resources throughout the ve boroughs. Each borough has its own history, patterns of economic and cultural development, and distinct evolution to be celebrated. Among these are the early rural history of Staten Island; the suburban nature of parts of Queens, Brooklyn, and The Bronx; the development of worker housing, sea-side architecture, and industrial development; and cultural migrations from Manhattan to the other boroughs. The preservation of neighborhoods, not just buildings, is a key goal of the landmarks movementretaining a vibrant streetscape, enhancing economic value and commercial viability, and maintaining the quality of life. Place Matters, a joint project of City Lore and the Municipal Art Society, has compiled a list of places that matter for a wide variety of reasons. They seek to promote and protect places that connect New Yorkers to the citys history and encourage awareness and understanding

18

of sites that recognize ongoing cultural and community traditions that keep the city distinctive. Places may be nominated by anyone. A small sample of sites are: 1520 Sedgwick Avenue in The Bronx, which celebrates the pioneers of the hip hop movement; the Kentile Sign over the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn; the Archie Bunker House on Cooper Avenue in Queens; and the site of the founding of the Brotherhood of the Sleeping Car Porters in Central Harlem. The survey also recognizes more traditional sites that are also designated individual landmarks, such as the Astoria Pool and Park, the Audubon Ballroom in northern Manhattan, the 196465 Worlds Fair Unisphere, and the Alice Austen House in Staten Island. The central question is whether the Landmarks Law is the proper vehicle for these buildings, which foster traditions, enable important activities both historically and potentially for the future, bolster economic value, and may embody an aesthetic beauty, but are not necessarily of the architectural or historical merit traditionally accorded individual landmarks. There are those who would argue that anything over thirty years old is worth saving, a position not grounded in rigorous preservation analysis, but simply embraced because of a lack of appropriate neighborhood preservation development tools available to activists today. Indeed, the Landmarks Commission has long been a go-to destination due to its small size and user-friendly qualities to address issues that fall between governmental agency cracks, despite the fact that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to address them. Examples of some of the issues that citizens bring to the Commission are noise, use, and other quality-of-life issues. There need to be new tools to inuence neighborhood quality. Potentially, such historical and cultural sites and areas could be the subject of a different kind of designation that would recognize their importance and value to the community and grant protections that would ensure their survival. A neighborhood, special design, or cultural conservation district could be crafted to address contextual zoning issues, to preserve the essential spirit of an area through a combination of physical design guidelines, and to encourage the nancial health of a neighborhood by qualifying for certain incentives for smart and appropriate development and community enhancement. As Place Matters has realized, these [p]laces are frequently valued for several intertwined reasons that can coexist and complement each other, but also compete and cause conict. A current paradox of preservation today is how to resolve the competing ideas of what we value and how we determine what is universally valued for designation under the Landmarks Law? This emerging issue is a difcult one and deserves our critical thought and attention.

19

The Landmarks Preservation Commission has been in existence since 1965, and there is a body of opinion which contends that nearly all of the truly important historic and iconic structures and spaces (excepting those constructed in the last thirty years) have already been designated. While this position is often raised by disgruntled developers, property rights advocates, or architects frustrated by the citys development process and protections, questions have been raised by both proponents and opponents of preservation alike about the quality and quantity of current designationsin essence, how much is too much, or is there ever too much? Drawing the circle too broadly raises questions such as what will our city look like in another fty years? Will we be a network of contiguous historic districts with development areas in between? How do we create future landmarks? Jean Nouvels proposed Tower Verre for Hines Development Company, adjoining the Museum of Modern Art, engages just such a debate. The soaring design of glass faades cut with irregularly placed steel beams, which concludes in sloping needle-like spires brings new expression to the pointed skyscraper designs of the pre-war era, envisions required set backs in a smooth and inconspicuous way, and proclaims its place as a twentyrst-century building on the skyline in sharp contrast with the boxy silhouettes of the past few decades. Nouvel recently said in a New York Magazine article entitled Colossus: The most extraordinary cities create energy as they form themselves, and that energy and complexity are qualities that cant be abandoned. Our responsibility is to bear witness to our era. A citys identity is not something you preserve, it is something you create too. Yet residents and community activists, as the articles title suggests, nd the proposal overwhelming and inappropriate, its potential shadow over Central Park a blight; they mourn the loss of the brownstone character this midtown block once epitomized and seek to reverse the citys scaled back approval of the project. Where do we nd the balance between change and continuity? New ideas in architecture as much as economicskeep a city alive. As Paul Goldberger noted at a luncheon celebrating the Landmarks Laws forty-fth anniversary at the Four Seasons Restaurant, itself an interior individual landmark now in its fty-second year of existence (remarkably, the same age Pennsylvania Station was when it was torn down in 1963) and contained within Mies van der Rohes designated landmark Seagram Building (1958): a city that preserves not enough is a rootless culture, based on shifting sand, a place where time is never visible. . . . But of course a city that does not change enough is dead . . . and if there is anything we cannot ever allow ourselves to be, it is some grotesque

20

version of Colonial Williamsburg on the Hudson. Deference must be paid to both the scholarship and expert judgment that the Commission possesses and the collective hindsight of the last forty-ve years. The Commission has designated and protected landmarks before they were popular in the public view and allowed new construction projects within its purview that mark a clear departure from historical references and embody the spirit of their day, and in both instances over the objections of disparate points of view. Somewhere between thirty and fty years, a building is most at riskno longer new and fresh, possibly out of fashion with current tastes, and yet not old enough to have achieved a following to promote or defend it. Engaging the old and the new in a dialogue of appropriate use, proper and thoughtful preservation and designation, and interconnectedness to the city as a whole is essential in the twenty-rst century.

Landmarks and the Regulatory Process

Once a building or site is designated, it is subject to the regulatory procedures of the Commission. All work, with the exception of ordinary repair and maintenance, on designated structures and within historic districts is reviewed by the Commission. The Commission issues several types of permits depending on the work proposed by the applicant: which include Permits for Minor Work, Certicates of No Effect, and Certicates of Appropriateness. Certicates of Appropriateness, which include major alterations and new construction, among other things, require a public hearing. Proposals for changes must take into account not only the owners plans but also the retention of the architectural and/or historical integrity of the building/site and its surroundings. How the modied building or site may be used is not within the purview of the Commission. The Commissions regulatory department reviews applications for changes to designated structures, which may range from replacement of exterior door moldings in Brooklyn Heights, to the construction of ofce or residential towers in Manhattan. The Commissions staff works closely with each applicant to nd an appropriate solution that will meet contemporary needs. When a change is approved, the Commission issues the appropriate permit and the owner may then proceed with the work. In scal year 2010, the Commission received approximately 9,300 applications for work on designated structures (including alterations and new construction) and actions were taken on over 90 percent of all applications with approximately 86 percent of active applications approved. In addition, the Commission provides expedited review for certain types of interior work, based on an owners, architects, or engineers statement.

21

The Commission has successfully implemented preservation policy statements and guidelines that address certain of its regulatory mandates: for example, to address individual building elements (the rooftop addition, rear yard, air conditioner, and window guidelines) or to address the character of a specic historic district (the Riverdale or Madison Avenue commercial storefront guidelines, the Sunnyside Gardens and Stone Street Master Plans) or to address particular types of structures (the bank interiors guidelines). These regulations have not only provided clear directions for applicants, but have expedited the regulatory process and streamlined the Commissions workload. Recently, the Commission proposed amendments to certain of its existing rules concerning window replacements and new window openings on secondary faades, roof top additions and rear yard enlargements, the installation of ductless HVAC systems, the issuance of CNEs for basement and cellar work, temporary additions, and signage. In January 2011, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to increase the fees charged to designated property owners for the construction of new buildings and building alterations that require a New York City Department of Buildings permit. New buildings that are one-, two-, or three-family dwellings require a fee of fteen cents per square foot, while new buildings are charged twenty-ve cents per square foot. The fee for building alterations increased from fty dollars to ninety-ve dollars for the rst $25,000 or the cost of the work and ve dollars for each $1,000 of additional cost. These rules are intended to codify certain standard commission practices and expedite the issuance of permits on these specic types of changes to landmark structures. It is hoped this amendment will balance the competing interests of the need for increased efciency in the regulatory process and the transparency of the review process and input from the public, which together are necessary for the proper protection and stewardship of our designate landmarks and to allow for the evolving historic neighborhoods of our city. If an owner wishes to demolish a landmark, there are provisions in the Landmarks Law that ensure his or her right to claim economic hardship. The law also gives the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission a specic time period in which to seek a feasible alternative. Recently, the hardship application of St. Vincents Catholic Medical Center to demolish the Edward and Theresa OToole building, a controversial modernist structure designed by Alfred C. Ledner in 1964 and designated an individual landmark in 2008, relied on this provision. The hospital put forth an ambitious proposal to develop new medical facilities more suited to current health care needs in conjunction with

22

a residential development in partnership with a private developer, and requested the demolition of nine buildings on its Greenwich Village campus. The request initially was denied but after numerous unsatisfactory attempts to modify the plan, the hospital then invoked the hardship provisions of the law, as applied to not-for-prot owners, and the Commission ultimately granted the petition to allow the demolition. The Commissions approval of a hardship application reversed an earlier unanimous determination that the OToole Building makes a unique contribution to the Greenwich Village Historic District and that demolition would not be appropriate. A coalition of preservation organizations brought suit against the Commission, alleging that it failed to follow the hardship standards previously established by the U.S. Supreme Court. In an ironic twist of fate, the hospital, beset by nancial problems, has decided to close, scuttling its new construction project and saving the OToole building from the wrecking ball, if only for the time being. In 1998, the Landmark Protection Bill became law, allowing the Commission to seek civil nes for violations of its regulations. Civil nes augment the Commissions existing enforcement powers, which include criminal penalties. For the most serious violations, partial or total unauthorized destruction of a landmark, an action must be brought in civil court. The Commission may also issue stop work orders and seek injunctive relief. In general, the Commission uses its administrative ne system to enforce the Landmarks Law. The ve-step process provides for several grace periods and signicant opportunities for the owner to work with the Commission to correct the work and avoid monetary penalties. The Commission has a small enforcement staff which investigates complaints and handles compliance actions for the agency. In scal year 2010, the Commission issued 1,275 Warning Letters, 36 percent of which were resolved at this stage and 64 percent resulted in further enforcement action, including Stop Work Orders and Notices of Violation. More than 98 percent of all Notices of Violation issued were upheld by the administrative courts. The imposition of nes, augmenting the Commissions other enforcement powers, has been an important step in maintaining the strength of the law and the integrity of the landmarks of New York. The Landmarks Law also mandates that owners keep their property in good repair. While this does not mean that owners are required to make unplanned alterations, it does require that owners maintain their properties so that historical features are not lost or compromised and that buildings are not subject to demolition by neglect. This rule is similar to the Buildings Department requirement that all New York City buildings be maintained in a safe condition.

23

The triumph of benign neglect sets a dangerous precedent for an owner to avoid an unwanted designation, resulting in an impetus to destroy a structure through inaction, and ultimately lift the designation. The importance of enforcing proper upkeep on designated buildings, as well as addressing and rectifying violations, has in the past several years been the focus of several important actions by the Commission. In 2009, the city received a $1.1 million civil settlement for the owners failure to maintain the Windermere Apartments on the Upper West Side in good repair in compliance with the Landmarks Law, the largest penalty ever recovered for such a violation. Completed in 1881, the seven-story, three-building complex in the Queen Anne style is one of New York Citys oldest remaining large apartment houses, built to accommodate the growing middle classes, and in particular single self-supporting women, in the last decades of the nineteenth century and, later, those in the arts, with notable residents such as Steve McQueen and Quinto Magniani, Pulitzer Prize-winning composer of the opera Argonauts. Designated in 2005, the building had been in disrepair and the subject of litigation for both tenant harassment and safety concerns for nearly thirty years. The settlement also provided that the owner shore up and brace its collapsing walls, and that the repairs necessary to save the building be done in a timely manner. The citys then Corporation Counsel, Michael Cardozo, noted that [t]he owners of this landmark are now paying for their at refusal to care for it. Fortunately, the city has one of the most powerful municipal landmarks laws in the country and the settlement shows how effective it can be. Another recent example of vigilance on this front is the action taken to reclaim the 1883 red-brick, Queen Anne and Romanesque-style Corn Exchange Bank building designed by Lamb & Rich. The structure, which was designated an individual landmark in 1993, was owned by the city from 1979 to 1999, when it was sold to a community activist for a cooking school that would serve the community. After a re that collapsed the roof and with trees growing in the building over a decade later, the city moved to reacquire the building, citing demolition by neglect and failure to meet the conditions of the sale and redevelopment plan. While this action is a positive sign, advancing the goal of saving and reusing a visible and important landmark, the damage done from the unabated and continued decay of almost thirty years, while competing interests wrangled about its future, is tragic. Of the original seven-story building, the miniature gables and chimney stacks were lost in the 1970s and the original top two oors were razed after a recent Department of Buildings order issued in the

24

interest of public safetysoon all that will remain is a four-and-one-half story shell, a shadow of a once magnicent anchor on 125th Street. Despite the fact that the Commission will continue to pursue this issue, much of this landmark has been lost forever and cannot be replaced. Civil remedies, after the fact, seem of little consequence for the neglect and even destruction of a landmark property. The Commission also serves as the citys clearinghouse for the environmental review of architectural and archeological resources under the city and state environmental review process, which can bring to light structures and areas needing the Commissions protection through designation, such as the African Burial Ground and Commons Historic District, or allow effective intervention by the Commission to save historic or archeological resources, or modify development to respect the historic resources that might otherwise be lost. With expanded enforcement powers, the last few years have seen the fruits of this increased action to ensure appropriate alterations, to address unauthorized demolitions and illegal additions, and to compel action to counteract demolition by neglect. The law has responded to the tough issues it has faced, time and again, and will continue to do so.

Competing Interests: Preservationists, Developers, Owners, and the Courts

As preservation activity has grown, so has resistance from some owners and real estate developers, who object to the often stringent limitations that the law places on land use. But a milestone court decision over three decades ago gave tremendous impetus to further preservation efforts by endorsing such limitations. The case grew out of efforts by the Penn Central Transportation Company to abolish the restrictions put on landmark buildings and property owners in New York City. Penn Central sought to construct a high-rise ofce tower above Grand Central Station. In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court afrmed the designation of the terminal as an individual landmark, noting that cities had the right to enhance their quality of life by preserving aesthetic features. This seminal decision gave rm footing to historic preservation ordinances and policies throughout the county. In another important case, the U.S. Supreme Courts action regarding St. Bartholomews Churchs landmark appeal upheld the validity of the preservation laws with respect to religious properties. The vestry of St. Bartholomews planned to raze its community house and build a forty-seven-story glass ofce building that would generate revenue to fund its religious activities and outreach. St. Bartholomews challenged the Commissions denial of the plan, arguing that the designation interfered with its First Amendment rights. The long

25

battle ended four years later, in 1991, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the churchs challenge to the designation of the church complex as an individual landmark, thus afrming the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commissions actions. Though these battles were won, others were less successful. In the 1980s, the processes and procedures of the Landmarks Preservation Commission were put to the test in the Coty-Rizzoli designation, Bryant Parks renovation, and Grand Central Terminals ofce tower at 383 Madison Avenue, to mention but a few controversies. The debate continues to rage over the best way to keep worthy buildings from falling victim to the demolition crews before the Commission can designate them. Despite early afrmations of the Landmarks Law, some have continued to argue during the past forty-ve years that we cannot preserve the past without jeopardizing a vital future for a vibrant city. Simply stated, developers have contended that the landmark process interferes with the workings of the market and that many opportunities are lost because of the Commissions overly rigorous scrutiny. Property owners, for their part, argue against landmark restrictions and resent the lack of freedom to do as they please with their buildings. Preservationists must strike a balance between saving the public patrimony and yielding to the imperatives of progress. Francis Bacon wrote that the monuments of wit survive the monuments of power. Unfortunately, when wit is a charming eighteenth-century frame house that lends an air of scale and civility to an already crowded neighborhood, and when power is a block-square behemoth that promises to generate thousands of jobs and millions in sales and property taxes, Bacons dictum is placed in jeopardy. The fate of Broadways theaters was a case in point. The loss of these older buildings had been gradual, occurring in relative obscurity until 1982 when the Morosco and Helen Hayes, two of the districts most beloved older theaters, were demolished to make way for the Marriott Marquis Hotel, which galvanized support for saving those that remained. What should have been obvious all along became clear only belatedly: the forty older theaters that still stand in the Broadway district represent the heart and soul of the American theater and are cultural resources without peer. After six years of protracted hearings and negotiations, the exterior, interior, or both, of twenty-eight theaters were designated, and the owners of twenty-two of these playhouses then led a lawsuit to overturn the designations. In 1992, after years of litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear their case, turning back the owners challenge without comment and upholding the designation. As a result of these battles,

26

a special district was created to allow extended transfer of development rights from the landmarked theaters to other non-landmark sites, thereby providing an effective way to assist new development and preserve landmarks within the Times Square theater district. Other such special districts exist in the Grand Central Terminal area and South Street Seaport Historic District. The effect of landmark designation on the value and use of properties owned by nonprot and religious institutions also is a contentious issue, and the designation of houses of worship remains sensitive. These groups are often housed in older, architecturally distinctive structures, and because designation can prohibit demolition and redevelopment to a higher density use, leaders of these groups have charged that designation compels them to remain in buildings that are no longer suitable to their needs, which are, in short, no longer economically viable. In response, preservationists claim that the suitability of property to an organizations needs is not at the heart of designation. But they acknowledge that problems can indeed arise, and preservation advocates have devised solutions to offer necessary relief. A specic section of the Landmarks Law addresses these issues, and a panel, independent of the Commission, was created in 1991 to review denials of hardship applications to nonprot institutions by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Many of the citys religious properties are the work of Americas nest architects and were constructed at a time when craftsmanship was at its height. Even today, many of these properties are vulnerable, facing changing demographic patterns and evolving family and religious practices, as well as the high maintenance costs of older structures. Deferred maintenance is a problem common to both thriving houses of worship and those with dwindling congregations. Rising land values and, sometimes, development pressures further endanger the survival of these buildings and sites. Many institutions wish to preserve their properties, but restoration work is costly, and nancial and technical resources, while improving, are limited. The Commission continues to designate religious institutions but is cognizant that these structures are a matter of special concern. The Commission strives to maintain a balance, angering those who feel they have not designated enough along with those who feel burdened by the Commissions actions. One such recent action involved the 1884 Romanesque Revival-style ParkWest Presbyterian Church, designed by Leopold Eidlitz, with additions by Henry F. Kilburn, which was designated in 2010 over the objections of the owner, who had planned to raze a portion of the property to build a residential tower. The Commission, focused on the importance of the structure, agreed to

27

work with the owner to restore the building and nd a new use which would serve as an anchor for the community and ensure the long term health of the building. Fortunately, national and community preservation groups that are focused on restoring and reviving older religious structures that can no longer meet their expenses do exist, and they provide much needed technical, organizational, and nancial assistance. The nationally recognized restoration by a community group of the Eldridge Street Synagogue, on the Lower East Side, illustrates how religious structures can rise from the ashes. In addition, these and similar efforts stand as a clear and positive response to the many issues raised by the St. Bartholomews controversy. The wanton partial destruction of Henry J. Hardenberghs Willkie Memorial Building at 20 West 40th Street was the catalyst for certain changes in the procedures for landmark designation. The structure was identied by the Commission staff as being of landmark quality, but was never scheduled for formal consideration. Over a weekend, without any notice ever having been given to the Commission, the elaborate stone moldings and carvings on the faade were stripped awayand the buildings architectural beauty permanently lost. At about the same time, the Commission designated the Coty (which features original windows by Ren Lalique) and Rizzoli buildings on Fifth Avenue, after learning that a developer planned to replace them with a forty-four-story ofce and residential tower. The Commissions action angered the real-estate community. In response, the Cooper Committee was established to review the concerns of owners, developers, and preservationists with the citys landmarks designation process, to make recommendations to clarify and coordinate the calendaring procedures of the Commission and the Buildings Departments procedures for issuing permits in connection with landmark and landmark quality buildings, to improve communications between the two agencies, and to establish reasonable time limits for action by the Commission, in order to make the development process more predictable. It was further recommended that buildings being considered for designation be protected from last-minute stripping, damage, or demolition while the Commission decides whether to designate. Twenty-ve years later, these issues have yet to be satisfactorily addressed and battles are still being fought today. Current informal procedures mandate that when an owner of a building under review by the Commission applies for a demolition permit, the Commission has forty days to schedule a hearing. This policy does not go far enough. The Landmarks Law should require a timely review by the Commission of potential landmark eligibility before any

28

demolition permit may be issued for a building, any portion of which is fty or more years old. Such a review would also enable the Commission to act when someone seeks a permit to strip off architectural detail but stops short of wholesale demotion. Recent legislation introduced by City Council members determined to change this seeks to coordinate landmark actions with those of other city agencies to close the loophole between the calendaring and the designation of sites. This bill would require the Commission to give written notice of calendaring to the Department of Buildings (which puts an existing policy into law) and instruct them to audit all existing building permits upon landmark calendaring. All calendared sites owners would have to apply to the Commission for a permit and the Commissions actions on the site would have the same force as if it were a landmark. In addition, it would cause all current building permits which affect the exterior of a building to lapse upon landmark designation. Another proposal would protect historic structures within 150 yards of sites permitted for new construction or renovation by requiring a pre-construction condition survey and a plan of protection for each historic structure adjoining the permitted lot. These bills are hopeful signs.

Adaptive Reuse

The real estate community has also learned over time that individually landmarked structures and historic districts can be vital development opportunities. Never before in modern history have so many people been aware of and involved in the design of the places where they live and work, as they struggle with the forces of change. Thanks to this awareness, it is no longer a given that an older building or entire neighborhood will be razed for the construction of a huge, new monolitha monument of power, as Bacon would put it. The technique of adaptive reuseretting old buildings for uses different from the ones for which they were originally intendedhas made a practical means of preservation available. Despite gains in efciency and the recognized economic benets of preservation, it is a reality that there are signicant costs to the work of maintaining and repairing landmarks. Preserving our heritage, our history, and our environmentin essence to honor our past while looking toward the future comes at a price. It is time to address this practical issue through education and tangible incentives. Workable nancial incentives exist to assist this effort. The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program has made adaptive reuse economical by providing tax credits for restoring landmarks and direct appropriations to attract developers and investors. By means of such incentives, historic rehabilitation has been placed on a more equal footing with new construction,

29

and it is increasingly economically feasible to prolong the usefulness of buildings that otherwise would suffer continuing decline or demolition. According to the National Trust and a new study by The Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, since its enactment in 1976, the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program has generated over $50 billion, ve times the investment amount, in renovation and revitalization dollars. In 2008 alone, the program produced $5.64 billion in private investment and created 67,000 new jobs through the development of 35,600 projects nationwide. It has been extremely successful in attracting capital to historic areas, strengthening property values, and generating economic stimulus. Yet proposed changes would do more by placing greater emphasis on energy savings provisions, widening the reach of the credit to smaller properties and projects, expanding the denition of eligible historic properties, and promoting coordination with state programs. Recent improvements to the existing, but underutilized, New York State Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, rst launched in 2006, will strengthen and improve opportunities for municipal redevelopment and economic stimulus throughout New York State by extending the benets to more building owners and by increasing the allowable tax credit. In New York City, owners of historic properties in many more neighborhoods will be able to receive tax credits when they restore their historic buildings. An economic impact study recently conducted by HR&A Advisors projects that the expanded credits will spur more than $500 million in economic activity in the state and create some 2,000 jobs in a ve-year period. Tax credits have proven to be a signicant stimulus to economic development and neighborhood renewal in the many other states with similar programs. Because of these changes, New York States programs will be among the most benecial and cost-effective redevelopment programs in the country. These programs are powerful economic development tools and a catalyst to signicant reinvestment in our neighborhoods. Also important are locally crafted and targeted ince