Friday, May 22, 2015

Celebrating Memorial Day The Upper West Side Way: At The Soldiers’ & Sailors’ Monument



Prominently situated on Riverside Drive at 89th Street, the Soldiers and Sailors Monument was erected in memory of the New York regiments that fought in the Civil War. Designed by Charles and Arthur Stoughton and Paul E.M. Duboy, the monument was built between 1900-1902 after a long series of delays, which involved funding, siting, and design changes. The brothers formed the firm Stoughton & Stoughton in 1894; amongst its respected works is the landmarked 52nd Police Precinct Station House in the Bronx. Duboy was a French architect best known for his work on the Ansonia Hotel. The three collaborated to design the Soldiers’ & Sailors’ Monument and the cornerstone was laid on December 15, 1900, with Governor Theodore Roosevelt officiating. Construction was completed in 1902, and the Monument was unveiled on May 30, Decoration (Memorial) Day, following a parade by Civil War veterans up Riverside Drive to the site.  

The Soldiers and Sailors Monument is a simple and dignified white marble structure, based on the Hellenistic Monument of Lysicrates in Athens, although built on a much larger scale. Set off above a series of balustraded terraces, it rises to a height of about 100 feet. A colonnade consisting of twelve Corinthian columns, 36 feet high, rises above a high-rusticated marble base. The colonnade carries an entablature adored with a full frieze containing the inscription: “To the memory of the Brave Soldiers and Sailors who Saved the Union.” The lowest course of rustication is adorned with a handsome wave molding incorporating laurel and oak leaves, while a cornice with closely spaced medallions surmounts the base. A single entrance set in the base has a marble enframement adorned by a laurel-lead molding and crowned by a cornice supporting an eagle. The inscription “In Memoriam” appears above this doorway which contains a handsome bronze door. Adapted from the Landmarks Preservation Commission designation report [Soldiers’ & Sailors’ Monument, 1976]. Read the full text.


The Monument, which once served as the terminus of the Memorial Day Parade, will have its annual Memorial Day observance Tuesday, May 26 starting at 10:00AM. This year is particularly significant as it is also the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. For more information, click here.


The interior, pictured below, is rarely open to the public. It was recently featured in the Building Blocks Section of the New York Times“Interior of Soldiers and Sailors’ Monument Remains a Hidden Jewel,” David Dunlap. May 20, 2015. 

Above: The great dome is ornamented with green mosaic palm fronds and topped by an oculus through which one can see a cupola of polished marble that sparkles like a celestial, faceted jewel. Credit Bryan Thomas for The New York Times

The monument was designated a Scenic Landmark in 1976 and was among the first Landmarks designated on the Upper West Side following the passage of the 1965 Landmarks Law. 


Visit this site here.
The Soldiers’ & Sailors’ site is one of the landmarks featured on Landmark West!’s Google Field TripApp, which provides history about various sites (both designated landmarks and those LW! wishes will be)on the Upper West Side. Download the APP to your Smartphone and enjoy!




















Monday, May 18, 2015

Arlene's Graduation Celebration PART 2: Summer School


Before Arlene Simon, no West Sider had stepped up to the challenge of unifying people concerned about the then-eroding architectural character of the neighborhood under a single preservation banner. That banner became Landmark West! After thirty eventful years on the preservation playground, Arlene has graduated and passed the torch to Kate Wood, LW's long-time director and president since January 2015. Join us Wednesday, June 3rd at 6pm, to celebrate Arlene's distinguished record of (mostly) high marks! Suggested Donation- contributions go to our children's education program "Keeping the Past for the Future" (KPF).

RSVP to landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org or call (212) 496-8110. 




Thursday, May 14, 2015

Sacred Sites Open House Weekend - May 16 & 17


LW! is a proud co-sponsor of this year's event, organized by our colleagues at the New York Landmarks Conservancy.  Congregations all over the city and state will open their doors to New Yorkers and visitors alike to explore their extraordinary art and architecture.


Among the many participating institutions are these Upper West Side landmarks:

Address: 302 West 91st Street (West End Avenue)
Architect: Heins & La Farge
Date: 1893-94
Style: Gothic Revival

It was not until 1954 that the Annunciation Greek Orthodox Church—also known by its Greek name, Evangelismos—moved into its current location, which was originally built for the Fourth Presbyterian Church. The church was designed by the firm Heins & La Farge, son of the artist and renowned stained glass window maker John La Farge. In the 1950’s the Greek Orthodox Church added certain details to the interior like the carved wooden screen and the multi-tiered crystal chandeliers imported from then Czechoslovakia.
Read more here

Address: 120 W. 69th Street (Btw. Broadway & Columbus)
Architect: William H. Day (1876), remodeled by J.D. Fouquet (1897)
Date: 1876

Acquired in 1897 by St. Stephen’s Episcopal parish and remodeled by J.D. Fouquet, the original church was designed by William H. Day for the Church of the Transfiguration, the oldest sanctuary on the Upper West Side.  Eventually St. Stephen’s Church merged with Christ Church, which was the second oldest Episcopal church started in 1793. Read more here.


Address: 3 West 65th Street
Architect: Schickel & Ditmars
Date: 1902-1904
Style: Gothic

At the time the church was founded, in 1868, the congregation was one of the few exclusively English-speaking Lutheran congregations in New York City.
Read more here.








Address: 2 West 64th Street
Architect: Robert D. Kohn
Date: 1909/1910
Style: Art Noveau

The New York Society for Ethical Culture, founded in 1876 by Dr. Felix Adler, built a school (adjacent to the meeting house on CPW, designed by Carrere & Hastings) and after built the meeting house. “The exterior, influenced by the Vienna Secession, is free of any but geometric details. The only representational element is the relief by Estelle Rumbold Kohn, showing the stages of a man’s life,” David Dunlap.* Read more here.



Address: 165 West 86th St.
Architect: Original chapel built 1883-85, Leopold Eidlitz, architect; current church and chapel façade built 1889-90, Henry Kilburn, architect
Date: 1883-1885
Style: Romanesque Revival

West-Park Presbyterian Church, “one of the finest Romanesque sanctuaries in Manhattan,*”  is a religious institution that can be traced to 1829. Read more here.



 

And these not-yet-designated landmarks:
 

Address: 1047 Amsterdam Avenue at 112th Street
Architect: Heins & La Farge, Ralph Adams Cram
Date: 1892- still building
Style: Romanesque Revival, Gothic/ Neo-Gothic Revival

One of the largest Cathedrals in the world, Cathedral St. John the Divine remains unfinished to this day though its construction began over 100 years ago. Read more here.

Address: 225 W. 99th Street
Architect: Robert W. Gibson
Date: 1891
Style: Romanesque

Present-day St. Michael’s Church is a descendant of a parish that formed when the Upper West Side was still the village of Bloomingdale. The first St. Michael’s was built on this site in 1806. Decorated by 22-foot apsidal windows designed by Louis Comfort Tiffany and the Tiffany Glass & Decorating Company. Read more here.

*All text adapted from: Dunlap, David. From Abyssinian to Zion: A Guide to Manhattan's Houses of Worship. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. 

Thursday, May 7, 2015

CB7 Rejects Variances for First Church of Christ, Scientist Conversion

dnainfo.com has a great article covering Community Board 7's full board meeting from Tuesday.  At this meeting, the full board declined to follow the Land Use Committee's vote to approve Board of Standards and Appeals "BSA" variances which would have allowed the developer concessions to shirk certain building code requirements.

While LANDMARK WEST! is completely behind the protection and preservation of this individual landmark, and fully supports its re-use, the design goes too far asking too much of the building, without respecting the existing architectural character.  Appropriate alternate re-uses exist that would not require the severe alterations as proposed while undermining of the codes set in place to protect all of us.

Please read Emily Frost's reporting on the topic here and scroll down for LW! testimony from the hearing:
                   

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST!

Certificate of Appropriateness Committee
Before the Full Board of Community Board 7
361 Central Park West
May 5, 2015

LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side.

We wish to comment on the application to the Board of Standards and Appeals for the conversion of the former First Church of Christ, Scientist (Carrère & Hastings, 1899-1903, an Individual Landmark designated in 1974) into a 39-unit residential building, requiring six waivers under the New York City Zoning Resolution and Multiple Dwelling Law.

I think we all recognize that 361 Central Park West, the former First Church of Christ, Scientist, is one of the crown jewels of the Upper West Side It was designed by the same architects, Carrere & Hastings, who gave us the New York Public Library at 42nd Street and the Frick Museum across the park on East 70th Street It was among the first Upper West Side buildings to become an Individual Landmark (in 1974).  In that sense, it’s like our New York Public Library.  This is about neighborhood identity and preserving the integrity of this landmark in a way we can be proud of.

LW! has opposed this proposed adaptive reuse because of the dramatic impact it will have on the fabric of this building. Century-old stained-glass windows will be removed and reconfigured—essentially destroyed—because some hypothetical condo buyer might not like them.  The secondary facades of the building will be carved up to create windows.  And, when the dust settles, we’ll have not only a desecrated landmark, but a substandard living environment by any definition.  This concept has been flawed from Day One.

The purpose of the waiver and variance process is to provide relief to property owners who really need it. It is not a tool to enable speculative developers to “max out” the economic potential of a site.  “Reasonable use” is the benchmark.  Once we loosen the standard on what constitutes “reasonable” development in our neighborhood, we never get it back. 

Why should you, in your roles as guardians of our community, why should you feel compelled to relax the rules that everyone else lives by—rules that we all agree are important for quality of life—for a development like this?  Our city has enough cases where public assets are given away for little return—just look at the midtown skyline.  Let’s not add this site to the list.

And please don’t allow yourselves to be misled by warnings that the landmark will sit empty and derelict.  Where there’s a will, there’s a way.  Just look at Mount Pleasant Baptist Church on West 81st Street—also a church, also a landmark, also a residential conversion, but on a much more challenging midblock site.  They found a way to recycle the building that involved minimal changes to the landmark and no waivers or variances.

And look around you at all of the sensitive, profitable uses of landmark buildings—the Upper West Side has over 3,000 of them.   The presence of a Landmark does not, in and of itself, constitute a “unique physical condition” under the required finding (a) of Zoning Resolution Section 72-21.  Yet, that’s the crux of this developer’s argument.

This application also does not meet the required finding (d) of Zoning Resolution Section 72-21 – that the hardship not be self-created.  The problem, if there is one, is the developer’s desire to shoehorn 39 apartments into the building.

These variances fail to meet the findings and should be denied.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

MOBIA Museum to Close!

In the wake of the sale of 1865 Broadway by the American Bible Society to Avalon Bay Communities for a planned 39-floor residential building, MOBIA, the Museum of Biblical Art is set to shutter forever on June 14th.

As recent as last fall, the Museum was honing in on rental space on East 42nd Street but ultimately plans fell through.

In addition to the cultural loss of the Museum, the Upper West Side will lose the architecture that the American Bible Society commissioned, including its Anabelle Selldorf interior, its FX Fowle glass extension and the original 1966 structure by Skidmore Owings and Merrill.

The American Bible Society, itself leaves NYC, after nearly two centuries for Philadelphia, taking with it their remaining employees.

Please read further information from the MOBIA Press Release  and also covered in the New York Times.


Saturday, April 25, 2015

Jeffrey Kroessler op-ed on 50 Years of the Landmarks Law

LW! Board member Jeffrey Kroessler has a terrific op-ed in yesterday's Daily News: 

Wrecking crane moves in for kill on the Morosco Theater at W. 45th St. in 1982

Image: Clarence Davis


“Historic preservation saved New York City: 50 years after the passages of a landmark law, celebrate its legacy”

Treat yourself to a full read.  Here's an especially meaty excerpt, which follows an inventory of good things historic preservation has done New York City:

“Today, the city takes for granted the benefits of preservation while refusing to embrace it. Critical voices find a more receptive audience in both city government and among the general public, creating an odd alliance of builders favoring untrammeled development and progressives seeking to advance desired social ends.

“But the protection of historic parts of the city is not a quaint idea with no value in the present.”

Bravo, Jeff!

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

ALERT: Buying the Sky?

Image Source: The Architect's Newspaper

Join us at a special Town Hall Meeting 
at the main New York Public Library
5th Ave at 42nd St. on April 28th
The Central Park Sunshine Task Force of Community Board 5 wants to hear from YOU about an issue that affects us all.  Billionaires' Row is spreading. More shockingly tall towers are not only sprouting up in midtown, but also creeping up the east and west sides of Central Park.   

As things are, this luxury mega-development is taking place 
with no public review of individual projects or their cumulative impacts - a lack of municipal oversight as egregious as the City's concurrent effort to roll back neighborhood contextual zoning protections.    
Send Mayor de Blasio and his city agencies a strong message.  Join the campaign to take back our sky, parks, landmarks, and neighborhoods!
Space is very limited, so please RSVP today for this free forum at:

Saturday, April 18, 2015

50 Years Later, the New York Times Looks Ahead

On the eve the the New York Landmark Law's official Golden Anniversary, The New York Times pens an editorial with a graphic timeline of key Landmark milestones accompanied by political insights regarding reactions at the time.  This simple reminder of the inseparable reality of politics to our built environment is particularly timely, the New York Times points out, as Mayor deBlasio seeks a city of more "equality and diversity" amidst a promise to revitalize a Landmarks Commission with ever-increasing responsibility and no
 significant additional funding.
McKim Mead and White's IRT Powerhouse on 59th Street, one of the LPC's proposed sites to de-calendar. 

While it squarely addresses the current concerns for what they are, the editors have stopped short of addressing the newsworthy 96 sites the Commission has proposed to de-calendar without a vote of designation.  And although, the editors look forward to the next steps politically, they too are caught up in the politics, and fail to address the built environment- specifically what would be the next New York City landmark that should be saved?  Which Historic District should be protected?  What do you, our readers think?

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Deadline EXTENDED!

Write to City Planning 
by 5pm on Thursday, April 30
to oppose Mayor de Blasio's 
Proposed ReZoning plan



Or send letters to:  
Robert Dobruskin
Director, Environmental Assessment and Review Division
NYC Department of City Planning
22 Reade Street, 4E
New York, NY 10007
Below is a sample message:

I support efforts to defend the current and future contextual neighborhood zoning protections from being weakened by allowing height limits within these protected areas to be raised by 20-30%. The proposed citywide rezoning plan would overturn communities' hard-won zoning and historic district protections in one fell swoop. The result would be higher, out-of-character new buildings that undermine individual neighborhoods' human scale and unique sense of place. This is not the way to ensure affordability, architectural quality, and quality of life in our city. The environmental review for the rezoning plan must be expanded to ensure height limits can be maintained and impacts on historic resources, neighborhood character, and quality of life are taken into account for every neighborhood that will be affected. More information on the plan should be made available to the public, and there should be public briefings in all affected neighborhoods.



Friday, March 27, 2015

Community Testimony on the Proposed Zoning for Quality and Affordability Text Amendment

Preservation Groups, Community Leaders and Elected Officials meet for a
Press Conference in front of City Hall, March 25, 2015 (Photo: Sean Khorsandi)


Beverly Moss Spatt
Ph.D., Urban Planning
Former Chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (1974-1978)
Former Member of the City Planning Commission (1966-1970)
Member of the American Institute of Certified Planners
Former Professor of Urban Planning, Barnard College

Testimony Before the New York City Planning Commission, Opposing the Proposal for “Zoning for Quality and Affordability”

March 25, 2015

My name is Beverly Moss Spatt. I appear in opposition to the proposal.

The proposal's thrust of higher density and reliance on Zoning without overall objectives, strategies and programs reflect a callous misuse of zoning powers.

There is nothing wrong with zoning, but rather in its administration.

It is not necessary to sacrifice planning controls to achieve affordable housing and senior housing as well as good design.

The proposal continues the chipping away, ad hoc, of the Zoning Resolution as well as Contextual Zoning, which were adopted and amended after tremendous study, early continuous informed citizen participation, and public hearings working with the Planning Commission to sort out alternatives and develop achievable solutions.

The present absence of sufficient data, citizen participation and comprehensive inventory of alternatives for affordable housing is inadequate to achieve the goals.

If the City Planning Commission (CPC) really desires to provide for affordable and senior housing it must create a rational housing program and a substantive development plan, not use rezoning for increased density and ambiguous design.

A realistic plan needs to identify in advance how, when, where and what.

CPC's Plan fails to identify specific programs, desirable sites, land allocation, services, facilities and resources available to achieve the goals.

The absence of comprehensiveness and early informed citizen participation can only result in polarization.

CPC must make a distinction between the purpose of the plan and the manner in which it shall be achieved.

The CPC Proposal is a description, not a prescription.

Increased concentration, by itself, cannot achieve the goal of senior and affordable housing.

It is widely accepted that densely populated low income housing cannot meet the needs of low income people; nor achieve the necessary spatial relationships, only resulting in communication overload, frictional irritation and psychological and physical deterioration.

As far back as the 1916 Zoning Ordinance, the New York City Commission on Building Districts stated the adverse effect from pressure of large number of people living in close contact.

There must be an acute awareness of the basic interventions of intensity of use with the full understanding of the constraints and forces at work.

Zoning is the most sensitive and therefore the most susceptible area of development control.

It regulates the use and intensity of use of land to ensure a high quality of life for all.

Your desire for affordable and senior housing is admirable, but your proposal needs more time for study and citizen involvement.

This public hearing is too late in the process.

I am sure you understand that in a democratic society, regulations cannot be imposed by fiat, for there is a necessary Public Square.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.


Linda Rosenthal
New York State Assembly, 67th District
March 25, 2015


I am Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal, and I represent the Upper West Side of Manhattan and parts of Hell’s Kitchen. As a member of the New York State Assembly’s Committee on Housing and an elected official who has long advocated for affordable housing, I am pleased that the Administration, recognizing the seriousness and scope of the affordability crisis here in New York City, has taken steps to address it.   The crisis in affordable housing is very real for my constituents, many of whom walk into my office because they are unable to afford their rent or to find an alternative, affordable place in which to live.  Each week, I encounter seniors looking for part-time employment to supplement their income and hard-working families who are forced to leave the City because they cannot afford to pay their rent and still purchase other basic necessities.  In a city where last year 70,000 people applied for 38 units of affordable housing, it is inarguable that something must be done to preserve and create affordable housing.

Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability outlines proposed actions that are intended to promote the construction of new affordable housing citywide. While I share the City’s goal of producing more affordable housing, I am concerned that the plan takes one-size-fits-all approach to development and largely leaves communities out of the discussion. While the nature and sheer scope of the affordability crisis we face demands immediate action, we must not rush toward solutions that do not abide by certain guiding principles, namely respect for the integrity and diversity of individual neighborhoods and an inclusive process that guarantees community input.

New York’s population of senior citizens is projected to increase by 40% by 2040.  As generations of New Yorkers who played a role in shaping the New York of today age in place, we must prioritize the construction of supportive affordable housing that will cater to this growing population. To that end, the text amendment seeks to encourage development of non-profit and for-profit affordable housing, reducing unit size requirements to allow for the construction of more units and to create more long-term care facilities. While it is crucial to meet needs of an ever-aging population, successful plans must create permanent solutions. As currently written, the amendment requires for-profit developers to ensure that this senior housing remain affordable for 30 years.  As we have seen with the expiration of affordability for units that are receiving tax abatements, such as 421-a and J-51, the failure to require permanent affordable housing only kicks the can down the road by forcing future generations to deal with this issue. It is critical that the City encourage the development of permanent affordable housing, not merely for seniors on low, fixed incomes, but as a matter of course.

Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability would also change regulations governing building heights, setbacks and corner lots. The new rules would be applied citywide without regard for differences between neighborhoods and communities.  No two communities in New York are the same - the Upper West Side is nothing like the Upper East Side and Brownsville does not look anything like Park Slope. Development in each of these individual communities must be contextual and undertaken with careful consideration of the impacts that the development would have on local infrastructure, including schools, transportation, water and sewage, to name a few.  Local community boards should be involved early and regularly in development decisions.

I am especially concerned with the massive scale of change being considered with little solicitation of input from the local communities and how these proposals will affect the character of neighborhoods in my district and across the City. I am also concerned about the plan’s impact on landmarked sites and historic districts, as well as the uniform approach the plan takes with respect to parking requirements citywide. The plan makes no mention of any changes to development rules in historic districts.  Given the substantial investment of time and resources by advocates to landmark individual buildings and create historic districts, this oversight should be addressed to ensure that the integrity of those districts is maintained. Any changes to parking requirements relative to development should be made only with assurances that New Yorkers who live in communities that are traditionally underserved by public transportation, many of whom are low-income, are not unduly burdened.  

The affordability crisis has many faces; it affects disparate New York communities in vastly different ways.  Any plan to address the crisis must be reflective of the problem, tailored to community by each unique community.  This customized approach, along with robust community engagement, will guarantee better results for all involved. 

There is no goal more important than creating new units of affordable housing while preserving our existing stock. To be sure, decisive action is needed to tackle this problem, but our proposals must be comprehensive and carefully consider the needs of individual communities. Each of the communities I represent on Manhattan’s West Side stands ready to partner with government to realize our vision for a city that is affordable to all. The first step is to expand the scope of the environmental impact review to include the concerns I have raised in my testimony as well as the concerns of our community boards. Thank you.



Friends of the Upper East Side
Re: Zoning for Quality and Affordability Text Amendment (CEQR no. 15DCP104Y)
March 25, 2015

As any good preservationist would, I will start with a bit of history. In 1985, our founding president, Halina Rosenthal wrote to our members:

With the passage of the new R8-B zoning... [there] is a guarantee of the survival for the low-rise and small scale of the precious mid blocks which were constantly being endangered by the growing encroachment upon them of tall buildings out of context with their neighbors, dwarfing them and casting longer shadows on the streets where we live.

For FRIENDS, this zoning change is the culmination of nearly three years of active and often 'round-the-clock work which began on January 28, 1982, when we asked the City Planning Commission (CPC) for a zoning change which would replace the 1961 zoning regulations that gave the license, as-of-right, to consume and destroy our mid blocks and to line them with towers. We asked the CPC to give us instead a good and reasonable alternative. This quest resulted in the R8-B zoning just passed...

Once again, over 30 years later, we are calling upon City Planning to give us a good and reasonable alternative.

We need an alternative to the proposed undoing of contextual districts which make up 64% of the Upper East Side.

We need an alternative to the dismantling of the Sliver Law, another hard-fought protection of our neighborhood's low-rise character.

We need an alternative to the elimination of existing affordable housing. In our contextual zones on the Upper East Side, 36% of parcels include rent regulated units. Can City Planning explain how it has come to the conclusion that demolition of buildings containing affordable units will not be incentivized by this proposal? Has City Planning analyzed the requirement of affordable units to be built on site in these new, taller buildings?

We need an alternative that anticipates future construction methods, and not just the current "standard." Has City Planning analyzed building types that may perhaps be preferable to what is on offer today? How does modular housing age?

We need an in-depth, citywide survey of historic and cultural resources, along with careful study of each and every neighborhood's individual character and sense of place. How does City Planning intend to accomplish such a large scale undertaking?

We need thoughtful consideration of each neighborhood's unique qualities. A block in Yorkville is different from one on the Upper West Side which in turn is distinct from one in Flatbush. Has City Planning looked at the effects this zoning could have on different neighborhoods?

We need worst case scenario evaluations of not just one building prototype on one block, but all the prototypes on all the blocks throughout all of the city. Indeed, the cumulative effect is the worst case scenario. Has City Planning analyzed the consequences, if, for example, an entire block is rebuilt?

This proposal touts the desirability of historic buildings, and seeks to emulate some of their best qualities like variation, design, and "streetscape-improving conditions." And yet this plan could result in the destruction of those model buildings on a massive scale, effectively eviscerating our neighborhoods.

We need City Planning to give us a good and reasonable alternative to this plan.

Thank you for your time; we will be submitting additional questions.

Tara Kelly
Executive Director


East Village Community Coalition
Re: 'Zoning for Quality and Affordability,' CEQR No. 15DCP104Y
March 25, 2015

Dear Director Dobruskin:

On behalf of the East Village Community Coalition, I would like share with you concerns we have regarding the scope of the environmental impact assessment for the "Zoning for Quality and Affordability” (CEQR No. 15DCP104Y) plan. The proposed scope threatens to undo long-term community planning achievements in the East Village and we urge that the scope be expanded to consider existing neighborhood protections.

The needs and conditions in this community must be analyzed when considering a change to our individually crafted rezoning. In 2005, the community initiated a plan that would become the East VillageLower East Side rezoning resulting in the low-scale, high-density character that is both historic and efficient. This 197-a proposal emerged from a collaborative process involving a range of community stakeholders. Implemented in 2008, the grassroots plan incorporated consensus terms for height limits, floor area ratio, use, and inclusionary housing incentives. Loosening the height limits without the promise of affordable housing is a betrayal of that community process. It is critical that the scope of the environmental review consider protecting our hard-fought height limits as well as the Quality Housing program adopted at the time.

The changes to contextual districts if implemented retroactively may not yield the intended results in the East Village. The neighborhood retains many affordable housing units and local groups are robust in their defense of existing units and effort to produce more. Permitting vertical extensions must be also considered in the context of the neighborhood. In too many cases, penthouse construction atop existing buildings has degraded living conditions for existing tenants while not resulting in new affordable development. We urge that the scope consider the impact that taller development will have on neighborhood character, shadows on narrow streets and greenspaces including more than thirty community gardens, the existing housing stock, and other historic resources.

I strongly urge you to include current height limits in contextual zones and existing neighborhood protections within the scope of the environmental review.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,
Sara Romanoski
Managing Director



Dave Holowka
Architect and Chelsea resident
March 25, 2015

As an architect, I have to tell you the rationale for higher floor-to-floor levels in this proposal based on so-called “changes in best practices” in construction doesn’t make sense.

The proposal cites modular and concrete plank construction specifically. It says contextual zoning’s typical building depth of 65 feet isn’t achievable with concrete plank because of 30-foot span limitations, and that building depths should economically use two spans to achieve a new standard depth of 60 feet, with lost area recouped by adding allowed floors. I called two concrete plank manufacturers: Molin Concrete Products in Minnesota said its 8-inch deep planks can be reinforced and tensioned to span longer than 30 feet for not a lot of money; Oldcastle Precast of Selkirk, NY, said their span limit for 8-inch deep planks is 32 feet, not 30. Adding 6 inches front-and-back for brick facing and an air space results in the now-standard 65-foot building depth. Only slightly more expensive 10-inch deep planks can span much farther. No one says you have to span perpendicular to the street or use concrete plank in the first place. There are countless ways to make floor structure thinner or stronger even in modular construction. It’s what engineers and architects are there for. To buy into this proposal’s arguments, you’d have to believe advances in construction technology have introduced rigid limitations rather than the efficiency and flexibility demanded by free market competition. Does anyone believe sprinklers eat up enough space to warrant adding fifteen feet to the height of a building?

Zoning shouldn’t be driven by construction details at any rate, and never was. Zoning should be about urban-scale issues of light and air and compatibility of building forms, which this proposal conveniently ignores. Affordable housing is a zoning concern, too, but of a categorically different kind. It would be one thing if we were talking about substituting one kind of open space for another to everyone’s benefit, but open space and contextual building envelopes are apples and affordable housing units are oranges.

The plan’s claim that greater height will allow more interesting building forms is unbelievable. There are countless ways to achieve architectural interest.  Market forces are interested in the bottom line, not artistic expression. The developers of New York’s designated landmark, Lever House, achieved its celebrated design by consuming less than the site’s zoning-allowed area, an option still open to any developer not driven solely by profit. Given additional height to work with, today’s developers will make building envelope decisions that enhance the value of the individual apartments they have for sale, at the community’s expense. The plan’s proposed changes will only make for taller and more luxurious market-rate housing for the rich, blocking light and air for the general public.

The plan’s assumption that zoning envelopes should allow full development of floor area ratios shows a willful disregard for zoning fundamentals, as does its application of across-the-board height limit changes. The worst thing about this proposal is that it will sacrifice the entirely separate benefit of painstakingly crafted contextual zoning without making New York any more affordable. It will only put New York’s already-runaway gentrification on steroids. In Chelsea, the cost of new condominiums is over $2200 per square foot. Not coincidentally, rents in the neighborhood are now among the highest in New York, even as neighborhood businesses are being driven out by rent increases.

This proposal’s scoping must include the option of communities’ retaining existing height limits where, as in Chelsea, raising them will harm both neighborhood fabric and affordability.


Susan Nial
Upper West Side resident
Re: The Mayor's Misguided Zoning Proposal
March 30, 2015

Even though the Mayor has refused to disclose to the public the legislative language that will implement his plan to grant even more gifts to developers, the public is being asked to offer opinions on what is nothing more than a document full of apple pie and motherhood with few specifics on how the plan will be implemented.  When a party to a law suit withholds evidence, in this case the text of the implementing legislation, there is a presumption that the withheld evidence would not show the withholding party in a good light.  I think that presumption is even stronger in the case of the Mayor's zoning proposals hidden behind a screen of "affordable housing".

From what can be seen in the summary of the Mayor's proposal, it is clear that he intends to virtually eliminate the protections of contextual zoning for which neighborhoods and residents have worked for years.  Further, it is clear that his proposal changes in the treatment of "unusually shaped lots" will remove from public review adjustments or variances in zoning limitations that once in place by allowing those adjustments to be made administratively at the request of a developer.

This broad ranging upzoning will gift developers with even more TDRs or air rights than ever before and their use will be subject to NO PUBLIC review because they will result in more as of right building.  It is understood that The Administration's preference for allowing developers to "buy the sky" runs deep regardless of its impact on the social and physical health of New Yorkers but it is wrong.

Because the public has no access to the legislative text we have no way of knowing how the Mayor intends to enforce the extractions of "affordable housing" he intends to get as a pay back for the enormous gifts of more height, bulk and square footage via this plan.  The Mayor and his attorneys must know that extractions are problematic as the result of the decisions of SCOTUS in Nollan, Dolan and Koontz (His administration’s willingness to cave on affordable housing promises from developers in the Collegiate School matter, leads most of us to believe that his commitment to providing, maintaining and preserving affordable housing for seniors or anyone else is somewhat thin.)

As an exercise of the government's police power, zoning is supposed to act as a limitation on the use of private property in order to protect the health and welfare of the public.  Unfortunately in the case of the Mayor's misleadingly titled "Housing New York: Zoning for Quality and Affordability" zoning is being used to transfer public benefit to private developers for their profit.  Developers have more than enough incentives to build in NYC as we have seen over the years as buildings have soared along with prices.  Programs for "affordable housing" have been plundered by luxury condo builders for buildings like One57.  Land use agencies have become mere rubber stamps for developers as they have converted more and more of their transaction with developers to secret non public interactions at the staff level freezing out the public and assuring that very little of what developers do is critically or objectively analyzed.  The Mayor's proposal appears to be poised to eliminate even more transparency that the streamlining efforts of the Bloomberg Administration.
     
Ms. Been described the current proposal as a package of "trade offs".  Unfortunately for the public, it seems that gifts are being given (traded) to developers with little if any enforceable benefit coming to the public.  The trade, if you will, is very one sided.  I am sure members of the administration are well aware that the type of proposal now on the table has, in the past, resulted in net loses in affordable housing as owners and developers rush in to take advantage of up-zoning and the loosening of restrictions on the use of TDRs and the lax application of standards to applications for modifications to landmarked buildings and those in historic districts by demolishing existing affordable housing units and/or selling buildings to new owners who then move for permission to modify landmarks, gut the insides and turf out current tenants all in the name of profit!

Analysis must be neighborhood specific:

Clearly any analysis of such a broad ranging plan such as this should be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis.  "Prototypical" examples are irrelevant and quiet frankly misleading as they can be structured to prove whatever the administration wants.

Public Health and Infrastructure issues:

An analysis of sewer capacity as well as street drainage and the quality of street repair must be considered including but not limited to the displacement and interference of service during the construction of various projects as well as the requirement that roads and other services be replaced in as good or better condition than before the construction commenced,  the impact of constant and in some cases unrelenting construction noise and disruption as well as mitigation thereof must be considered.

Impact on Emergency services:
Any rezoning and the resultant increase in height and bulk should be assessed in terms of the impact these will have on emergency service response time during the construction of the unwell buildings, as well as the ability of emergency services to actually deal with increased height buildings and the safety of those buildings in the case of fire and other emergencies.

Shadows:

Air and light....developers love to sell air and light; however, very little concern is ever expended for the impact of higher and bigger buildings on the air and light of the mere mortals who already live in and around the "new and improved" developments or the parks, like Central Park, that were built to provide respite and healthful open spaces for humans who live in the city.  Again, the issue of shadows and their impact cannot be dealt with in a one size fits all analysis.

Parking and Transit:

Working people need cars!  The idea that affordable housing tenants don't need cars to travel to and from work is both offensive and wrong.  We would love to be able to say that public transit in NYC provides everyone with a safe, quick and reliable way to get to work but it doesn't.  In fact, it was recently reported that working class individuals have to travel further and for longer to get to their jobs via public transit.  Further, the public transit Authority has made it clear that with increases in fares the public can also expect fewer and slower trains and buses.  Is it the administration's goal to make life even harder for working class people to get to their jobs?  Again, blanket utopian claims simply don't reflect the facts on the street.

There are many more issues to be raised and I know they have been raised by other community groups.  I support the calls for an in depth and neighborhood specific analysis of this proposal as well as full disclosure of the legislative language that will be used to implement this plan.  I urge the administration, the City Council as well as the DCP to place the needs of the humans living in NYC and their neighborhoods as well as small businesses, our historic places and spaces above the desire of developers for more money.  I also urge the Administration to reconsider its commitment to developer centered zoning and respectfully request a return to a consistent system of city planning that places humans and their needs before the needs of corporations and developers and  affirms the importance transparency as well effective public review and involvement.  From what I see in this plan, I doubt that it will result in anything more than more profit for developers and more cost for taxpayers with little public benefit for neighborhoods or residents.


It is likely that once the legislative language is disclosed, there will be other issues to be discussed.  I urge the DCP and the City Council to be mindful of the importance of full public involvement those discussions and respectfully request that sufficient time be provided for that to occur.


Linda Eskenas
March 25, 2015

The stated goals of creating affordable housing and affordable housing for our growing senior population are laudable goals that we support.

The premise of the proposed zoning changes is that we should allow every lot in the City to be built as high as possible and on every square inch of the lot, by doing this we will have affordable housing for all.

The premise of the proposed zoning changes is the only way to achieve these goals is that our senior and low income residents must give up their quality of life, and live in less space and not have access to required parking spaces.

We believe that the proposed changes will not achieve its goals and would negatively affect and diminish the quality of life in communities throughout the city.

One of the proposals is that seniors should have less square footage in their dwelling units than market rate housing; seniors should give up their existing parking spaces, new senior developments should not give seniors any off street parking spaces. Many seniors rely on care givers to bring them grocery and take them to their doctors; they are in walkers and wheelchairs. To be able to have a car or parking area for their use makes their lives more manageable. Why would one want to take that away from them?

The proposed changes to reduce building setbacks, allow taller buildings in height and increase the number of stories will result in a denser city with less air, light reaching the ground and adjacent properties. The reasons that these setbacks exist are because enlightened civic leaders and planners early in 1900s saw that unregulated buildings in bulk and height were negatively affecting the quality of life for the citizen, they passed zoning laws that required these setbacks to minimize these negative qualities.

The proposed changes make a premise that these existing controls for constrained sites, corner sites, existing zoning does not allow modern sustainable building to built in the city, and make for poor buildings. [According to the plan] the proposed changes would improve design flexibility and make more affordable housing. Architects are trained to be creative individuals and are able to design quality buildings for any site and conform to zoning and code constraints. We do not believe the Empire State building, Chrysler building Woolworth building, the Dakota and thousands of other buildings that conform to the zoning constraints are inferior designed buildings. In the 1980s when architects/builders made similar complaints that the zoning only allowed wedding cake building designs, Midtown Zoning was created to allow more flexible designs.

The increase in floor to floor height and building story heights may place our citizens at risk unless there are substantial changes to our building and fire codes. Building height and fire protection are directly related because egress calculations are based, in part, on how long it will take someone to go down a flight of stairs to exit the building and how high the fire department ladder truck can reach.

[On] the proposed change to reduce or eliminate rear yard dimension, court size and distance between buildings, these dimensions established standards for minimum amounts air light ventilation and privacy to the residents. The distance between windows and buildings is an important fire protection feature because it minimizes the spread of fire from flames leaping to one building to another and allows fire department apparatus access to the exterior sides of a building.

The proposed change is to reduce and eliminate parking requirements for the affordable housing units within one half mile of walking distance of a subway but the proposed law allows the market rate units in the same building to have off street parking. The proposed changes state that by eliminating parking requirements for the affordable units and allowing more market rate units there will be more affordable apartments for all perhaps as much as one or two additional affordable units more that the current regulations allow in the building.

Many families in our boroughs need a car to go to the supermarket or work nights and do not want to walk home one half mile at night.

There was time in New York City when people were densely packed into dwelling units, interior living rooms had little or no access to air, light, ventilation, privacy. The buildings were built to every square inch of the lot lines there were no required rear or side yards there was no required separation between windows and/or buildings. There were numerous fires that caused large numbers of fatalities. The average person lived in deplorable and unsafe conditions.

The builders and developers at the time said we are providing for housing for the waves of new immigrants who have come to New York City, this is the only way to provide them affordable housing.

[That was] the 1880s and 1890s. Our civic leaders, philanthropists, and reformers were horrified by these deplorable living conditions and the Tenement House Act of 1901 was enacted, followed by the Housing Maintenance Code and the Multiple Dwelling Law to correct these conditions.

Here we are in 2015 proposing to go back to the past with same mantra it is the only way to provide affordable housing. Who benefits, as in the past well connected real estate interests. Is this our vision for the future?

There are many proven past ways to provide affordable housing. Look at Co-op city in the Bronx, Stuyvesant town, Peter Cooper Village, West-Beth Artist, Mitchell-Lama type housing, Amalgamated Houses, etc.


The proposed path will be the path of destruction and diminish the quality of life for the average New Yorker.