Landmark This!

The Adler & Sullivan phoenix!

2007-03-14T03:31:00.000-04:00

A destroyed Adler & Sullivan building has plans to rise from the ashes!

In one of my earlier posts about the sad state of Louis Sullivan's buildings, I mentioned the fire that destroyed the fabulous Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago back in winter 2006.

Pilgrim Baptist Church ablaze, courtesy Quinn Evans Architects

Well, it turns out that a plan is in the works to rebuild the church! Quinn Evans Architects is teaming up with Johnson & Lee Architects to do the reconstruction. There are no details as to how strictly they will stick to Adler and Sullivan's original design, but given the companies track records, I'm sure it will be quality.

Here's a couple of pictures of the building pre-fire (courtesy of Lynn Becker's website; look here for more images):

I'm back...what did I miss?

2007-03-14T02:24:00.000-04:00

OK, so I didn't go anywhere. Just been busy and slacked off on the blog. I'm still busy, but can't help myself.
Also, finally got a digital camera which will make blogging just that much easier.

Anyway, there have been a number of LPC designations since I last posted.

Let's see:

There was the somewhat controversial re-designation of the City and Suburban Homes on the UES.

70 Lefferts Place was designated (and recently approved by the City Council).

Two churches in Harlem, St. Aloysius Roman Catholic and The Church of All Saints, were designated. The former is the first Catholic church to be designated in 25 years.

The (former) Horn and Hardardt Automat on the UWS was designated.

The Sohmer & Co. Piano Factory in Queens was designated.

Three buildings in far west Greenwich Village were designated. The Keller Hotel at 150 Barrow St., a house at 354 West 11th St., and a house at 159 Charles St.

And just today (or now yesterday I suppose), the LPC designated 3 buildings:

In Tribeca, 23 and 25 Park Place, the former HQ of the Daily News back in the 1920s, and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden's Labratory Administration Building.

Twelve designations in three months. Two in Brooklyn, one in Queens, and nine in Manhattan. No love for the Bronx or Staten Island, though there were seven 19th century buildings in Staten Island calendared for public hearings for designation.

And in Queens, the LPC calendared the Sunnyside Gardens Historic District just last week. This has sparked a heated battle (debate is not a strong enough word) within the neighborhood. The HDC's blog has covered the back and forth fairly well.

Speaking of the HDC, they held their annual conference this past weekend. It was quite interesting. The highlight was the keynote speech by Donovan Rypkema (of PlaceEconomics), arguing that historic preservation is sustainable (by definition) and a major facet of "Smart Growth."

A panel on "The Greening of Preservation" was also very good and featured two architects who focus on preservation and sustainable design: Carl Elefante (Quinn Evans Architects) and Stephen Tilly. Also on the panel was Stephen Goldsmith, a sculptor and planner from Utah. The most interesting part of his presentation was the Katrina Furniture Project that he recently helped found. The idea is to take the wood from demolished homes and refashion it into furniture providing jobs to the region, as well as a pride of reclamation, and the recycling of often very good quality "historic" wood. Pretty cool idea.

Much more has come and gone in the past few months but if you're reading this blog, you probably already know it all. If not, check the HDC's blog, Curbed, Gowanus Lounge, or other local preservation/RE/development blogs.

Stables landmarked? Well, yes and no...

2006-11-14T23:42:00.000-05:00

Today the LPC finally voted on designation for two UWS stables.

Well, there was good news and bad news.

The good news: they voted to designate the New-York Cab Company Stable.
The bad news: they voted not to designate the Mason aka Dakota Stable.

Getting the news out quick and with excellent commissioner coverage was Simeon Bankoff from the HDC. Please, please check out this post which gives a great breakdown of today's vote:

REPORT: A Tale of Two Stables

Curbed made mention of the Dakota Stable today and linked to Landmark West!'s stables advocacy page. LW! has links to the LPC's statements of significance for both stables. Also very much worth checking out.

Kudos to commissioners Roberta Brandes Gratz and Christopher Moore for attempting to force the LPC to stand up to developers. Since the developer had already begun demolishing the Dakota Stable, most commissioners felt that it was no longer landmarkable (and all except one I think felt that it would have been). Commissioners Gratz and Moore felt that it was time for the LPC to show developers that hasty demolition would not negate a landmark's worth. Or more precisely, if a building still could be returned to its designation worthy condition (and most can if only some of the detail has been removed), then it should still be designated and effort should be made to restore it, or at least be preserved for the possibility of restoration. Now is the time for this type of mindset from the LPC as developers seem to be opting for the removal of architectural detail simply to prevent landmarking.

The most notable of these is the old P.S. 64/CHARAS/El Bohio. The Voice had a pretty good article on this saga back in June: "Love It or Level It". Also check out this article on the memorial march for slain reporter Brad Will that "liberated" the old CHARAS space.

Preserving a lighthouse

2006-11-14T13:20:00.000-05:00

photo by Pamela Bednarik via Montauk Point Lighthouse

Today's Times has a great article outlining the preservation issues surrounding the Montauk lighthouse: "For Montauk, It's Lighthouse vs. Surf's Up!"

Should the effect on surfers' waves be considered when building a seawall to protect the lighthouse? Sure.

But should they stop the plan to build the seawall when that's the solution that has been determined to protect the lighthouse? No.

In fact, according to Greg Donohue, the erosion control manager for the Montauk Historical Society, "the project...is based on decades of careful study, including wave-tank analysis at the University of Delaware that showed Alamo [the surf break that gives them big waves] would not be seriously affected by the revetment."

Hmm, a 210-year old lighthouse, commissioned by George Washington, that is the oldest in New York State and the fourth-oldest active lighthouse in the country, or waves for surfing.

I'm all for preserving water sports, but come on. Preservation of the lighthouse is a benefit for all. Major surf breaks are a benefit for the relative few who can surf. And since noone really knows how the new revetment will affect the waves, it would be foolish to risk the survival of the lighthouse for the possibility the break will be compromised. The surfers suggest moving the lighthouse but preservationists counter that it's too fragile to move. Moving should probably not even be considered as an option since it loses some of its historical significance if it is moved.

Let's hope the Corps of Engineers is allowed to continue with their plans and the lighthouse is preserved for years to come.

Some tips from the HDC

2006-11-12T20:30:00.000-05:00

The Historic Districts Council's Preservation Perspectives blog is a great clearinghouse of preservation news and is where I go to get the latest on NYC preservation.

Today, they have a link to the Fort Greene Courier's article on the 70 Lefferts Place calendaring. Good quotes throughout from the Lefferts Place Civic Association, Councilwoman Letitia James, and Christopher Morris (the owner).

Two things of note:

1) that the LPCA doesn't want to screw over Morris. David Conrad, the secretary of the LPCA, says they are,

“looking into options for the developer that would allow him to come out of this without it being a disaster to him. We don’t want him to get hurt.”

Now, I'm not sure what the LPCA might really be able to do but hopefully something will be worked out. The thing is, real estate wise, there is nothing inherently wrong with the house being landmarked. True, it can't be torn down to build something bigger that would bring in more money. But it is still a valuable, rentable house. Morris says the interior is in poor shape, which may be, but I'm sure it wouldn't take too much work to renovate and make a pretty penny on the house.

2) Morris wishes people would focus on Ratner instead:

“I don’t know why the focus is on me, so much, as if I’m doing something wrong,” Morris went on. “They should focus on Ratner. I don’t know why everyone is focusing on the condos. Condos are going up everywhere. Why focus on this particular property, this particular guy?”

First off, people are focusing on Ratner as if he hadn't noticed. And people are focusing on condos. Many community groups all over Brooklyn are very concerned, or at least wary, about the condo-ization of the borough. But when they knock down one-story taxpayers, or get built on empty lots, or even knock down very decrepit rowhouses, it's not as big a deal. Then, the issue is about context. In this case, the issue is the fact that 70 Lefferts is an unquestionably historic and unique building. That's why the focus is on "this particular property".

It's also interesting that Morris mentions Ratner as someone who should be investigated. When the New York Times did their feature a few weeks back on what various "types" of people in the neighborhood thought of the project, they had Morris as "The Investor" (the full article is in TimesSelect; Atlantic Yards Report has a great, in depth breakdown here) . Here's a quote:

"One I’m turning into condominiums, 24 condos. I wouldn’t have bought that property if it weren’t for the Atlantic Yards. Mr. Ratner has brought a whole change to this neighborhood."

Seems like he's grateful for Ratner's presence. I also wonder how much AY would really impact a condo project on Lefferts between Grand and Classon, over 6 blocks from the eastern edge of the proposed project which, if built as planned, wouldn't be finished for a few years.

Also, from what I've heard thru the blogvine, the picture of Morris in the article shows him standing inside 70 Lefferts Place. Doesn't look too run down to me.

***************************************************************************

They also link to today's Times article and Friday's NY Sun article on the City and Suburban First Avenue Estate complex on York Ave. between 64th and 65th. This situation highlights the politics of preservation both historically (with the Board of Estimate's meddling) and currently (with Councilwoman Jessica Lappin's involvement).

I think it's great that Lappin is taking such an interest in these buildings. As Landmarks chair of the City Council, she has been a marked contrast with the previous chair, Simcha Felder. Felder, along with Yassky, derailed the landmarking of the Austin, Nicholls, & Co. Warehouse last fall (well covered by Curbed) and was generally not very supportive of landmarking. In fact, it was quite similar to the old ways of the BOE as described in the Times article. It begs the question, why have a panel of experts overruled by a panel of non-experts? That's an argument for another day...

A designation! And a demolition?

2006-11-10T02:30:00.000-05:00

Great news from the LPC: they've designated the George B. and Susan Elkins House in Crown Heights! As their press release states:

"House Is the Only Known Freestanding, Mid-19th Century Wooden Country House Remaining in the Northwestern Section of the Brooklyn Neighborhood"

George B. and Susan Elkins House

This bodes well for the Crown Heights North Historic District and maybe for 70 Lefferts Place as well. I don't know if it's the only wooden house in that part of Clinton Hill, but I assume it's one of the few. (The press release is from 10/24 but I don't think this was posted until this week or the end of last week)

Now about that demolition.

On the LPC's agenda for 11/21, they will be hearing an application to demolish the house at 173 St. James Place in Clinton Hill. According to the LPC, 173 St. James Pl. is: "A wood frame house built circa 1852." They plan to replace it with a 3 story building (better than 9 stories of condos!). Now I don't actually know this building and hope to check it out soon. But an 1852 wood frame building? I assume it's not in the greatest shape if the owners think the LPC will approve a demolition. I wonder what the Society for Clinton Hill's take is.

"A lot of buildings deserve to be landmarks."

2006-11-09T23:55:00.000-05:00

The Colonial Club, a non-landmarked landmark at the corner of 72nd and Broadway is losing its skin.

In "Colonial Club: A Landmark in all but Name", the Times highlights a common issue in NYC, and country-wide, preservation: when a building is not "landmarkable" by the usual standards, but is a landmark nonetheless. We see them all the time: the Old Dutch Mustard building, the Rivington St. Synagogue, McGuirk's Suicide Hall, even just the smokestacks from the Penn RR Power House.

McGuirk's from Ain't No Joke's Flickr photo stream

These buildings were never landmarked by the LPC and one could argue they didn't deserve to be (I cannot understand why the Rivington St. Synagogue was never landmarked. I am partly biased since my great-grandfather worshipped there, but still, it had significance architecturally and culturally. And, if it had been landmarked, the shul might have been able to get some help for renovations.). But they're the buildings (or parts of buildings) that when they're gone you feel a void. You think, "Man, I always loved that building." But once they're gone (or stripped of their detail a la the Colonial Club), they're gone. And years from now, will people know they were ever there?

Now the Colonial Club is not being torn down, but it is losing its character. Its uniqueness. But noone is fighting for it. This brings up two issues.

One, the LPC had already twice denied it landmark status. So most assume "Not worth it." This is a perfectly reasonable argument to take since they will likely refuse to hear it again. But the LPC should be pushed now and then to take another look at some of these buildings. Tastes change (a la Two Columbus Circle). Commissioners change. Now in the Club's case, there had been a fair amount of alterations to the building. Perhaps that automatically eliminated it from the chance of landmarking. But again, perhaps the LPC should push the limits now and then. Some buildings (not necessarily the Club) may still have enough original detail remaining, or detail that is very unique, that they should be preserved. Also, once landmarked, a building may be eligible for some restoration funds.

Two, preservation advocacy groups have limited time and resources (the LPC does too for that matter). This post's title comes from Kate Wood, the indefatigable executive director of Landmark West! The full quote (from the Times article):

“Since there are only 24 hours in a day, we have to have some system for prioritizing. It breaks my heart to say anything negative about the Colonial Club, because there’s no reason it shouldn’t be a landmark, but in the scheme of things, a lot of buildings deserve to be landmarks. It’s out of the landmarks realm right now much as I hate to say it.”

Sadly, change and development sometimes moves too fast for preservationists to keep up. Or there are just too many buildings that need help. Preservation skeptics often like to argue (often in the comments at Brownstoner or Curbed): "If this building is so special, why haven't preservationists fought for it before?" The lack of resources is often why. Or, as in the Colonial Club's case (and Officer's Row to some extent), it's a combination of lack of resources and a certain amount of resignation that the LPC won't change their mind.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Designation reports ONLINE!!!

2006-11-06T11:12:00.000-05:00

The Neighborhood Preservation Center and the LPC have done a wonderful thing. They have begun scanning and posting online ALL of the City's landmark designation reports. This is a wonderful new research resource. Now when someone says, "Why is that thing landmarked? What's so special about it?" you can reply (after looking it up) "Well, the LPC said..."

Here's a link to the report for the Old U.S. Naval Hospital in the Navy Yard: U.S. Naval Hospital.

So far, they've only posted files from 1965:

"Currently, printable pdf files of all reports for Landmarks designated in 1965 (the year the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission was established) are available on this database. Eventually the entire collection of designation reports will be available, with those from 1966 and 1967 expected to be posted in November 2006. Please check back often as we update our database."

I'm looking forward to their posting of some of Brooklyn's Historic Districts.

Also, while we're on the subject of designation reports, there's another great resource from the NY SHPO. They have all the National Register nomination forms online. These nominations are also much more in depth with information on nearly every building in historic districts. These include photos from the time these buildings and districts were designated (a great chance to see how things were). Here's pics of 293-299 Cumberland St. from 1980 and "The Roanoke" at 69-71 S. Oxford St. from 1979:

Here's where you go:

New York's State and National Registers of Historic Places Document Imaging Project

Another great thing about this: you can look up National Register historic districts, like Prospect Heights or DUMBO, that the City has so far failed to recognize.

The Old Dutch Mustard is no more

2006-11-06T11:02:00.000-05:00

Robert over at The Gowanus Lounge (a must read) has done a great job of covering the demolition of the Old Dutch Mustard building.

These photos are from a Curbed post he wrote on the de-Dutch-ing of the building during demolition. But here's the "money shot" as he calls it: Dutch Demolition Porn. It's a short video of the demolition over time. Another piece of Williamsburg's industrial heritage bites the dust.

Louis Sullivan's rough year continues

2006-11-04T11:38:00.000-05:00

Sadly, Chicago has lost another Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler building.

courtesy Preservation Chicago

It was reported by the AP today that a fire has destroyed an historic wood frame house in Chicago designed by Adler & Sullivan in 1888. It's the third Adler & Sullivan building to be destroyed by fire this year. It also happens to be Sullivan's 150th birthday year. As Preservation Chicago says on their website "UNHAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR LOUIS..."

Just a week and a half ago, the Wirt Dexter building (1887) was destroyed by fire and had to be demolished.

courtesy Preservation Chicago

And in January, Pilgrim Baptist Church was gutted by fire.

courtesy Repeat

Pilgrim Baptist Church and the Dexter building were both set ablaze by construction crews using acetylene-oxygen torches (the former working on the distinctive roof, the latter removing an old boiler). No specific cause has been given yet for today's blaze.

However, unlike the others, the Harvey house's demolition was planned at one point. This great article by Lynn Becker of the Chicago Reader tells the story of the house as of July 2006: "A Legacy Destroyed."

"according to advocacy group Preservation Chicago, owner Natalie Frank recently told Alderman Helen Shiller she was about to apply for a demolition permit.

It’s a hot area for development. Just down the street—Stratford is only one block long—another vintage home on a similar lot was recently torn down to make way for a 23-story residential high-rise—one unit per floor, starting at $1.3 million. The Harvey House parcel is in a more restrictive zone, RM5, but that would still allow it to be replaced with a building up to five stories high with up to ten units."

Hmm...tearing down an old wood-frame houe to build condos...sounds familiar...

Luckily, or so it seemed, the owner had an apparent change of heart. The Chicago Tribune reported at the end of July that the owner had decided not to demolish the house. Maybe so, but given the owner's initial plans, it makes one wonder if today's fire was truly an accident.

Ms. Becker's article also outlines part of Chicago's problem: a weak landmarks law.

"The Harvey House is in danger because it isn’t an official Chicago landmark. On the Chicago Historic Resources Survey, a listing of more than 17,000 distinctive properties completed in 1995, it has an orange rating, the secondhighest category. In the highest are 300 “red” rated buildings, defined by the survey as “potentially significant in the broader context of the City of Chicago.”

The broader orange rating covers 9,600 structures that are “potentially significant in the context of the surrounding community.” By law, if someone applies for a demolition permit for an orange rated building, a 90-day hold is automatically placed on it while the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, a body appointed by the mayor, reviews the application and decides whether the building deserves to be saved.

But the city has a record of letting orange rated buildings slip through the cracks, issuing permits before 90 days are up and allowing buildings to be damaged or even razed before the commission can review the application."

Many in NYC like to bitch and moan about how strict the landmarks law is and what a hindrance it is to property owners. But at least we don't have this multi-tiered, relatively toothless set-up. You'd think that a city like Chicago, that's lost so much of its historic architecture (especially Sullivan's) would do everything in its power to preserve what they have left. I realize that "accidental" fires are not the fault of the landmarks law, but even without the fire, the Harvey house was nearly lost.

Chicago, your NYC preservation brethren feel for ya.

A mistake and more yellow houses

2006-11-01T22:56:00.000-05:00

So I goofed quite a bit earlier regarding 70 Lefferts Place. I guess I just want the house landmarked ASAP! I should know this stuff too, just typed too quickly I guess.

Yesterday's Landmarks hearing was not to designate the house but just to calendar it for designation. Which they did, after an 8-0 vote. Now we keep an eye on their calendar to see when they'll "hear" the house. Then they will schedule the designation vote. This might take a while, but it will keep the owner from legally demolishing the house.

In response to the commenter, I do not know much about the house on S. Oxford. Again, Brownstoner has covered this topic well and wrote about it yesterday. I do not know whether the Fort Greene Association is working towards a landmarking proposal. Perhaps it's worth bringing up at the next FGA meeting on November 20th. Go to their site for the details.

As for that other great yellow house on the Hill, the Joseph Steele house is landmarked both as an individual landmark and part of the Clinton Hill Historic District. Unfortunately, this was the only photo I could find for now on the interweb:

from jglsongs' flickr photostream

But I'll give you Andrew S. Dolkart's description from his book "Guide to New York City Landmarks" (definitely worth having as a reference tool):

"Joseph Steele House- 200 Lafayette Ave. (c. 1850). Erected early in the 1850s, this frame house is a magnificent example of a residence in a transitional style, combining Greek Revival and Italianate elements. Of special interest are the handsome Greek Revival entrance and the Italianate cupola. The small wing at the east side of the house may date from as early as 1812."

Let's hear it for yellow houses!

70 Leffert Pl. landmarked?

2006-11-01T00:42:00.000-05:00

courtesy http://www.leffertsplace.org

Brownstoner's done a good job covering this issue and here's Monday's post announcing the calendaring at the LPC:

Progress for 70 Lefferts Place Preservationists

We'll find out soon, maybe later today. I'll update whenever I find out.

No time right now to post at length on this topic, but I'm all for it. There are few free-standing wood-framed homes in Brooklyn still standing and it would be a shame to lose another one.

Breuer 3, Whitney 0

2006-10-31T00:05:00.000-05:00

As was hinted at last week, it looks more and more likely that the Whitney will move their new expansion downtown after all.

According to an article in today's New York Times, Whitney Museum May Move Expansion to Downtown Site, the museum "has all but decided that moving its expansion to another site would make more sense." I'm sure some will blame preservationists for standing in the way of architectural "progress", but noone said they had to expand their museum within an historic district. Yes, I realize that they can't help where their museum is located but when planning their expansion, they knew full well that demolishing a contributing brownstone would cause problems. A Metropolis article on the Whitney's revamping noted back in 1998,

"Whitney officials assert that, in its current form, the building will meet their needs for at least 10 years. After that? Look forward to another neighborhood dogfight--or more quiet ingenuity--circa 2008."

It ended up only being 6 years (I wonder if the Whitney got expansion anxiety with the expansions at MoMA and the Morgan, and the plans for the New Contemporary Museum) but the predicted dogfight was certainly waiting. Many in the neighborhood rallied and railed against the plan and the Whitney had to struggle to get LPC approval. And I'd assume that Renzo Piano's services were not cheap, especially having to rework his design around that pesky brownstone.

So ultimately, the cost of the new expansion was not worth it for the amount of space that would be added. Would it still have been worth it even if the expansion was as large as Piano originally planned? The article also notes that the museum would have needed to be closed for about two years during construction. And the Whitney has backed off two earlier plans for expansion in the past.

It seems as if Marcel Breuer's building has won again. And the Whitney has given up on its Madison Avenue expansion ideas. In boxing, the fight is over after three knockdowns. Time to ring the bell.

Old NYC Farms

2006-10-30T01:41:00.000-05:00

Keeping with the farming theme, there was also a great little article in Sunday's NYT City section (almost always a preservation-related article each week) about old New York farms:

The Last Strains of a Pastoral Song

It's about a photographer named Clinton Irving Jones who documented many of New York's old farms (mostly Dutch) between 1905 and 1911, while the farms were rapidly disappearing.

Here's the old Van Brunt farmhouse at 18th Ave. and 84th St.:

And here's the Schenck-Crooke house on Ave. U near 63rd St.:

both photos by Clinton Irving Jones via The NYT

Very cool!

The photos are on exhibit at Underbridge Pictures, an art gallery in DUMBO. The exhibit closes Sunday, but there's a reception for it this Thursday from 6-8. The gallery is located at 111 Front Street, Gallery 202, Brooklyn, NY 11201. I hope to be able to check it out!

There are also still a few old farmhouses left in NYC.

There's the Lott House in Marine Park, Brooklyn.
The Lent-Riker-Smith homestead in Jackson Heights, Queens.
The Dyckman Farmhouse Museum in Inwood, Manhattan.
The Lefferts Homestead in Prospect Park, Brooklyn.
And of course the Queens County Farm Museum in Queens (duh).

There are a few more as well, but you'll just have to find them yourself!

Barn baby barn!

2006-10-30T00:16:00.000-05:00

Susan Stava for The New York Times

One of the more complex issues of preservation is how to, or whether to, preserve buildings that have little architectural merit but help provide a sense of place or meaning. Some would argue that many rowhouses or brownstones have little architectural merit in and of themselves. But we are lucky they have been, and continue to be, preserved because of the sense of place they give our neighborhoods.

In New York, one of the current fights is over the industrial landscape which is rapidly disappearing due to new development. This is particularly true in Williamsburg/Greenpoint and Red Hook. Part of the problem is that many of these buildings have outlived their use, are in poor condition, and are architecturally nondescript (i.e. no major architect designed them, there's no extraordinary design, etc.). However, they stand as reminders of our city's industrial past and are distinct parts of the city's landscape. Luckily, many old factories and warehouses are being adapted for residential, business, or other uses.

But what do we do when buildings have outlived their use and are much more difficult to reuse?

This brings me to barns. The barn and silo are probably the most emblamatic features (non-animal) of the American farm. They have also disappeared from much of our country's formerly agrarian landscape and those that survive are often under threat from new developments. There is an interesting article in today's New York Times about just such a barn in Putnam County, New York:

When the Barn is the Battlefield

The barn is in the path of a road that would be widened for a new housing development. Many locals are hoping not to lose it.

“'It reminds us of the day when farms framed Patterson,' said Judy Kelley-Moberg, a retired earth science teacher who is writing a book about the town’s history. 'I understand the reasons for development, but there are certain spots in the landscape that are important to a community in terms of letting them know who they are.'”

The idea of "letting [people] know who they are" through the built environment is what preservation is all about. It applies to all types of buildings, be they residential, industrial, institutional, agrarian, etc.

Will upstate New York still be upstate New York if is loses all traces of its agrarian roots?

Will the Gowanus Canal still be the Gowanus Canal if it loses all traces of its industrial roots?

Will the Bowery still be the Bowery if it loses all traces of its seedy roots (the flophouses, McGuirk's Suicide Hall, CBGB's, etc.)?

Luckily for the barns of America, there are people fighting to save them. And in some cases, winning. Two of the more than two dozen groups nation-wide are the National Barn Alliance (quoted in the article) and BARN AGAIN! (an organization co-sponsored by the National Trust and Successful Farming magazine). And the article notes that New York has done plenty of good in this regard:

"New York has led the way, spending $6 million to rehabilitate 340 historic barns throughout the state since 2001."

But back to my earlier point, it gets hard to save barns when they've outlived their use. And I'm not talking about barns that are still are working farms but need some renovation (a lot of what BARN AGAIN! does), but barns that have survived past their farm's demise. Barns whose sole purpose is to stand as a link to our past. Unfortunately, many barns are looked at as (and maybe are) unsuitable for any productive reuse. They are not unlike the buildings that make up Officer's Row, the Domino Sugar Factory, the Todd Shipyard graving dock, or many of the other historic buildings threatened with demolition in New York City. Buildings that make our neighborhoods unique, give them character, and tell us who we were. We must preserve them when we can before we realize what we've lost.

Grrr...

2006-10-26T00:24:00.000-04:00

Blogger is pissing me off. Can't figure out why that last post got screwed up at the end and spent too long trying to fix it. So, f it. It's still readable.

Whitney expansion to be scrapped?

2006-10-25T02:04:00.000-04:00

Whitney Museum of American Art via NYTimes

That's the possibility floated by an article in the NYT today. The article, "Dia Art Foundation Abandons Plans for a Museum at High Line," is primarily a report on just that: that Dia will not build a small museum at 820 Washington Street in Gansevoort. But there's also some interesting info on the proposed Whitney expansion:

"Officials familiar with the High Line discussions said that the Whitney Museum of American Art had emerged as a high-profile contender.

Trustees at the Whitney are mulling whether to proceed with an addition designed by the architect Renzo Piano, those officials said. That plan calls for a series of glass bridges to connect the museum’s original 1966 Marcel Breuer building on Madison Avenue at 75th Street to a new nine-story tower. The officials said they did not want to be quoted for fear of being perceived as pre-empting a decision by the Whitney board.

Asked whether the Whitney was considering backing out of the Piano expansion in favor of a site at the High Line, a museum spokeswoman, Jan Rothschild, said yesterday, “The Whitney is keeping its expansion options open,” adding, “We are considering several sites for additional space and have had discussions with the city about the Gansevoort/Washington site.”

She declined to comment further, but the site abandoned by Dia is at 820 Washington Street, at Gansevoort.

Amid sharply escalating construction costs, the Whitney trustees are said to be reconsidering whether, after having to raise several hundred million dollars, the museum will end up getting the kind of space it needs.

Officials familiar with the talks said Whitney trustees and staff members were discussing the possibility of opening a more modest satellite museum downtown, where the Whitney could have larger-scale spaces for cutting-edge artworks as well as attract the young, hip audience who frequents the art and nightclub scene. They emphasized that the talks were preliminary.

Were the museum to back out of the Piano addition, it would be the third time that it has commissioned a celebrity architect to design a major expansion to its landmark building, only to renege. A $37 million design by Michael Graves was jettisoned in 1985; in 2003 the Whitney backed out of a $200 million addition by Rem Koolhaas.

Mr. Piano’s project met with heated challenges from preservationists who said a brownstone facade on Madison, part of the Upper East Side Historic District, would be eliminated to make way for the new entrance.

The architect narrowed the entry, and after a series of hearings, his plan was approved by the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals in July."

Very interesting.

I'm not going to get into it too much myself, but here's the history of the plan with plenty of opinions pro and con embedded within the articles.

Here's a model of the plan with the original Marcel Breuer building on the left:

Renzo Piano Building Workshop via NYT

And here's Nicolai Ouroussoff's mostly positive critique of the plan after it was announced in the Fall of 2004: "Whitney's New Plan: A Respectful Approach".

Ouroussoff can be somewhat sympathetic to preservation (at least he was with 2 Columbus Circle), but sure hates when it gets in the way of an architect's vision:

"Who doesn't want to preserve the city's architectural legacy? But great design is never cautious; it cannot arise amid a climate of fear. The risk is that the building will ultimately be too subdued, as if it is trying too hard to fit in. If the city is to get the full benefit of Mr. Piano's talent, the Whitney will have to grant him the
freedom to follow his ideas, wherever they lead. "

Once the plans were announced in early '05, the Historic Districts Council weighed in with their disapproval.

The following articles from the NYT traced the progress of the plan in 2005:

Fierce Battle Over Plan to Expand the Whitney (2/05)

Landmarks Panel Questions Whitney Plan (3/05)

Revised Whitney Plan Wins Panel's Approval (5/05)

And here's Ouroussoff's reaction to the LPC's decision:

Commission Preserves the Past at the Cost of the Future (5/05)

Finally, the Times come back to the subject a month later to summarize:

Brownstone That Has Eight Lives to Go (6/05)

Overall, it's a pretty interesting preservation/lofty architecture battle.

If the Whitney eventually does decide to move to the High Line site, they will undoubtedly be lambasted again for failing to expand their current museum. But it would save a brownstone row's integrity as well as the singular distinctness that is Breuer's Whitney while only costing the potential of a remarkable new design.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Officer's Row, Oh No!!!

2006-10-19T23:41:00.000-04:00

photo courtesy of Curbed

Interestingly, Officer's Row is all over (OK maybe not all over) the NYC blogosphere today. Most folks involved in preservation have been following the story of these buildings for a while now, but it hit the national (online at least) preservation press as the "Story of the Week" in Preservation Online, a publication of the National Trust:

Will a Supermarket Replace the Once-Grand Navy Yard Mansions? (Preservation Online)

(As an aside, a quibble with the article and its assorted reportage: it's Officer's Row, not Admiral's Row. At least that's what I've been told by one of my professors over and over again. As he puts it, no admirals ever lived there. But the name's not really the issue here.)

(What's also interesting is that PresOnline is only writing about this now. The Real Estate posted this, Admiral's Woe, last year and noted the efforts of the Historic Districts Council and Fort Greene Association both of whom are cited in the Preservation article. I guess late press is better than no press!)

Gothamist mentioned it today in their "Extra Extra" column thusly:

"+ Oh Jesus-- is the city really stupid enough to demolish Officer's Row and replace it with a supermarket? We're betting yes."

The link is to Curbed's story which got things going today: Demolition Special in Aisle Four: Admiral's Row.

There are a lot of comments with most people unable to understand how these buildings could be torn down. But there are also many who commented who don't even know where they are. And many who seem to be blaming the housing project residents who will benefit from the supermarket.

Here's the thing, the houses shouldn't be torn down. They're victims of a classic case of demolition by neglect. However, as the article notes, they are sound enough to repair-if someone puts the money into it. It truly would be a shame to lose this part of Brooklyn's history...but some dissenting commenters on Curbed make decent points.

Yes, they are fairly far from trains and near some pretty busy roads, an industrial park, the tow pound, and housing projects so might be a hard sell for residential conversions. And it's true that many of the Farragut housing residents want and need a decent supermarket (I'm sure some Vinegar Hillers wouldn't mind one too). The answer seems simple: renovate/reconstruct as part of a mixed used project that includes food markets.

Okay, maybe that's not so simple, but it's not so far-fetched either. Get some innovative design, some tax breaks for preservation, and a developer/store chain willing to do something different. Imagine the first floors of the houses as market spaces: one sells fruits and vegetables, one sells meats and fish, one sells bread and cereal, etc. Then the second floors are devoted to cultural spaces. Or maybe after-school hang-outs. The area around the houses becomes a park connected to the Brooklyn Greenway that will, hopefully, go down Flushing Ave. (it is planned, maybe). Yeah, it'll be kinda New Urbanist-y, but it could work. It'll be a Wallabout Market reenvisioned for the 21st century. For some reason, I don't think the Navy Yard will go for it.

Another issue with this is the argument that it will benefit the Farragut Housing residents. As I said, they do need a supermarket. But is this just developer using the poor to their advantage? Make the preservationists out to be anti-poor is the method they're using (reminiscent of Atlantic Yards proponents no?). They claim they have to raze the buildings before issuing the RFP so there's a clean slate to bid on. And not to say there shouldn't be an RFP, but what's the point if you're promising a supermarket? I guess Pathmark, Key Food, or Associated have to bid against each other, but is this just a backdoor way to lure someone bigger like Wal-Mart? Or maybe someone not so evil, like Whole Foods? That would solve the Farragut residents' problem, high-priced groceries! And is the RFP going to mandate that business be a grocery store? A switcheroo behind the scenes wouldn't surprise me--developer transparency isn't exactly all the rage these days.

I also find it odd that the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation still touts their preservation work. Here's their VP for development and planning David Lowen from the PresOnline article:

"'To me, the biggest obstacle is the astronomical cost involved for what would be a ground-up renovation.' He points to other historic structures at the Yard that the BNYDC has stabilized, such as the magnificent 1838 Greek revival Naval Hospital and the much-admired 1863 Surgeon's House. 'We're very proud of the work we've done, where and when such work was feasible. We want to preserve historical resources, but we have to think of costs as well.'"

U.S. Naval Hospital by Alexis Robie. See more fantastic photos, including interiors, at http://www.alexisrobie.com/archives/000344.html

It's great that the BNYDC has done this work, but who gets to see it? Go down to Ryerson and Flushing and look across behind the wall. There upon the hill stands the U.S. Naval Hospital next to the Surgeon's House. Both, by the way, are NYC Landmarks so it's not so surprising that they stabilized these buildings (note, he didn't say restored). Can you go check them out? No. Are they serving much purpose other than existing? Not really. Imagine the gate there on Ryerson opening up to a park with the Hospital and House as visitor's centers/recreation centers/cultural centers.

Oh wait, that would take money.

And vision, something the BNYDC, and NYC often, seems to have in short supply.

TONY's Top Blocks are heavy on the history

2006-10-18T20:45:00.000-04:00

So last week, Time Out New York came out with their Top 50 Blocks in New York City. It's one of those entertaining, argument-inducing puff pieces that TONY is known for. Here's their list:

Block Stars

Their choice of South Portland between Dekalb and Lafayette as the #1 block was somewhat of a surprise but it is a very nice block. Plus, with their criteria of transportation access, green space, and proximity to restaurants, etc factored in, it's definitely a top block.

As was expected, the list sparked some debate.

Here's are some initial posts from Curbed & Brownstoner:

TONY: So. Portland Best Block. Period. (Brownstoner)
HoodWatch: Vestry Named 43rd Best Block in NYC! (Curbed)

The comments came streaming in with some of the expected complaints. Here's more from Gothamist and Curbed again.

Now, as a young historic preservationist, I certainly support the idea of historic districts and think that they are nicer places to live because of the sense of place they have as well as the human-scale architecture (not to mention the aesthetics). So, I was curious how many of the Top 50 blocks are in NYC Landmark Historic Districts. Not surprisingly, many are fully within or partly within Historic Districts.

9 out of the top 10 are within Historic Districts. The one that isn't, #8: Coffey Street between Conover and Ferris Streets, Red Hook, Brooklyn, is in a part of the city that maybe should have more landmarking. Red Hook is woefully underrepresented (as are many other nabes).

From #11-20, 7 are within plus 1 block (#15: West 44th Street between Ninth and Tenth Avenues, Hell’s Kitchen) that contains an individual landmark (432 W.44th St., The Actors Studio).

From #21-30, 4 are within plus 1 block (#21: Park Place between Carlton and Vanderbilt Avenues, Prospect Heights, Brooklyn) that is within a National Register Historic District (why Prospect Heights is not landmarked by the LPC is beyond me).

From #31-40, 4 are within plus 1 block (#31: Clinton Avenue between Myrtle and Park Avenues, Wallabout, Brooklyn) that has been deemed "eligible" for listing on the National Register, and 1 block (#33 East 2nd Street between First and Second Avenues, East Village) that contains an individual landmark (52-74 E.2nd St., New York City Marble Cemetery).

From #41-50, 4 are within.

So, overall, 28 are within NYC Historic Districts, 2 within (or soon to be within) National Register Historic Districts, and 2 that contain individual landmarks.
Of the remaining 18 blocks, 11 are in the outer boroughs, which have been terribly underrepresented over the years of the LPC (44 in Manhattan, 16 in Brooklyn, 9 in the Bronx, 6 in Queens, and 3 in Staten Island). Another 2 are in Inwood, which is practically another borough and 2 (Beekman Place and E.57th near Sutton Place) are exclusive wealthy enclaves that don't tend to house activists for historic designation. If the LPC continues on their mission to designate more districts in the outer boroughs, we may have more districts represented on this list.

Of course, most of the blocks are historic, just not designated. This may be due to a lack of resources at the LPC, lack of community push, or too much infill or damage to the historic integrity.

Does this tell us anything? First off, it's just a TONY article. Not to belittle all the work that went into their study, but it wasn't exactly scientific and wasn't a large survey. However it still gives some sort of insight to what New Yorkers think about where they live. And a majority of the places we want to live, or at least places we'd find desirable, are within historic districts.

Proof that preservation has gotten, and is doing, something right.

LINKS

2006-10-13T18:49:00.000-04:00

As I get this going, I'll try to add links daily or at least a few times a week. Today I'm going to include a few links from earlier in the week and not just today (as most other blogs do).

The Old Dutch Mustard building is being demolished. (Gowanus Lounge) Another piece of Williamsburg's industrial heritage is being lost. Maybe the building was just too contaminated by asbestos to be reused, but it's likely it's just easier for developers to tear it down and build some glass behemoth. Too bad.

Sneaked peeks inside a Coney Island ghost. (Gowanus Lounge) It will definitely be interesting to see what the new developers of Coney Island do with the architecture as well as the businesses that still survive there. Something to keep a wary eye on.

New plans for the Navy Yard. (NYTimes) In this article the future of the Yard is discussed in brief. As I noted in an earlier post, it's too bad they're kicking out the crane company there, but I'm still not sure about their plans to tear down Building 128 as is noted in the article. I think it is pretty unconvertable to any good new usage, but they don't have the greatest track record on taking care of their landmarks. Aside from the Officer's Row buildings, which I'll discuss in more depth in the future, I can't get past what the Navy Yard has (not) done with the old Naval Hospital and the other buildings on the hospital grounds. The hospital dates from the 1830s and currently sits vacant and bricked in. Only because it's made of more solid material is it not meeting the fate of the Officer's Row houses. Let's hope some of the new plans include opening these buildings up for some sort of use. If nothing else, the grounds there would make a fantastic park.

A fantastic historic farmhouse in Queens. (NYTimes) How about some positive preservation articles? This was a nice article about a great old (1650s old) farmhouse in Queens that the owners have lovingly restored and open to visitors for tours. It was once the home to the Riker family that also owned the infamous island that now bears their name and it has its own cemetery! How many houses in NYC can claim that? I happened to catch a glimpse of it on PBS last night (during Barry Lewis' "A Walk around Queens") and they have a nice website for it too: The Lent-Riker-Smith Homestead.

Dakota Stable demolition danger!!!

2006-10-13T18:14:00.000-04:00

The Dakota Stable needs your help!

I got an alert from a friend at Landmark West! about the imminent demolition of this potential landmark. Go to LW!'s page about the Dakota Stable and the New York Cab Company Stable. The Historic Districts Council blog also has a good description with photos of the demolition work. Please check it out and sign LW!'s online petition too.

This certainly seems to be the method of choice for developers these days. If there's landmarking in the works, demo the detail ASAP!! In the case of P.S. 64, the developer started the denuding even after landmarking in an attempt to de-landmark it. Let's hope the LPC works quick next week and maybe the DOB will step in to stop work until then.

Note: Yes, the "!" at the end of my blog title is a conscious reference to LW!, but it is done out of respect and cause it looks good.

Preservation, two ways

2006-10-13T15:39:00.000-04:00

This post from Curbed (Final Nails in Gowanus Coffins) hits on two different aspects of preservation, community/industrial preservation and then regular architectural preservation.

First is a link to a Brooklyn Papers article about the closing of the South Brooklyn Casket Co. in Gowanus. Apparently it's just getting too hard to keep the industry going, though, as one would expect from an old Gowanus industry, they're being pretty secretive about it so its not clear exactly what's going on. If true, it's yet another loss to the vibrant industrial history of Gowanus and Brooklyn. Check out this aerial photo of the Gowanus in 1929:

That's the Union St. bridge in the center, with Nevins on the bottom of the photo and Bond at the top. I was lucky to be able to get a copy of this photo from the Brooklyn Historical Society last year for a project at school on the Gowanus. I focused on the block of Union St. between Nevins an Bond and, in particular, researched the history of the house at 487 Union (305 Bond), the bridge, and 543 Union (the Dykeman building). One of the (obvious) things I discovered was the importance of industry for this neighborhood. It's hard to imagine how busy Gowanus, as well as Red Hook, DUMBO, Wallabout, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and other waterfronts of New York, used to be before the deindustrialization of Brooklyn.

Of course the industry of the Gowanus (and the rest of industrial New York, and America, in general) has been disappearing for years. And the Casket Co. doesn't exactly have much to do with the Canal. But it is a shame to see another remnant of the neighborhood's history disappear.

Does Brooklyn still have room or a desire for industry? First the Red Hook Crushers were forced to take their business to Queens and now the Casket Co. may follow suit. There's also news (NYDN, via Gowanus Lounge) that a crane company at the Navy Yard is getting the boot (even though the Navy Yard is an industrial park, not a movie park) and of course there's the long-standing battle between the American Stevedoring Co. and the City over their piers in Red Hook.

Yes, Brooklyn has changed and is still changing, with much of it for the better. But should we just keep building new developments and big-box stores and solidify our position as a Long Island suburb beyond simple geography? Didn't Mayor Mike have a big push for industrial retention? You may argue that I'm, with my first real post, already off topic. But this is part of preservation as well. It's not always just the buildings that give you a sense of place, sometimes it's what goes on there too. You might not have ever seen the caskets at the Casket Co., but it is certainly a part of the industrial landscape that makes Gowanus what it is. Building a new residential tower (be it a market-rate condo or affordable housing) will change that landscape. As with more "typical" preservation, there's always a compromise that needs to be made, but this sort of neighborhood preservation issue needs to be kept in mind when planning for the future.

The second issue raised in the post if a much more traditional Landmarks issue. The LPC has apparently said "No" to the initial plans for Carlton Mews, a new condo project attached to an old church in Fort Greene. According to the Brooklyn Papers article, most were surprised it was turned down since it was mostly keeping in scale with the 'hood:

“This [project] could be a wonderful outcome for a site that we have worried would be compromised or destroyed,“ said Phillip Kellogg, president of the Fort Greene Association.

Kellogg sees Carlton Mews as a rare instance of contextual development in a historic neighborhood that is fast sprouting glass-walled high-rises.

“So far, this developer has really showed respect for the scale of the neighborhood and the need for preservation,” he said.

I remember seeing a model for it on the Ft. Greene house tour last year. It seemed decent though I guess it did "overwhelm" the church somewhat (though I don't remember exactly how it looked). It is definitely better to have it reused for something than continue to stand empty and deteriorate further. But it's too bad noone wants to simply refurbish it either as a church or maybe a community center of some sort that wouldn't require the types of additions the condo conversion "needs". I guess that's just wishful thinking.

What I actually found most jarring was the alterations that would be done to the house on Carlton Ave. that was open for the tour and displaying the model in the basement. This 1840s Greek Revival house is going to be greatly altered and attached to the new condos (I don't remember the specifics) so it was strange that they were showing the plans that were going to destroy much of its historic character. I wonder if this is part of the LPC's issue with the plan. I know it's part of mine.

Startin' my blog

2006-10-13T14:16:00.000-04:00

Welcome to "Landmark This!", my new blog about historic preservation. Living in Brooklyn for the last few years, I've fallen in love with the city's history and its architecture. I've also followed many of the popular local blogs on real estate and architecture to keep up on the latest news in the city. But while they often posted items about preservation here and there, I felt that preservation needed a blog of its own. So here it is....I hope. I'm new to all of this so please bear with me through the inevitable growing pains that will follow.

As I live, study, and work in Brooklyn, this blog will be heavy on Brooklyn preservation news and issues (oh, and those other four boroughs too). But there's obviously plenty going on elsewhere and I'll try to post about it as well. I do not plan to post about much new construction unless it has a preservation aspect to it. I'm also not going to get much into real estate listings. I'm leaving that to the other blogs.

Also, in case it's not clear, I am very much PRO preservation. I'm open to any and all feedback and tips. I hope you enjoy it!