Hotel Seville

Support for individual landmark designations of Beaux-Arts Hotel and Neo-Renaissance Office Building expressed at hearing. On February 20, 2018, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held public hearings on the potential designations of Hotel Seville and the Emmet Building, both in East Midtown, in the area to the north of Madison Square. Landmarks added both buildings to its calendar in December of 2017. (more…)

Former Webber Packing House.

The landmarking of two buildings constructed as schools and a former meatpacking plant receive support at public hearing. On February 13, 2018, Landmarks held hearings on the potential designations of three structures as individual City landmarks in the East Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan. The three buildings are the former Richard Webber Harlem Packing House, at 207 East 119th Street; the former Public School 109, at 215 East 99th Street; and the former Benjamin Franklin High School, at 260 Pleasant Avenue. The buildings were identified by landmarks staff in a survey of the area’s historical and architectural resources as part of the East Harlem Neighborhood Plan and anticipated East Harlem Rezoning. (more…)

CitiCorp Center. Image Credit: CityLand

Items considered at hearing were from three development periods: the pre-Grand Central Terminal Era, the Grand Central/Terminal City Era, and the post-Grand Central/World War II Era. On September 13, 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held hearings on the potential designation of seven individual landmarks in Midtown Manhattan. The items heard were among the twelve properties identified as potentially worthy of Landmarks protection in the agency’s Greater East Midtown Initiative. The initiative is part of the mayoral administration’s efforts to strengthen the area as a commercial district with proposed increased density, improvements to transit, and economic growth projects. Landmarks held its first hearing on items identified in the initiative on July 19, 2016. (more…)

Pershing Square in Manhattan. Image Credit: LPC

Designations opposed by developers and hoteliers; transit advocates expressed concern that landmarking would prevent improved subway infrastructure and access. On July 19 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held hearings on the potential designations of five possible individual landmarks in the East Midtown area of Manhattan. Twelve items in total were identified by Landmarks as significant historic and architectural resources, as part of the mayoral administration’s Greater East Midtown plan. The plan to revitalize the area is intended to strengthen its position as a commercial district. The plan is expected to entail rezoning for greater density, improvements to transit and public spaces, and funding commitments for improvements and economic growth projects, in addition to the preservation of landmark-worthy fabric. Various stakeholders, including elected officials, business and real estate interests, and labor organizations are informing the plan, and a steering committee released a final report in 2015. (more…)

Councilmember David Greenfield, chair of the Committee on Land Use . Image credit: William Alatriste/New York City Council

Peter Koo and David Greenfield-sponsored bill was supported by Real Estate industry and vehemently opposed by preservationists. On June 8, 2016, the full City Council voted to approve a bill amending the City’s Landmark Law following a Land Use Committee meeting on June 7.

The legislation, Introduction 775, mandates that Landmarks vote on an item for designation as an individual, interior, or scenic landmark within one year of holding a public hearing. If the Commission does not hold a vote within the 12-month time span, the item will be removed from the Commission’s calendar. The Commission may extend the time frame by another 12 months with the owner’s concurrence if there is sufficient need. For historic districts, the Commission must take action within 24 months of the district’s initial calendaring. For all items that have been calendared prior to the law’s passage, the Commission must take action within 18 months of the law’s effective date, with a provision for a further 12-month extension with the owner’s consent. (more…)