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. (read more…)

Welcome to CityLand‘s sixth annual top ten stories of the year! We have selected a range of our most popular and prominent stories, and guest commentaries concerning New York City land use in 2017. Our 2017 coverage was highlighted by articles concerning the approval of construction safety training for construction workers, proposals for the creation of more affordable housing, neighborhood rezonings, the protection of landmarks, and a guide on tort liability for injuries involving trees. We at CityLand are excited to continue providing in-depth coverage of the latest land use projects, cases, and legislation in 2018 and look forward to seeing what the year will bring. Thank you for all of your support and have a happy new year! (read more…)

Owner of Federal-style building plans to redevelop site with sevenstory office building. On September 21, 2011, the City Council rejected Landmarks’ June 2011 designation of the Hardenbrook-Somarindyck House at 135 Bowery in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The three-and-ahalf story Federal-style rowhouse was built circa 1817 and is owned by First American International Bank. Pursuant to the Charter the Council may modify or disapprove a landmark designation.

The bank purchased 135 Bowery in 2007 for just over $5 million intending to replace it with a sevenstory office building. It obtained permits for the new building in 2009 and gutted the building in preparation for demolition. Landmarks in June 2010 notified the bank that the property had been calendared for a public hearing in July. At the hearing, the bank opposed designation, arguing that the dilapidated building had undergone extensive alterations over the years and lacked architectural significance. A representative of local Council Member Margaret Chin testified that Chin supported designation. 7 CityLand 112 (Aug. 15, 2011).  (read more…)

Council held first oversight hearing on criteria established more than twenty years ago to ensure equitable distribution of public facilities. On April 12, 2011, the City Council’s Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses Subcommittee held the Council’s first oversight hearing to review the City’s Charter-mandated rules established to foster the equitable distribution of City facilities. Following the 1989 revision of the City Charter, the City Planning Commission promulgated the “fair share” criteria to encourage community consultation and establish a set of standards that City agencies must consider before siting or substantially changing existing City facilities. The fair share rules only apply when City agencies propose siting facilities that are operated by the City on city-controlled property greater than 750 sq.ft., or used for programs that receive certain levels of funding from City contracts.

Subcommittee Chair  Brad Lander acknowledged the challenges of siting essential municipal facilities, such as waste transfer stations and homeless shelters, but noted that twenty years after the creation of the fair share rules, facilities are still concentrated in low-income and minority neighborhoods. Lander argued that in some cases the fair share process served as “window dressing,” or had been circumvented entirely. (read more…)

Landmarks rejected owner’s initial request to build five-story addition to 1990s structure. On June 1, 2010, Landmarks approved a revised proposal to construct a three-story addition on top of a three-story structure built on a triangular lot at 115 Seventh Avenue South in the Greenwich Village Historic District. The existing building, referred to as a “modern commercial building” by Landmarks, was completed in 1994 and is occupied by Gourmet Garage and a New York Sports Club.

At a March 2009 public hearing, the owner initially presented a plan to build a five-story, glass-faced addition that would be set back from the streetwall. The owner’s representative, Frank Angelino, conceded that glass was not common in the district, but he argued it was an unobtrusive material. Manhattan Community Board 2, residents, and preservationists opposed the initial plan. The Historic District Council’s Nadezhda Williams said the project was “too shiny and glitzy” for the area. Chair Robert B. Tierney found the addition’s scale problematic, noting that it would not connect with the existing base. Other commissioners agreed, and Landmarks asked the owner to return with a revised proposal. (read more…)

Condo board demolished eleventh-floor balcony during facade restoration without Landmarks’ approval. On June 15, 2010, Landmarks approved a proposal to reconstruct an illegally demolished balcony on a twelve-story condominium at 105 West 72nd Street in the Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District. The condominium board removed the eleventh-floor balcony of the building in 1992 without Landmarks’ approval. In 2004, Landmarks denied the board’s application to legalize the demolition. Four years later, the board filed plans to reconstruct the terra cotta and brick balcony, but later determined the project was not feasible due to engineering problems. The board instead applied to Landmarks to build a fiberglass balcony with different dimensions than the original.

At a June 15 public hearing, Shelly Mazor, president of the condominium board, testified that the original balcony had been removed because it presented a hazardous condition. Mazor said the board had tried to recreate the original balcony, but safety issues derailed the plan. She claimed the proposed fiberglass balcony, a purely decorative element, would be aesthetically correct and replicate the original balcony from street views. Architect Robert James explained that the original balcony projected 36 inches from the facade, and it was supported by outriggers built into the wall. Because these outriggers were removed with the original balcony, there was no longer a structurally safe way for the masonry wall to support the weight of a new brick and terra cotta structure. James proposed building a decorative balcony that would only project ten inches and would be inaccessible to tenants. The non-functioning balcony would be painted to emulate the original brick and terra cotta pattern. (read more…)