
Proposed Rendering of Tammany Hall Addition. Image Credit: LPC
Applicants argued that addition would echo the domes of classical architecture, pay homage to the Lenape who once occupied Manhattan. On November 25, 2014, the Landmarks Preservation Commission considered an application to construct an addition to a building that housed the Tammany political machine at 44 Union Square East, an individual City landmark. The building was the third Tammany Hall constructed, and the only one extant. Designated in 2013, the neo-Georgian 1929 building was later utilized as a union hall, theater, and film school. The building is substantially intact, though storefronts have been created at the ground level facing Union Square Park. (read more…)

The City was forced to halt construction on the pavilion at Union Square Park in 2008. Photo: Jonathan Reingold.
Court found the agreement was a valid license and did not violate the public trust doctrine; Coalition hopes new Mayor will terminate license. In March 2012, the City signed a licensing agreement with Chef Driven Market, LLC, (Chef) authorizing Chef to open a 200-seat seasonal restaurant in the Union Square northern pavilion. The Union Square Park Community Coalition filed an article 63 petition seeking a preliminary injunction against the City from enforcing the licensing agreement. The Coalition won its petition in the lower court, but the Appellate Division ruled in favor of the planned restaurant in June 2013. On February 20, 2014, the New York State Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
(read more…)

The City was forced to halt construction on the pavilion at Union Square Park in 2008. Photo: Jonathan Reingold.
See below for update.
Neighborhood coalition sued Parks over proposed plan to open restaurant in Union Square. Union Square is comprised of 3.6 acres of dedicated municipal parkland, stretching three blocks in length and one block in width. Union Square Park’s pavilion has hosted a myriad of political events and recreational activities for over a century. In 2004, the City announced its plans to open a restaurant in the pavilion. In April 2008, the Union Square Community Coalition (Coalition) obtained a temporary restraining order proscribing the City from undertaking any construction activity associated with its pavilion proposal. (See CityLand’s past coverage here). In March 2009, the New York Supreme Court dismissed the Coalition’s lawsuit. The pavilion was subsequently renovated and is currently being used by the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation as office and storage space.
In March 2012, the City signed a licensing agreement with Chef Driven Market, LLC, (Chef) authorizing Chef to open a 200-seat seasonal restaurant in the pavilion. The restaurant would operate from April 15 through October 15 and boast entrée prices topping over $30. The agreement required Chef to pay the City an annual fee of $300,000 for the first year, increasing to the greater of either $457,777 or 10 percent of its annual gross revenues in the 15th year.
(read more…)

- Union Square Park renovation plan. Image:Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates

- Challenge to Union Square Park renovation dismissed. Image:Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates.
Local group opposed Parks’ plan to relocate restaurant. Parks’ renovation of Union Square Park included a redesigned playground, a new comfort station, and a restored historic pavilion at the northern end of the park. The project also included moving a private seasonal restaurant, located south of the pavilion, into the pavilion. The Union Square Community Coalition filed an article 78 petition, raising several arguments. It claimed that the restaurant relocation, which diverted use of the pavilion from public use to non-public use, was a prohibited use of parkland that violated the public trust doctrine. The Coalition also claimed that Parks failed to prepare an environmental impact statement as required under the State environmental review law. Finally, the Coalition claimed that Parks had failed to obtain a zoning amendment and had failed to comply with the City’s land use review process. (read more…)