March 6: New-York Historical Society Vote at CB7

IMPORTANT PUBLIC MEETING: COMMUNITY BOARD 7 TO VOTE ON NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Please do everything in your power to attend Community Board 7's public meeting on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, between 7:00 and 8:00 PM at the American Bible Society (1865 Broadway at 61st Street). The full, 50-member Board will vote on the Parks & Preservation Committee's February 8 almost unanimous resolution against the New-York Historical Society's extensive renovation plans for its "Triple Landmark" site. The Board anticipates taking up this item at some point prior to 8:00 PM on the 6th. Your presence is a "must" to underscore community support for the Committee's strong position addressing both the facade alterations (Phase 1) and the 280-foot tower planned for the Landmark site (Phase 2). A copy of the Committee's complete resolution is included below.

To all those 400+ neighbors who attended previous meetings on this issue, please know that your attendance made a huge difference. It really helps! Thank you.

Please also make sure your name is among the hundreds who have already signed on to "Save Our Skyline (SOS)". If you care about the future of Central Park West's skyline and preventing Landmarks from being exploited as "development opportunities," you need to join this list (both individuals and organizations are encouraged to sign on)! Email landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org today (more information is available on http://www.landmarkwest.org/advocacy/sos.htm).

An Open Letter to the Historical Society

An Open Letter to the New-York Historical Society

Like many others who care about the future of the "Triple Landmark" New-York Historical Society (N-YHS), LANDMARK WEST! received your letter emailed two days ago disputing the nearly unanimous vote against your project taken by Community Board 7's Parks & Preservation Committee on February 8, 2007.

Preserve History, Don't Distort Reality: The N-YHS mission is to educate the public about history, not distort the facts and belittle the public process. The bottom line is that you have so far failed to present a valid case for radically altering your Landmark site. The Parks & Preservation Committee rightly disapproved your application for facade alterations, finding it "unnecessary overkill with respect to the functional aims that drive this proposal, apparently motivated at least in part by the inappropriate decision to seek to 'modernize' the facade rather than to make minimally intrusive changes, and to respect above all the very features for which it was designated a landmark" (the Committee's full negative resolution is copied below). Furthermore, you have withheld information about development plans for a 280-foot tower that would loom over the Landmark, even though this project was reported in the New York Times and developers and architects have already been short-listed.

Disclose Your Finances: You have stated unequivocally that there is no linkage, financial or otherwise, between what you describe as Phase I (the facade alterations) and Phase II (the tower). You have also stated that Phase I would cost approximately $15 million and that N-YHS already has the money to fund Phase I without Phase II. Yet in a January 24, 2007, email to your list, you also state that "proceeds from the residential portion of our construction program would be used to help fund the Society's internal growth plans." The "Financial Statement" posted on your website (www.nyhistory.org) shows "investments" of $22.9 million, hardly a firm base for a $15 million capital project.

In order to consider the question of "linkage", greater disclosure of basic N-YHS finances is required. Are there financial resources not disclosed in your Financial Statement? Are there "off balance sheet" items (e.g., unfunded pension or health benefit or Other Post Employment Benefits obligations) not reflected?

Does recent departure of Richard Gilder as Chairman of the N-YHS Board (announced in late January 2007) reflect or portend a shift in the Society's financial support?

There must be a financial projection or a feasibility study reflecting the implementation of Phase II (presumably showing a range of possible outcomes). Will you disclose it? When?

Be Upfront With the Community: You have had ample opportunity to state your case. The community remains unconvinced. However, we are prepared to consider any additional information that directly and candidly addresses the questions raised above.

Signed,

LANDMARK WEST!

C o m m u n i t y B o a r d 7 Manhattan

_______________________________________

Date: February 8, 2007

Re: New-York Historical Society, 2 West 77^th Street. Application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for changes in the Central Park West facade and the West 77^th Street entrance and windows.

Parks & Preservation Committees Vote*: 6 In Favor 1 Against 0 Abstentions 0 Present

Non-Committee Board Member Vote: 2 In Favor 0 Against 0 Abstentions 0 Present

WHEREAS, the New-York Historical Society is a “Triple Landmark”: it is an Individual Landmark and is also within both the Upper West Side Central Park West Historic District and the Central Park West -- 76^th Street Historic District; and

WHEREAS, in its July 19, 1966 designation report the Landmarks Preservation Commission described the Historical Society building as “austerely classical in feeling, and displaying great dignity in its composition”, further described its Central Park West façade as “containing a colonnaded central section, which, though treated with great discipline, is nobly ornamental”, and concluded that the “pedimented heroic size main portal on Central Park West makes a very grand entrance to the building”; and

WHEREAS, in the designation report, the LPC found that the Historical Society “has a special character, special historical and aesthetic interest and value as part of the development, heritage and cultural characteristics of New York City” and that the Historical Society building “is a distinguished example of Roman Eclectic architecture, designed in the best classical tradition, that it contains much excellent architectural detail and that this imposing structure has great dignity and grandeur”; and

WHEREAS, the Historical Society forms a composition with one of New York’s greatest Individual Landmarks, the American Museum of Natural History; and

WHEREAS, the Historical Society is in the process of developing plans (“Phase 2”) for a mixed-use museum/residential building on its site fronting 76^th Street, which would replace its existing library stack building, which may be as high as 280 feet; and

WHEREAS, such plans may also include a new, possibly all-glass, story over the landmark building, which, like the tower, would be visible from all surrounding public ways, and such Phase 2 plans appear likely to result in another LPC application in the very near future; and

WHEREAS, the Parks and Preservation Committee of Community Board 7, Manhattan, believes that the proposed changes to the Central Park West and 77^th Street facades of the Historical Society that comprise the present application must be considered within the context of the very substantial additional changes to the Historical Society’s profile that are likely to be proposed soon in Phase 2; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is concerned that if the inappropriate elements of this proposal are approved, they will be used to bootstrap arguments that the Phase 2 design is appropriate; and

WHEREAS, numerous other institutions within Community Board 7, Manhattan’s boundaries are similarly landmarked, and similarly have unused development rights, and the Committee is very concerned that no undesirable precedent be set with this application, either with regard to the design itself or to the bifurcated consideration of major streetscape changes; and

WHEREAS, in this application the Historical Society is proposing façade changes that are “modern/contemporary” in design and materials (most notably the tri-partite rectangular doors at the Central Park West façade, the use of bronze and glass for the walls and railings of the entrance ramps on both facades, and the proposed informational “kiosks”), an approach that the Committee believes is inappropriate for this magnificent classical building – regardless of whether a modernist approach might be appropriate in a different landmark context; and

WHEREAS, at the proposed Central Park West entrance, the great pair of bronze doors would be removed, as would the elegant ornamental bronze decoration over the doors within the masonry frame; and

WHEREAS, the Committee does not believe that the proposal to apply the door panels as immovable decorative artifacts flanking the new contemporary triple door element would in any way make up for removing the doors from their original, functioning, position; and

WHEREAS, the proposed Central Park West entry, by making two new door openings of equivalent size and emphasis to the original door opening, would seriously abrogate the hierarchy of the grand pedimented entry that (as described by LPC in the designation report) forms the single most notable element of this great classical façade; and

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that in the proposed design the grand pedimented door surround -- stripped of its bronze doors and trim, with a modern rectangular glass and rectilinear metal door inserted in its denuded opening, and flanked by new glass and metal doors in a tri-partite modern idiom – reads more like a Post-Modern pastiche element imposed on the façade than as the noble unifying element it has always been; and

WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to remove the four historic torcheres (two on each façade) and “preserve” them by storing them in the Historical Society’s basement; and

WHEREAS, the applicant did not present to the Committee any material samples or similar means for the Committee to evaluate important details about, most notably (1) the proposed windows (glass and framing elements), (2) the high-tech “kiosks” and (3) the bronze and glass ramp walls and railings; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is sympathetic to the Historical Society’s desires to reorganize and maximize the utility of its internal exhibition and other space, to meet standards for emergency egress and handicapped accessibility and to appear more “transparent” and “inviting” to the public; and

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that changes to the Historical Society’s façades made to meet such desires should be minimally invasive to the historic fabric and grand classical design of the building; that they should be made to the full extent possible in the same classical idiom as the existing building, including the use of masonry where possible; and should involve the removal of a minimum of historic fabric; and

WHEREAS, although the Committee is generally receptive to the removal of the 1930’s glass block windows in the central bay of the Central Park West façade and the lowering and enlargement of the first floor windows on the 77^th Street façade, it is not able to judge the appropriateness of the proposed replacement windows because it has not had the opportunity to see samples of either the glass elements or the metal framing elements of either set of windows; and

WHEREAS, the Committee appreciates that the proposed informational “kiosks” are free-standing, and would not directly impinge on the building fabric, but has reservations about their size, placement and operation as affecting the visual experience of regarding the building itself, and is not able to judge the appropriateness of the kiosks because it has not had the opportunity to view samples or images of similar kiosks; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is concerned about the additional encroachment of over one foot eastward onto the narrow Central Park West sidewalk by a substantially widened set of entrance stairs, and is also concerned about the extreme north-south length of the proposed ramp, and is not convinced that a less intrusive and more compact design might not be designed for those features; and

WHEREAS, the Committee is concerned that replacing the interior handicapped lift at the 77^th Street entrance with an external lift of several more feet in height is likely to be problematic functionally; and

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that the present ramp and stairs at 77^th Street, enclosed in a masonry wall, while of quite recent construction, are nevertheless appropriate to the historic building, and questions the utility of removing this functional and appropriate entrance for the sake of gaining very limited same-grade interior space at the 77^th Street rotunda area; and

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that several elements of the proposed design are inappropriate to this important classical landmark: most notably (1) the removal of the great bronze doors in the entrance on Central Park West, as well as the bronze grill that is above the doors and within the door frame; (2) the tri-partite glass and metal rectilinear doors in contemporary idiom at Central Park West, with the flanking doors being of the same size as the central door, and of far greater size and prominence than the window openings that they replace; (3) the use of bronze and glass, rather than masonry, for the walls and railings of the new ramps on each of the affected facades; and (4) the removal of the four historic torcheres; and

WHEREAS, although the Committee appreciates that the Historical Society met with it on several occasions prior to the Committee’s formal meeting to consider this application, presented elements of its proposal and heard comments from Committee members, the Committee nevertheless regrets that in response to such meetings the Historical Society neither produced sample materials nor, most importantly, a proposed design that the Committee considers appropriate to this major classical landmark; and

WHEREAS, the Committee believes that the exterior changes to its classical façade proposed by the Historical Society are unnecessary overkill with respect to the functional aims that drive this proposal, apparently motivated at least in part by the inappropriate decision to seek to “modernize” the façade rather than to make minimally intrusive changes, and to respect above all the very features for which it was designated a landmark,

The Parks and Preservation Committee of Community Board 7, Manhattan, disapproves the proposal by the New-York Historical Society for changes to its Central Park West and 77^th Street facades, urges the Landmarks Preservation Commission similarly to disapprove the application, and further urges the LPC (should it not disapprove this application) to withhold action on this application so that it may consider these changes together with the additional very substantial changes anticipated with Phase 2 as part of a unified scheme with very major streetscape impact.

* Subject to Full Board vote on March 6, 2007

CB7 Votes "No" on New-York Historical Society

COMMUNITY BOARD 7's PARKS & PRESERVATION COMMITTEE SAYS "NO" TO HISTORICAL SOCIETY PROJECT!

By an almost unanimous vote last night, Community Board 7's Parks & Preservation Committee rejected the New-York Historical Society's application to change the facade of their Triple-Crown* Landmark on Central Park West between 76th and 77th Streets.

Seeing straight through the N-YHS's claims that the "Phase 1" facade alterations and the "Phase 2" tower were two separate and distinct projects, the Committee Members expressed their disapproval in no uncertain terms. Phase 1 they called "a decimation", "troubling", and "overkill" (a Columbia art history professor raised similar concerns in his testimony and in two
letters to N-YHS - click here). Regarding the project as a whole, one member declared that "it would be a naive act of faith" for the Committee to approve it based on the information so far made public by the N-YHS. In the end, the Committee resolved to send a strong message to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (which will hold a hearing on this application in the near future - no date set): "NO" to the facade alterations, and "NO" to taking any action on this project until the N-YHS is prepared to disclose the full scheme, both Phase 1 AND Phase 2.

Big thanks to those of you who made the effort to attend recent meetings, send emails, and SPEAK OUT to defend your neighborhood. It isn't over yet, not by a long shot. Please make sure your name is included in support of "Save Our Skyline" (click here here to see the growing list). And mark your calendars for the evening of Tuesday, March 6 (exact time and location TBA), when the full Community Board 7 will meet to vote on the Parks & Preservation Committee's resolution.

*The "Triple-Crown" Landmark is so dubbed because of its three layers of Landmark and Historic District protection.

Historical Society: Just Say No

THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY'S TROJAN HORSE: JUST SAY "NO!"

In our last email, we reported on the New-York Historical Society's weak attempt to hide the 280-foot elephant in the room at a so-called "Town Hall" meeting held on January 31. Despite an earlier email dispatch from the Historical Society claiming "that proceeds from the residential portion of our construction program would be used to help fund the Society's internal growth plans," they adamantly refused to discuss their plans for a luxury apartment building looming up over its Landmark building on Central Park West between 76th and 77th Streets.

On Thursday, February 8, at 7:00 PM (Fourth Universalist Society, Central Park West & 76th Street), the Historical Society will ask Community Board 7's Parks & Preservation Committee to consider (and possibly vote on) proposed facade alterations only. Your presence on Feb. 8 is ABSOLUTELY VITAL! The 400+ crowd at last week's meeting sent the clear message that the public is not fooled by the Historical Society's Trojan Horse. Approval of the facade changes would immediately set the stage for the luxury high-rise. Join your fellow New Yorkers in just saying "No!"

Email campaign: Do like Bill Moyers, and tell it like it is. Between now and Thursday, please email a version of the message below to the following key decisionmakers. They need to hear from YOU! (Please make sure to cc. landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org. Thanks!)

Hon. Shelly Fine, Chair, Manhattan Community Board 7, mail@cb7.org

Hon. Robert Tierney, Chair, NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, comments@lpc.nyc.gov

Hon. Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President, bp@manhattanbp.org

Hon. Thomas K. Duane, NYS Senator, duane@senate.state.ny.us

Hon. Linda B. Rosenthal, NYS Assembly Member, RosentL@assembly.state.ny.us

Hon. Gale A. Brewer, NYC Council Member, gale.brewer@council.nyc.gov


Sample Letter:


Dear :

I am writing to register my strong opposition to the New-York Historical Society’s plans to alter permanently the unique skyline of Central Park West between West 76th and 77th Streets, the crossroads of some of our city’s most beautiful and historic treasures.

The Society wants to alter the façade of its Landmark building and then to erect a luxury tower that would loom over the building, the American Museum of Natural History, Central Park and Central Park West at one of its most strategic and picturesque intersections. Sadly, the Society’s
representatives have not been forthcoming with the community. To the contrary, they are attempting to keep the public in the dark about the tower until it is too late to challenge the specific plans. This is most unfortunate for a non-profit, taxpayer-supported public institution. Their project affects not only the people in the immediate vicinity who will be negatively impacted by the despoiling of the environment, but all of us in the City.

At a recent meeting of neighbors to discuss this issue with Society representatives—over 400 people attended—it became apparent that the Society’s strategy is to “divide and conquer”. The $15 million façade alteration project is a Trojan Horse that would immediately set the stage for the luxury high-rise. The Society’s claims that these projects are “separate” is disingenuous; one leads directly to the other—that was obvious at the meeting.

As a New Yorker [and a resident of the neighborhood the Society wants to change], I am appalled as well as saddened by this offense against the public. The only “Triple Crown” Landmark in our city (protected as an Individual Landmark and as part of the Central Park West – West 76th Street Historic District and the Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District), the New-York Historical Society is the anchor of a unique architectural, historical and cultural ensemble. Immediately surrounding this site are the American Museum of Natural History (an Individual Landmark), Central Park (a Scenic Landmark) and the many contributing buildings in the historic districts. Any changes must be considered carefully and with full transparency.

But this is not our only concern. To consider New York’s landmarks and historic districts as “development opportunities” is a travesty against our obligation to preserve the best of the City for generations to come. Approval of a tower to loom over the Historical Society would send a clear green-light signal to private and institutional developers eager to exploit other historic properties throughout the city.

I am adding my voice to the resounding “NO” that the New-York Historical Society and the policy-makers of our city cannot ignore.

Sincerely,

Manhattan: Historical Society Revises Blueprints

By GLENN COLLINS
Published: February 2, 2007

The New-York Historical Society unveiled a redesign of its proposed new facade, left, before a turbulent meeting of 450 community residents on Wednesday night. The meeting took place in the church of the Fourth Universalist Society at Central Park West and 76th Street, across the street from the historical society’s headquarters. The plan calls for a granite portico at the main entrance and a less prominent exposure of glass than the previous design, which the public policy committee of the New York Landmarks Conservancy rejected in December. After Louise Mirrer, the historical society’s president, declined to discuss a possible 23-story luxury residential tower atop its building until the society selected a real estate developer, there were catcalls and some residents walked out. The journalist Bill Moyers, who lives a block away, won a standing ovation when he commented that a tower would “permanently disturb a skyscape that is unique.”

The Latest UWS Landmark

At its January 30 public meeting, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted to designate the former Horn and Hardart Automat (Broadway and 104th Street) as the Upper West Side's newest landmark. On LANDMARK WEST's wishlist since 1985, the Art Deco building is ornamented with polychrome terra cotta and gold lustered glaze. Although a more recent storefront covers original first floor details, the building's landmark designation presents the possibility that the entrance's ornamental stonework and bronze columns may again see the light of day.

LANDMARK WEST! would like to thank everybody who wrote or spoke in support of designating the Automat. This new landmark may soon joined by the Manhattan Avenue Historic District (between 104th and 106th) which may be calendared by LPC in February. Stay tuned for details.

P.S.-For those who missed Mark Foley's stellar rendition of "Automat-ic Pie" at the December public hearing, tune into our website http://www.landmarkwest.org/advocacy/automat.html for a studio recording.

New-York Historical Society Update: Last Night's Meeting and the 280-Foot Elephant in the Room

The New-York Historical Society (N-YHS) walked into the sanctuary of the Fourth Universalist Society, packed with 400+ development-savvy New Yorkers, and tried to ignore the 280-foot elephant in the room. But there it was, plain as day, despite N-YHS's best efforts to distract the audience with a presentation that focused almost exclusively on proposed alterations to the facade of the Landmark. But the diversionary tactic simply did not work.

Because the building is a "Triple Crown" Landmark (that is, it is protected as an Individual NYC Landmark and as part of two historic districts), any and all changes must be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The extensive facade work requires careful consideration. But the question of the night was, where's the tower? You know, the one that, according to the New York Times, the institution is planning for

Good journalist that he is, Bill Moyers watched and listened until the very end of the evening, when he approached the mic saying that the N-YHS presentation reminded him of the Texas card sharp who says, "Play the cards fair. I know what I dealt you." Moyers replied, "I wasn't born yesterday". He then posed the question: if the public supports the facade changes, will N-YHS abort the tower project? N-YHS's response: No. His message--that no rational discussion of renovation issues is possible while an unacceptable tower looms--was met with a standing ovation from the crowd.

The public debate continues next week at Community Board 7's meeting on Thursday, February 8, starting at 7:00 PM at the Fourth Universalist Society (Central Park West & 76th Street). Last night's vocal crowd made sure N-YHS got the message loud and clear. KEEP UP THE FIGHT TO SAVE OUR SKYLINE! Please make all efforts to attend. In the meantime, make sure you've added your name to "Save Our Skyline (SOS)" by emailing us at landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org. SOS is a coalition of individuals and organizations speaking with a unified voice against the exploitation of New York's Landmarks as "development opportunities." For more information, go to http://www.landmarkwest.org/.

West 76th Street

, where it would loom up behind and cantilever over the N-YHS Landmark? N-YHS's response: It's a separate project, and we don't want to talk about it. The audience, however, demanded transparency. How can we evaluate part of what you want to do when you hide the biggest part of what you intend to do?

Save Our Skyline (SOS)

SAVE OUR SKYLINE…or Kiss It Goodbye



If the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s recent rejection of a 30-story glass tower at 980 Madison Avenue made you think the war was over, think again. The Commission’s decision was the right one, but we can’t let down our guard just yet. The New-York Historical Society’s latest proposal to put a new face (and a luxury tower to boot) on its venerable Landmark, on Central Park West, is yet another sign that the fight must go on.

Take a stand against the exploitation of our city’s Landmarks and Historic Districts as “development opportunities”. Here are two ways to help:

--> Lend your name in support of “Save Our Skyline (SOS)”: Individuals, organizations, boards, etc.—all are welcome! Please contact LANDMARK WEST!: landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org, 212-496-8110. The growing list of supporters includes NYS Senator Thomas K. Duane, NYS Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, the Historic Districts Council, representatives of historic blocks all along Central Park West, and advocates in neighborhoods throughout the city. For more information on SOS, click here. (Additional materials, plus the support list, will be available shortly at http://www.landmarkwest.org/.

--> Mark your calendars and pack the room on Wednesday, January 31, 7:00 PM

Louise Mirrer, President of the New-York Historical Society, will give a presentation on “future plans for the institution.” The location is the Fourth Universalist Society, 160 Central Park West at 76 Street.

As reported in the New York Times in November 2006, the New-York Historical Society plans to 1) redesign the Central Park West façade of its Landmark building between West 76th and 77th Streets; 2) build a 280-foot glass apartment tower cantilevered over the Landmark; 3) construct an auditorium annex on the West 76th Street residential block; and 4) add a large penthouse directly on top of the Landmark. The New-York Historical Society is one of our city’s few “thrice-landmarked” buildings—it is an Individual Landmark, part of the West 76th Street Historic District and the Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District. Eventually (sooner rather than later), the project will have to be presented to the Landmarks Commission for review.

Please make every effort to attend on the 31st! Speak up! Ask questions! Will Louise Mirrer present specific, comprehensive architectural plans for the Society’s Landmark site? Or will she merely offer bland platitudes about “creating opportunities for growth” and “seeking dialogue with the community”—while the transformation of one of New York’s most important Landmarks gets shaped behind closed doors? We know that a Request for Proposals was issued in fall 2006 to developers for the Tower portion, with responses due back on December 15. These are preliminary steps towards a full-blown construction project. The barn door is open, and the horse is getting ready to run…

The Historical Society is just one of many developers/institutions keen to test the limits of the Landmarks Preservation Commission's regulatory policy. If this domino falls, the rest are sure to follow.

Sign on to SOS today!

landmarkwest@landmarkwest.org, 212-496-8110

Preserving Manhattan Valley

IMPORTANT COMMUNITY MEETING ON THE FUTURE OF MANHATTAN VALLEY

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, January 24, at 7:00 PM, when Community Board 7 will hold a community meeting on the potential designation of a Manhattan Valley Historic District (in the vicinity of 104th to 106th Street along Manhattan Avenue). The meeting will take place at the Jewish Home & Hospital, 120 West 106th Street (between Amsterdam and Columbus Avenues).

Very few buildings above West 96th Street have been protected through landmark designation - yet. For over two decades, LANDMARK WEST! has advocated for a historic district that would include the lovely Queen-Anne-style rowhouses lining Manhattan Avenue between 104th and 106th Streets (see Christopher Gray's New York Times "Streetscapes" column, praising the blocks' quiet, picturesque qualities, below). CB 7's meeting is an important opportunity to make sure that the Landmarks Preservation Commission recognizes the level of public support for protecting this special part of the Upper West Side. Your presence and input on the 24th is absolutely essential! Bring your family, your neighbors, your friends. Be vocal, or simply let your presence speak for itself. It's YOUR community at stake. Will it be preserved for future generations to experience and enjoy, or will it be targeted as yet another development opportunity? YOU can help decide.

_____

New York Times
November 28, 1999

Streetscapes/Manhattan Avenue Between 104th and 106th Streets; 1880's Brick Row Houses With a Bostonian Air

By CHRISTOPHER GRAY

THE picturesque pocket of Victorian row houses on Manhattan Avenue from 104th to 106th Streets, which date from the time the thoroughfare got its name, has a calm Bostonian air that makes it seem a bit removed from city life.

Manhattan Avenue was not on the original street plan for New York City, but by 1868 it was mapped -- as New Avenue -- running north from 100th Street between what are now Central Park West and Columbus Avenue. This was well before any real development in the area, but in the mid-1880's sales activity picked up, and the thoroughfare received its current name in 1884. High land prices discouraged row house building on Central Park West, although in 1884 the New York Cancer Hospital -- now abandoned -- started its giant rounded building on Central Park West from 105th to 106th Streets.

The first building activity on Manhattan Avenue occurred in 1885, when Frederick Seitz put up the row houses on the west side of the street from 105th to 106th, designed by Joseph M. Dunn. The next year the developer John Brown built up the east side of the same block with houses designed by C. P. H. Gilbert, and in 1889 Joseph Turner had the architect Edward Angell design the houses on the west side of Manhattan Avenue from 104th to 105th.

Although other developers were still putting up traditional high-stoop brownstones elsewhere in Manhattan, all these buildings were brick, with stone and terra cotta trim and lower stoops; they were only three stories tall, costing between $8,000 and $12,000 to build. The houses designed by Gilbert, who later did Fifth Avenue mansions like what is now the original wing of the Jewish Museum at 92nd Street, are close to the Queen Anne style, with sunburst motifs in the gables, wavy linear ornament on the cornice, and multilight windows with stained glass.

Those by Dunn are a little wilder, with widely varying arches and gables. The critic Montgomery Schuyler coined the phrase ''reign of terror'' style to describe them because of their startling and alarming appearance. The Angell houses are neo-Romanesque and more sophisticated, although still quite varied. All have unusual ornament -- terra cotta panels with
rivet-head figuring, sunburst ironwork and subtly varying brickwork.

The early occupants were modestly successful, like George B. Sharp, a stable owner, at 122 Manhattan Avenue; Albert H. Kohn, a jeweler, at 132; and Paris Fletcher, an electrician, at 138.

Sometime in the 1910's the family of Charles Gruppe moved into 138 Manhattan Avenue; a landscape painter, Gruppe lived there with his wife and three sons, Paul, a cellist, Karl, a sculptor, and Emile, a painter. At the same time more and more houses were renting out rooms -- George C. Hammer, a sea captain, was a roomer at 119 Manhattan Avenue.

By then, the houses on Manhattan Avenue were holdouts in a sea of tenements and apartment buildings, their status reinforced when the giant Frederick Douglass housing project went up at the southwest corner of 104th Street and Manhattan Avenue in the 1950's.

Daniel and Elsie Matos are among the senior residents of the row-house stretch of Manhattan Avenue -- they moved into the top floor of 122 Manhattan Avenue in 1959. ''We were living on East 117th Street and came over here for something different,'' Mrs. Matos said. Mr. Matos, a retired cabdriver, said that ''when we moved in this was a drug dealer's neighborhood.''

His building has spongy linoleum-covered stairs, ancient paint and battered front doors, but it also has its original encaustic tile vestibule floor and original woodwork. He said that his monthly rent was between $200 and $300 and he estimated that the rent for each full-floor apartment in the building was about the same. ''It's great -- you go to bed at night and you don't hear a fly in here,'' he said.

Ella S. McDonald bought the building at 138 Manhattan Avenue in 1972. She said that Karl Gruppe would not sell unless she and her husband promised not to convert the building into a rooming house. ''I said, 'What's a rooming house?' and he let us buy it,'' she recalled. ''The block was unbelievably bad. My family thought I had lost my mind -- a couple of houses were boarded up, street people all over the place, bongos 24 hours a day. But five or six of us families got together, and we decided we were not going to let the drug people push us out.''

ELIZABETH KELLNER said that she and her husband, David, both lawyers, bought their house, at 132 Manhattan Avenue, in 1976 for $25,000. She said they stripped all the woodwork and installed period fixtures. The fireplaces on the lower floors are heavily worked oak pieces, with figured tiles in earth tones, but the top-floor fireplaces are plain slate, with geometric incised lines, spare and abstract.

Their living room -- perhaps 12 by 16 feet -- is small and cozy, but big enough for a baby grand, a small sofa and a large television. Like the other three-story Manhattan Avenue houses, theirs is much more livable than the standard dark Manhattan row house, usually built very deep and four or five stories high.

In December 1986 Mr. Kellner used an old statute, the Bawdy House Law, to evict squatting drug dealers who had taken over the building at 124 Manhattan Avenue. Since then, neighbors agree, the neighborhood has continued to improve. Mrs. Kellner said that although the available shopping is not what she would prefer, ''I really like the fact that the neighborhood is racially, ethnically and economically integrated.'' They have taken down the board fences separating their backyard from their neighbors'.

All this has taken place in the shadow of the old New York Cancer Hospital, later a nursing home, designated a landmark in 1976 and vacant since. There have been various plans for redevelopment, but the building remains a majestic wreck. Some call it a blight, but it is also a peaceful interlude in the area, a sort of architectural preserve.

Mrs. McDonald said she likes it on Manhattan Avenue. ''It's a neighborhood,'' she said. ''When my brother came by to come in with a key, people asked him who he was -- my brother was very impressed. Why would I move from here?''

Neighbors Question the Historical Society's Plans to Expand

The New York Times
December 30, 2006

By GLENN COLLINS

Peter M. Wright was pacing from eighth-floor window to window, pointing to the spot where a proposed 23-story luxury tower of the New-York Historical Society could block a swath of his Central Park West sky. Then he indicated the place where a new annex building would eclipse his view of a row of charming limestone town houses.

''I'm concerned -- and everyone in this building is concerned -- about restricted views,'' said Mr. Wright, 64, a tenant of 6 West 77th Street, the residence most likely to be affected.

''But this can't be all about 'not in my backyard,' '' Mr. Wright said. ''It has to be about a project that is a monument to miscalculation.''

That project is the planned $20 million renovation of the society, to be followed not only by the construction of a fifth floor atop its roof but also a more costly glass apartment tower behind the society's museum and library at 170 Central Park West, between 76th and 77th Streets.

This month, the society received bids for the plan from eight developers. The society has approached the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which must approve changes to the building's neo-Classical exterior.

The society sees the proposal not as a miscalculation but rather as a necessity. ''We hope the community sees our institution as a major amenity and asset, but we do have a need to grow,'' said Louise Mirrer, the society's president. The expansion, she said, would provide space for reorganized galleries and collections and help the institution meet a growing public role and contribute to its solvency. ''We hope to do a responsible development.''

But since it was announced last month, the proposal has been met with a wide coalition of opponents, as well as concern from city officials not only about the plan's aesthetics but also about the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in previous improvements that could be demolished.

For decades, community opposition has hindered expansion plans. Now, neighbors and preservationists, bloodied from recent battles against developers, are rallying again. ''The winds of war are stirring, and this is the calm before the storm,'' said Joseph Bolanos, president of the West 76th Street Park Block Association, who claims to have 100 members living between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue.

In the first institutional opposition, the 13-member public policy committee of the New York Landmarks Conservancy earlier this month rejected the society's initial plan to renovate the 1908 building, said Peg Breen, the independent group's president.

Referring to renderings that depicted a larger entrance on Central Park West and some larger windows, Ms. Breen said that enlarging the entrance and the windows ''would amount to a wholesale removal of much original building material,'' adding, ''They are a history museum, and the building is part of their history.''

While the conservancy cannot veto construction, its recommendations have sometimes carried weight with the Landmarks Commission and government and private groups that provide financing.

Dr. Mirrer said she was concerned that the current entrance did not conform to fire-exit requirements and that it was ''important to modify the building in ways that signify we are open and welcoming.'' The society's architects are changing the design to respond to the conservancy's feedback.

Some preservationists like Ms. Breen see the tower as a symbol of other struggling West Side nonprofit organizations. ''Developers are going door to door to churches to see if they can buy them,'' she said.

Mr. Bolanos of the block association said the tower ''would ruin the neighborhood,'' and added: ''Our membership is concerned about the changing character of the West Side. People feel they are being steamrollered.''

He referred to struggles like those over the nearby Dakota Stable on Amsterdam Avenue at 77th Street, the Museum of Arts and Design at 2 Columbus Circle and the Congregation Shearith Israel at 70th Street near Central Park West.

Kate Wood, the executive director of Landmark West, a 21-year-old Upper West Side group, said: ''We've been getting a lot of e-mails and calls saying what can we do? People are on high alert.''

At 6-16 West 77th Street, ''people are concerned, but not hysterical,'' said Ernie von Simson, the president of the co-op's seven-member board. ''There is so much we don't know. We met with Dr. Mirrer, and we want to meet again.''

Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer, who represents the neighborhood, already opposes one aspect of the society's plan. ''For historic reasons, a glass tower is wrong,'' she said, adding: ''This is going to be a long process. I don't know if they can get it done.''

Dr. Mirrer said, ''The glass tower idea was a place holder,'' adding, ''It's not determined what the tower will look like because the developers will choose the architect with us.''

Nevertheless, Mr. Bolanos said, ''our game plan is to protest everything that happens.'' He added: ''We're ready to go full blast. Our people are very angry.''

The society's plans may face restrictions imposed by the city and the state, which have contributed more than $25 million for improvements inside the building since the early 1990s, when the neglected, and nearly bankrupt, society closed its doors for two years.

In its initial presentations, the society said it was considering moving its auditorium to the five-story annex and using the space for an orientation center. It planned to reconfigure gallery floors and ceilings, to replace the current elevator with two new ones and adorn a gallery ceiling with art by Keith Haring.

''A substantial amount of money was spent in the auditorium and in a renovation of the elevator and in the first-floor galleries for new ceilings and other improvements,'' said Ed Norris, the society's chief operating officer from 1994 to 2002. ''And new floors were put in.''

The acceptance of city money required the society to sign agreements to protect the construction for the life of the bonds that paid for the improvements, said Kate D. Levin, the city's cultural affairs commissioner. ''If it is not a necessary change, and it vitiates a taxpayer investment, we're not going to do it,'' the commissioner said, adding that the society had submitted only preliminary plans. ''We are sure they will be cooperative in protecting city assets.''

Dr. Mirrer said, ''We will be absolutely scrupulous in following the agreements,'' adding, ''We would not do anything illegal.''

Experts disagree about possible financial return from a tower. Daniel F. Sciannameo, the president of Albert Valuation Group New York, an appraiser and real estate consultant, estimated that the society could get ''$10 million to $20 million,'' including the construction of its annex for free.

Development rights could go as high as $600 or $700 a square foot, he said, because ''how many times do you get a chance to build on Central Park West?''

But Robert I. Shapiro, the president of City Center Real Estate, a consulting company specializing in development rights, said, ''A lot of developers would approach it with a great deal of caution,'' adding that the society ''would be lucky if it were a wash,'' where the developer did not profit enough to give a bonus to the society.

The possibility of high construction cost was a negative, he said, as well as delays resulting from the landmark and community-consultation process.

Dr. Mirrer said, ''We have no dollar threshold or expectation, but any money that we raise in any way would be very welcome.''

The neighborhood is not uniformly opposed. ''At present, the street is less safe than it might be,'' said David Berkowitz, the owner of a West 76th Street town house next to the society's empty lot at 7-13 West 76th Street, ''and that's one reason why I might be supportive of a luxury residential building developed on that site.''

But other residents, like Mr. Bolanos, are raising objections to construction. He points to evidence of a 20-foot-deep stream that he says would threaten the basement of the annex, with its three floors of underground library storage. Dr. Mirrer responded that test borings had been taken ''and construction seems to be feasible.''

Still others are challenging the society's viability. Mr. Wright, the co-op tenant, who is co-chairman of the Park West 77th Street Block Association, said the society ''is extremely fragile financially, and there is no way they are going to realize from the tower scheme the money they will need to ensure their future. Why go through all the agita if the institution is going down?''
He mentioned the society's budget of $17 million against $4 million in revenues from admissions and other sources; Dr. Mirrer had to raise $13 million this year. Even a developer windfall ''would not solve the society's financial problems for long,'' Mr. Wright said.

Dr. Mirrer countered that the society had balanced its budget for the last 10 years. ''Our future is very rosy, and our very strong board has the financial wherewithal and an intellectual commitment to history,'' she said.