Not in session. (MAS)

Update 10/31:The City Planning Commission announced last night that today's meeting has been cancelled.

The mayor may be sending city employees to work today, as he did yesterday. “We are here to serve the public," the mayor said. Those workers will be helping with recovery efforts in any way they can—planners planning escape routes, perhaps, or preservationists thinking of ways to protect buildings—but there will be no business as usual.

As a result, there is no plan to hold the near-weekly Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting today, as though anyone could get to the Municipal Building in flooded Lower Manhattan with all the bridges closed and subways flooded. Still, if you are a die-hard NIMBY and were thinking about going, don't bother. The City Planning Commission canceled its Monday meeting but hopes to combine it with its regularly scheduled Wednesday meeting tomorrow."Due to Hurricane Sandy, the City Planning Commission Review Session has been rescheduled for Wednesday morning,  October 31, at 10 a.m., in conjunction with the Public Meeting," a message on the City Planning site reads. "We apologize for any inconvenience." But a spokeswoman for the department said in an email that that meeting could also be canceled depending on the situation tomorrow. "It was our intention to hold meeting at 22 Reade Street, but we'll keep you posted as we know more," the email said.

The Landmarks meeting has yet to be rescheduled.

The old Gage & Tollner (NYT)

Landmarking might preserve a piece of history, but unfortunately it cannot stop time. And at Gage & Tollner, one of the few places in the city that is landmarked both inside and out, The Wall Street Journal has discovered a good example of a place that has kept its shell but lost its soul.

The esteemed old Southern restaurant, after having died, been revived and then remade into an Italian restaurant, a TGI Fridays and an Arby's is now a costume jewelry shop with bare bulbs and sparkling cheap things hung on pink panels that cover the spot's famed cherrywood and mirrors.The limitations of landmarking, while no great surprise, are an interesting subject given the very recent landmarking of the Rainbow Room. You can save the physical structure of a place but as the city changes around it, but you can't preserve the thing that made the physical structure worth saving in the first place.

In the case of Gage & Tollner, a place where the gaslights once flickered to life at six o'clock every night, and, as The Journal writes, the "oysters came Baltimore broiled, Chicago broiled, milk broiled, cream broiled, celery-cream broiled and broiled on toast," the neighborhood changed around it. Cars could no longer roll up to the door after a pedestrian plaza was added and a downturn in fortunes for the neighborhood meant the well-heeled no longer wanted to walk through it. The fashionable crowd moved on and the restaurant could no longer make the rent.

The building's recent makeover has gotten the jewelry store proprietor is in trouble with the Landmarks Preservation Commission—he making changes without permission and has not explained those changes satisfactorily to the Commission, but it's unclear if any of those changes actually violate the rules. And furthermore, there are no rules that can protect a building from an ugly renovation, so long as that renovation doesn't damage the underlying physical features.

"No restaurant guy was interested in a high rent," the store's clerk told The Journal. "So the owner got a jewelry guy to take over. You got the rent money, you do what you want."

kvelsey@observer.com

Let's celebrate. (GEI NY)

Despite concerns the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission might not grant the Rainbow Room landmarks status, having denied a request to do so only a few years ago, the commission did exactly that this morning, voting unanimously to add the historic eatery to the city's list of interior landmarks, making it the 115th. Now Tishman Speyer and the as-yet unnamed restaurateur it has selected to reopen the restaurant atop Rockefeller Center can get on with the task—though any changes to the space would not have to pass muster with the commission.

“The Rainbow Room came to epitomize New York City glamor,” commission chairman Robert Tierney said in a statement. “It retains not only many of its original characteristics, but also several generations’ worth of memories. I’d also like to thank the owners for their support of this important designation, and for their many years of fine stewardship of Rockefeller Center.”

The 72-foot high room, with its moody lighting and famous dancefloor at the center, was designed by Wallace Harrison, one of the architects of Rockefeller Center, with the help of decorator Elena Bachman and set designer Vincent Minelli, who worked for years at Radio City Music Hall, as well.

A rare example of an Art Deco style known as Streamlined Modern, the space was recast in the 1980s by Hugh Hardy, a sensitive restoration that modernized the space in places. Previously the alterations had been used to justify denying landmarks designation, but it has since been celebrated by the commission as a thoughtful intervention.

Previously, the Ciprianis had led the landmarking campaign in the midst of a fight with Tishman Speyer over their leave of the space. There was some fear the entire room space might be given over to offices, but that only happened on the bottom floor, which had housed back of the house space, one of the reasons a redesign of the remaining rooms are in order. It is not uncommon for a landlord to submit to landmarking in advance of such a renovation, as NYU did with its Silver Tower Complex.

Correction:An earlier version of this post originally misspelled Vincent Minelli's name as Manelli. The Observer regrets the error.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soho rowhouse sheltered a number of prominent gay rights activists, among them Bruce Voeller (who was a leader in the fight against AIDS), Arnie Kantrowitz and Jim Owles, who was the president of the Gay Activists Alliance at the time he lived there, an influential organization that emerged in the aftermath of the Stonewall Riots. Until the spring, it belonged to another notable New Yorker, Beastie Boy Adam Horovitz.

But on a rainy morning last week, the building was surrounded by neither city officials nor map-clutching tourists, but by a demolition crew tasked with tearing it down to make way for a seven-story luxury condo.

The crew started its work a few weeks after the Landmarks Commission denied preservationists' most recent plea to landmark and thereby save the building, its eligibility for the National and State historic registers notwithstanding. A banner fastened to the fresh plywood of the construction site announced the new loft-style residences from Canadian developer Nordica Soho, to be wedged into a double lot on the corners of Spring and Thompson streets, a part of the city that is defined as much today by the vast quantities of cash flowing into its real estate as it is by its historic architecture and cobblestones.

"What they did was homophobic, and as Jim Owles was my partner for many years, not only do I consider it an act against the movement, but I take it personally," Allen Roskoff, the president of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, told The Observer.

While Mr. Roskoff admitted that it never would have occurred to him to seek landmark designation for the building—"I'm not a preservation person"—he argued the commission should look for opportunities to landmark the community's history. "I think if you had a landmarks commission that is sympathetic to the gay community, they would have supported it," said Mr. Roskoff.

For gay rights activists and preservationists who view 186 Spring Street's historic significance as indisputable, the city's failure to designate it, or any other building, a landmark based solely on its place in the LGBT rights struggle is at best an oversight and at worst a slight. The landmarks commission counters that it already has preserved many important gay rights landmarks, albeit as part of a larger historic districts.

Elisabeth de Bourbon, the commission’s spokeswoman, pointed to the Stonewall Inn, which is located within the boundaries of the Greenwich Village Historic District as a good example of gay rights history being preserved through other means. In fact, the district predates Stonewall. "With Stonewall, we decided that it was already protected," said Ms. de Bourbon. "The primary goal of designation is to protect the bricks and mortar that embody the cultural significance. For us designation is not an honorific, it's a regulatory mechanism that allows the city to protect its historic resources."

Nor has the commission ever approved any applications to landmark individual buildings within existing historic districts.

In rejecting 186 Spring, the commission asserts  that the real monument to the Gay Activist Alliance has already been preserved and that 186 Spring Street's role in the movement was peripheral rather than central. In its letter outlining its reasons for rejecting the house's application for landmark status, the commission notes that its research indicated that Jim Owles and Arnie Kantrowitz lived in the house for only about a year in the early 1970s, when the Gay Activist Alliance was headquarted in The Firehouse at 99 Wooster Street (which is located within the Soho Cast Iron Historic District, and thus protected).

And although Bruce Voeller lived in the home for a decade, the commission contests that his role in the movement's history is not influential enough to warrant landmarking his onetime house: "a review of histories suggests that Dr. Voeller was a later and more of a 'transitional figure'... between the radical post-Stonewall period and a more mainstream professional activism."

Not that such explanations pass muster with all leaders of the gay community, particularly in light of the fact that the city has yet to landmark a building because of its role in gay and lesbian history. The commission also rejected an application to landmark the Pyramid Club at 101 Avenue A, which played a central role in 1980s drag culture, although the building will be included in the soon-to-be created East Village Historic District, giving it a protected status.

Is this a matter of the city practicing ignorance or preservationists and activists ignoring all that has already been saved?

"I think the recognition is important," said Andrew Berman, the executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. "I think it’s important for the commission to say this is an important part of our city’s history, this is an important part of our city’s culture."

The LGBT community has not, however, taken up the cause as vigorously as the preservationists.

Andy Humm, a journalist, activist and the co-host of Gay USA said that while the demolition of 186 Spring Street is a shame, the gay community has been focused on bigger, more important battles than protecting historic sites.

"You can give us some of the blame in the community I suppose,” he said. “Have we been focused on this? I don’t think we have. But look, we’re a movement that has been more about the future... and frankly, we have this huge homeless LGBT community that doesn’t even have basic housing."

kvelsey@observer.com

--a portion of Allen Roskoff's quote has been altered for clarity. "I consider it an act against me personally" has been changed to "I take it personally."

Dancing into history. (bilde/Angelfire)

One of the big questions surrounding the landmarking of the Rainbow Room was whether or not it would win the support of Tishman Speyer, the august real estate firm that owns Rockefeller Center, home to the famed dance hall and eatery. But the space is lucky as a leprechaun, as the Rainbow Room's landlord came out in support of landmarking yesterday, according to Crain's.

"We have a deep respect for the history of this space and its importance within Rockefeller Center and within the fabric of New York City," Keith Douglas, managing director for Rockefeller Center at Tishman Speyer told the Landmarks Preservation Commission yesterday. "Protecting, maintaining and enhancing cherished landmark properties are an integral part of our company's mission."

Crain's notes that an operator for the space remains a mystery and it is not clear the commission will support landmarking, though in our view, it seems unlikely they would not. Rarely does a project get to this stage in the process only to be denied.

It is true the commission denied a previous attempt to have the space landmarked in the past, but that was pursued by the Cipriani family, which at the time operated the restaurant. That bid was opposed by Tishman Speyer. This time, the effort is being led by the commission, and with the support of Tishman, it seems almost certain the city will be adding to the hundreds of interior landmarks that make up this great city.

In addition to tabling the Rainbow Room and designating a Queens cemetery as the city's newest landmark, the commission also calendared five historic firehouses, two each from the Bronx and Brooklyn and one from Queens. This follows the designation in June of three old firehouses in the Bronx and Queens [PDF].

The effort is part of a big push by the commission to preserve historic municipal architecture. This has long been important, but the commission is putting added emphasis on it in the coming year. Recently, staff conducted a survey of 16 police precincts in Brooklyn; 23 firehouses in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island; 16 public schools in Queens, Manhattan and Brooklyn; and 15 libraries in Brooklyn. Some number of these will doubtless go before the commission in the coming months, though not necessarily all of them—only those deemed exemplary examples of period architecture or possessing special historic significance.

"One of our priorities, in addition to extending landmark status to more sites and neighborhoods outside of Manhattan, is to protect New York City’s great public architecture," Commission Chair Robert Tierney told The Observer. "These municipal buildings and structures were an expression of civic pride and ambition that in many ways define us as a city then and now."

Since Mr. Tierney took over the commission nine years ago, it has designated more than two dozen municipal landmarks, including the 10 well-known Robert Moses-era WPA pools; a public bath on 54th Street, now a Parks Department rec center; eight firehouses, including the three in June (but not these five new ones); four libraries; four public schools; the Long Island Branch of the New York State Supreme Court in Queens; and Morningside Park.

"They anchored the neighborhoods they originally served and were designed with that role in mind," Mr. Tierney said. "They are the ultimate expressions of civic character. They also reflect the City’s aspirations and sent a signal about the direction in which it was headed, and they set a benchmark for great design for the City’s public projects that continues to this day."

You can see in the accompanying slideshow the five firehouses just proposed as well as the three that were approved in June, all with text from the commission explaining their significance.

Is magenta one of the rainbow colors? (Wikimedia Commons)

Ginger Rogers and Howard Hughes, two years after the Rainbow Room opened. (Getty)

The Rainbow Room, like Tavern on the Green or Chumley's, was one of those New York institutions no one ever visited, until it was gone, at which point the lamentations became unceasing. The fate of the restaurant atop Rockafeller Center remains a mystery, since it was abruptly closed by the Ciprianis three years ago amidst a rent dispute with another of New York's august families, the Speyers, who control Rock Center.

Whoever takes over the famous (and famously garish) catering hall in the sky, one thing that is unlikely to change is the decor. Today, the Landmarks Preservation Commission decided to consider the two-story space on the 65th floor of 30 Rock for designation as an interior landmark, one 114 in the city. (Others include the Four Seasons, the New York Public Library and, just downstairs, Radio City Music Hall.)

"This is an important calendaring—they’re all important, of course, truly," Commissioner Robert Tierney said at meeting of the commission at the Municipal Building. "This is notable and important for obvious reasons and we look very much forward to the hearing on this."

That hearing is scheduled for September 11, and should the Rainbow Room be designated, any alterations to the space would require the commission's approval. This would not forbid changes, but it would make them more difficult, and it almost guarantees that the space will remain one for food and drink.

At one time, Tishman Speyer had considered turning the space into offices (so lucrative was the city's office market), and the Ciprianis actually proposed landmarking the space themselves as a route to try and preserve their rents—it would be harder to use the space for anything else. Ultimately, the city rejected the proposal and they abandoned the restaurant anyway, but Tishman Speyer did turn the kitchen, on the 64th floor, over to Lazard, which already leased the floors below and was looking to expand.

The 65th floor would likely require renovations to accommodate a new kitchen as a result, which may explain the eagerness of the commission to protect the space. A similar action took place at the old Manufacturers of Hanover bank branch at 510 Fifth Avenue, which was landmarked then redeveloped, after some hue and cry, into a Joe Fresh clothing outlet.

Tishman Speyer has yet to say what will happen to the space or where it stands on its landmarking, though there are vague plans to do something with the space. "Tishman Speyer continues its planning process for the Rainbow Room, which is an icon loved by New Yorkers and visitors from around the world," a spokesperson said in an email.

What is interesting about this particular landmarking is that it not only celebrates the original 1934 design by Walter Harrison (also the architect of Rock Center) but also a post-modern renovation to it in 1987, commissioned by David Rockefeller to the tune of $25 million and designed by celebrated New York architect Hugh Hardy.

According to the commission's statement of significance presented at today's meeting, the space remains a rare example of an early modernist interior in the city, in a style identified as Stremlined Modern: "Though much of the 65th floor was completely remodeled, similar to various earlier renovations, the Rainbow Room was treated with considerable care, and Hardy called his work a 'true restoration.' A rare and distinguished example of Streamlined Modern design, it retains many of its original features and characteristics, making the Rainbow Room one New York City’s highest and most elegant nightclub interiors."

Diana Chapin, a commissioner from Queens, called it “a place of iconic memories" following the commission's unanimous vote to calendar the Rainbow Room.

Big government meets big business.

Muni money.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission has been on the defensive of late, fighting off claims from the real estate industry that it hinders development rather than helping it. But in givings its unanimous approval to the transformation of the Brooklyn Municipal Building—in the newly created, much maligned Downtown Brooklyn Skyscraper Historic District—the commission reasserted its role as a steward of both the city's history and economy.

“It proves again and I don’t know how many times we have to do it, that economic development and preservation go hand in hand and here’s a textbook example of it,” Commissioner Chairman Robert Tierney said in an email.

United American Land, a local developer active in the Fulton Market, plans to transform the first, second and below-grade floors of the building into roughly 48,000 square feet of retail space. Albert Laboz, United American Land's principal, confirmed plans for a restaurant within the building and noted that the company is close to signing a lease with Sephora.

While the commission has no control over tenants, Sherida Paulsen, the architect who presented the project at a hearing on behalf of Mr. Laboz, noted to commissioners that the retail space would not be used for banks, pharmacies or fast food.

The space is currently being occupied by the Department of Finance, which will relocate within the building to other city-owned space.

Elizabeth de Bourbon, a spokeswoman for the LPC, said there was no opposition expressed during the hearing and many commissioners expressed tremendous approval for the project. “Several of the commissioners noted it’s a great project,” she said.

Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, whose office in Borough Hall looks out on the Municipal Building, said he looks forward to its transformation into a vibrant retail corridor.

“Downtown Brooklyn is in the middle of an amazing renaissance and this will only enhance our stature as a 24/7, live, work, play and learning city center,” Mr. Markowitz told The Observer in an email. “With the help of developer United American Land, we will soon be able to celebrate 210 Joralemon becoming an economic powerhouse and world-class destination for dining and shopping.”

Mr. Laboz said his company is eager to bring great retail to Brooklyn and is happy to have successfully gained the commission’s approval. The remaining process for the approval of the retail development of the building consists solely of authorization from the Department of Buildings.

“We have had a lot of interest from various retailers and we can now move forward with plans with a stronger sense of certainty,” Mr. Laboz said.

The landmark in question. (Daytonian in Manhattan)

Though the Responsible Landmarks Coalition has yet to take any public action beyond launching its web presence, preservationists are lining up to fight back. The Historic Districts Council just announced a town hall meeting “to defend the Landmark Law” next week. It will be held next Tuesday evening at the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesmen—a landmark on West 44th Street designated in 1988, no less.

This follows on a strongly worded fusillade last week from HDC director Simeon Bankoff, the preservationists' own cri de coeur.

As widely reported, the Real Estate Board of New York recently joined forces with a handful of construction and development industry groups to create a new coalition that is calling for a halt to landmark designation and an evisceration of the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s abilities to protect and regulate New York City’s historic architecture. The group claims that landmark designation lowers values, raises costs, stifles development and diminishes affordability. To hear them tell it, landmark designation will transform New York into an lifeless museum city with a “look but don’t touch” mentality. HDC feels that nothing could be further from the truth and that their proposed reforms, if adopted, will be very damaging to the long-term health of our city.

Preservation practices empower communities, celebrate our history, drive economic growth and sustain development efforts. Preservation enhances our streetscapes, nurtures tourism, encourages investment and employs local labor. It is a popular, populist movement driven by regular New Yorkers who value their homes and their city. The Historic Districts Council works with community groups throughout the five boroughs on efforts to save, preserve and enhance the special character of New York’s historic neighborhoods. We work with communities from areas as different as the Upper West Side and Bedford-Stuyvesant on the shared goal of empowering the community to have a voice in determining their own future. These two communities are ones whose efforts we honored this week at the Grassroots Preservation Awards and whose successes have been targeted as “over-reaching” by the new real-estate coalition.

It is a great credit to the Mayor and to many community representatives that they recognize New Yorkers’ desire to preserve the special qualities of their homes and neighborhoods. These elected leaders work with their constituents to do exactly that, realizing that a neighborhood where the residents have a say in determining its future is like a well-tended garden, it nurtures and sustains life. The reforms this new coalition proposes would raze our old-growth neighborhoods in search of short-sighted profit.

And so the first shots have been fired.

No place for Lefferts Place. (Brooklyn to the Fullest)

As The Observer reported on Wednesday, a coalition of development and labor groups have launched the Responsible Landmarks Coalition to challenge what they see as mission creep on the part of the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission and the preservationists that surround it. The argument is that the preservationists are overwhelming the city with their protections and stiffing development, and thus the city's economy. (F.I.R.E., baby, F.I.R.E.!)

But in Clinton Hill, they are feeling none of the love, as the commission has rejected a community-led effort to have Lefferts Place, just south of Atlantic Avenue, considered for historic district designation, according to The Times-affiliated Local Fort Greene/Clinton Hill blog.

The commission rejected the proposed historic district because it did not have sufficient, contiguous historic character to warrant protection.

“After a careful analysis that included several site visits and independent research, the Commission’s staff determined that the proposed area does not meet the criteria for a historic district, and will not be recommended to the full Commission for historic district status,” the spokeswoman, Lisi de Bourbon, told The Local.

Architecturally, the proposed district includes many row houses from the mid-19th century, as well as several earlier villas, early-20th–century apartment buildings and churches.

But it also features several architectural adjustments made over the years, which disqualified the plan earlier this week.

The entire reason the locals wanted the strip protected was to prevent further "adjustments," including the recent destruction of one of the area's oldest houses by a developer.

It is perhaps the perfect example of why the builders want the LPC to be reigned in and neighbors want more, more, more. Were the street landmarked, there is a good chance the developer could have been forbidden from destroying this almost two-century-old house. On the other hand, the commission is open to new development as well, but they would have made sure the developer built something that fit in with its neighbors. Now, anything can be built here.

Is that O.K.? It depends on ones Randian leanings (what would Howard Roark do?). As Peg Breen, president of the Landmarks Conservancy told us the other day, one of the joys of New York is its dynamic architectural layers. In away, this is pushing it forward. The house, while old, was not beautiful. This is partly a problem of neglect, and perhaps it could have been rebuilt lavishly and beautifully. But instead it will be replaced, hopefully with something worthy of the street.

Unfortunately, rarely is that the level of design in Brooklyn these days, and that is no doubt what has the neighbors worried. If they had faith in the developers of the land, then there would be no need for a Landmarks Preservation Commission. But those fighting for this district were doing it for good reason. If history is a good guide, they are bound to be disappointed by whatever replaces this place.