A rendering of the Dattner Architects-designed building slated to rise at the site.

Fifty-five units of affordable housing may not do much to stem the tide of gentrification washing over Williamburg, but they will allow a not-insignificant number of low-income families to stay in the increasingly expensive neighborhood.

Today, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development announced that it has selected MDG Design and Construction and the North Brooklyn Development Corporation to build a mixed-use affordable housing development at 337 Berry Street, the site of a former Landmarks Preservation Commission warehouse. The development team was selected nearly a year after an RFP went out for the project, which will include 55 low-income units, ground-floor commercial space for a grocery store, community space for tenant services and an open space for use by future tenants.

The old LPC architectural salvage warehouse that currently stands at 377 Berry.

The announcement comes in the midst of rising community outrage over the dearth of affordable housing units promised by the city as part of the 2005 Williamsburg rezoning. Earlier this week, DNAinfo reported that eight years after pledging to build 1,345 affordable housing units on city-owned land in North Williamsburg, only 19 units, or two-percent of the promised tally, have been completed.

A rally is even scheduled for today to "commemorate eight years of broken promises," according to DNAinfo; Community Board 1 Chairman Chris Olechowski told the news website that "displacement is the horror of what takes place without thinking through what you're doing to your local people" and urged local residents to attend.

“What a great honor it will be to again work alongside my lifelong neighbors and friends to continue our fight to combat displacement in our community," said Richard Mazur, the executive director of North Brooklyn Development Corporation, in a release about the project. "Through our collaborative work with all the members of Mobilization Against Displacement (MAD) we have again taken another positive step toward lessening displacement in our community while fulfilling the greatest need in Community Board 1 today—the availability of quality affordable housing."

The mixed-use complex will rise on three city-owned lots between South 4th and South 5th streets, the site of an old Landmarks Preservation Commission warehouse, which was used to store old doorknobs, transoms, newel posts and any number of other architectural fixtures and ornaments salvaged from demolition sites; the items were then sold at low-cost to the public, so they could be used to restore buildings that had earlier been stripped of their own historic fixtures. (The program ended in 2000 due to budgetary constraints.)

The affordable housing units will be available to families earning between 50 and 60 percent of the area median income, which is $49,950 to $51,540 for a family of four.

The project displayed "the City's commitment to thoughtfully repurposing its resources to benefit the community,” wrote HPD Commissioner Mathew Wambua in a statement. "I look forward to seeing this once vacant warehouse transformed into safe, quality affordable housing that will expand housing opportunities for working-class families in this community.”

As for the project's other goal of enriching "the character and vibrancy of the neighborhood and act as a catalyst for future growth in both the public and private sectors"—we'd hardly say that Williamsburg is need of any development catalysts.

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.

Well, is it? (Responsible Landmarks Coalition)

An assault on the city's Landmarks Law has quietly been taking place in the corridors of power, through press releases and legislation, for going on a year now. But groups allied against landmarking are planning to fire their first public volley tomorrow, The Observer has learned, with the announcement of a coalition of development and labor groups known as the Responsible Landmarks Coalition.

Formed by the Real Estate Board of New York, it is made up of a number of influential real estate and labor organizations, "and it is only going to get bigger," one person involved in the effort said. "We are going to have some very major institutions looking at these landmarks."

The main issues of concern for the coalition are the increasing prevalence of historic districts, a lack of transparency in the landmarking process, and insufficient public input. The coalition will argue that the growing number of landmark buildings and historic districts are hampering the city's economy and stymieing  development.

"We're concerned that if you apply the concept of landmarks preservation too much, you resrtrict housing and impinge on other aspects of city life," said Richard Anderson, president of the New York City Building Congress, a trade group for architects, engineers and contractors.

In addition to the Building Congress and the Real Estate Board, the coalition also include the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce; three residential landlord groups: the Rent Stabilization Association, the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, the Community Housing Improvement Program; the building workers union 32BJ; and two groups representing construction unions, the Building Trades Employers Association and the Building and Construction Trades Council.

In addition to drafting a three page signatory letter that is part policy document, part manifesto, the group has launched a new site, responsible-landmarks-coalition.org, as well as Facebook and Twitter accounts to drive their message. The Facebook page already has three "likes."

Clearly illustrating the group's point is a slideshow on the site of eight projects, in four pairs, with the words "The Landmarks Law is BROKEN when these are both landmarks." On the right are rows of townhouses, the Chrsysler Building, the Dakota, on the left an auto body shop and a faceless industrial building.

The group insists it supports the idea of landmarking buildings.

“New York City is known for its great landmarks, which help define our city and drive our economy,” REBNY president Steven Spinola said in a statement, but he charges that "overzealous landmarking" of gas stations and the like makes development in the city prohibitively costly.

This underscores a particular concern with historic districts, one of two designations the Landmarks Preservation Commission can award. By naming an individual landmark, the commission says this specific building has merit. But in creating a far-reaching historic district, like those in Soho or Brooklyn Heights, elevates unspectacular buildings beyond their worth.

This is a somewhat disingenuous argument, since that gas station can indeed be developed, but whatever is planned there must be approved by the commission. This adds to the cost and the time spent developing the project, but it also ensures continuity with the surrounding neighborhood—Soho will still look like Soho, the Upper East Side, the Upper West Side, and not the two mixed up together.

Elisabeth de Bourbon, a spokeswoman for the Landmarks Preservation Commission, declined to comment on a pending announcement.

It was two recent districts, on West End Avenue on the Upper West Side and the Downtown Brooklyn Skyscraper District that have particularly inflamed the groups, who argue that the opportunities to build new and maintain old buildings in these neighborhoods, as well as other districts, have been greatly hampered. There is also the question finding out from the commission where in the landmarking process a building is. The group wants guidelines for buildings enumerated when a building is landmarked, giving the owners more certainty about what can be built in the future.

Supporters of the commission argue that the complaints about preservation are overblown. Peg Breen is president of the Landmarks Conservancy, a group that provides funding for renovation work on landmarks, and she said that her group did an informal survey of many of the group's loan recipients, many of whom said they did not feel owning a landmark had increased their costs. "If you have to fix a roof, you have to fix a roof," she said.

Furthermore, Ms. Breen pointed to numerous studies that find preservation increases or maintains property values (partly because of supply and demand issues) as an argument for its value. "Preservation is jobs, too," she said. And with only 4 percent of the city protected by the Landmarks law, "that leaves plenty of room for everybody else."

Nevermind the fact that landmarking does not prohibit development, but simply regulates it. "That is the problem, though," Mr. Anderson said. "New York is the most expensive city in the country to build in, and regulation is a big part of that, of which landmarks is a big part." With more than 12 percent of Manhattan under preservation protection, as well as large swathes of Brownstone Brooklyn, it can be harder to build whatever you want.

New Yorkers have to decide whether or not that is a bad thing.

Home sweet home. (Property Shark)

It used to house cast offs from some of the city's oldest buildings, but soon it could house low-income New Yorkers.

The city's Department of Housing Preservation and Development is seeking a developer to turn a  Williamsburg warehouse that served as storage for the Landmarks Preservation Commission into an affordable housing development with 50 apartments. The development, at 337 Berry Street, sits on a 15,000-square-foot lot and calls for commercial or community space on the ground floor, as well as about 1,200 square feet of open space for residents.

The views are not too bad, looking out on the Williamsburg Bridge and Manhattan, though the rumble of the J-Train just might intrude on the apartments, as well, barring some good windows.

“This RFP is a prime example of City agencies working together to put our resources to the best use while continuing the growth and revitalization of this community,” said HPD commissioner Mathew Wambua said in a statement. “The new apartments that will be created at this site will transform it from a forbidding façade into a resource of affordability for the neighborhood and provide safe, quality housing to hardworking New Yorkers.”

The city decided the landmarks warehouse was ripe for redevelopment as the commission's need for storage has dwindled. In the past, it would collect historical architectural detritus from abandoned and demolished buildings, saving them for future resale to other builds. The program ran from 1980 until 2010, when it was cancelled due to budget constraints and the entire stock of the warehouse was sold off. Rather than waste a vacant building, LPC teamed up with HPD to turn it into a new mixed-used building.

"We are thrilled that this site, through a new use, will continue to give back to the city,” preservation commission chair Robert Tierney said.

Submissions to the RFP, which is part of the mayor's New Housing Marketplace Plan that seeks to add 165,000 units of affordable housing to the city's stock, are due by August 31. All units must be affordable for families making 80 percent of the area median income, orabout $66,400 for a family of four.

MOMath, no problems...

While the Landmarks Preservation Commission is usually the  great bane of architects and developers, it seems the commissioners have at least one soft spot in their preservationist hearts for, of all things, math.

The Landmarks Commission has approved a proposal by the new Museum of Math for a building in the Madison Square North Historic District, DNAinfo reports.

The Commission's blessings comes on the heels of a devastating rejection by Community Board 5 last month. The museum's proposal was turned down, as board members claimed the design was to0 modern for the neighborhood. After making some slight alterations to the proposal, the Museum of Math (MOMath) got the green light from the Landmarks Commission which "not only approved it," said Cindy Lawrence, the museum's chief of operations, "but really commended us and the architects for coming up with a tasteful design.”

Permission to move forward with the façade redesign was an important step in the process of opening MoMath, Lawrence said, but it is not the last one. The museum currently has a permit from the Department of Buildings to begin work on the space at 11 E. 26th Street, Lawrence said. They are still awaiting approval on another permit, however, that will allow them to dig in on more substantial construction.

eknutsen@observer.com

Here to stay. (Getty)

Downtown Brooklyn developers and cooperators, with a hefty helping hand from the real estate lobby, threw everything they could at the Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District, a new landmarking effort aimed at saving the area's historic highrises. In the end, the preservationists won out, as a City Council subcommittee voted unanimously yesterday to approve the historic district, all but ensuring its passage by the full council on February 1.

There were some interesting compromises that may not have fully assuaged concerns in Downtown Brooklyn but will hopefully go a way toward addressing any problems in the future. The co-op board at 75 Livingston Street was one of the loudest critics of the proposal. Brooklyn Councilmen Steve Levin, who represents the area, and Brad Lander, chair of the landmarks subcommittee, released a joint statement yesterday celebrating the passage of the district but also calling on the Landmarks Preservation Commission to go easy on the co-op.

"We want to particularly recognize the co-operators of 75 Livingston Street and praise them for their stewardship of the building over the past decade, as they have spent millions restoring their building after years of decline," the councilmen said. "Given their hard work and investment, we ask the LPC to work with the board of the building, and to show maximum appropriate flexibility as they move forward in their efforts to maintain the building without imposing hardships on the co-operators."

Another new wrinkle, one that will have citywide implications, is an announcement by the commission to revise how it reviews storefronts, another major issue for landlords. Instead of lengthy public reviews, these will be handled at the staff level. "These new guidelines will allow many more new and relocating stores—in Downtown Brooklyn and around the city—to obtain a quick, staff-level approval for exterior work," the councilmen said.

"After close consideration," they concluded, "we believe that this new historic district will strengthen the character of Downtown Brooklyn, allowing for new development and growth, like the new retail space planned for the Municipal Building, while preserving the graceful, historic, early-generation skyscrapers that make it Brooklyn’s civic center."

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

510 Fifth in better days. (City Review)

While there's no official word yet on whether or not there has been any "K-I-S-S-I-N-G," it seems like some pouty lips are being puckered by both parties on the matter of Vornado's ongoing renovations of 510 Fifth Avenue, the former Manufacturer's Hanover Trust building.

As reported in The Times last week, a series of email correspondence has come to light that details a line of communication so open that it not only verges on "hand holding," it actually includes the phrase itself. the story has been picked up by Curbed and Architect's Newspaper, and it seems likely to get even more attention.

Former Landmarks Preservation Commission chairwoman Meredith Kane was retained by Vornado boss Steve Roth in advance of his acquisition of 510 Fifth last January. In her role as counsel to Vornado, Ms. Kane wrote an email to her successor, Bob Tierney, in which she implored the current chair to aid Mr. Roth's potential acquisition of the then-available 510 Fifth.

“What I think he’d most like is a little bit of hand-holding directly from you—he won’t believe it when it comes from me!" Ms. Kane wrote to Mr. Tierney, according to The Times. "That even though we have a lot of detail to work through, and you will need staff and the commissioners to be satisfied with the proposals, that we are going to ‘get through’ this project.”

Ms. Kane's unsubtle use of the phrase "hand-holding" is actually characteristic of the bold language used in a number of the emails, republished online by Curbed, but what makes the seemingly clear collusion most discomfiting to lovers of New York architecture is how controversial Vornado's plans for the building have become.

The Observer detailed the issues surrounding the renovation back in February, and the minutiae of the variously rejected plans have become even more entangled and hotly debated as the issue continues to go unresolved. And while 510 Fifth isn't the only building in the borough having troubles getting signed off on by Landmarks (as evidenced by the LPC's denial of plans to renovate the Puck Building), it now seems that it might be the only one that got behind-the-scenes pre-approval from the city agency.

So the question must now be asked if the LPC whispered sweet nothings into Mr. Roth's ear while he bid on 510 Fifth, does he have a right to be upset that the same commission is now not living up to its non-promises?

tmcenery@observer.com

Borough Hall and some of its surrounding skyscrapers. (ArchPaper)

“This is a collection of buildings that make Downtown Brooklyn, Downtown Brooklyn”  Landmarks Preserveration Commission member Michael Devonshire declared in yesterday's meeting on the Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District. “If there's controversy, it's a misunderstanding of the benefits of landmarking a district."

The area that Mr. Devonshire is referring to, is the proposed Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District in Downtown Brooklyn. The projected district will span several blocs between Montague Street and Livingston Street, insuring the preservation of many neo-Gothic and neo-Renaissance buildings such as the Temple Bar building, 75 Livingston, and Borough Hall for years to come.

Yet, to the surprise of the Landmark Preservation Commission members, deeming the district historical, had become quite a controversy. Storefront owners, building residents, and even the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce have expressed fears of increased renovation expenses and limits on signage, which they feel would discourage new businesses and inhibit the district from continuing to develop.

The distirct. (LPC)

However, yesterday afternoon in a unanimous affirmative vote by all present members of the Commission, it's looking more and more likely that the Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District will be next on the list of historical sites in NYC. Traditionally, the Commission has proved that proclaiming a district 'historical' hasn't exactly stunted development (see: SoHo, Greenwich Village, and pretty much all of the Upper East and West side). So what was the big to-do over preserving Brooklyn's behemoths? The commission didn't seem too sure.

Commissioner Michael Goldblum commented on the controversy by saying that the care and maintenance that residents had thus far put into their beloved buildings would be “respected, honored and given forth, and not in any way transversed or squelched”

Although the general tone was one of sympathy for the discontented Brooklynites, The Observer sensed that commissioners felt a bit slighted by the sentiments of the disgruntled. “The commission has a history of working with homeowners and landowners to preserve their properties” said Commissioner Fred Bland as he gave his vote. “A landmark doesn’t mean it's frozen in time” he pointed out, responding to the development fears.

Although amending the proposal to exclude certain buildings was not considered, the commission made it clear that they aimed to appease the unhappy citizens once the district is deemed historical.

“I'm thrilled with the outcome” beamed energetic 75 Livingston resident, Philip Magnuson, after the meeting was called to a close. Within the next 120 days the final decision will be made as the City Council takes one last vote. Magnuson wishes for the best, hoping that city officials will “take today's impressive testimony into account."

Overbite this.

Sometimes landmark battles have happy endings.

Many a preservationist lamented the demise of the Village's O'Toole Building, the old National Maritime Union headquarters more commonly known as the Overbite Building for its unusual facade. After a three-year fight at the landmarks and city planning commissions, St. Vincent's won begrudging approval to tear down the modernist structure and replace it with a new 21-story hospital tower.

When St. Vincent's went bankrupt (the story was not a happy ending for everyone), its development partner, Rudin Management, turned to North Shore/LIJ to keep its multimillion dollar condo plan on the former hospital campus alive. Instead of building a new hospital—which never would have passed landmarks—North Shore/LIJ came up with a plan to repurpose the O'Toole Building, which won unanimous approval from the commission today.

“It’s a felicitous conclusion,” Commission Chair Robert Tierney said at today's hearig. “The proposal will allow the building to be restored intact and function as a health care facility and not detract from the character of the district. I enthusiastically support this application.”

The plan calls for restoring the facade to its original appearance, after new tiles were added during later renovations. The plans also address one of the biggest complaints against the building, its uninviting Seventh Avenue side. This will be opened up to create a new entrance, and while it is not quite the vibrancy of a sidewalk cafe that Jane Jacobs relished, it is seen as an improvement from the hedges and glass brick that currently dominate the expanse.

Bill Rudin applauded the decision in a statement. "Today's vote is further recognition that the North Shore-LIJ Comprehensive Care Center is not only the best plan to bring health care back to the West Side, but the right one for the neighborhood," he said. "Along with our LPC-approved residential development, new open space and a public school, this plan preserves the heart and character of the West Village community."

“I want to really thank the applicants for saving this building,” Commissioner Margery Perlmutter said.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

In our earlier item on rezoning in far west Greenwich Village, we apparently overestimated the zeal of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate specific buildings in the district:

In "Wild, Wild West" you wrote "the rezoning also sets the stage for landmarking the entire district, something the Landmarks Preservation Commission is slated to calendar later this year."

Emily Farris
Executive Director/Editor
Federation to Preserve the Greenwich
Village Waterfront & Great Port/
Our River, Our Streets