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.

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.

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.

So in July, it came as something of a surprise when the LPC took the confrontational action of starting the designation process—an act known as “calendaring”—on a pair of connected buildings at Broadway and West 57th Street owned by Extell Development, one of the city’s most active developers.

Indeed, the move has provoked a major fight, as Extell scrambles to ward off the LPC’s designation drive. In recent weeks, the firm has been successfully urging unions, trade groups and, most notably, key members of the City Council to demonstrate push-back against the commission. Already, an LPC vote that had been expected this week has been delayed, with no new vote yet scheduled.

At the same time, preservationists, who have often been critical of the LPC for too frequently deferring to the desires of developers, support the designation—though the buildings had not been among their top priorities.

Both of the Howard Van Doren Shaw–designed buildings, 225 West 57th Street and 1780 Broadway, were built by the B. F. Goodrich Company in 1909 and were part of “Automobile Row,” a concentration of car dealerships, many of which are already landmarked. Extell’s argument is that it was blindsided by the designation effort, and landmarking both properties would ruin its prime development site, precluding the company from building a $1 billion–plus commercial tower. (According to property records, it already has a $256 million mortgage out on the site.)

Accordingly, the firm, which is led by Gary Barnett, has mobilized. Using its own preservation consultant, Extell submitted a compromise plan—landmark only 1780 Broadway, the old B. F. Goodrich headquarters—arguing that the history of the 12-story, brick 225 West 57th Street does not merit landmark status and that its demolition should be permitted.

Extell has leaned on key unions, including the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council and the Building and Construction Trades Council, both of which have pull with the Bloomberg administration and on the Council, urging them to lobby against the landmarking and for the tower. The unions have each submitted testimony to the LPC in support of the compromise plan, as did the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The powerful Real Estate Board of New York opposes landmark designation for either building.

THE MOST NOTABLE SUBMISSION to the LPC, however, came from four council members: Dan Garodnick, the local representative; Jessica Lappin, chairwoman of the landmarks committee; Melinda Katz, chairwoman of the land-use committee; and Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Their submission, a letter dated Aug. 28, explicitly urged landmark designation of 1780 Broadway while suggesting that the signatories oppose—or in the very least, are leaning against—so designating 225 West 57th Street. The letter picked up on many of Extell’s themes, including the fact that the buildings have previously been considered, and subsequently passed over, for designation.

“[A] balance must be found between preserving the city’s architectural heritage and allowing for new development on sites where buildings stand today,” the letter said. It goes on to note that 225 West 57th Street was “never occupied” by B. F. Goodrich, that “it is not clear how prominent the automobile industry was at this location, giving this building lesser historical significance” and that “there are other earlier-built and better-preserved examples” of similar schools of architecture in New York.

The letter has enraged preservation groups—though few were willing to publicly denounce the elected officials, citing their typically strong relationships with Ms. Lappin and Mr. Garodnick—as they said the action was unprecedented.

Landmarking supporters contend that the site’s economic development potential is irrelevant, as the question before the LPC is over the landmark quality of the buildings. Further, the main preservation groups that have weighed in say the buildings are effectively one structure, calling for both to be designated. “If we let developers tear down landmark-quality buildings because they want to put up something new and more income-producing, we would not have any landmarks left,” said Assemblyman Dick Gottfried, who supports landmarking both buildings.

Asked about the discord between his position and that of the four council members, Mr. Gottfried noted that neighboring Manhattan officials are typically unified on landmarks issues. “It’s unusual that we would be divided, or that we would have differing opinions,” he said.

ALL OF THIS HAS put considerable pressure on the LPC and its chairman, Robert Tierney, a onetime counsel to Mayor Ed Koch. Mr. Tierney and his agency have been under pressure to be more responsive to preservation concerns from advocacy groups and, perhaps more significantly, from The New York Times. Late last year, the paper ran a series of articles, sandwiched by two scornful editorials, that highlighted the arbitrary nature of many LPC actions and the commission’s tendency to side with developers on many issues. (The Times also ran a story, in November 2008, apart from the series that focused on the two B. F. Goodrich buildings, noting that they were slated for demolition. At the start of 2009, the LPC informed Extell it was planning on landmarking the buildings; it had also notified the previous owner around 2002 that it was considering designation.)

Indeed, Mr. Tierney and the broader 11-member LPC have found themselves in an awkward spot, given that the agency has effectively endorsed landmarking both buildings (during Mr. Tierney’s tenure, the LPC has almost exclusively calendared buildings that it wants to see designated as landmarks, and it is very rare to de-calendar a building). If the full LPC is to accede to Extell’s wishes, it would open itself to the charge that it backed down in the face of pressure from a powerful developer, and if it designates the building, it risks alienating Extell and its allies.

Further, if LPC were to go ahead with the designation of both properties, it would punt to the council the final decision making—and any accompanying political fallout—as that body has the power to veto a landmark designation (though that, too, is very rare).

A spokesman for Extell declined to comment.

Mr. Garodnick and Ms. Lappin did not respond to multiple requests for comment, and Ms. Quinn and Ms. Katz declined to comment beyond their letter.

ebrown@observer.com

Many former Koch aides crammed into the main room on the first floor, where Bloomberg and Koch were joined by Koch’s old rival Mario Cuomo, and Koch’s former chief of staff Diane Coffey.

Coffey thanked Bloomberg for hosting the Koch birthday bash again, and said she and others “stand ready to canvass again, in Queens. Send us to Weiner territory,” referring to Representative Anthony Weiner, one Bloomberg's likely challengers. Then, for effect, Coffey added, “Yes we can.”

Everyone laughed and applauded.

Also running are City Comptroller Bill Thompson and City Councilman Tony Avella of Queens.

A number of political observers, including Weiner but not Koch, see numerous similarities between the two. (This was apparently, at least at one time, something Weiner considered to be a good thing.) One guest at this very party told me Weiner was the “second coming of Koch.”

Later, as Koch was walking out, he told me that Weiner “is probably the leading opponent to Mike.” Koch went on, “I think he’s a very able guy. I’m not going to compare anybody, but he’s an able guy. But Mike is much better.”

Other highlights from the party:

Hearing Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey greeting former City Council Speaker Peter Vallone Sr., saying loudly, "Here's my guy!"; walking by Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs as one party-goer asked her, "Are you ready for another four years?"

The first letter to Mr. Tierney, chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, came in September from Peter Ward, president of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, a union with Rainbow Room employees that has strong connections to elected officials. Then came a letter from Richard Parsons, the Time Warner chairman, who wrote there was “no more romantic space than the Rainbow Room” in New York. Then the Historic Districts Council sent a letter of approval; a similar letter from the Municipal Art Society is forthcoming; and on Tuesday night, Manhattan’s Community Board 5 was expected to take up the issue.

The sudden stream of support is no coincidence. Behind the push is the Cipriani family, led by Arrigo Cipriani and his son Giuseppe, the upscale restaurateurs who have run the famed Art Deco restaurant and banquet hall since 1999. In August, the Ciprianis—operators of four local upscale banquet halls and convicted of state tax evasion last year—petitioned the LPC to grant the Rainbow Room landmark status.

Now the family is leaning on elected officials, business executives and other big names to back its application.

The uncommon move is a not-so-subtle jab at the Rainbow Room’s landlord, Tishman Speyer, the powerful and politically connected real estate firm led by Jerry and Rob Speyer. As interior landmark designation would restrict changes or alterations to the restaurant and banquet hall, it would likely weaken the Speyers’ hand in future lease negotiations with Cipriani or any other potential tenant. It would also effectively guarantee that the Rainbow Room, or something very similar, remain the space’s use in perpetuity.

Tishman Speyer has not yet taken a position on the landmarking, though landlords typically resist such moves, as they can curb their ability to charge higher rents. Further, the Speyers and Ciprianis have been engaged in a series of spats over the Rainbow Room, as the restaurateurs have filed multiple lawsuits and the rents in the existing lease are currently being determined via arbitration.

In making the rounds for support of the landmarking, representatives of the Cipriani family have said the impetus is twofold. First, the representatives say, the Cipriani family values landmarks and wants to see the Rainbow Room’s historic look protected, like that of most of the family’s other city venues.

Second, and probably more relevant, Cipriani’s lease expires in 2013, and the family says it is worried that Tishman Speyer will try to convert the 56,000-square-foot venue to office space, which could potentially be rented at higher rates.

Kevin Finnegan, a Cipriani attorney, said that the office-space conversion was indeed a worry, but denied that financials were the major impetus behind the company’s desire to landmark the venue.

“I’d hate to have anyone get the sense that this is a primary motivation of the Ciprianis,” Mr. Finnegan said. “They pay a premium for space—they are in wonderful spaces all over the city. … They would be under constraints just like a landlord would be in terms of changes or alterations, so it’s a mixed bag in terms of the economics.”

The legitimacy of the Ciprianis’ office space-conversion fear is unclear. Tishman Speyer has denied such a move is under consideration, and preservationists and others contacted by Cipriani expressed skepticism about the concept.

WHATEVER THEIR REASON, the Ciprianis’ public stance so far makes clear that they want to position themselves to renew their lease in 2013—the firm addressed the lease expiration and potential office space-conversion issue in its application to the LPC—and to renew on favorable terms. Landmark status for the Rainbow Room, which could apply to items like furniture and lighting fixtures depending on the terms of a designation, has the potential to both decrease the market value of the space and deter potential tenants who would want to make alterations.

To realize its goal of a landmarked Rainbow Room, Cipriani has enlisted a posse of consultants and lawyers to round up the support of elected officials, executives and the community; to do its own historic research; and to craft an application to the LPC. The team consists of the lobbying firm of Capalino + Company, which is highly experienced in land use; Mary B. Dierickx, a historic preservation consultant who made the 75-page application to the LPC; and Mr. Finnegan, an attorney at Levy Ratner.

The consultants have led Rainbow Room tours and met with preservation groups including the Municipal Art Society and aides to, among others, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who represents the area. The goal seems to be to get the groups and officials to lean on the LPC to act on the application, a subjective decision that mostly rests in the hands of Mr. Tierney, the commission’s chairman, and his staff.

(Elected officials often pressure the LPC, sometimes with success, and Assemblyman Dick Gottfried and State Senator Liz Krueger last week wrote a letter in support of landmarking.)

A commission spokeswoman, Lisi de Bourbon, said LPC staff is looking at changes made to the Rainbow Room, and then it will make a recommendation on landmarking.

THIS IS NOT to say that many of those pledging support needed much of a push. A number of the elected officials and preservationists involved voiced strong support for landmarking the Rainbow Room, or at least the main section of it on the 65th floor of 30 Rock.

“It seems to me that the public would be upset by the loss of the Rainbow Room even if most of us don’t go out dancing,” said Peg Breen, president of the New York Landmarks Conservancy. “Certainly, the Rainbow Room, we think, is deserving of landmark status.”

It appears the biggest potential obstacle would be Tishman Speyer itself, which is the controlling owner of Rockefeller Center. It is uncommon for the LPC to landmark a property over an owner’s objections, and in this case, the owner is one of the best-known landlords in the city, with holdings that include Stuyvesant Town and the MetLife tower.

The Speyers are also one of New York’s most politically connected developers, and Rob Speyer personally raised $25,750 for Ms. Quinn last year when she was considering a run for mayor, according to campaign filings.

In a statement, Virginia Lam, a spokeswoman for Tishman Speyer, said of Rockefeller Center that “we feel our track record demonstrates that we have worked hard to respect this great and iconic landmark.”

As to the LPC’s examination: “We look forward to its findings.”

Since the Cipriani lease on the Rainbow Room started in 1999, the tenant has had a number of acrimonious quarrels with the Speyers. In 2003, Cipriani sued the landlord to remove new metal detectors that had been installed to search the Rainbow Room’s guests, claiming that the building owners sought to “maliciously damage the reputation and business of the Rainbow Room.”

The two parties have also been engaged in a lengthy dispute over the rent in a five-year lease extension, which began in February. Tishman Speyer, Cipriani claimed in court papers, wants more than $8.7 million a year for the space, compared with the $4 million base rent charged in the 1999 lease.

Seemingly connected to the lease negotiations, which are in arbitration, is a Cipriani lawsuit filed in August. The Rainbow Room managers said in a lawsuit that Tishman Speyer claimed Cipriani was in default of its lease on account of a long-faulty fire alarm system (a lawyer for Cipriani, David Rozenholc, said it has now been rectified, though each party wants the other to pay for the work).

Mr. Rozenholc says these squabbles seem to have no connection to the landmarking, though they do raise the question as to whether Tishman Speyer would be eager to sign a new lease with a seemingly intractable tenant.

As for the timetable of any landmarking, the LPC did not offer one on its decisions. With an eye on its 2013 lease expiration, Cipriani, the company said in its application to the LPC, believes “an expeditious evaluation of these important spaces is necessary.”

—With additional reporting by Chris Shott and Adam Rose

ebrown@observer.com

If passed, as is widely expected, all developers will need to get the green light from the commission before going foward with construction.

“DUMBO’s distinctively designed buildings and sublime vistas survive to this day, and still define its character, even as it has evolved into a largely residential neighborhood. This designation will ensure that this still-evolving neighborhood retains its unique historic character," said Commission Chairman Robert B. Tierney in a statement released following the vote.

Music to all developers' ears.

The Department of Buildings granted a demolition permit on Monday for the Tunnel Garage at 520-528 Broome Street. The Greenwich Village Society for Historical Preservation haas been fighting this for a while, and the organization has written a letter to L.P.C. chair Robert Tierney in a last-ditch attempt to grant the Art Deco building landmark status.

-Matthew Grace