What will it mean for development in the South Village? (Trinity Real Estate)

There is no doubt that the Hudson Square rezoning, if and when it is approved, will reshape what is arguably the last remaining swath of downtown Manhattan's formerly industrial landscape. Preservationists, however, are not concerned with the fate of the neighborhood's old printing plants, but rather, that of the quaint district that borders Hudson Square to the northeast.

The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation claims that development and demolition plans in the as-yet unlandmarked South Village—a chunk of Soho bounded by West 4th to the north, Sixth Avenue to the west, West Broadway to the east and Watts Street to the South—have been speeding up as the rezoning moves through the approval process.

Now they want the city council to withhold approval for the rezoning until the South Village is declared a historic district—a move that would effectively halt Trinity's plans for Hudson Square as the application wends its way through the Landmarks Preservation Commission, where it has formally been under consideration since 2006. A public hearing and vote are still required for Landmarks approval.

"One of these things can be delayed without harm and the other cannot," said GVSHP executive director Andrew Berman.

Mr. Berman cited the creation of the West Chelsea historic district during the West Chelsea rezoning as an example of the city council wielding similar power.

"Speaker [Christine] Quinn has considerable leverage. The question is, 'does she want to use it?' In the past, she's demanded concessions that cost the city millions of dollars," said Mr. Berman, pointing to public schools and funding for affordable housing. The implication being that a vote on a landmarks proposal shouldn’t be hard by comparison

But it's unclear if Ms. Quinn, who has advocated for the South Village Historic District and others in the past would, or even could, mandate the creation of a historic district as a condition of the rezoning.

In response to a question of whether such a step was conceivable, city council spokesman Justin Goodman said that Ms. Quinn did not wish to comment on an under-review application, but that “as with all ULURP applications that come before the Council, Speaker Quinn looks forward to reviewing the proposal and to working to ensure that an open dialogue with all interested parties is maintained."

We couldn't help but wonder, even if Ms. Quinn could stop the rezoning, would a mayoral candidate eager to be seen favorably by the real estate community take steps to stall a popular, largely uncontroversial rezoning because of a landmarking delay in an adjacent neighborhood?

Regardless of the city council's ability, or desire to, mandate landmarking, Hudson Square's spillover development remains a presents a real problem for vulnerable South Village. If the Hudson Square rezoning hasn't already spurred development in the adjoining neighborhoods, it no doubt will. Development in Manhattan is less a delicate dance than a domino effect, a question not of if, but when.

Moreover, the South Village is already wedged between two historic districts (the Soho Cast Iron and the Greenwich Village), which is making it an increasingly popular place for developers to plunk the residential high-rises and hotels that are forbidden on the low-rise streets nearby. While Hudson Square would't have the same restrictions as the Cast Iron district or Greenwich Village, its redevelopment into a happening neighborhood will make South Village that much more attractive.

The GVSHP has amassed a list of non-contextual developments in the proposed historic district which have, like the Hudson Square rezoning, been in the works for some time. Among them is the Children's Aid Society at 209 Sullivan Street—a three-story building that will be demolished and replaced with a 7-story building but could, GVSHP warns, be replaced with a 16-story building under current zoning regulations if the developer so desired (he doesn't). The empty lot at 180 Sixth Avenue, where owners filed plans with the DOB to a build a 14-story residential high-rise this fall, is another area of concern.

Mr. Berman pointed out that he wasn't the only one who believed Hudson Square would spur high-rise development in the South Village: the city's own environmental impact study said that the proposed historic district would suffer a "significant adverse impact from the rezoning."

Whether Hudson Square is already influencing South Village development, or if both the push to rezone Hudson Square and South Village projects are the result of larger economic trends is debatable. But the question of whether it will in the future is significantly less ambiguous.

kvelsey@observer.com

And here shall rise a 14-story mixed use development.

It is a story that has been writ repeatedly on the landscape of New York: neighborhood transforms from working class haven to bohemian haunt to the place where every developer in the city wants to build a luxury condo with a bank of boutiques on the bottom floor.

And yet, there are few places that have been assaulted as mercilessly as Greenwich Village, Soho and the enclave nestled between their two historic districts—and thus highly attractive to developers— known as South Village. It is an area flush with building permits, preservation battles—activists have spent the last few months fighting to stop the historic townhouse at 186 Spring Street from being torn down to make way for a condo project—and a languishing landmarks proposal.

Now, with a plan for a 14-story mixed use development at 180 Sixth Avenue moving forward, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation is pleading, once again, for contextual rezoning and the creation of a South Village Historic District.

The 180 Sixth Avenue development, located between Vandam and Spring Streets, filed an application with the DOB yesterday indicating that the building would have 61,471 square feet of residential space and 8,075 square feet of commercial space. While it will be built on an empty lot next to a strip of one-story retail stores (not exactly a pristine spot), preservationists argue that the tall building, to be designed by BKSK Architects, will be out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.

"The latest planned 14-story building at 180 Sixth Avenue is particularly concerning for a variety of reasons," wrote GVSHP executive director Andrew Berman in a letter to Landmarks Chair Robert Tierney and Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden. "It would replace several one to four story buildings, some of which (already demolished) were nearly 200 years old. It is surrounded largely by three to six story buildings, which it would tower over precipitously."

The GVSHP is also questioning the use of development rights for the site, some of which were purchased from a local charity that was given a formerly city-owned building with the stipulation that it be used as a facility serving the community.

The empty lot changed hands last year for $17 million, passing from Extell to the Texas-based Tavros Capital Partners. And while we do not know the developer's specific plans (BKSK said that it was not authorized to comment on the project), it seems safe to say that the residential units will be almost certainly be either luxury rentals or luxury condos.

The Preservation Society also points to a number of other out-of-context developments rising nearby: 178 Bleecker Street, 209-229 Sullivan Street (Children's Aid Society), 140 Sixth Avenue/78 Sullivan Street, 73-75 Sullivan Street, and 182 Spring Street.

The Preservation Society submitted a formal request for landmarking of the South Village district in 2006; in 2010, the Commission landmarked a small area as an extension of the Greenwich Village Historic District.

"The City promised to consider this entire area for landmark designation years ago, but is yet to fulfill its promise," Mr. Berman wrote The Observer in an email. "In the meantime everyone from NYU to Rudin Management and now to Trinity Realty are getting upzonings from the City, increasing development pressure in the area, but these community-requested neighborhood preservation measures can't even get their day in court with a public hearing."

kvelsey@observer.com

The buyer of Horovitz's old house is seeking a license to tear down. (Kevin Mazur/WireImage)

Seller beware! In April, Beastie Boy Adam Horovitz sold his SoHo townhouse to a Canadian developer, who claimed he wanted it for "personal use."

Now The Village Voice is reporting that the new owner, Stephane Boivin, is seeking permission to demolish the property.Which doesn't come as a huge surprise given that Mr. Boivin is planning a seven-story, mixed-use property adjacent to the Beastie abode, plus he already owns several other properties in the city.Mr. Boivin apparently construes "personal use" rather broadly, as in "I will personally be using this federal-era row house as a teardown," Mr. Horovitz's best intentions for the building be damned. The Corcoran listing had hoped for better too: "This home is for someone who appreciates unique period details and exceptional charm," it suggested optimistically.

Mr. Boivin purchased the house at 186 Spring Street for $5.5 million, according to city records, buying under a limited liability company Nordica Soho LLC.

Andrew Berman of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation tells The Village Voice that Mr. Boivin is now seeking permission from the Landmarks Preservation Commission to demolish the property, which has the Greenwich Village Society all up in arms.

Built in 1824, it's the last structure of its kind that has remained more or less intact in the South Village area, which is one of the many districts in the city that has been trying to get the LPC's sought-after historical designation.

"For 10 years we've been trying to get the South Village marked as a historic district," Mr. Berman tells The Village Voice. "The city has stalled out and not kept their word despite this area being declared as one in seven of the most important and threatened historic sites by the Preservation League of New York."

The Greenwich Village Society could, of course, try to score a designation for the building itself in the meantime, but they'd have to get in line: the LPC is considering applications for nearly 3,400 buildings spread across all five boroughs.

kvelsey@observer.com