Why the Austin Nichols Decision is Bad for Preservation

Subject: Why the Austin Nichols Decision is Bad for Preservatio
Date: 12/2/2005 11:23:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: kitchen@hellskitchen.net
Sent from the Internet (Details)



E-BULLETIN OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL
December 2005, Volume 2 Number 12

Why the Austin Nichols Decision is Bad for Preservation

On Wednesday November 30, the City Council voted 43-6-1 to reject the
landmark designation of the Austin, Nichols & Company Warehouse at 184
Kent Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. This is the second time in two
months the Council has voted to deny a landmark designation (the Jamaica
Savings Bank in Elmhurst, Queens was denied in October), and the two
actions combine to paint a grim picture for landmark designations. This
appears to be part of a very troublesome growing trend in Council
deliberations that challenges the independence of the Landmarks process
and gives more weight to a property owner�s approval of designation.

To hear the full story keep reading�or go to the end of this article to
see how you can help us continue the fight for Austin Nichols.

In both cases that the Council voted to deny landmark designation, one of
the loudest voices in the discussion was Council Member Simcha Felder,
current Chair of the Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime
Uses. During the Council hearing on Austin Nichols, Mr. Felder stated,
�This is a piece of trash. We should knock it down and put something nice
up.� He went on to say that he was proud of his record of overturning
designations during his tenure as Subcommittee chair; and that he was
keeping the landmarks process pure from anti-development or other agendas.

Melinda Katz, Chair of Land Use, chimed in, commenting that the outer
boroughs would not accept a lesser standard of landmark. This begs the
question of what specifically reaches her standard, as she was also an
opponent of preserving the former Trylon Theater on Queens Boulevard. Both
Katz and Felder�s opposition to the designation of the Austin Nichols
Building was undoubtedly influenced by the persistent criticism of the
building and its designation by Brooklyn Council Member David Yassky.

Mr. Yassky strongly opposed this designation despite much community
outreach including postcard campaigns and requests for meetings, as well
as expert assessments of the building�s significance. His reasons against
preserving the building were numerous, but his most disturbing comments
were that landmarking would have �gone against the waterfront
revitalization rezoning [the Council] adopted six months ago�. That�s not
what the City Planning Commission thought, stating in their report of
November 2, 2005 that the existing building was actually double the
allowable bulk of the new zoning, and that the �landmark designation does
not conflict with the Zoning Resolution, projected public improvements or
any plans for development, growth, improvement or renewal in the vicinity
of the landmark.� So what�s the problem?

"The Building is an eyesore� and �a hulking relic,� stated former Council
Member Ken Fisher, who was hired, along with former LPC Chair Gene Norman,
by the building�s owners Louis and Moshe Kestenbaum to oppose the
designation. A similar complaint arose, a little more sotto voce, with the
Jamaica Savings Bank. There, the owners opposed the landmarking and the
City Council turned down the designation (in that case, over the mild
objections of the local Council member Helen Sears and the local community
board). So where does that leave us?

The way things are arrayed now, any landmark designation which has strong
owner opposition might well be overturned at Council, especially if the
owner is well-heeled or well-connected. This is a very real concern. The
last four historic district designations � Stapleton Heights/St. Paul�s
Avenue, Douglaston Hill, Gansevoort Market and the Murray Hill Extension �
all have had some degree of owner opposition, in many cases including
testimony before the City Council.

In May 2002, when this Council was still young, The New York Times
reported that during the Council discussion of the designation of the
eventually approved Murray Hill Historic District, �debate veered from the
neighborhood�s historical merits to property rights and the power of the
state. �I would be concerned if the Council as a body started to take
owner consent as a criteria for designation,� said Sherida E. Paulsen,
[then] chairwoman of the landmarks commission. �Not that they shouldn�t
take it into account, but when the Council enacted the Landmarks Law in
1965, it was not a criteria for designation.�� At the time, a senior
council member said, �The vast majority of the City Council [are] new
members. People are enthusiastic and want to learn the subjects they are
responsible for.� What�s the reason now?

Not all of the Council accepted the arguments employed by representatives
of the owners of 184 Kent Avenue. Six Council members agreed with the
preservationists and the community members and voted for the designation,
with an additional Council Member abstaining. Please write to these
Council members and thank them for voting to uphold this designation.

Councilmember Tony Avella: avella@council,nyc.ny.us or 718-747-2137
Councilmember Michael McMahon: mcmahon@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-556-7370
Councilmember Bill Perkins: perkins@council.nyc.ny.us or 212-662-4440
Councilmember Letitia James: james@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-260-9191
Councilmember Al Vann: vann@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-919-0740
Councilmember Vincent Gentile: gentile@council.nyc.ny.us or 718-748-5200

The fight is not over. In the next few days Mayor Bloomberg can veto the
Council�s decision. Please call 311 or write to the Mayor and urge him to
use this veto power. If he uses his veto, the Council will have the
opportunity to overturn the veto. If you don�t see your councilmember
listed above, then they voted against this landmark! You can contact your
councilmember here and ask them to reconsider if the opportunity arises.


**********************************************************


December 7, 2005

Mayor Uses Veto to Support Landmark Status
NY Times
By ROBIN POGREBIN

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Monday vetoed the City Council's recent
revocation of the landmark designation of the Austin, Nichols Warehouse, in
Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

"The mayor vetoed the Council's disapproval of the designation because it's
a highly significant building designed by a historically significant
architect," Mr. Bloomberg said through a spokesman last night.

Last week, the Council voted to revoke the landmark status of the 1915
warehouse, which was designed by Cass Gilbert and won that designation from
the Landmarks Preservation Commission in September. Several Council members
characterized the building as undistinguished and unworthy of the designation.

The owner of the building, which has already been partly converted to
apartments, plans to add six floors to the warehouse for condominiums and
to alter the windows.

The Council's Land Use Committee has already voted to override the veto,
said Councilman David Yassky of Brooklyn, adding that the full Council will
take up the override vote tomorrow.

Mr. Yassky, who helped lead the effort to reverse the designation, said Mr.
Bloomberg's veto was politically motivated. "The only reason they pursued
this landmark in the first place was to curry favor with preservationists
after refusing to landmark 2 Columbus Circle," Mr. Yassky said. "Now
they'll milk it and really try to get political credit."

The preservation commission has refused to hold a hearing on giving
landmark status to 2 Columbus Circle, the 1960's "lollipop" building
designed by Edward Durell Stone.

Preservationists, who had called the Council vote on the Austin, Nichols
Warehouse (43 to 6, with one abstention) a subversion of the landmark
designation process, praised the mayor's action yesterday.

"He did the right thing," said Ward Dennis of the Waterfront Preservation
Alliance of Greenpoint and Williamsburg. "He recognizes the issues involved
and that it is important to stand up for the process itself."

The warehouse, at 184 Kent Avenue, was the headquarters for the largest
grocery wholesaler in the United States at the time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------