Will Robert B. Tierney, Chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, Exposed in the New York Times, Resign?

New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin is back today with a powerful follow-up to her earlier piece that exposes how the painful, inexplicable and unforgivably slow pace of the work of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission is damaging, often irrevocably, the cause of historic preservation in our precious, ever-threatened Gotham.

This new article, called "Preservationists See Bulldozers Charging Through a Loophole," is all about what happens as a result of the egregious, arguably immoral lassitude of LPC Chairman Robert B. Tierney -- who author Anthony C. Wood has called "a guy who’s had no demonstrable interest in historic preservation, who has the most important preservation job in New York City.” What happens? Here's what happens, according to Pogrebin:

Hours before the sun came up on a cool October morning in 2006, people living near the Dakota Stables on the Upper West Side were suddenly awakened by the sound of a jackhammer.

Soon word spread that a demolition crew was hacking away at the brick cornices of the stables, an 1894 Romanesque Revival building, on Amsterdam Avenue at 77th Street, that once housed horses and carriages but had long served as a parking garage.

In just four days the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission was to hold a public hearing on pleas dating back 20 years to designate the low-rise building, with its round-arched windows and serpentine ornamentation, as a historic landmark.

But once the building’s distinctive features had been erased, the battle was lost. The commission went ahead with its hearing, but ultimately decided not to designate the structure because it had been irreparably changed. Today a 16-story luxury condominium designed by Robert A. M. Stern is rising on the site: the Related Companies is asking from $765,000 for a studio to $7 million or more for a five-bedroom unit in the building.

This is obviously outrageous, and Pogrebin provides multiple examples of how Tierney's evident, if well camoflaged, hostility to the cause of preservation is creating a culture of sneaking and lying and deceit and, for all we know, double-dealing. That Robert A. M. Stern, of all people, is participating in this rape of the New York City I love leaves me speechless. Can it be that Robert A. M. Stern is an ememy of all that is good in America?

And what are we going to go about this problem of the LPC's ineffectuality causing the systematic destruction of designation-worthy structures in New York City. Should Tierney, for example, admit to his ineptitude -- and his careless attitude toward the idea of preservation -- and step down? You'd think that such an emperor, devoid of clothes, might do so. But only if we protest.

To be fair, it's not as if Tierney does not present a vigorous defense:

“In the middle of the night I’m out there at 2 in the morning, and they’re taking the cornices off,” said Gale Brewer, a city councilwoman who represents that part of the Upper West Side. “We’re calling the Buildings Department, we’re calling Landmarks. You get so beaten down by all of this. The developers know they can get away with that.”

The number of pre-emptive demolitions across the city may be relatively small, but preservationists say the phenomenon is only one sign of problems with the city’s mechanism for protecting historic buildings.

“This administration is so excited about the new that it overlooks its obligation to protect the old,” said Anthony C. Wood, author of “Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks.”

In an interview Robert B. Tierney, chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, called end-run alterations and demolitions “a terrible situation and a complete misuse of the process.”

He added that the commission was trying to address the issue. Before putting a property on the calendar for landmark consideration, for example, Mr. Tierney or the commission’s staff members meet with owners to explain the potential benefits of landmark designation —a federal tax credit for repairs or improvements, for example — in the hope of enlisting cooperation or even support.

“Owner consent is not required, but I strongly try to obtain it whenever possible,” Mr. Tierney said. “It helps the process going forward. It’s not a continually contentious relationship.”

But one must wonder just how vigorous Tierney is in his approach -- and take note of how Stern, whose work I absolutely worship, tries to wiggle out of responsibility for the unnecessary end to a sterling building:

In the case of Dakota Stables, some preservationists have accused the landmarks commission of deliberately dragging its heels. “The commission had no intention of designating Dakota Stables,” said Kate Wood, the executive director of Landmark West!, a preservation group. “They waited until it had been torn down. It was clearly too late for them to do anything meaningful.”

“It was all so carefully orchestrated,” she added. “It was politics. It was all just theater.”

But Mr. Tierney said he fought genuinely hard to have the case heard. “It was knock-down, drag-out time trying to do everything we could do to have a fair and open hearing on that building,” he said.

He also said he was “extremely unhappy with how the owners proceeded” on Dakota Stables and on Paterson Silks, yet added, “That’s two out of thousands — not to minimize them.”

Mr. Stern, the architect who designed the Harrison, the luxury condominiums replacing Dakota Stables, said the late-night demolition created “a controversial and awkward moment,” adding, “I don’t like to tear anything down if I don’t have to.”

And so I ask again: Should Chairman Tierney resign? And if not, what can he be doing faster and better? And how do we hold him to it?

Sphere: Related Content

Will LPC Chair Robert B. Tierney Help Marx Brothers Place Become Reality?

I have to say I was so pleased to receive a press release from Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association stating that Robert B. Tierney, chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission will take a walking tour of the area as a step toward considering Hefti's stretch of 93rd Street for inclusion in the Carnegie Hill Historic District. That's awesome -- I hope Hefti and all the elected officials in support of her efforts gently hold Tierney's feet to the fire.

Here's the release:

That sound you hear may be more than just the ice melting outside! NYC Council Member Dan Garodnick brings us the good news that the Chairman of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, Robert Tierney, has committed to visiting historic Marx Brothers Place in contemplation of calendaring the 93rd Street Beautification Association's Request for Evaluation (RFE) in which we ask the city to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District one block east so as to include this remarkable collection of 19th century houses & gardens within its protective
boundaries.

We're not planning a celebration just yet, as we know a "site visit" is a long way from actually getting the block designated, but it's a start, and we're awfully grateful to CM Garodnick and his Community Liasion, Segun Akande, for all the efforts they have made to get Chairman Tierney to commit to putting on his walking shoes and trekking on up to our cherished little stretch of Carnegie Hill!

Joining CM Garodnick and Segun Akande will be all the other elected officials who wrote to Chairman Tierney urging him to calendar the 93rd Street Beautification Association's RFE for a public hearing. The historic walking tour is being organized through CM Garodnick's office and is expected to take place the last week of March or in the early part of April.

So, if sometime over the next few weeks, you happen to see Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; NY State Assemblyman Jonathan Bing; NY State Assemblyman Micah Kellner; NYC Council Member Dan Garodnick and NYC Council Member Jessica Lappin squiring LPC Chairman Robert Tierney down our steep and storied slope, be sure to smile at the Chairman (now I mean a really, really BIG smile!) and tell him just how much you are looking forward to having our block included in the Carnegie Hill Historic District, and how you're counting on him to get it done!!!

Let's keep our collective fingers and toes crossed, folks!

Three cheers for historic Marx Brothers Place! And many thanks to Council Member Dan Garodnick for leading the upcoming walking tour of our historic little block!

For more information about the 93rd Street Beautification Association or Marx Brothers Place, please contact us at 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com or 212.969.8138 or visit our blogs at: Save Marx Brothers Place or The Marx Brothers Place Report or view our Marx Brothers Place MySpace profile.

Sphere: Related Content

Robin Pogrebin of the Times, in Third Article of a Series, Piles On LPC Chair Robert Tierney

I am growing increasingly astonished at the breadth of reporting and sheer writing craft exhibited by New York Times reporter Robin Pogrebin in her series of pieces on the state of landmarking in New York City, specifically the work (or lack of, if you will) of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.

In Pogrebin's first story, "An Opaque and Lengthy Road to Landmark Status," the writer essentially dissects the Landmarks Preservation Commission's work -- or lack of work or efficiency, it would seem -- and lays a fair amount of the blame at the shuffling feet of LPC chair Robert B. Tierney, who has been keeping his chair lukewarm, Pogrebin writes, for five years. The article further tries to get to the root of what seem like extreme lassitude and laissez-faire-ness on Tierney's part, and how the cause of the preservation is being undermined in a widespread and thoroughly alarming way. In this first story (which I didn't realize was going to be part of a series at the time), I was particularly gobsmacked by this:

He’s a guy who’s had no demonstrable interest in historic preservation, who has the most important preservation job in New York City,” said Anthony C. Wood, author of “Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks" (Routledge, 2008), and a party to the suit.

In Pogrebin's second story, "Preservationists See Bulldozers Charging Through a Loophole," the story goes on -- it's all about how the sluggishness and ineffectualism of the LPC and Tierney act as permission slips for developers, who generally have the moral fiber of Gregory Rasputin, to demolish and cut corners and do all sorts of terrible things to our urban environment. Here is another particularly moving quote:

“In the middle of the night I’m out there at 2 in the morning, and they’re taking the cornices off,” said Gale Brewer, a city councilwoman who represents that part of the Upper West Side. “We’re calling the Buildings Department, we’re calling Landmarks. You get so beaten down by all of this. The developers know they can get away with that.”

Now comes Pogrebin's latest piece: "Preserving the City: Church and State," which deals with the LPC's effect on the demolition (or preservation) of religious structures. (Interestingly, this is an area I'm not sure quite what I think yet: Does the cause of preservation supercede the right to religious freedom? I think it may not.) Here's a great quote:

Among the religious buildings designated on his watch, Mr. Tierney noted, were the first Catholic churches to become landmarks in 28 years: St. Aloysius on West 132nd Street, known for its ornamental polychrome bands of brick and terra cotta, and the Church of All Saints on East 129th Street, an imposing Gothic Revival masterpiece with wheel clerestory windows. Both won landmark status last year.

But while preservationists applauded those designations, they said the commission bypassed even more important treasures like St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Harlem, completed in 1907 on West 118th Street near St. Nicholas Avenue. Known for its flamboyantly ornate neo-Gothic facade, fan-vaulted ceiling, spiky pinnacles and stained-glass windows, it was cited as one of the seven most important sites worth saving by the Preservation League of New York State.

"My community loves this church," Representative Charles B. Rangel wrote in a 2004 letter to Cardinal Edward M. Egan.

During years of pressure from Harlem advocates, the commission has declined to hold a hearing on St. Thomas, saying the building had already been significantly altered and its congregation was largely inactive.

Some preservationists and architectural historians accuse the commission and the New York archdiocese of grudgingly going along with the designations of All Saints and St. Aloysius in exchange for the omission of St. Thomas.

“This was their bargain,” said Michael Henry Adams, the author of “Harlem: Lost and Found” (Monacelli Press, 2001), a history of the neighborhood’s architecture. “To me it’s like the decision of Solomon.”

Read all three articles and answer this question: Should Tierney resign?

Sphere: Related Content

New York Times Runs Expose on Landmarks Preservation Commission: Should Chairman Tierney Resign?

There is a great story in today's Times -- by one of its most dogged and thorough arts reporters, Robin Pogrebin -- on the maddeningly slow pace of the New York City Landmarks Commission's work. Anyone who has had anything remotely to do with preservationism in this town knows what this article is all about. It's tight and smart -- and it makes you wonder what next year's mayoral election is going to look like.

(I know, I know: no one is going to vote for or against Mayor Bloomberg on the basis on what his political appointee, commission head Robert B. Tierney, has or hasn't been doing during his five years as the chair of the LPC. But if you look at the news landscape lately, there have been a lot more articles focusing on city government, such as the pieces last week on how Bloomberg said the city couldn't afford the $400 rebates for homeowners and the City Council forced his people to admit that the mayor didn't have the legal authority to withhold their distribution.)

The question, meanwhile, as a result of Pogrebin's piece is whether Chairman Tierney should step down.

Highlights of the article:

A six-month examination of the commission’s operations by The New York Times reveals an overtaxed agency that has taken years to act on some proposed designations, even as soaring development pressures put historic buildings at risk. Its decision-making is often opaque, and its record-keeping on landmark-designation requests is so spotty that staff members are uncertain how many it rejects in a given year.

In dozens of interviews, residents who have proposed historic buildings or districts for consideration said they were often stonewalled by the commission, receiving formulaic responses or sometimes no response at all.

And there's this:

On some occasions the commission has taken so long to act that the building in question has been demolished or irretrievably altered.

And there's this:

“He’s a guy who’s had no demonstrable interest in historic preservation, who has the most important preservation job in New York City,” said Anthony C. Wood, author of “Preserving New York: Winning the Right to Protect a City’s Landmarks" (Routledge, 2008), and a party to the suit.

Also troubling to critics is the fact that the commission does not document the resolution of each nomination or even quantify how many it defers or rejects. Asked how many Requests for Evaluation they received in the last fiscal year, commission officials said they fielded roughly 200 in addition to nominations generated by the agency itself and its neighborhood surveys. They add that about one quarter never reach the commissioners (other than Mr. Tierney).

It's a great read. Let's hope for change. Yes we can.

Sphere: Related Content

New York City Mayor McScrooge?

As you all know, I've spent much of this year attempting to help Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association to bring two projects to fruition: having her block renamed Marx Brothers Place (honoring where the extraordinary comedians grew up -- and where the building, despite developers wanting to fool with it, still stands), and having her stretch of the Carnegie Hill Historic District extended by precisely this block in order to equally honor the comics (she lives in the building).

Susan, who is even more of a tenacious if tender pitbull than I am, has been fighting the good fight all year and run up against what seems like good and bad -- or shall we say at this time of year, naughty and nice -- politicians. Were this Chicago, for heaven's sake, maybe we could just cough up some money to the Governor of Illinois, who I understand now goes by "Do not Blago, do not collect $250,000." But, indeed, we're not in Chicago, we're in New York City, where the Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has shown the most remarkable aptitude to use his leverage, even if he doesn't have power, to achieve ends that he deems important. Like, for example, shoving the legally enacted term limits aside and ramrodding it through the City Council like a virgin at a VHI1 video gangbang.

But when Hefti and the rest of her 93rd Street crew look for Bloomberg to spread a little holiday cheer their way -- to simply endorse the idea of a Marx Brothers Place -- this famously anti-preservationist billionaire mayor simply raises his prominent nose and extends a metaphorical middle finger.

The irony is that yesterday, two prominent politicians endorsed Susan's ideas.

The first was Scott Stringer, borough president of Manhattan, who no doubt would like to have the mayor's job one day and might even care to ask Mayor Bloomberg to take all his billions and shove them where the Bloomberg terminals don't shine. Here's Susan email blast on the subject:

We have just received a copy of Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's wonderful letter requesting that the Chairman of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission CALENDAR our RFE which asks that the city extend the CHHD one block east to include historic Marx Brothers Place!

Wow ! What a great holiday gift for our block to receive the full support of Borough President Scott Stringer ! This really means a lot to us all !

As you know, our block has been under siege for quite some time now, and most residents feel as though our concerns have fallen on deaf ears. As support for this preservation campaign continues to grow, it helps us feel that, at least, some folks are listening....

Following that was a second email blast from Susan because State Senator Jose Serrano, whose district includes this area, has endorsed the idea of extending the Carnegie Hill Historic District as well, in a letter to Robert B. Tierney, chair of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Let's remember that Tierney is a man, appointed by Bloomberg, who, as the Gotham Gazette noted in its summary of a recent series of exposes by Robin Pogrebin of the Times (quoting The Clyde Fitch Report), may or may not be suitable for his position. (In my coverage, indeed, I suggested he may be corrupt.) Still, how nice to get Serrano on board:

December 23, 2008

Hon. Robert B. Tierney, Chair
Landmarks Preservation Commission
Municipal Building
1 Centre Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007

I respectfully ask the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) to reconsider a
Request for Evaluation (RFE) submitted by the 93rd Street Beautification Association on September 5, 2008.

This RFE seeks to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District one block east to include a collection of houses and gardens known as Marx Brothers Place, located on East 93rd Street between Lexington and Third Avenues.

At a time of great development in our city, I believe that preservation is a key to protecting our historical, cultural, and architectural treasures. This is not to mention the environmental benefits that come with less demolition and construction.

Marx Brothers Place, which falls within the confines of my State Senate District, is worthy of our attention, and worth of the protective umbrella of city government. I urge you to revisit the proposal, and calendar the item as soon as possible.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

But here's the reason I'm writing this. Susan Hefti has had some less than nice correspondence of late with representatives of Mayor Bloomberg's office, and they have, I think, unduly, needlessly and shamelessly chastised her for daring to enlist the mayor's support of any of the 93rd Street Beautification Association's goals. That's just disgusting. The tone of the woman who wrote to Susan was just awful, unprofessional. The correspondence, which I am not at liberty to quote but may refer to, argues that the mayor has no jurisdiction in this matter and to leave him alone. As the Gotham Gazette wrote, "This administration is so excited about the new that it overlooks its obligation to protect the old."

But why protect Bloomberg?

Anyway, here is a final email blast on this that Susan sent out. I urge you all to follow through. It's amazing that when it serves the mayor's interest to subvert democracy in the crassest way, in a bitter betrayal of the public trust that makes him not a much better man than the double-dealing Blago, he'll do it. But when it comes to something so clearly, unquestionably toward the public good, Mayor McScrooge says "Bah, humbug" and hides in his East 79th Street mansion. And to think that Bloomberg's elderly mother is alive to see what a monster her son has become.

Please consider lending your support.

With 8 days of Chanukah and 12 days of Christmas, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has oceans of time to grant our holiday wish for Marx Brothers Place!

Why, it didn't even take him that long to get NYC's term limits law changed !!!

Please help us inspire the Mayor to use his considerable influence over the City Council - to honor the legacy of the world's greatest comic geniuses & NYC's cultural history by clicking on this link and cutting & pasting & sending a message to: ljackson@cityhall.nyc.gov (with a copy to: garodnickoffice@gmail.com and 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com)

Please make sure the Subject Line of your email reads: Marx Brothers Place!

Or just call the Mayor @ 212.788.2958 or 212.788.3245 and ask him to grant this simple holiday wish for Marx Brothers Place!

And while we're at it, please don't forget to click on this link so that YOU can sign the petition to co-name the block Marx Brothers Place!

Sphere: Related Content

Mayor Bloomberg Loves Freelancers, Hates the Marx Brothers?

This post mixes two concerns. First, yesterday I received an email from the Freelancers Union:

Dear Members,

Today in his State of the City address, Mayor Bloomberg echoed our call to exempt independent workers from the Unincorporated Business Tax (UBT)—an unfair double tax that requires 17,000 NYC freelancers to pay twice as much as traditional employees.

And while the announcement is an important first step towards a fairer tax system for freelancers, we’ve still got our work cut out for us.

Even though we’ve got the support of the Mayor, the City Council Speaker, and the NYC Comptroller, the fate of the freelancer tax cut will be determined by the state legislature.

That means that if we truly want relief where it counts—in our wallets—we need to
stick together and convince the politicians in Albany.

We believe: more people, more pull. Please take a minute to thank Mayor Bloomberg for taking a stand for freelancers, and ask him to be our advocate by taking the fight to Albany.

As a full-time (for now) freelancer (and I'll still freelance, I guess, once I have another position), I naturally support the Mayor's proposal and I certainly endorse the idea of everyone jumping on this bandwagon and lobbying the state legislature for its support. It's especially crucial at a moment in time when every bit of revenue, of course, is precious.

Second -- and in the meantime -- my friend Susan Hefti is continuing to rattle cages where Marx Brothers Place is concerned. As this blog's followers know, Susan leads the 93rd Street Beautification Association and has been pressuring the Mayor and his associates to lend their support simply to the idea of honoring the block where the Marx Brothers grew up. But so far, her efforts have been falling on deaf ears. So I ask you: Does the Mayor love freelancers but hate monumental comedy?

Anyway, Susan put out an email tonight containing a form letter than can be sent to the chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commisison, Robert B. Tierney. (I've often said my piece about him -- click here.) The letter asks Tierney to consider the Beautification Association's request to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District one block -- just one block -- so that it will encompass Marx Brothers Place. I think everyone should copy this letter and email it to the address as requested. Developers are salivating -- even in this nonsense economy -- for the opportunity to demolish the historic sites on this block, and on the LPC, and maybe Mayor Bloomberg's voice and conscience, can stop it. Or else our hands and fists will. Here's the letter. Please send it.

Please cut, paste and send to:
comments@lpc.nyc.gov
(with cc to 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com).

Dear Chairman Tierney,

We respectfully request that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) calendar the 93rd Street Beautification Association's Request for Evaluation (RFE), asking the city to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District one block east so as to include historic Marx Brothers Place, for a public hearing.

The beloved childhood block of the Marx Brothers not only includes their extant childhood home, but also includes brownstones that are older than any of the brownstones already in the Carnegie Hill Historic District (a row of townhouses vital to any credible understanding of the development history of Carnegie Hill). The unique stepped-down roofscape that runs on both the north and south sides of the block evokes the city's Native American history, giving meaning to its original name, Manatus, which translated from the Lenape means “island of hills.” It's a fact that is still evident on East 93rd Street, one of the steepest hills left in all of Manhattan, with two houses built and owned by the famous Loew brothers and, inter alia, a house owned by the well-known New Yorker, William Orth.

It is imperative that the city act with all due speed to protect this incomparable collection of historic homes and gardens so rich in our nation's cultural and architectural history.

Thank you for your kind attention to this request.

Respectfully submitted,

(please add your name and address)

So, Mr. Mayor? Bloomie? Mr. B-Bear? You already subverted democracy by ramming through that term-limits overturning. How about you compensate not only by supporting freelancers (thank you), but by honoring the Marx Brothers? Not that I'd harp on that, of course.

Sphere: Related Content

A Penthouse Tale

I came across a story this morning on the New York Daily News website about a "most extraordinary one-bedroom penthouse" on East 72nd Street, with rapturous details of its anachronistically high price, but more than that, it's throwback-to-Nixon-era decor. The thing is, it is a penthouse: it sits proudly and most attractively atop a building. It's a one-story structure. It fits the definition of penthouse as I know it and as I think most intelligent, honest people know it:

1. an apartment or dwelling on the roof of a building, usually set back from the outer walls.
2. any specially designed apartment on an upper floor, esp. the top floor, of a building.
3. a structure on a roof for housing elevator machinery, a water tank, etc.

I don't see anything else suggesting that a penthouse, by definition, represents multiple-story dwellings added to the roof of a building -- those would simply be additional floors. Indeed, the second definition above distinguishes between additional stories and "the top floor" of a building.

Yet on the Upper East Side, where the 93rd Street Beautification Association is engaged in a two-front battle -- to persuade civic authorities that the Carnegie Hall Historic District should be extended one block to include a gorgeous collection of historic brownstones; and to persuade many of the same civic authorities that this block should be called Marx Brothers Place to honor the building where Minnie Marx raised her legendary comic-hero sons -- a third front has been opened. As I covered in this post and in this post and in this post, a fellow named Mark Martinez has been hauling out every trick in the book, it seems, to receive permission to build a penthouse on top of a penthouse on top of the building he owns on historic East 93rd Street.

If I may, let me digress for a moment. In my view, the entirety of the Bloomberg administration has been about development, landlords and any law, rule or consideration that benefits them. It is undeniable and unquestionable that the Mayor believes the business of New York is business (Calvin Coolidge let me borrow his phrase!), and that such crunchy-granola considerations as historic preservation should be relegated whenever possible to the little plot of land out in the back where the hemp-smoking liberals are sequestered. (Consider, for example, the New York Times' great expose of Robert B. Tierney, Bloomberg's handpicked, apparently henpecked chair of the benignly neglected Landmarks Preservation Commission.)

So it is in this context that my friend and comrade Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association keeps in touch and demonstrates through her efforts that she will not shrink from a fight, and Mr. Martinez is her latest target. Mr. Martinez is surely aware by now that Hefti's army of supporters will not give up in their desire to prevent him from building a building atop a building, at least not until the last mad-dog has taken its last barking breath.

Mr. Martinez, a busy general contractor with an entangled history with some of the civic leaders judging his request, has filed with the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals to receive a special permit to do this penthouse-on-a-penthouse thing, but the point of this post is that it would seem there is no level, including prevarication, to which he will not stoop. The question is to what degree the Bloomberg-style antipathy toward historic preservationists has infected the decision-makers in this matter, to what degree the ethical issues swirling around Martinez and his powerful coterie can trump the demands of community activists and elected leaders.

Let me dive into specifics now, as per a recent email from Hefti:

Completely undaunted by restrictions of the zoning law or community opposition or the fact that [Martinez' building] abuts an historic collection of 19th century houses & gardens that are older than any of the brownstones already in the Carnegie Hill Historic District, [Martinez] has actually gone ahead and applied to BSA for a Special Permit to allow him the precedent-setting-privilege of towering up above the historic skyline and adding a 13th floor to an eleven story building.

And in this curious case, the penthouse in question is, in fact, not a penthouse at all. For, as it turns out, the extant penthouse at 150 E. 93rd, is actually just a concrete box that sits on top of the building's roof. In other words, the so-called "penthouse" at 150E93 is already one whole floor above what would ordinarily be considered the penthouse.

So what the penthouse owner really wants to do here is to put a second concrete box on top of the first concrete box (the so-called "penthouse" in which he lives now)which already sits on top of the roof....

Never mind the fact that what this penthouse owner wants to do is prohibited by the NYC zoning resolution. Never mind the fact that, if approved, this 13th floor would constitute a precedent-setting breach of the historic skyline. Never mind the fact that the community is strongly opposed to this proposal. Never mind the fact that 150 E. 93rd abuts an historic collection of houses & gardens that are older than any of the brownstones already in the Carnegie Hill Historic District. And never mind the fact that the penthouse owner has not provided a structural engineering report to determine whether the roof of 150E93 could even support another floor.

Joining the 93rd Street Beautification Association in this effort are the following: Carnegie Hill Neighbors, CIVITAS, Brewery Hill Block Association and several nearby co-op board presidents, plus New York State Assemblymen Micah Kellner and Jonathan Bing; New York City Council Member Dan Garodnick and New York City Council Member Tony Avella, who chairs the zoning committee. All have written the BSA asking that it deny Martinez's special permit. The question, once again, is whether that bears any weight in comparison to the Bloombergian bargain with all the Mephistopheles' of New York real estate.

Adding fuel to this fire is the insinuation by Hefti that other examples of nattering nefariousness is raging. Before I continue, let me acknowledge that while I have not independently verified the following information, I feel there is sufficient reason to publish it on The Clyde Fitch Report; I do reserve the right, however, to amend this post should refuting evidence come to light. For now, it seems that Martinez's attorney, Fred Becker, did testify to the BSA that the penthouse currently atop 150 E. 93rd Street has existed since the building's construction in 1923; should this prove to be true, the argument might follow that the penthouse is, in actuality, merely the top story of the building. Yet, if this is the case, why did Martinez apply for a 2005 permit -- I refer you to Department of Buildings Job Number 103369196, line 4 -- to build a penthouse on top of the building? Is that not 82 years after the time when Becker claims the penthouse was built?

Here is a link to Martinez' application with the Department of Buildings. Notice the wording:

CONVERT PENTHOUSE LEVEL TO BE CALLED 12TH FLOOR, SINCE ENLARGEMENT OF THAT LEVEL CREATED A FLOOR. ALL WORK (COMBINATION AND ENLARGEMENT OF APARTMENT WERE FILED UNDER APPLICATION #103273627). NO WORK UNDER THIS APPLICATION.

Was this 1923 too? What a terrific guy President Harding is! What's Mayor Hylan up to?

Becker's disingenuousness -- is prevarication a better word? -- aside, there are other elements in this matter that I am choose to omit from this post, pending further investigation. The point is that either we collectively start objecting to the encroaching, unchecked hegemony of real estate interests everywhere across New York, fighting each battle and helping each other out, or we are to blame for the city being aesthetically, architecturally and perhaps even fiscally doomed.

And no, that doesn't mean I'm anti-development. I am, rather, ardently pro-truth.

So I ask you to register your objection to this penthouse-on-a-penthouse plan in a neighborhood that you probably do not live in. I ask you out of civic duty, solidarity, should you be so moved.

So:

Objections to the penthouse proposal can be made in person at the Public Hearing on January 27th (where each person has 3 minutes to speak) or sent in writing in advance of the Public Hearing by REGULAR MAIL: Ms. Meenakshi Srinivasan, Chair, NYC BSA, 40 Rector Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10006-1705; EMAIL: By clicking on this link and filling in the fields - or FAX: 212.788.8769 (attention: Mr. Ron Rizzotti).

All objections must include the following information: BSA Calendar Number - 162-08-BZ, Property ID - 150 East 93rd Street, Block 1521, Lot 51, Manhattan.

Sphere: Related Content

Says Penthouse-Crazy Mark Martinez: If I Go Down, East 93rd Street Goes With Me!

The battle underway between an Upper East Side penthouse owner who wants to build a penthouse on top of a penthouse on top of an East 93rd Street building, and the growing chorus of activists and local elected officials in favor of including the block as part of the Carnegie Hill Historic District -- and against the penthouse owner's construction plans -- is heating up. And getting very dirty.

Today, the New York City Board of Standards of Appeals will consider whether the penthouse owner, Mark Martinez, despite a record of prevarication, should be given a zoning allowance that would, activists say, jeopardize the architectural integrity of the block and perhaps the structural integrity of the building itself.

Meanwhile, Martinez is employing diversionary tactics worthy of General Lee in the days before his surrender at Appomattox. Two confidential sources tell me that Martinez had his attorney call Kate Daly, executive director of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which may soon be taking the block's request for inclusion in the Historic District under consideration, in order to suggest that the LPC will, in fact, never do so, and therefore, in his view, the BSA should rule in his favor. The BSA and LPC are autonomous organizations exerting no legal influence over the other.

So the question is this: What influence is Martinez, through his legal counsel, attempting to exert over the LPC or the BSA?

What's great is how people on the block are responding. Below are two letters made available to me by the 93rd Street Beautification Association. I have redacted specific names and addresses out of respect for the identities of those who have written them.

Re: Objection to Application for Special Permit - Calendar Number
162-08-BZ, Property ID - 150 East 93rd Street, Block 1521, Lot 51, Manhattan.

Dear Madame Chair,

My family & I own a lovely historic townhouse at XXX East 93rd Street just steps away from the Carnegie Hill Historic District. We feel very fortunate to have bought one of the houses that make up the collection of brownstones that are older than any of the brownstones already in the CHHD.

And, as you may know, there is a pending and ongoing effort, supported by many of the city’s most highly respected architectural historians, preservationists and elected officials, to extend the CHHD so as to include our important block within its protective boundaries. The neighborhood supports this ongoing preservation effort.

In the meantime, it has come to my attention that the applicant in the above captioned case has submitted a preliminary shadow assessment, produced by Thomas A. Francis of Equity Environmental Engineering LLC in Flanders NJ, in an attempt to avoid having to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In light of the myriad environmental issues raised by this case, we feel quite strongly that an EIS is required.

Mr. Francis explains in his preliminary shadow assessment that he has not been to the site, and is projecting an opinion based upon his own broad theoretical calculations. Because the assessment was created in a vacuum, without the benefit of the relevant factors particular to East 93rd Street, it is wholly inadequate and must be disregarded in its entirety. Certainly, the preliminary shadow assessment submitted by the applicant can not be the basis for issuing a negative declaration in this case:

1.) The subject assessment assumes that 150E93 is surrounded by buildings of equal height which would theoretically intervene in shadows cast. But because Mr. Francis was not given all the facts, his assumption here is incorrect as 150E93 abuts a row of tiny and ancient houses. The assessment, therefore, fails to provide the basis upon which a negative declaration can be issued.

2.) The assessment fails to contemplate the undeniable shadow that would be cast upon our gardens here on East 93rd Street if the proposed addition of a 13th floor were approved. For the fact is, the long row of 4-story 19th century brownstones which 150E93 abuts, has an equally long row of contiguous gardens that run the course of the rear yards.

These gardens lose sunlight at a particular time of day depending upon the season. Since even the inadequate preliminary shadow assessment submitted by the applicant admits that the proposed addition would cast at least an additional 43 feet of shadow, a significant difference to the health of our verdant gardens and their resident flora and fauna, there is no question that the proposed addition and its attendant added shadow would impact the environment. The assessment, therefore, fails to provide the basis upon which a negative declaration can be issued.

We respectfully ask that BSA deny the applicant's request for a special permit to construct an additional story atop the roof of 150 East 93rd Street.

Respectfully submitted,
xxx and xxxx

cc: Manhattan Borough President, Scott Stringer
NY State Assembly Members: Micah Kellner & Jonathan Bing
NYC Council Members: Dan Garodnick; Jessica Lappin & Tony Avella
NY State Senator Jose M. Serrano
93rd Street Beautification Association
Carnegie Hill Neighbors
Brewery Hill Block Association
CIVITAS


Re: Objection to Application for Special Permit - Calendar Number
162-08-BZ, Property ID - 150 East 93rd Street, Block 1521, Lot 51, Manhattan.

Dear Madame Chair,

We are the proud owners of XXX East 93rd Street, an historic brownstone on one of Manhattan’s most cherished and storied blocks. We strongly object to the application in the above cited case. Creating a 13th floor on top of the extant "penthouse", which created a 12th floor, would have a negative impact on the character of our neighborhood, and we respectfully ask BSA to deny the applicant’s request for a special permit.

The campaign to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District just one short block east to include the very important collection of 19th century houses on our block continues on with the support of the neighborhood; many of the city’s most highly respected architectural historians; NYC’s highly respected preservation community and many of our elected NY State and NYC officials.

Quite recently, a powerful coalition of elected officials, including Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; NY State Senator Jose M. Serrano; NY State Assembly Member Jonathan Bing; NY State Assembly Member Micah Kellner; NYC Council Member Dan Garodnick and NYC Council Member Jessica Lappin wrote letters to Mr. Robert Tierney, Chairman of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, asking him to take up the matter of our block’s request and finally calendar our RFE for a Public Hearing. So, while the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission has not yet calendared our RFE, we are confident that the Commission will do so and grant our Request.

But all of this is really beside the point. For the only question before BSA is: "Would the proposed additional floor at 150E93 have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood?" And the answer to that narrow question is a resounding, "yes".

For while the boundaries of Historic District designation provide another layer of legal protection against the ravages of overdevelopment, and projects contrary to our neighborhood’s character, LPC’s failure to act at this time in no way diminishes the facts of our block’s unique and well documented history.

LPC designation does not history make; it is the facts that make the history. And the facts about our block are both well established and historically significant. The experts from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Architecture and Historic Preservation who guided, researched and wrote the surveys of our unique collection of 19th century houses for the RFE were fascinated by the historic facts they discovered about our block including: the row of houses that are older than any of the brownstones already in the CHHD (a row they consider the Rosetta stone to any credible development history of Carnegie Hill); a most unique stepped-down roofscape on both sides of the block; the beloved and world-famous Marx Brothers childhood home; two houses built and owned by the famous NYC Loew Brothers and a house that was owned by the well known New Yorker, William Orth.

LPC designation, or the lack thereof, can not change these facts which help to inform and define our neighborhood’s unique and cherished character. The proposal to build an addition on top of the addition that sits on top of 150E93 would have a negative impact on the unique character of our block.

One of the most obvious impacts of this proposal would be that we would clearly see this addition from the street. While from certain angles, applicant’s extant "penthouse" is currently blocked from view by the "penthouse" that sits to its east, simple geometry dictates that if applicant were allowed to add yet another floor to his extant "penthouse", that 13th story would clearly protrude up above even the easterly penthouse and would easily be seen throughout the neighborhood, most especially on historic East 93rd Street.

Please deny applicant's request for a special permit to construct an additional floor on top of the structure that sits on top of the roof of 150 East 93rd Street.

Respectfully submitted,
XXX & XXX

Cc: Manhattan Borough President, Scott Stringer
NY State Assembly Members: Micah Kellner & Jonathan Bing
NYC Council Members: Dan Garodnick; Jessica Lappin & Tony Avella
NY State Senator Jose M. Serrano
93rd Street Beautification Association
Carnegie Hill Neighbors
Brewery Hill Block Association
CIVITAS

Stay tuned.

Sphere: Related Content