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

Is East 93rd Street Destined for Cannibalization?

Either its my imagination or the stretch of East 93rd Street just adjacent to the Carnegie Hill Historic District -- where Susan Hefti and the 93rd Street Beautification Association has been leading the charge to have the block, with its elegant and precious collection of brownstones, added to the district -- is being circled by developers and greed-mongers like a collection of seagulls that haven't eaten since 1985.

From the tale of a penthouse owner who wants permission to build a penthouse on top of a penthouse and will do anything, including lie about his building's history, to get his way, to the reluctance of city officials to name their block Marx Brothers Place, in honor of the building on the block where the Marx Brothers were raised, it seems that every time I turn around, another drama is going on on East 93rd Street.

The latest -- conveyed to me via this announcement (below) from the Beautification Association -- makes me terribly ill:

At 6:30pm on Wed., Feb. 18, Community Board 8 (CB8) will meet in the auditorium of Sloan Kettering at 401 E. 66th St. to consider a proposal to put a whole new floor on top of the remarkable landmark building at 75 East 93rd Street in historic Carnegie Hill.

The landmark, known as the Baker Mansion, sits within the boundaries of the Carnegie Hill Historic District and is considered an architectural gem in NYC's narrowing collection of historic structures.

The proposal to drastically alter this historic landmark is being put forward by the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to whom the historic site was given as a gift many years ago. The Synod of Bishops claims to need the proposed alterations in order to generate a steady source of income for the church.

The proposal, which is being driven by the synod's treasurer -- actually sits in Russia and London, but not in NYC - also includes a plan to tear up the historic landmark's famous courtyard, and ancient trees, so that the synod can maximize its potential profit by building a subterranean rental space that would significantly multiply the physical mass of the structures at 75 East 93rd Street in Carnegie Hill.

Curiously, the actual parishioners of the church boldly and vociferously oppose the synod's proposal. These feisty parishioners have formed a Committee to Preserve and have already raised $4 million dollars in order to show the city that the church does not need to alter this remarkable landmark in order to meet its financial responsibilities.

Many of these parishioners spoke very passionately against the proposal at the CB8 Landmarks Committee Meeting on February 9, and plan to protest the proposal again at CB8's Full Board Meeting on Wednesday, February 18.

Neighbors, preservationists, neighborhood associations and planning organizations turned out in force for the February 9th CB8 Landmarks Committee Meeting (Historic Districts Council; Carnegie Hill Neighbors; CIVITAS; 93rd Street Beautification Association; Friends of the Upper East Side, et. al., were all in attendance). And we hope they will all attend Wednesday's Full Board Meeting of CB8, too!

The public turnout on February 9 made a huge difference: CB8's Landmarks Committee voted to recommend to the full board that the Synod's proposal be disapproved. But, as we all know, the full board of CB8 does just as it pleases.

So please don't miss the CB8 Meeting. Please let the Board know that you want the city to protect its historic districts, its historic neighborhoods and its historic landmarks!

Let us pray. Um, really hard.

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

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

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

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

Will Mayor Bloomberg Play the Scrooge? Or Make Marx Brothers Place a Reality?

Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association, in an e-blast to her growing, increasingly vocal constituency, has a message for Mayor Bloomberg. The question is whether, by spending not one dollar, he will listen. Mr. Mayor, hello? Is there a good reason NOT to proclaim Marx Brothers Place? Here, read the email from Susan -- and you decide.

NYC's Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, has long been known for his generous largess—saving, for example, a struggling ballet school uptown, much to the delight and surprise of the very grateful recipient of his unexpected gift. Acts of kindness and good will, like this one, have loaned a certain charm to the Mayor's reputation over the years.

But, in the wake of the Mayor's recent and notorious end run around two voter referenda on term limits, his reputation has, according to polls on the subject, taken a real beating.

So as acts of generosity and kindness always seem to take on a special glow during the holidays, offering as they do hope for the human spirit, we have a very simple suggestion of a Mayoral gesture that might help to smooth out some of the dings left behind by the bitterly contested Council vote, and this gesture won't cost the Mayor a dime!

One of the many perks of being Mayor of this great city is that the office carries with it the authority to ceremonially co-name streets throughout the five boroughs. Mayor Koch made good use of this official gesture when he co-named a block on 91st Street James Cagney Place in honor of the late great actor whose childhood home once stood there, but which was sadly demolished before Koch had a chance to bestow the honor.

As many of you know, we have been campaigning to have East 93rd Street, between Lexington & Third Avenues, the site of the beloved childhood home of the Marx Brothers, to be eponymously co-named Marx Brothers Place in honor of NYC's greatest gift to the world stage of comedy. It was actually the celebrated preservationist, Tony C. Wood, who first came up with the name Marx Brothers Place, and what a great idea it was!

So we hope that Mayor Bloomberg is feeling magnanimous this holiday season, and will grant this glorious, but cost-effective, holiday wish. A Mayoral gesture, as fine and grand as this, would be especially appreciated by neighborhood businesses who, during this economic downturn, will be the grateful beneficiaries of the foot traffic associated with becoming a true destination, especially one invested with so much good cheer.

For the Mayor's part, it would require no more than waving his magic wand to make the ceremonial name "official". Why the Mayor wouldn't even have to make the long, hard trek up our famously steep hill to deliver this particular holiday gift. He could simply announce, from the comfort of his warm office, that the deed has been done.

No environmentally unfriendly gift wrap is needed; no fancy ribbon; no squeezing down a chimney to place the ceremonial name under a tree. Simply say it is so, and it becomes Marx Brothers Place. It's just that easy.

Given the amount of good will this simple gesture would generate, and how little it would cost, its a real bargain for the city, the block and the Mayor. Everybody wins!

And talk about a bang for your buck! In one fell swoop, the Mayor would be supporting the neighborhood; local businesses; local real estate; tourism; NYC's much vaunted history; our city's cultural heritage & public identity and the unrivaled legacy of the universally recognized grandfathers of American comedy.

While some may still be harboring visions of sugarplums, we think the Mayor co-naming East 93rd Street for the greatest comic geniuses the world has ever known would simply be the sweetest holiday treat of all!

So perhaps you could all take just a moment out of your busy days to call the mayor's office at 212.788.2958 or 212.788.3245 or simply send him a cut & paste email at: ljackson@cityhall.nyc.gov (with a copy to 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com) and drop a really big hint about a very smart gift the Mayor could bestow upon historic East 93rd Street this holiday season, a gift New Yorkers would surely embrace and enjoy for generations to come.

Thanks for your continued interest in historic Marx Brothers Place!

For more information about the 93rd Street Beautification Association, 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 MySpace profile.

Sphere: Related Content

Could the Dream of Marx Brothers Place Be Thwarted?

I don't want to sound needlessly alarmist, but based on emails from and postings by Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association, I suspect the possibility of having her stretch of East 93rd Street named after the Marx Brothers is about even odds at best. Still, that doesn't mean this issue should go down without a fight.

Look at this post in which Susan encourages everyone to get on board a plan to stop a penthouse from being built atop another penthouse -- something already eroding the historic nature of the block -- and thus undermining the Marx Brothers Place campaign.

As a reminder, register your objection to the proposal to top-off the penthouse at 150 East 93rd Street here.

(Email objections must include: BSA Calendar Number: 162-08-BZ; Property ID: 150 East 93rd Street; Block: 1521; Lot: 51; Borough: Manhattan. All objections should be "land-use" related. See Susan's post for more information.)

Sphere: Related Content

93rd Street Beautification Association to Part the Red Sea to Stop Illegal Penthouse Construction

I have to give it to Susan Hefti. She is a real trouper and so absolutely dedicated to all that is good over on East 93rd Street, including having the street renamed for the Marx Brothers and having the Landmarks Preservation Commission extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District by one block.

Today, Susan pointed me toward a sample letter on the 93rd Street Beautification Association's website that anyone can use to help stop the construction of a probably-illegal penthouse on top of another penthouse on this endangered block.

You can read the full version of the sample letter here. Meantime, here's a tease:

City of NY
Board of Standards & Appeals
40 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006-1705

Re: BSA Calendar Number - 162-08-BZ, Property ID - 150 East 93rd Street, Block 1521, Lot 51, Manhattan

To the Board:

Historic East 93rd Street between Lexington & Third Avenues is a very special block. In addition to the world-famous Marx Brothers House, the block boasts a row of 19th century brownstones that are older than any of the brownstones already within the protection of the Carnegie Hill Historic District. These houses date from the same year Abraham Lincoln won re-election (1864) and even pre-date the Lexington Avenue extension.

In addition to these two significant facts, East 93rd Street's unique stepped-down roof-scape, in part a function of the block being one of the steepest hills left in Manhattan, has been celebrated by architects and historic preservationists alike. In fact, Place Matters, the partnership project of the Municipal Arts Society and City Lore, is so charmed by this remarkable stepped-down roof-scape, it has devoted an entire page to this historic block on its web site. So I'm sure BSA can appreciate the fact that any project which threatens the historic character of this little neighborhood is of grave concern to many.

I am writing to express my very serious concerns about the proposed Penthouse for which the applicant is requesting a special permit. Before irreparable harm is rendered upon this block, I respectfully ask BSA to deny applicant's request for the reasons stated above and below:

You'll have to click over to read the rest, which I exhort you to do.

Sphere: Related Content

Harpo's Son Joins Campaign to Create Marx Brothers Place on East 93rd Street

Well, this is nice -- an emailed newsflash from Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association. Good for them! Nifty photo, too. Here's the copy:

His father had always told him just how much he loved his childhood home on East 93rd Street. So, when Harpo Marx's son heard about the preservation campaign to protect this incomparable historic block, and the Marx Brothers childhood home, Bill Marx promptly wrote to the chairman of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission asking the LPC to include Marx Brothers Place in the Carnegie Hill Historic District where it belongs.

Bill Marx believes that as a nation, it's imperative that we pay keen attention to our collective cultural history, so as not to forget what America was while continuing to define what she will become.

Harpo's son was also recently instrumental in getting his father's Ranch, El Rancho Harpo, where he lived late in life, designated as an historic site in California. Now Mr. Marx has turned his attention to East 93rd Street in the hopes that New York City will do the right thing and preserve the historic block where the childhood home of his famous father and uncles still stands.

Reporter Adam Pincus recently spoke with Harpo's son and filed this news story for The Real Deal magazine.

You can help, too !

Just click on this link and sign the 2 petitions to protect historic Marx Brothers Place:
http://savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com/please-sign-our-petitions-to-save-marx-brothers-place/.

For more information about the campaign to preserve historic Marx Brothers Place, please contact the 93rd Street Beautification Association at 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com or visit our blogs at http://www.savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com/ or http://the-marx-brothers-place-report.blogspot.com/.

Sphere: Related Content

93rd Street Beautification Association Questions the Integrity of CB8 President David Liston

Just received an email from the 93rd Street Beautification Association -- Community Board 8 is continuing its hostile stance toward its own citizenry by refusing to look at, acknowledge, discuss or think about the Sept. 10 vote, which may or may not have been legal, giving a green light to a variance that will allow a contractor to build a penthouse atop another penthouse, which will continue to destroy, among other things, the grand character of this historic area. Politicians like to talk about the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" in the sense of red states voting against their economic interests. The real question is: What's the Matter with Community Board 8 President David Liston? Here's the email I received, slightly redacted:

Despite numerous timely requests from the community, Community Board 8 Chairman, David Liston, has refused to calender the Request for Reconsideration of the Board's erroneous September 10, 2008 approval of a precedent-setting variance which would allow a General Contracter to put a Penthouse on top of his existing Penthouse at 150 East 93rd Street, best known as historic Marx Brothers Place, in Carnegie Hill.

As NYC residents weigh the value of term limits this week, it's a perfect time to explore the length of service that should be tolerated on Community Boards. We must now ask ourselves, What is best for the community? What is it that would truly empower the residents of our city?

When Community Board Members are not only callously unapologetic about missing crucial votes that will effect our city's residential neighborhoods, but also refuse to listen to the community even when they deign to finally appear, their collective failure to reflect the purpose of these Boards and the concerns of the community necessarily begs two questions: 1) Should Community Board Members be limited to 2 years of service each? and 2) Are Community Boards and their burden to the much-stressed budget still necessary in this age of cost-effective communication and public access?

Despite very little transparency and absolutely no accountability to the public (remember that quaint little notion of democracy?) these nongovernmental-governmental bodies hold sway over everybody from your local Council Member to the Borough Presidents. Just ask for something that hasn't first been given a Community Board's seal of approval. Otherwise muscular politicians suddenly go weak in the knees.

In the face of that kind of power, one would think that Community Boards must naturally include an appeals process by which to challenge Board decisions. And one would, sadly, be wrong.

Instead of providing an opportunity for appeal, Board Members prefer to deflect community grievances, by downplaying the weight of their collective opinion and reminding everybody that a Board decision is not legally binding, after all. Well, talk about having it both ways.

NYC residents are politically precluded from progress (oh say, like a block being co-named in honor of the world's greatest comic genuises) unless that progress is specifically sanctioned and defined by their particular Community Board. It seems Board Members and the elected officials who cower to them have forgotten the most important thing of all: their public duty is to reflect the will of the community and not the other way around.

To encourage fair and balanced judgments, most democratic structures include built-in checks and balances, like an appeals process. But, here in our town, Community Boards are completely shielded from the democratic process. Because Board decisions are not legally binding, no opportunity for appeal is provided to the public.

Granted, this obvious flaw in the system may not be the fault of individual Community Board Members. But true leaders always rise above the tedium of structure to fashion solutions that are in the public's best interest. That simple concept is at the very heart of public leadership and public service…

Community Board decisions must be appealable and reversible. If not, it's time to face the simple fact that Community Boards, however useful when first created, have outlived their usefulness and should be disbanded, a very attractive prospect in a fiscally-strapped time.

So I did a little digging, and it turns out that Liston is an attorney at Hughes Hubbard. Here's a link to all kinds of information about him, and that includes an in-depth PDF file that is worth investigating further. What relationship might Liston or Hughes Hubbard have with the contractor -- or the owner of the penthouse and the building? What conflicts of interest may be preventing Liston from acting in good faith as President of CB8? I don't know that there are any. Indeed, there may be none. But it seems to me this is ready to be examined. I hope the 93rd Street Beautification Association, in addition to putting out emails, does so immediately.

Sphere: Related Content

93rd Street Beautification Association Asks CB8 for Ethics Reform

Great letter from the association to the CB8. I don't have the images, but the content of the letter is clear:

Mr. David Liston
Chair, Community Board 8
505 Park Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10022
September 22, 2008

Re: Formal Request for Reconsideration of CB8 Vote of September 10, 2008 Approving Proposal to Construct Penthouse Atop the Penthouse at 150 East 93rd St. in Carnegie Hill

Dear Mr. Liston,

As you know, historic East 93rd Street between Lexington & Third Avenues is a very special block. In addition to the world-famous Marx Brothers House, the block boasts a row of 19th century brownstones that are older than any of the brownstones already within the protection of the Carnegie Hill Historic District.

In addition to these two significant facts, East 93rd Street's unique stepped-down roofscape, in part a function of the block being one of the steepest hills left in Manhattan, has been celebrated by architects and historic preservationists alike. In fact, Place Matters, the partnership project of the Municipal Arts Society and City Lore, is so charmed by our remarkable stepped-down roofscape, it has devoted an entire page to our historic block at www.placematters.org. So, we have no doubt that CB8 can also appreciate the fact that any project that threatens the historic character of our little neighborhood is of grave concerns to the residents of East 93rd Street and the Carnegie Hill Neighborhood at large.

That is why we are writing to you today to express our very serious concerns about the September 10, 2008 CB8 vote approving a proposed Penthouse which the applicant wishes to construct on top of his existing Penthouse at 150 East 93rd Street in Carnegie Hill where the applicant serves as the President of the Co-Op Board.

It is our understanding that the formal resolution of the subject CB8 Board vote has been sent to BSA, but that the matter has not yet been scheduled by that Board. We hereby formally request that Community Board 8 reconsider the subject September 10, 2008 vote, vacate the Board's previous approval of the subject Special Permit and notify BSA of the Board's new action on this matter.

At this point in time, before irreparable harm is rendered upon our block, we respectfully ask CB8 to reconsider its subject vote of September 10, 2008 for the following reasons:

1.) Applicant falsely claimed that his existing Penthouse can not be seen from the street and, thereby, deliberately misled Community Board 8 in his description of the impact of his proposal on the character of the neighborhood.

As shown in the photographs below, the existing Penthouse can, in fact, be seen from the street. If applicant is allowed to construct a Penthouse atop his Penthouse, twice as much of it will be seen.

2.) Applicant failed to provide Community Board 8 with exact specifications (height, etc.) about the proposed Penthouse. When asked at the September 10, 2008 CB8 meeting, by neighbor Marci Wertheimer, for the exact height of the proposed Penthouse and the exact height of 150 East 93rd Street if the proposed Penthouse were approved and added to the top of the extant Penthouse, applicant stated that he only had approximations and no exact measurements.

3.) A laundry list of Public Safety issues are raised by applicant's failure to provide exact specifications, measurements and details for his proposal to construct a Penthouse atop his existing Penthouse at the tallest peak on our block.

4.) Whether this block has yet or ever will be landmarked, it is undeniably very rich in NYC history (as set forth in great detail in the RFE filed with Community Board 8 on September 8, 2008). And while that incontrovertible fact may not yet trigger a review by NYC's LPC, it underscores the importance of Community Board 8 giving due consideration to the impact of this proposal on the character of the neighborhood, historic East 93rd Street.

5.) The applicant deliberately misled CB8 in his assertion that 150 East 93rd Street is surrounded by nothing but high rises. The photographs above and below show that 150 East 93rd Street abuts a row

of tiny brownstones that are only 4 stories tall and are older than any of the brownstones that are already within the Carnegie Hill Historic District.

Because of the applicant's deliberate mischaracterization of the neighborhood that will be affected if his proposal is approved, CB8 has not yet had an authentic opportunity to seriously consider the impact of this proposal on the character of the subject neighborhood.

As illustrated by the photograph above, the block is dramatically dwarfed by 150 East 93rd Street, our tallest peak already. If CB8 were to grant the Special Permit requesting approval to add yet another Penthouse to the top of applicant's extant Penthouse, the disparity in scale would be far more lopsided, and surely stick out like a sore thumb on our ancient little block of 19th century houses.

6.) In light of the Manhattan Borough President's recent efforts to strengthen the public’s protection against construction projects not thoroughly vetted, and the fact that even the DOB refused to approve the applicant’ proposal to construct a Penthouse on top of his existing Penthouse, CB8 should reconsider and vacate its September 10 Approval of the subject Special Permit so as to ensure public safety; protect the continuity of the neighborhood's distinct and historic character and to encourage the necessary construction reforms being pursued by the Manhattan Borough President's office.

Thank you for your swift and thorough attention to this formal request to reconsider and vacate CB8's September 10, 2008 approval of Mr. Mark Martinez' Special Permit for his proposal to build a Penthouse on top of his existing Penthouse at 150 East 93rd Street.

Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Kathryn Hefti
Co-Chair, 93rd Street Beautification Association
93rdst.beautification@gmail.com

Sphere: Related Content

93rd Street Beautification Association Pushes the Demolition Review Bill

This just in --

John McCain is suspending all Social Security payments and flying to New York to make sure the City Council passes the Demolition Review Requirement that the 93rd Street Beautification Association is proposing.

Here is an email that I received today on this issue. Interesting read.

93rd Street Beautification Association
Keeping Our Block Historic & Green
http://www.savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com/

Anybody who thinks that the NYC Demolition Review Bill (which is now making the rounds in the New York City Council) is bad for business, just isn't paying attention at all. Over the last several years, NYC has gone from being a mere image projected against a Green Screen in a Hollywood Back Lot (which generates $0 revenue to our town) to being an actual physical location, syphoning production crews; entire casts; staffs of writers and stables of stylists along with producers, directors and stunt coordinators away from the traditional cost-effective fare, offered by Los Angeles and Toronto, and transplanting a string of hot TV Series (eg., Ugly Betty, Entourage, Fringe, 30 Rock) and countless movies (both independent and Hollywood Studio Feature films) to the Big Apple, instead.

To our good fortune (and not a moment too soon), along with these shows and movies comes a much-needed financial boon for a city, first shell-shocked by the tragedy that befell us all on September 11, 2001, and now reeling from the more recent fallout from an insatiable appetite for junk securities, which at first looked like a life-line out of the unimaginable shock of the first tragedy, but now, just like the Emperor himself, stand naked before us all (without so much as a price tag discreetly dangling before its modesty).

The welcome shift in the Film & Television Industry, back to NYC and its Boroughs (which had all enjoyed an earlier heyday thanks to filmmakers and artists like The Marx Brothers), has happened, in part, because of the generous tax incentives offered to TV & Film projects, a shrewd calling card in a budget-conscious climate such as ours. But the real draw for New York City has always been its incomparable photogenic complexion: eclectic, storied and stunning. The incontrovertible fact remains - there is no other place like it on earth.

When Hollywood Locations Scouts and Managers, the people that actually see the scenes in their minds eye before the scenes ever get produced, talk about New York City, they can't help but gush about its remarkable historic architecture. The New York City that is a magnet for the creative juices of the Film & Television Industry is not the bland-box-condo-complexes that developers have been allowed to ram through with sleepy Community Boards looking the other way, but the New York City that is as distinct and unmistakable as a fingerprint. It's the New York City whose architectural inventory and residential neighborhoods spell out, in the visual vernacular widely memorialized in film and video, a town whose mise-en-scene couldn't possibly be mistaken for that of a Canadian surrogate (as in the recent excellent, but very oddly set film, Elegy).

Much has been written about the phenomenon of Hollywood East (which stretches well beyond Manhattan into Long Island City, Coney Island and Jackson Heights, Queens, to name but a few well-trod locations). But an article in The New York Times today vividly illustrates the critical, and therefore fragile, symbiotic relationship between historic preservation and the sustainability of this still nascent industry (which is always a mere boarding pass away from LA and Toronto).

What is most striking to us about this article is how it so clearly connects the dots between the economic windfall NYC is currently enjoying, from the glare of the spotlights, and the specific premium placed on a real-life backdrop of HISTORIC ROWHOUSES in particular, just one of the many architectural treasures we are campaigning to save on Marx Brothers Place in Carnegie Hill.

At this unpredictable moment in NYC's economic narrative, Members of the City Council, Melinda Katz and her powerful Land Use Committee in particular, have a fortuitous opportunity to make an historic contribution to the health and future of our great city by protecting that which helps to sustain its residential neighborhoods; its tourism; its much vaunted history and its long-term economic muscle. With only 1% of NYC's vast building stock triggering even the most cursory review before a demolition permit can be issued, a vital economic resource (the rest of the historically significant structures in our town) that is helping to stem our city's current financial hemorrhage, remains dangerously vulnerable to summary demolition.

It is the confluence of tough times, practical measures and leaders with true vision that make great moments in history. And Members of the New York City Council are standing at that very nexus right now. Before our city looses the historically significant catalogue of architectural structures that help define its character, and now contribute to its wealth, members of the New York City Council should embrace the Demolition Review Bill before them, and adopt this important piece of legislation into law, today. It's time for our elected officials to step up to the plate and protect New York City's economic future.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Community Board 8 Corrupt?

Is Community Board 8 corrupt? I don’t live on the Upper East Side, so I can’t say for sure. It's also a question of what one considers to be corruption, as you'll see shortly -- this can surely be debated. But because I happen to believe in fair and honest public policy, and because I believe that clean government, especially at the grassroots, at least gives a running shot to clean government all the way up the political food chain, and because I believe in citizen empowerment without citizen corruption, I wanted to blog about a series of emails I received today from the 93rd Street Beautification Association, which as readers of this blog know is actively spearheading the effort to create Marx Brothers Place, also to extend the historic district that exists in that part of Manhattan, and, finally, to preserve, protect, and defend the architectural integrity of a grand swath of the Upper East Side.

It turns out that while the unpaid (but majority wealthy) members of CB 8 have been getting an earful from the local non-rich regarding the Beautification Association's noble efforts, it would appear that members of CB8 are vulnerable to pressure, of the political or perhaps the payment kind, from a businessman who’d rather pockmark their neighborhood with needless and ugly development.

The association's email stated that despite the fact that the NYC Department of Buildings disapproved proposed plans to build a penthouse on top of an existing penthouse at 150 E. 93rd St., the CB8 voted last night to "turn its back on both the Department of Buildings" and -- equally important, though just as immoral and disturbing -- "on the important collection of tiny 19th century houses" on the same block. In other words, CB8 has put a thumb in the eye of the association's efforts.

Why would they do this? According to the email, last night's CB8 meeting (which did not have a full compliment of members), “was a very brief and, at best, cursory moment for public inquiry....a board member in the first row (a tall older gentleman in an elegant suit) raised his hand and said that because the CB ‘always approves’ this sort of thing" -- stuff like building a penthouse on top of a penthouse -- “it was time to end the discussion and simply approve the owner’s application for a special permit...”

What’s revealing here -- if no surprise, really -- is how corruptible people like those on CB8 really are.

Here's why: It turns out that the penthouse-happy building owner, Mark Martinez, has a large contracting business, Interior Management. According to the email, it is possible, if not probable, that CB members have hired Martinez in the past to do work for them and received favorable contracting rates in exchange for ram-through votes like the one held yesterday. Or, for that matter, Martinez has promised or insinuated promises of favorable contracting rates for the future in exchange for the aforemention ram-through votes.

Either way, the point is simple: the block, the neighborhood, the Upper East Side be damned or be dead, whichever one comes first. The dude wants his penthouse and will stop at nothing to get it.

The funny thing is that he apparently had his toddler with him. How very Sarah Palin-esque. One would have thought he could afford a sitter.

Do you remember how, on Sept. 11, 2001, we were all one New York? Well, not anymore.

Sphere: Related Content

Will Marx Brothers Place Become a Reality?

The 93rd Street Beautification Association is set to take a big step forward in its two-pronged effort to create Marx Brothers Place and to extend the Carnegie Hall Historic District by one block. Today I received an email asking me if I can put some information on this blog about what's going on -- and how you (all) can get involved. Do it! Don't think about it! Do it!

Here's what I received and what you can do:

We thought you might be happy to know that NY1 has just upgraded the TV news story about historic Marx Brothers Place! It's now much easier to watch, and we think you'll really enjoy this piece by reporter Roger Clark. It's got some great clips from Marx Brothers movies in it!

Just click on this link to see the story about Marx Brothers Place:
http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?SecID=1000&ArID=76773

Also, as we are in the final push of the preservation campaign (only 1 week left!), we thought that some of your blog readers might like to join other Marx Brothers fans who have signed the two petitions to help protect Marx Brothers Place. So we're sending along the links for the petitions. Please share them with all your friends and colleagues!

Petition to extend Carnegie Hill Historic District one block to include historic East 93rd Street: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/CHHD93st/petition.html

Petition to co-name East 93rd Street “Marx Brothers Place” to honor the childhood home of the comic icons: http://www.petitiononline.com/coname/petition.html

For more information: http://savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com.

Sphere: Related Content

Will the Demolition Review Bill Become Law

Got this news earlier today from the 93rd Street Beautification Association -- the people who won't stop until Marx Brothers Place is a reality! (And it will be, people, it will be.)

DEMOLITION REVIEW—ONE STEP CLOSER TO LAW!
www.savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com

The NYC Demolition Review amendment has taken one small step in the legislative process and one giant leap for preservation.

After careful review and consideration, NYC Council Member Tony Avella, has asked the City Counsel to draft legislation modeled upon the Demolition Review amendment proposed by the 93rd Street Beautification Association (proposed bill attached here as a PDF file).

Along with other antiquated laws still governing NYC's fast-paced Building boom, the city has lagged far behind the curve on legal procedures by which to protect historically significant structures. Since only 1% of NYC's inventory is either designated or lies within an historic district, the only status which triggers review prior to demolition, 99% of the city's inventory is perpetually vulnerable to being razed to rubble without any review at all.

The speed with which development has been gobbling up whole neighborhoods over the last five years has resulted in the irreparable loss of historically significant structures, irreplaceable chapters in our city's much vaunted history. Many of these homes and buildings could have easily been recycled, restoring the splendor of their architectural features as well as our city's collective cultural heritage while leaving a much smaller carbon footprint than the "Bigfoot" impact of full-scale demolition and new construction.

The Demolition Review bill, which finds legislative counterparts in the cities of Chicago, Boston and Yonkers, NY (to name but a few), would improve the way real estate development occurs in NYC by protecting historically significant structures and neighborhoods from summary demolition.

If passed, the law would incorporate a mechanism by which historically significant structures would be reviewed prior to the DOB issuing a demolition permit (are there alternatives to demolition? Is there a buyer who would recycle the structure rather than demolish it?, etc.).

The 93rd Street Beautification Association is delighted that NYC Council Member Tony Avella has taken the initiative to move this important piece of legislation one step closer to law. Now we are eager to see the Demolition Review bill, which was designed to protect our city's historic structures and neighborhoods, garner the full support of NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn and all the Council Members.

For more information, please contact us at: 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com or 212.969.8138 or visit our blog at www.savemarxbrothersplace.wordpress.com.

Sphere: Related Content

In Case You're Still Asking "What's the Demolition Review Amendment?"...

Thanks to Susan Hefti, I have obtained a PDF that contains the complete text of what is being proposed and hopefully presented to the various lawmakers on the City Council as well as, I guess, the Council as a body.

All this presumes Councilmember Melinda Katz believes in representing the best interests of New Yorkers, not real estate tycoons who'd sell their mothers to make a buck, and probably already have. (Come on, Councilmember Katz, we know your heart is with what is right. You know you were raised to be kind to decent folk. Can't you just prove it?)

But before you read the text of the Amendment:

Please first read the following text, provided to me by Susan. This will help you, should you want to get involved or state your support in the name of preservation, to do just that.

Dear Friend,

Please take a moment today to show your support for the Demolition Review Amendment currently under consideration by NYC Council Members !

Simply cut and paste the note below, adding your name and street address (as politicians only pay attention to voters). It doesn't matter if they all get the same exact message—they just count heads!

The message should be addressed to:
Council Member Melinda Katz (katz@council.nyc.ny.us), Chair, Land Use Committee,
Council Member Jessica Lappin (lappin@council.nyc.ny.us),
Council Member David Weprin (weprin@council.nyc.ny.us),
Council Member Dan Garodnick (garodnick@council.nyc.ny.us)
Council member Tony Avella (avella@council.nyc.ny.us)

Please cc:
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (bp@manhattanbp.org)
Counsel NYC LPC, Mark Silberman (msilberman@lpc.nyc.gov)
93rdst.beautification@gmail.com

so we can keep track of this important correspondence. The other recipients of the amendment can be copied or blind copied by cutting & pasting the email list below this sample message:

SUBJECT LINE: Demolition Review.

That way, the Council Members will see the same subject coming in from different NYC residents and they will pay more attention.

SAMPLE MESSAGE:

Dear Council Members Katz, Lappin, Weprin, Avella and Garodnick,

I strongly support the Proposed Amendment to the NYC Zoning Code known as "Demolition Review" and submitted on June 9, 2008 by the 93rd Street Beautification Association.

Without this necessary change, NYC's historic structures and neighborhoods, along with their history, will disappear, destroying what we know as the City of New York.

I strongly urge the NYC Council to immediately adopt the "Demolition Review" Amendment before NYC's neighborhoods are completely stripped of their character, cultural heritage and architectural history.

Thank you for your interest in the concerns of NYC's residents.

With best regards,

Name
Address



Here are more recipients you can cut and paste into the cc section of your email:
danielle.decerbo@council.nyc.ny.us
liu@council.nyc.ny.us
lallison9@gmail.com
aborelli@manhattanbp.org
cbarrie@manhattanbp.org
serrano@senate.state.ny.us
minna.elias@mail.house.gov
liz@lizkrueger.com
kellnerm@assembly.state.ny.us
robertsa@assembly.state.ny.us
gelam@council.nyc.gov
kate.seely-kirk@council.nyc.ny.us
ljackson@cityhall.nyc.gov
tosborne@queensbp.org
mkent@manhattanbp.org
dgolub@manhattanbp.org
levinson.nys@gmail.com

And now the proposed Demolition Review Amendment

Legislative History:
In the wake of an unprecedented number of construction accidents, and an overwhelming number of applications for demolition in New York City, it has become clear to the public that a more vigilant review is an imperative to ensure the public safety, the city's physical environment and the historic character of the city's neighborhoods and streetscapes.

In response to unchecked development and the enduring vulnerability of New York City's remaining historic housing stock, the 93rd Street Beautification Association urges the New York City Council and the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to take immediate action for the betterment of our city's future by fostering a more thoughtful and comprehensive development approach and by adopting the proposed Zoning Code Amendment found here below.

The Amendment, known as 'Application for Demolition' or 'Demolition Review', is modeled upon the like zoning amendment adopted by the City of Boston, there known as Article 85.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO NYC ZONING CODE:

Article #_____. Application for Demolition must be submitted to the NYC LPC as follows:

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission
One Centre Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10007

Applicant:
It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit a complete, signed application and to factor the review and potential delay period into the project schedule.

The Process:
Once received, the application is reviewed by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission staff in accordance with Section *, Article # .

The LPC staff shall have ten (10) days from the date of the submittal of a complete application to determine whether a demolition permit may be issued or whether a hearing is required.

If the property is determined not to be significant, no further review will be required and the LPC staff will issue a determination authorizing the Department of Buildings to issue a demolition permit.

If the property is determined to be "significant" as described by the legislation, the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing within forty (40) days of submittal of the application to decide whether the property will be subject to demolition delay. The LPC staff will notify the applicant regarding this hearing.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant shall conduct a community meeting, open to the public, at which the applicant shall make a good faith effort to present an alternative, or a range of alternatives, to the proposed plan that includes preservation and reuse of the building or buildings proposed for demolition.

The community includes but is not limited to, civic and neighborhood associations, the public-at-large, and interested entities such as preservation organizations and historical societies.

The applicant shall contact the Mayor's Office to confirm names of appropriate civic and neighborhood associations to be notified of the meeting.

The applicant shall also notify property owners within 500 feet of the building to be demolished.

The applicant shall notify the appropriate neighborhood associations and property owners of the meeting in writing at least a week before the meeting is to take place.

The meeting must be held in a location and at a time that is convenient for people affected by the project.

The applicant must submit a list of people who attended the meeting, and their addresses, to the LPC before the LPC hearing.

If there is no civic/neighborhood association meeting at which the demolition and proposed project can be presented prior to the Article # hearing, the Mayor's Office will assist in scheduling a meeting.

If the initial community meeting cannot be held in the time allotted, the Article # applicant may submit a letter to the LPC waiving the right to a determination within 40 days (see Article #, section #. subsection #) and requesting the next available hearing date after the initial community meeting.

If the applicant has already presented the proposed demolition and development plan at a community meeting or meetings (before submitting the Article # application) and can obtain a letter (s) from the civic or neighborhood association (s) which hosted the meeting (s) or a response from the Mayor's Office to LPC staff summarizing the meeting and the outcome, this provision may be waived at the discretion of LPC staff.

If the Mayor's Office reports that the outcome of a prior community meeting or meetings (before the submittal of the Article # application) included a strong preference to preserve the existing building (s), but no alternatives to demolition were presented to the community, the applicant will be requested to hold a follow-up community meeting before the initial Article # hearing in order to present an alternative plan incorporating preservation and reuse of the existing building (s) into the proposed project.

If the Mayor's Office reports that the outcome of a community meeting resulted in community support for the demolition of the existing building or buildings, the LPC may choose to waive demolition delay at the scheduled hearing.

While the LPC will consider community and inter-departmental input as outlined above, the decision to invoke demolition delay will ultimately lie with the Commission.

Dates and Deadlines:
Applications must be submitted, in full, and a copy of the notice of the scheduled public meeting must be received by LPC staff (14) days prior to a hearing date in order to be scheduled for the upcoming agenda.

Note: Meetings are subject to change due to holidays or cancellations. Please check with the Commission staff to confirm correct dates.

New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission Staff:
The Commission staff is available to discuss applications, documentation requirements and the review process.

Article # Summary

Demolition Review

The New York City Zoning Code is hereby amended to include a demolition review policy (Article #, Chapter # of the Zoning Code as amended).

Demolition Review provides a predictable process for reviewing requests to demolish buildings by:

1.) establishing an appropriate waiting period during which the City and the Applicant can propose and consider alternatives to the demolition of a building of historical, architectural, cultural or urban design value to the City;

2.) providing an opportunity for the public to comment on the issues regarding the demolition of a particular building; and by

3.) minimizing the number and extent of building demolition where no immediate re-use of the site is planned.

Demolition Review pertains to applications involving the total demolition of buildings located within the city's limits.

The staff of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission shall have ten (10) days from the date of the submission of a complete application to apply the criteria below and determine whether a demolition permit may be issued or whether a hearing is required.

Location and Age Criteria Subject to Review
All buildings located within the New York City limits at least fifty years of age.

Criteria for Determination of Significance
A. The building is identified as: (i) listed on the National Register of Historic Places; (ii) recommended for such listing; or (iii) the subject of a request/pending application for such listing.
B. The building is the subject of a request/petition to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for designation as a New York City Landmark.
C. The building is historically or architecturally significant because of period, style, method of building construction, or important association with a famous architect or builder.
D. The building has an important association with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the City.
E. The building is one whose loss would have a significant negative impact on the historical or architectural integrity or urban design character of the neighborhood.

Public Hearing for Significant Buildings
A Landmarks Preservation Commission public hearing is scheduled within forty (40) days of application date to determine whether a significant building will be subject to Demolition Review.
The review is invoked if the Landmarks Commission finds that it is in the public interest for the building to be preserved or rehabilitated rather than demolished. In making such finding, the Landmarks Commission considers the following criteria:
1.) the building's historic, architectural, cultural and urban design significance;
2.) whether the building is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the City, or the region; and
3.) the building's condition.

Early Determination of "No Feasible Alternative to Demolition"
Applicants are requested to present information concerning alternatives to demolition at the public hearing. This information may include:
1.) the outcome of the community meeting held prior to the hearing;
2.) the cost of stabilizing, repairing, rehabilitating, or re-using the building;
3.) any definite plans for the re-use of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and the effects such plans would have on the architectural, social, aesthetic, historic, and urban design character of the surrounding area, as well as on the economy of the area of the City as a whole;
4.) any conditions the Applicant proposes to accept for the redevelopment of the site that would mitigate the loss of the building;
5.) the availability of other sites for the Applicant's intended purpose or use.
Although a building may be evaluated as meeting the demolition review criteria, the Commission may consider information presented at the hearing as grounds for issuing a determination of "no feasible alternative to demolition."

Demolition Review Determination
If the Landmarks Commission issues a determination that a significant building is subject to demolition review, the Department of Buildings is notified not to issue a demolition permit until ninety (90) days have elapsed following the close of the public hearing.

The Landmarks Commission also shall invite the participation, on an advisory basis, of the Commissioner of the Department of Buildings, the Director of Housing Preservation and Development and any individual or representative of any group whose participation the Applicant requests, or approves, in writing.

Evaluation of Alternatives to Demolition and Determination of No Feasible Alternative
In evaluating alternatives to demolition, the Landmarks Commission may consider such possibilities as: the incorporation of the building into the future development of the site; the adaptive re-use of the building; the use of financial incentives for the rehabilitation of the building; the removal of the building to another site; and, with the owner's consent, the search for a new owner willing to purchase the building and preserve, restore, or rehabilitate it.

If, based on its evaluation of alternatives, the Landmarks Commission is satisfied that there is no feasible alternative to demolition, the Commission may issue a determination prior to the expiration of the review period authorizing the Department of Buildings to issue a demolition permit.

Demolition Review Expiration and Notification
Upon expiration of the review period, the Landmarks Commission will issue a notice in writing stating that such review period has expired, and the date of such expiration. This notice will be mailed to the Applicant, with copies to the Commissioner of the Department of Buildings, the Commissioner of Housing Preservation and Development and, where applicable, to any individual or group that the Landmarks Commission has invited to participate in an exploration of alternatives to demolition.

Article # Required Documentation
The following is a list of documents that MUST be submitted with this application. Failure to provide accurate documentation will cause a delay in the review process and will result in a rejected application. All applications MUST be signed by the owner of record, and must include verification of property ownership (copy of deed or assessing bill).

PHOTOGRAPHS - 3x5 or larger photographs of the property and surrounding areas and properties affected by the proposed demolition must be labeled with addresses and dates and included with this application.

Major elevations of the building (s) and any deterioration or reason for demolition should be documented. All photographs must be keyed to a map (see below) to provide a thorough location description. Photographs may be substituted with slides at the Commission hearing.

MAP - A locus map containing the location of the property affected by the proposed demolition must be submitted with this application. Locus maps should highlight the property and area location.

PLOT PLAN - A plot plan showing the building footprint and those of buildings in the immediate vicinity must be submitted with this application.

PLANS and ELEVATIONS - Plans must be submitted for site improvements. If a new structure is being planned, plans and elevations of the new structure must be submitted.

SIGNATURES and/or PROOF OF OWNERSHIP - Both the applicant's and the owner-of-record's signatures (if different) must be notarized. Failure to supply notarized signature (s) will result in a rejected application. Proof of ownership must also be submitted with the application.

Depending on the scope of the project, additional materials may also be requested for the hearing and should be included with this application:
1.) Adaptive reuse feasibility studies
2.) Structural analysis report
3.) Availability of alternative sites for the proposed post-demolition construction.
4.) Effects of post-demolition plans on the community
5.) Other materials that may help the Commission evaluate whether the property is subject to delay.
6.) An attorney's letter stating whether the proposed project requires zoning relief.

NOTE: Copies of all documentation submitted with this application (photographs, maps, plot plans, etc.) should be retained by the applicant should additional copies be necessary for the commission hearing.

Sphere: Related Content