Plans to add apartments on the roof of the historic Chatsworth building and its annex on 72nd street got a mostly negative reception at the Landmarks Preservation Commission on Tuesday, Curbed reported. Locals and politicians bashed the plans as being out of context with the 1904 Beaux-Arts building:
State Senator Jose M. Serrano, state Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer piled on the complaints with letters of opposition to the proposal. “The two rooftop additions are contextually inappropriate and do not retain the character of the building or the historic district in which the buildings are located,” Brewer wrote to Chairman Robert Tierney.
Tierney pronounced himself “very skeptical” of the plans and indicated there would be another public hearing on the proposal in the coming weeks and two weeks for additional written testimony. Although there were no significant changes to the plan after the community board rejected parts of it, there will likely be major ones before the next meeting.
The owners, however, said they’re willing to make changes to win approval, and residents are more excited about improvements they’re making to the building, like repairing the facade. The LPC expects to hold another hearing on the proposal in the coming weeks.
We last covered the proposal here.
Image of proposed addition to main Chatsworth building from the architect’s proposal.
“Residents are more excited about improvements they’re making to the building…” What residents?? Ziel Feldman threw all the residents out after he bought the place. Except the rent controlled deadbeats that is. The city protected their homes.
To DLKD:
1) First of all, we remaining tenants are covered by the rent-stabilization laws, not rent-controlled. Yes, rent stabilization laws (not “The City”) were enacted for the very reason of protecting NY tenants and keeping rents affordable. Why do you think that is bad? Yes, the law that is protecting those of us New Yorkers who you call ‘deadbeats’ from greedy developers (like Feldman) does keep owners from throwing residents out of their homes, which presumably you think is a bad thing. Except when it happens to you? If you learned about the rent-stabilization law perhaps you would work to have it maintained instead of the gutting that has taken place in recent years, leading to increasing rents and apartments coming off rent stabilization and on to market rate — which presumably you were affected by. That only benefits owners and developers. So, why are you blaming tenants for your woes?
2) Second, I am not a “deadbeat” — I have lived at the Chatsworth for decades and paid my ever-increasing rent on time every single month. Why does that lead you to call me a “deadbeat”? Should I just leave my home of 30 years? And let another rent-stabilized apartment be turned to market rate by Mr. Feldman?? What good would that do you, as a market rate tenant? That would only give even more power and wealth to Mr. Feldman. 3) So I’m wondering why you blame the tenants? Many tenants raised their families here. Children knew the doormen and staff from the day they were born We lived here when the building was being mismanaged: when elevators were constantly broken, when Con Ed threatened to turn off power, etc. You should thank the long-term tenants who worked to keep the building going (including running the elevators during strikes) and into better management that market rate tenants enjoyed new functioning elevators, new water towers, and so on.
Please direct your wrath where it belongs and not by calling us “deadbeats”.
This is kind of another Grand Central Station argument rearing it’s ugly head in a smaller way. If you want to build something new, why not build a new building where there is a vacant lot or tear down a condemned building. Let’s keep the architectural continuity of the greatest city in the world and stop the corporate pinheads screwing it up.