CHURCH-TO-CONDO PROJECT ON CPW IS DENIED

crenshaw church

Developers hoping to turn the former First Church of Christ, Scientist at 96th street and Central Park West into a condominium were denied Thursday by a city board.

Preservationist Group Landmark West cheered the decision by the Board of Standards and Appeals, which votes on zoning appeals. “Developers wanted to pack 34 luxury condos – the equivalent of a residential high-rise – into the interior of the Church, designed by renowned architects Carrère and Hastings, the same architects who gave us the New York Public Library main branch,” the group wrote to supporters.

The developers had won approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission to transform the church into residences, but still needed the special zoning permission. It’s not yet clear what will happen to the church, which was built in 1903. The interior has been gutted.

HISTORY, NEWS, REAL ESTATE | 93 comments | permalink
    1. Lauren Gordon says:

      just “Yay”

    2. Sherman says:

      So now there’s a big empty shell of a church. What do they plan on doing with it?

      Had it been turned into apartments the developer would have cleaned it up and this would have been good for the neighborhood.

    3. wombatNYC says:

      They should turn it into the ” Palladium North” but night and a soul cycle by day. otherwise just wasted space

    4. This is great news! I pass this church all the time and was heartsick to think of it becoming yet another condo tower. Sad that the interior is gutted. Hopefully a good use will be found for the building with the exterior as is.

    5. Neighbor says:

      A very heartening victory! We hope that the building will return to use by a non-profit – church or museum or the like.

      It is NOT true that historic preservation stands in the way of affordable housing. It may stand in the way of maximum profits for speculators.

      I am glad that the BSA did the right thing.

    6. Paul RL says:

      So it’s okay to stuff the neighborhood beyond our capacity with homeless shelters and housing for drug addicts and the mentally ill, but G-d forbid we allow those horrible condo owners to ruin the area. Only on the Upper West Side.

      • dannyboy says:

        I thought this article was about a former Church building?

        • Paul RL says:

          Yes, that is correct, Dannyboy. And the comments section are about whatever opinions people would like to put forth about it. That’s the American way!

          • dannyboy says:

            Paul RL,

            Why the fear of supportive housing and of the mentally ill?

            • Paul RL says:

              Dannyboy, the UWS has (admirably) always done more than its share to help those in need, but the massive increase in shelters and supportive housing have pushed us past the breaking point. Read the news and look around you. It’s not you or me defecating on the street, throwing garbage & TV’s from our windows, cutting down trees, stabbing superintendents, and murdering building managers. Maybe you’re new to the area, or have selective blindness, or perhaps you are actually in favor of this trend. You’re entitled to your opinion. But I live here too and I’m entitled to mine, especially when it comes to the safety of my family and friends. So be my guest and judge away if it makes you feel better.

            • dannyboy says:

              @Paul RL It is your justification for allowing this developer to have his way with this historic landmark that is troubling. Because there are homeless in the streets is no argument to violate this landmarked building.

              I have lived in the neighborhood for a very, very long time.

            • Paul RL says:

              Dannyboy, I can understand your point here to an extent, however the building has already been violated with the destruction of the interior. And with the exception of the proposed removal of those beautiful stained glass windows (which I am very much against although the LPC was allowing it) my opinion is that the developer’s other intended alterations were fairly minimal. Unless another church moves in, the next tenant might also require that the religious iconography be removed. So what to do? I’d be thrilled if a museum or movie theater took over – anything to add daylife and nightlife the area. But on the flip side, all the folks that scream “anything but condos” is as troubling to me as I am to you.

            • dannyboy says:

              Hopefully, I will meet you at the neighborhood’s newest museum or share a film viewing. A neighborhood cultural facility would be great.

              But, if it’s to be condos, let’s hold the developer to the existing zoning requirements.

    7. Che says:

      Yes, hooray for BSA.

      Yes a library.
      A place for painters to store their artwork is a fantasy. I saw a Paris-style sidewalk painter on Amsterdam the other day. Rare event? I hear oil painting disappeared from here because storage space/NYC rent is therein unaffordable

    8. Bruce Bernstein says:

      As far as I know, no one was advocating that the church be turned into a homeless shelter or supportive housing. So your point is a non-sequitor.

      Also, I seem to recall you ADVOCATING the sale of the Williams (affordable senior housing) on West End and 95th. A notoriously rapacious developer (Brac Capital) was trying to purchase it, evict the seniors, and turn it into more luxury condos. PaulRl actually posted a call on this site for people to lobby elected officials in favor of this sale, which in the end went through. So I guess it isn’t only the homeless you want out! It’s all about property values, isn’t it?

      • dannyboy says:

        It’s ALL about property values! Evicting supported tenants, fighting SROs, implementing school segregation, displacing Seniors…

        And this is what happens to the neighborhood when money rules!

        • Shamir says:

          @ dannyboy

          Why don’t you pay a fair market rent for your apartment before you start lecturing others about greed.

          • dannyboy says:

            This attempt to censor me has been thwarted, as you can note by this post.

            Shamir, you do know that rationing human rights based on money is Aristocracy. Now stop it.

    9. Chuck D says:

      Alamo Draft House! Alamo Draft House!

    10. Derek says:

      So now we’re left with an empty shell of a building, what’s the point in that? UWS obstructionism “wins” again.

    11. Diane says:

      Turning it into a residential building without allowing windows–even small ones on the park side of the building would be stupid and silly. But that’s what landmarks did–they didn’t allow for two tiny rows of windows (bathroom size) going up the front of the building. I’m realtor and not a big fan of developers who build 100 story buildings, but these people were trying very hard to accommodate the neighborhood from what I can tell. But Landmarks said no. Frankly I think we have a much bigger issue facing us and that’s the allowance of much taller high rises coming to the West Side. I thought that was topped after the Ariel buildings went up, but now I’m hearing the UWS is still vulnerable and developers are chomping at the bit to re-create the UES here. That’s where our attention should be focused. Let this developer put windows in on the park side and let this development happen. It’s never going to look like it did and letting it sit there empty serves no one.

      • The 2007 zoning as a result of the Ariel buildings only covered a small L shaped district above 97th Street west of Amsterdam Ave up to 110th Street and Central Park West. The urban renewal district east of Amsterdam and 105th street was not included. It did limit the heights of new buildings in the district on some properties.

        Zoning is not permanent and can be changed or variances granted. Rezoning also can lead to unintended consequences like the Jewish Home Life Care land swap deal.

        • dannyboy says:

          “The 2007 zoning as a result of the Ariel buildings only covered a small L shaped district above 97th Street west of Amsterdam Ave up to 110th Street and Central Park West.”

          That’s a pretty big swag, and somebody’s neighborhood.

    12. Sean says:

      Perfect spot for a new Food Emporium, no?

    13. Michael Davis says:

      the interior was gorgeous… the preservationists were too late….

    14. Longtime UWS-er says:

      The UWS does not need any more luxury housing where apartments cost $5 million. If you want that, move to 57th St. We could use a modern library branch, with many community rooms kand a decent auditorium and a mandate to serve the community in ways that the other local libraries cannot handle. It could house another fine museum. It could be a community center with classrooms, a pool and a gym, like the one on W. 59th St. It could be a multi religious facility for all the congregations in the city who cannot afford to purchase their own building.

    15. Jay says:

      A lot of comments wanting a new library, community rooms, etc. Pretty sure they will all go silent when it comes time to pay for it.

      • dannyboy says:

        Wrong again.

        • Jay says:

          So how much are personally willing to front for this?

          It will probably be $100 million to make this into a library/community center. So, that’s a lot of money from the 20 people that opposed this project.

          There’s already a library and a community center within a ten minute walk. So that’s a lot of money for you to pay for something that’s pretty much redundant.

          • dannyboy says:

            I find it interesting that so many commentors cannot accept that the Board of Standards found that the Condos were inappropriate for this landmarked building and instead wish to see condos developed or else we’re commies. But few of them could envision preserving the building for cultural and neighborhood use. My only explanation for all this is that either there is no neighborhood community (who pay the taxes) or there’s just too much apartment appreciation tempting. Or both

            • Jay says:

              Nice redirect there.

              I find it interesting that you and a small band of loud NIMBYs feel like protecting an empty building is good for the community. Most logical people know that an empty building isn’t part of the community at all… it’s just a relic. Of course, relics are fine until time destroys it, like the Metro Theater.

              I wasn’t a huge fan of the proposal, but if someone was willing to pay the money for very little natural light, that’s their business. Not sure why you care this much either. Some people are jealous and some people just like to shake their fist in the sky for whatever reason. I don’t care enough to determine what why some people don’t like change.

              You may pine for all kinds of uses for the building, but they aren’t realistic for the times we live in. Maybe you’ll realize that some day, maybe you won’t. Life goes on for the rest of us.

            • dannyboy says:

              I care because I don’t want the Board of Standards to just bend over. These Zoning Laws are there to be enforced, not to allow variances to any developer who wants to make the neighboring people just take whatever the developer wants.

              I don’t see why you DON’T CARE!

      • This is not over yet. The developer has spent a lot of money and has lost a few battles. The zoning allows a residential building of 150,000 square feet on this site. There are many options left that will maintain the landmarked façades of the church. The Hearst Tower is an example of one such option.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/09/arts/design/09hear.html?fta=y&_r=0

    16. keith says:

      This is unfortunate. It will now become a dilapidated unused building. There are plenty of churches that fall into disrepair.

      There was a developer that was going to reuse the shell of a building that fit into the neighborhood as opposed to a lifeless cookie cutter condo.

      And I disagree that this is just about a building and not about the all the shelters in the neighborhood.

      I am all for market rate housing with a percentage of income restricted units in this neighborhood. The more reasonably defined affordable housing and market rate apts we have helps to balance out the proportionally skewed homeless and halfway house population on the UWS.

      Be wary of those who are against any development of our neighborhood with blanket statements about money ruling. Last time I checked we all live in a capitalist nation. A developer that wants to reuse the building rather than knock it down shows responsibility.

      If you simply want every building to be a homeless shelter and every storefront to be a laundromat or a sub par food market I can suggest a variety of socialist countries that would be more appropriate.

      Do not drag down my neighborhood with constant rants about the heartlessness of any entrepreneur or development that is not solely focused on tax payer funded initiatives.

      • Paul RL says:

        Well stated.

        • dannyboy says:

          Do not slur the entire UWS with inueandos about “want[ing] every building to be a homeless shelter and every storefront to be a laundromat or a sub par food market”.

          Do not use scare tactics like: “It will now become a dilapidated unused building.” This is your manipulation of the facts.

          Want more?

      • dannyboy says:

        “If you simply want every building to be a homeless shelter and every storefront to be a laundromat or a sub par food market I can suggest a variety of socialist countries that would be more appropriate”

        You and Paul RL deserve each other. Have a nice day.

        • Independent says:

          As two gentlemen who, whether one agrees with them or not*, generally post reasonable and substantive arguments for their positions and remain civil, I would say that, yes, Paul RL and Keith probably do indeed deserve each other. They certainly do /not/, however, deserve the kind of abuse that they have gotten from you and at least some of the other posters here (I’m thinking of one in particular…). Likewise, in light of the way you have repeatedly attacked Paul, I would say that /you/ are not deserving of the rather extraordinary (given what I just noted) civility and respect that he has shown toward you in his recent replies to you.

          (*And I certainly have not always agreed with Paul RL, at least.)

          • dannyboy says:

            This from the guy who uses 6 links to John Derbyshire, the man who National Review fired for being racist. And lately you use WSR to organize Trump rallies. AT LEAST I AM DIRECT WITH MY OWN THOUGHTS. IO find that respectful.

            • Independent says:

              Trump Supporters of the UWS Unite!

              There are probably more of us than many realize.

              How about forming a support group?

              UWS Trump Supporters Anonymous?

              Let’s plan a gathering for election night: hopefully a victory celebration; a group consolation effort if necessary.

              By the way danny, if I were to ever meet you in the street, I would try to extend the same basic courtesy and decency to you that I try to extend to any other random person that I meet. I can only hope that you would do the same to me.

            • dannyboy says:

              I would.

              We can disagree, but never disregard!

            • Independent says:

              @dannyboy: I appreciate that and am glad to know it. Takes some of the edge off a lot of your comments.

              For all either one of us knows, we may have already crossed paths without having any idea– just like with any other two people here who don’t know (or at least don’t /think/ they know) each other.

              Be well and stay alert and cautious, esp. when walking along Riverside Drive, which is perhaps the least foot-trafficked avenue here.

    17. Glen says:

      I think it would be nice to reinvent the Limelight on the UWS? Who else is with me on this?

      • Drew Kopf says:

        Limelight? Is that referring to http://untappedcities.com/2009/10/21/limelight/
        If so, limelight as theater related might be a fine use if isn’t condidered commercial. Could be a school of theater or the arts with theager encompassing all arts. Performing space could be in the round making it smaller overall and less spectacular in nature. – Drew

        • lynn says:

          Hmmm, I think he meant the Limelight as in the club. Maybe a little bit nostalgic? 😉

          “The New York Limelight originally started as a disco and rock club. In the 1990s, it became a prominent place to hear techno, goth, and industrial music, and to meet dealers of recreational drugs. It earned the media’s attention in 1996, when club kid and party promoter Michael Alig was arrested and later convicted for the killing and dismemberment of Angel Melendez, a fellow member of the Club Kids and a drug dealer who frequented the club.[8] The 2003 biopic Party Monster, starring Macaulay Culkin and Seth Green, was based on this event. The Limelight was closed by the police, and subsequently reopened several times during the 1990s. In September 2003, it reopened under the name “Avalon”; however, it closed its doors permanently in 2007.[9] Since May, 2010, the building has been in use as the Limelight Marketplace, but as of May 2014 was being converted into an outlet of the David Barton Gym chain.”

      • Independent says:

        Anyone remember Jean Shepherd’s broadcasts from The Limelight?

        (Before my time but I discovered Shep thanks to Max Schmid‘s Golden Age of Radio)

    18. Michal says:

      Would love to see it made into a climbing space like The City Museum in St. Louis… then again I would love ANY place in Manhattan to be made into a climbing space like the City Museum.

    19. Paul RL says:

      There is one potential silver lining in all of this, and that is that the Children’s Museum of Manhattan might now have a shot at moving there. I’ve heard from an insider that they have indeed been in (seemingly stalled) negotiations with the owner of the building. Perhaps now that the kibosh has been put on the condo project, this idea can move forward. It would be a great location for the museum and its patrons (including my own family) as it sits directly across the street from a playground and Central Park.

    20. Bill Z says:

      What I don’t understand is how the developer could go ahead and gut the building before its status was decided. Is it because the Landmarks Preservation Commission gave its approval?

      • the_the says:

        As with the vast majority of landmarked buildings, only the exterior is landmarked.

    21. joe says:

      Duane Reade. So we can have the beautiful Bank building on Amsterdam house a CVS, and this Church, the Duane Reade. Lovely bookends for 96th street…..

    22. john says:

      Maybe the Clintons can buy it and turn it into a single family home after she loses the election.

      • Independent says:

        I’d gladly accept the former (Clinton’s living in building-in-question) in exchange for the latter (H. Rodham Clinton losing election in November).

    23. caol mills says:

      YEAH!

    24. dannyboy says:

      I naively believed that this was a forum for concerned neighbors to discuss what is best for their neighborhood. I was wrong.

      Most Commentors prefer to discuss how we need more condos. I understand the real estate play. The arguments include the fact that homeless and other undesirables will populate the building otherwise. Or that it will sit empty. Or that it will be torn down. Or our neighborhood will be Venezuala. Or well pay unfair taxes. Or dogs will mate with cats.

      Apparently many believe that this is a forum to attack social justice and cohesion. Go for it. Your obvious and I’m ready for you.

    25. ConchShell says:

      I’m so happy this is vacant.

      It should be turned into a “House of Reason” and Science.

      Leave that ridiculous notion of an imaginary god in the past, like the relic that is this building.

    26. RK says:

      Trader Joe’s or Fairway. But not Whole Foods. Anything but Whole Foods.

    27. 9d8b7988045e4953a882 says:

      I believe that the property owner should have the right to build condos on this site if he or she sees fit. I don’t believe that it should be a political or community decision.

      • dannyboy says:

        Laissez-faire winner-take-all! No need for no stinkin’ Government Board of Standards.

        Money rules and forget our history.

        • keith says:

          I think it may be you who has forgotten history.

          The Dakota, Ansonia, and countless others are grand shows of wealth and architecture that contributed to the character of this neighborhood. Alongside them are/were single home brownstones. A stroll up riverside drive easily reminds of the true history of this neighborhood.

          Unfortunately this neighborhood struggled for a while like many neighborhoods in new york and many buildings fell in to disrepair or were raised for public housing developments. Many once grand buildings were turned into homeless shelters, SRO’s, and halfway houses and remain that way today.

          Look at the historic pictures of the streets from its past and tell me about our neighborhood. When they peel off the 7-11, B of A, and key food store front signs to reveal art deco signs of locally owned bakeries restaurants and shops.

          Go stand across the street from Barney Green Grass, right in front of that CVS. Barney’s is expensive, for people who can afford over priced whitefish. But its good and as much of a part of this neighborhood as anything. Look at the church next door. Empty and run down except for the people who sleep on its steps. Its falling apart. It was a grand building.

          Finally, here was a chance to save the shell of another grand building providing housing for folks who can afford to eat at Barney Green Grass. Should have been a no brainer.

          • lynn says:

            Isn’t the church being used as a dance and theater space? I agree that it looks run down, but I’m almost positive I saw 2 shows there (2013-2014), unless it’s closed down recently.

            • Mark says:

              It isn’t about what the space is being used for, it’s about how dare those homeless people have the audacity be visible in Keith’s neighborhood that he pays so much for to live in.

            • lynn says:

              Hmm, there’s no reply button on Mark’s post so I’ll add to my own. I missed the (original) subtle comment about the homeless. Perhaps because I’m so used to seeing them everywhere in neighborhood. There’s another church in the 70’s where the pastor allows the homeless kids to sleep on the grounds, and even come inside when the weather is bad. I checked and the West-Park Presbyterian Church on Amsterdam and 86th was made a landmark in 2010 so it’s not going anywhere. Wouldn’t it be brilliant if they also allowed the homeless to come inside instead of sleeping on the steps?

          • dannyboy says:

            it is a historic landmarked building. The Board of Standards recognized this and disallowed to developer to radically transform its facade. Why don’t you want this historic building preserved? Is there something about tearing down the past that appeals to you?

          • dannyboy says:

            This is a Historic landmarked building. The Board of Standards has recognized that and prohibits the developer from marring its architecture. Most want to preserve these gems, but not you. Is there some reason that you wish to erase the past?

            • dannyboy says:

              keith, no one’s buying your canard about this being the last chance ever. The canard that the Board had better let these developer have their way with that gem, or it’ll be torn down. WTF! Who’s tearing it down? Who’s planning to house Homeless there. You scare tactics are amateurish. Shall I go on?

            • keith says:

              No Danny Boy, I want to save these historic buildings. Almost all of them. Just like I want to save the Alamo theater. But the reality is these giant churches do not often have the opportunity to be saved. This is a fact. In Harlem and the UWS, in the East Village. A developer actually wants to keep this church intact and keep it form going into disrepair. The concept that some social organization is going to come in save it is farfetched.

              And yes I wish that there were not homeless people. In my neighborhood or any neighborhood. Not because I don’t want to see them, but because no one should be homeless. This has little to do with run down and abandoned buildings.

            • dannyboy says:

              Keith, thanks for your clarification. The one point that I see differently is that the Board of Standards IS correct in enforcing the existing zoning restrictions on the developer.

              Arguing that he’s already crapped up the interior and already let the building deteriorate is not a good argument to give him the go ahead to do whatever else he wants, in the name of saving the building.

            • The current owner wants condos and the zoning allows for that. There is no reason that it cannot be attained with the right proposal. Unless there is some philanthropic organization that can make a proposal to the owner for purchase, we will eventually see some profitable high priced residential use.

    28. Ground Control says:

      Brilliant news for the community! The church is a magnificent monument by the same architects as those who built the NY Main Library and the Frick. It was never empty til the current developer bought it in 2014. It has been a public asset for over 100 years where services of congregations of various faiths took place, as well as concerts, and graduation ceremonies. It was never intended for residential use and was incredibly ill-suited for it. But all of that aside-the developer’s did not and could not come close to meeting the regulatory criteria for what constitutes hardship-the claim they made as the reason for the need for variances. Their numbers and facts were constantly changing. And in the end they said they would only make a 4.5% profit on the deal. Well, why the heck bother? The BSA saw right right through it.

      The Church will find a fitting use in the end which will likely be a museum or church. There is no lack of luxury condominiums being built on the UWS. In fact there’s one directly across the street. The difference there is it’s in a residential space to begin with.

      It is sad that the interior of this church which was one of the most irreplaceable and significant in the city was thoughtlessly and senselessly gutted. That’s a failure of the landmarking system as well as those who bought it and didn’t value it. But at least the stained glass windows which are remarkable are saved. A great victory! Hats off to all those who fought and worked so hard on this!

    29. Neighbor says:

      This case was important for the building, the neighborhood, and the city. And that was recognized by the strong and widespread opposition, including about 1000 signers of a petition, all the way up to the Manhattan Borough President, Council Member Mark Levine, and many organizations such as the Municipal Art Society.

      For the landmarked building: this condo plan involved cluttering the roof with penthouses, terraces, and patios, cutting huge four-story curtain wall windows out of 2-foot thick granite walls on the north side, and destroying the stained glass by taking out their artistic centers. The Landmarks Preservation Commission gave permission to do those things, pending approval by the zoning board. But MANY opposed these invasive changes, which would be seen from the street.

      For the neighborhood: massive negative impact on the adjacent properties. Zoning code says that living- and bedroom windows on a multiple dwelling of this size and shape must be 30 feet from the property line. These would be less than 5 feet from property line and 10-12 feet from the next door apartment house. Dust from cutting granite, asbestos, etc. poses severe lung dangers. Property values of neighbors would stand to decline; buyers and renters scared away.

      For the city: zoning code protects neighborhoods. This condo plan failed to meet the criteria required for a variance. To give it a variance anyway would have set a precedent that would threaten many other landmarks and neighborhoods.

      I don’t think anyone wants the building to sit empty. There are many uses that would not require the extensive alterations that this luxury condo plan requested.

    30. Bryan10023 says:

      “We hope that the building will return to use by a non-profit – church or museum or the like.”

      The developer paid $26 million for the building – a building which is now gutted – which no non-profit, church, or museum could afford nor want.

      It will sit and be an eyesore until one day the developer plans – which won approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commision – is past by the Board of Standards and Appeals.

      This building is not a “church” it was a building for cult followers of Augusta Stetson and Mary Baker Eddy.

      “Mary Baker Eddy conceived of a new theological approach—one which focused on the spiritual and deprecated the material. Her new organization, the Church of Christ, Scientist, grew despite detractors who dubbed it a cult—mainly because of Eddy’s conviction that illness should be healed through faith rather than man-made medicine.”

      • Ground Control says:

        The building has been a church for 113 years. Architect Robert A. M. Stern called it one of the most significant church edifices in New York City.

      • Independent says:

        Bryan mentions what is perhaps the most well-known and controversial belief of Christian Science, the religion/cult that this Church belonged-to: Their rejection of modern, scientific medicine and medical treatment– a position that, whatever one may think of it, has indisputably caused great suffering (that most of us would consider needless) and (what most of us would consider) premature death to many of its followers. I had wondered whether anyone would raise this.

        Consider, though the case of the Christian Science Monitor. Long a darling of the left, they don’t seem to have ever had much of a problem with the publication’s explicit affiliation with the religion/cult that it is named after. On the right we have what is perhaps a similar case with Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times.

        Looking at my calendar, I see that Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, begins at sundown tomorrow (Monday). This means that during each of the next thirty or so days, for a period of roughly fifteen consecutive hours, devout Muslims will refrain from ingesting even so much as plain water. It is one thing to allow a mentally competent adult to make the decision to (from a strictly medical perspective) abuse their own body and place themselves at risk of dehydration in this manner. But what about all the minors– children and adolescents– who fast as well? Do we consider them capable of informed consent in this matter– a decision that could have irreversible consequences for them?

        How to balance freedom of religion and conscience, on one hand, with the responsibility of the State to protect the vulnerable, on the other? Two principals, each sacred, that often come into direct conflict with each other. Such a question is obviously well-beyond the scope of a site such as this. Nonetheless, in light of what has now been raised in this thread, the extreme difficulty (and, ultimately, probably impossibility in truly resolving) that this seemingly eternal conflict poses to any non-theocratic government seems germane to note.

    31. Dismayed says:

      The denial of the zoning variances is great news. New Yorke, one of America’s oldest cities, strangely seems intent on destroying its physical history in favor of luxury housing–much of it for people who won’t even live here.

      The thing is, when you tear down or drastically deface a landmark, you can’t undo it. Our imperial mayor seems to want to transform New York into Dubai on the Hudson. With the pliant commissioners he’s appointed it’s sheer luck that the developer was too incompetent to come up with a plan that would pass muster.

    32. Sean says:

      Tear the damn thing down and be done with it. There’s more to life than this stupid building.