The Lucerne could get a new modern neighbor.
A Community Board 7 committee voted against recommending a permit for a new 16-story development at 207 West 79th street, which sits in a landmark district. The new building would replace a five-story apartment building that has retail stores on the ground floor. We first covered it and posted the full plan here.
From people who attended, we hear that nearby residents were concerned that the tower’s design is out of place with the surrounding buildings, that it would block the windows at the historic Lucerne next door, and that the proposed balconies are out of place and would impinge on the privacy of the people who live in nearby rowhouses.
“What’s the purpose of a Landmark District if developers with enough influence and cash can with impunity put up these ugly, oversize buildings which are completely out of character with the area?” neighbor Craig Heard wrote to us.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission is set to review the application on Tuesday, July 22 on the 9th floor of 1 Centre Street starting around 3:30 p.m. The commission advises anyone who wants to speak to be there at 2:45. (The Community Board vote is a recommendation, but the LPC vote carries real weight.)
Images from LPC application.
This is really good news. Let’s hope that the Commission respects and abides by the community’s decision. The UWS is overcrowded as it is.
Thanks CB7!
DNA Info reports that the design has been rejected by the Commission. A new design will be submitted.
Hurrah! Let’s hope the architects can come up with a more appropriate, lower-scale, and better-looking design that respects the character of the block.
Here’s the link to the report on DNAinfo: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140723/upper-west-side/landmarks-commission-rejects-bland-design-for-16-story-tower-near-Lucerne
1. landmarking should not be used to as a tool against development and density.
2. It should be used to save quality , unique and or historic buildings.
3. the existing building is an ugly eyesore.
4. the UWS is not overcrowded at all. yeah, yeah schools, blah blah.. that means the schools are succeeding, for once.
5. the proposed building is not good. the terraces, color and height is out of context. it should match height of lucerne.
6. the architect has done great stuff downtown. Why not on UWS? i would say the developer is dictating the mediocrity.
7. Go back to drawing board and bring us something we deserve, a unique complement t the Lucerne. Not a bland 1970s box.
8. The Lucerne – home to not 1 but 2 late night, fun, rowdy bars/clubs in the 90s: The Crane Club in basement, and another on 79th I forgot the name……..memories of actual nightlife on UWS.
Wilsons!
I loved Wilsons! Used to go there all the time. Had great bands and dancing!
This is disappointing. Anything would be better than the existing buildings. The area between DSW and the Lucerne is a dump.
Well, I live in one of the landmarked rowhouses in the area you call a dump. The low-scale buildings are actually quite lovely and have a lot of history. Their apartments in the rear have views of the rose-colored western wall of the Lucerne which turns an even more beautiful color in the setting sun. The proposed too-tall building would block these views from our apartments and from 79th Street and Broadway. It would ruin the character of the block and our neighborhood.
Could not agree more. This might be a missed opportunity to get rid of a post-war architectural mistake.
Agreed, Scott. CB7 is trying to save something that no longer exists. Any elements of the façade on this building that made that made it worthy of preserving are no longer there.
I think this is unfortunate, for two reasons. The first is the existing building, as well as most of the north side of the block, is hardly worthy of preserving, in my view.
The second is that all of this just creates more housing shortages. I am not thrilled with all of the higher-end housing on the UWS, but the additional capacity at least helps keep broader market rents and prices from accelerating upward as fast. People are coming regardless of whether we build more or not; if we do not, they are just going to buy up the existing stock, and combine, renovate, etc. What we need is more units, period.
I somehow doubt that the “housing crisis” will be relieved by the building of expensive apartments. Typically, higher rents or sale prices do a good job of forcing other housing prices up, not down — forcing long-time residents (and retail stores) out. Remember, it’s lower-income people who are really hit by a lack of adequate housing, and a new building on 79th Street is unlikely to help them.
Beyond that, many of the apartments we see built in Manhattan cater not to regular folk but to people who want to park their money in New York City real estate or who just need a place to stay a few weeks a year. While the 79th Street proposal might not be another One 57 (one of the midtown buildings that is attracting a largely part-time crowd while throwing its shadow over Central Park), it also appears to be a distinctly unimpressive design.
well said, Joe.
Agreed!
I too agree
It is possible to design buildings and public spaces with at least some nod to the older style of the UWS. The “newer” 72nd Street subway entrance and the more recent building at B’way & 76th with the European- style balconies are positive examples. Unfortunately, this looks like just another glass box. If something has to be built, surely it could be designed more creatively.
Practically speaking, if the “dump” area between DSW and the Lucerne were gone — assuming the developer added none of the existing stores back in — Dublin House goes away, leaving countless corporate softball teams without a watering hole; Goodwill is gone, leaving me and others without a place to drop off donations (and leaving the Methodist Church on 86th as one of the very few); and gone is the eyeglass store we use, leaving only the more expensive competitor across the street.
W. 79th Street between Broadway and Amsterdam is most definitely not a dump – how ridiculous to say so. It’s filled with stores and businesses which are quickly disappearing from the UWS – a reasonably priced bar, a lighting store, other reasonably priced restaurants, and interesting antique shop, Goodwill, etc. Those brownstones are charming and reminiscent of other great city neighborhoods like Boston, S.F. Montreal, etc.
I’ve lived in this neighborhood for nearly 40 years, and slowly seen every low-ish building and nearly all the two story buildings on Broadway razed to make way for tall nondescript buildings that just block out light and rip whatever character the UWS has remaining. Has anyone been to Harlem lately? There is so much light up there, mostly from lower sized buildings. We are rapidly losing that Do you really want the entire UWS to look like upper Columbus Ave? I personally detest when new buildings go up in old neighborhoods where everything is of a certain look. It’s dreadful to contemplate a high metal sleek (boring) tower going up there.
Well said Wendy. Nearing 50 years in the UWS, I couldn’t agree more.
Love how the old (nostalgic? liberal hippies? bitter unemployed?) people in the neighborhood are always decrying new buildings which do bring extra housing (that said, better designs for these buildings would be good). Of course most of them are NYC aristocracy meaning they pay far below market rates for apartments simply by luck of being old and able to move here earlier than those of us in 30s could. If this 79th st. building is built then someone loses their view of a rose-colored building! OMG, the horror – do you even realize what an entitled brat that statement makes you sound like? It’s time for supposed old-time liberals and seniors to come to grips with the need for them to give up their notions of all they deserve and their NIMBY-ism and start giving the younger/non-aristocrats a chance at an apartment. If you can’t afford to live in a neighborhood you move out. Do you like it? Probably not but that’s life – not everything is awesome and fair…if it were, no one would have a rent-controlled classic six.
to synopsize the argument by Ada:
“you are a privileged bratty aristocrat… and if you can’t afford the neighborhood, get out!!”
you got it Bruce – congrats on the reading comprehension. Only in NYC do certain populations claim the right to live in neighborhoods they can’t afford and their constant whining is pretty intolerable. I can’t walk into Bergdorf and demand Manolo shoes at 1/3rd their market value and I can’t move to LA and insist I live in a Hills mansion at 1/5th the value. Living in a neighborhood for 30 years does not give you the “right” to live there forever unless you own and can pay your mortgage/maintenance. Market-rate renters are getting very very tired of subsidizing non-market-rate renters and the situation will eventually grow more and more hostile because no logic or justice underlies the random division of who pays not enough and who pays extra to make up for those not paying enough.
@ada… In response to your response to Bill. There weren’t too many, really just a handful of apartments to buy back in the day. I have a good friend whose parents bought their apt as a co-op in 1976, and they were one of the first in the area. Besides, there weren’t a lot of people who could afford to buy in the 70’s. People were handed pink slips hand over fist.
Ada, you are the one who sounds bitter — which is sad in someone purportedly young. It is not “bratty” to appreciate the play of light on a beautiful landmarked building, or to consider that rose-colored western wall of the Lucerne to be part of the special character of the block in this historic district. Apparently the Landmarks Commission agreed in rejecting the design of this bland and oversize building.
Sorry Bill, I wasn’t born 40 years ago so couldn’t join you on Amsterdam Avenue. I came to the city as soon as I could but have only been held up at gunpoint out in Coney Island, not the UWS. If you actually took a real risk and bought a cheap apartment on the UWS back in the day then I’d take no issue with you benefitting now from a low cost of living. If you rented back then and never bought then I’m curious (genuinely) about how you avoid feeling guilty for currently being a burden (financially) on your landlord who did buy into the neighborhood and take the bigger risk and is now being punished and not allowed to reap the full rewards of that investment (or sell the investment at market rate)? Are (or would you be) okay with knowing that tenants in your building who are younger than you (through no choice of their own) are paying higher rents to make up for stabilized/controlled/subsidized tenants? Don’t liberals want there to be no specially advantaged/disadvantaged groups? It’s always curious to me how liberals justify the terrible economic policy that is rent stabilization/control when its high cost could be used to benefit a much larger group of people by offering good housing in less expensive areas. Your statement about you bringing gentrification to the UWS sounds painfully like the American in France talking about how the French should give him a better table because if it weren’t for his dad/grandpa/whoever the French would be speaking German.
@Ada… Yes! It does give us the right! This is not LA or Bergdorf. It’s part of New York City law! Period! We are a unique city in that and many other ways.
You got that right Bill!!!! Absolutely!!!
Sorry Ada … Where were you 40 years ago when you could sometimes hear gunshots on Amsterdam Avenue and the hookers had a regular station by the subway entrance at 79th Street? I was one of many who came here despite all of that, stabilized the area and made it safe for you to complain. I’ve paid my dues and I have absolutely no intention of being intimidated by a parvenu with poor punctuation.
Meh. The scale is similar, it looks fine, and if you’re worried about blocked windows or privacy I’ve got news for you: You live in New York. This should be approved.
I don’t have any problem with developments; however, I do have problems with the lack of services that are implemented or improved as a result of them. The UWS continues to expand and grow vertically, but the number of trains or stairwells to them remains the same. Bldgs are added to the neighborhood, resulting in increasing number of cars and no adjustments are made to the amount of free public parking spaces. Do you really think that people are continually being run over as a result of poor driving or pedestrian walking skills? We are increasing the number of residents, cars, commuters, but NOT increasing the amount of walking space! Down at times square, the sidewalks have been widened and in some areas the street have been removed, thus giving people more walking space. ALL of this resulted from the Times Square expansion that took place in the 90’s.
I’m suggesting a halt on all new UWS Developments until existing services in the UWS are improved!
Does anyone know if the Landmarks Preservation Commission made a decision on the 22nd?
yes they did make a decision. the proposal was rejected.
I posted this yesterday further up on the thread.
DNA Info reports that the design has been rejected by the Commission. A new design will be submitted.
I agree with comments below from Joe and Wendy.
These new builidings cater to those who are not long time residents of the UWS and force a rapidly changing retail landscape. Only large, corporately based entities can afford these retail spaces. Many recent examples prove that. The nature of the neighborhood is being lost quickly. Once the building on 79th and Broadway is developed the neighborhood will be almost exclusively high rises and big retailers.
I think it is important to also consider preserving the sky-scape. Every new large building cuts out the sky, the availability of light, and nature. Soon the UWS will be a canyon, just like the UES. Keep in mind, the UES is one of the least desirable neighborhoods these days. Instinctively we want variety, and our senses to be stimulated. The homogenous quality of that neighborhood, despite its luxury has pushed people to more interesting places, like our own UWS, Brooklyn, etc. Why would we want to be the next UES?
Honestly, if I’m making a choice between having a sunny high-rise apartment with open views, or a sunny sidewalk with open views, I’m going with the apartment. Your argument assumes that nobody benefits from living in tall glass boxes. But we do!
Jeremy, you re citing private individual benefit. Elisa is talking about public (community) benefit. In general urban planning should be based on community benefit. That is the whole basis for zoning laws, which were first developed in NYC due to overly dense construction.
For example, obviously the developers benefit from larger building because they make more $s! So obviously there was a private benefit.
I thought Elisa made some insightful comments.
On the contrary, the UES is consistently at the top of the list when it comes to demand for rentals and condos/co-op purchases. Follow The Real Deal and other real estate news and you’ll see the stats. As for the UWS, the interesting nooks and mom & pop shops have been leaving at least since I first settled here in 1989. But to point the finger at new developments or neighborhood newcomers as the cause is misplacing the blame (if there is any real “blame” to be placed.) They are also leaving their old buildings, not just getting chased out by new ones.