LANDMARK QQEST! THE COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE THE UPPER WESTSIDE August 12, 2015 Hon. Margery Perlmutter Chair New York City Board of Standards and Appeals 250 Broadway, 29" Floor ‘New York, NY 10007 RE! (61 Central Park BSA Calendar Numbers 66- Dear Chair Perlmutter and Commissioners: We wish to comment on the application to the Board of Standards and Appeals for the conversion of the former First Church of Christ, Scientist (Carrére & Hastings, 1899-1903, an Individual Landmark designated in 1974) into a 39-unit residential building, requiring si waivers under the New York City Zoning Resolution and Multiple Dwelling Law. Like the rest of New York City, our Upper West Side neighborhood faces unprecedented development pressures that make the real-estate boom of the 1980s — which drove this community to fight for and win such stabilizing protections as contextual zoning and landmark designation ~ pale by comparison. Against this backdrop, we must pay careful attention to any proposed development that, like this one, seeks even greater license than the law already allows We are especially sensitive to the fact that the requested variances would facilitate a project with negative and irreversible impacts on a New York City Individual Landmark. In an unusually divided vote on March 10, 2015, three Landmarks Commissioners withheld their approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Two of the dissenting commissioners articulated their concerns as follows: 1 don’t believe there can’t be an adaptive reuse; I believe there has to be an inventive one that wants to respect the entirety of this edifice. ~ Commissioner Adi Shamir-Baron, December 9, 2014, Public Hearing We have one program here, and I am not totally convinced that...the program that’s driving this restoration is necessarily fully the one that needs to be followed. ~ Commissioner Michael Devonshire, February 10, 2015, Public Meeting This level of dissent among members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is extremely rare and underscores the fact that there are other, intelligent way’ to approach this project, without lowering standards. ‘These statements raise red flags about the proposed use and design that are highly relevant to the BSA’s review in relation to the required findings under NYC AS WEST 67 STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10023 TEL: 212-496-8110 FAX: 212-875-0209 landmarkwest@landmerkwest.orgZoning Resolution Section 72-21. It is settled law that a variance will not be granted by the BSA unless the applicant provides evidence that it application satisfies each and every findings required by Section 72-21 (the "Findings"). LANDMARK WEST! stands united with Community Board 7 and owners of property immediately adjacent to 361 Central Park West site in opposing this project on the grounds that the applicant has failed to carry its burden of proof as to the required Fin dings [a] that there are unique physical conditions, including irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular zoning lot: and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship arise in complying strictly with the use or bulk provisions of the Resolution...[which are] not due to circumstances created generally by the strict application of such provisions in...[that lot's] neighborhood or district. The Applicant's claim of “unique physical condition” relies solely on the presence of a designated New York City Landmark’ on the site and “the consequential limitations on the Applicant's abi to otherwise alter the Building to accommodate a conforming residential use.” BSA decisions are governed by a standard of rationality and the existence of substantial evidence in the record. The Applicant has offered no evidence that the Landmarks Preservation Commission would deny an alternative proposal that complied with zoning. As suggested by the Landmarks Commissioners’ statements at the December 9, 2014, Public Hearing and February 10, 2015, Public Meeting, members of that body urged the Applicant to consider alternative proposals, to no avail. The Applicant was unwilling to change the proposal to accommodate a different program (for example, fewer apartments or non-residential use), claiming — again, without substantial evidence — that no other program was possible. Therefore, it is not the presence of the Landmark that creates any “hardship” (which we do not concede exists). It is the unwillingness of the Applicant to consider alternatives driving this request for variances.” Furthermore, the mere presence of a Landmark does not constitute a “unique physical condition” as described by Section 72-21. If it did, any owner of any of the more than 3.500 landmark sites on the Upper West Side or the 32,000 landmark sites in New York City would automatically meet Finding A. The condition is neither “physical” nor “unique” in the meaning of 72-21. ' The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was designated a New York City Individual Landmark in 1974. In his book ‘New York 1900, Robert A.M. Stern calls Carrére & Hastings’s First Church of Christ, Scientist “one of the city’s most compelling religious structures in the Classical manner” (see attached letter). Architect and scholar Charles D. Warren, co-author of Carrére & Hastings, Architects, wrote “the building represents unique innovations in chureh design that its architects, Carrére & Hastings, developed in response to the increasing density ofits specific Manhattan situation” (sce attached letter). ° See Findings D and E[b] that because of such physical conditions there is no reasonable possibility that the development of the zoning lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this Resolution will bring a reasonable return from such zoning lot.. For reasons explained above, there is no “unique physical condition” preventing this site from bringing a reasonable return, We reiterate the question raised by Community Board 7 in its May 5, 2015, resolution: “Is a 100% relatively short term profit of at least $50,000,000 on an investment of $72,000,000 [$26,000,000 purchase price + $46,000,000 construction costs] a reasonable rate of return within the contemplation of section 72-21?” In 2014, an experienced and savvy developer with a history of flipping properties purchased the former First Church of Christ, Scientist, fully aware of its Landmark status and the legal constraints of the site, with the intention of converting it to residential use. The Applicant has refused to consider reasonable alternatives to 39-unit residential use. The analysis of a single alternative use — a “Use Group 4 ambulatory, diagnostic or treatment health care facility (the “as- of-right alternative’)” — is insufficient? [e] that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district...; will not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property; and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. LW’s concerns ~ and those of the three dissenting Landmarks Commissioners ~ about the unnecessary and substantial impacts of this proposal on the essential character of this Landmark and the surrounding neighborhood are a matter of public record (see attached testimony). Many owners of adjacent properties have also described the way this proposal would negatively affect them and their quality of life, including architect Antonia Rossello, AIA, who wrote: ‘The premise that this applicant should be assisted in the destruction of many of the important features of this Landmark building by granting them variances is in direct disregard not only to the community of the Upper West Side, but to its immediate neighbors that for decades have enjoyed the quiet presence of this building and the privacy allowed by its massive walls and stained glass windows, especially towards the interior courtyard on the north fagade, only a few feet away from our homes at 370 Central Park West.” (Letter to BSA dated August 8, 2015 — see attached) ‘This proposal would result in nothing less than a “transfer of wealth” from adjacent property owners to the Applicant. While the Applicant profits, neighbors would be deprived of the use and enjoyment of their properties that they have reasonably come to expect based on the zoning. If approved, the variances would substantially impair the use of adjacent properties and undermine the public welfare by recreating slum-like 19"-century living conditions (see attached diagram). The Applicant fails to recognize or discuss these impacts See Finding E[a] that the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship claimed as ground for a variance have not been created by the owner; As described above, the Applicant's hardship claims are groundless and result solely from his, unwillingness to consider reasonable alternatives to 39-unit residential conversion. The whole point of the variance process is to provide a safety valve that avoids the “taking” of property ‘without just compensation. The variance process is not designed to reward speculation with a “higher and better use” ~ in other words, the ability to extract the maximum return rather than a reasonable one. {e] that within the iment and purposes of this Resolution the variance, if granted, isthe minimum variance necessary (0 afford relie Again, the Applicant fails to consider reasonable alternatives to 39-unit residential conversion. For example, there is no analysis of the possibility of a mixed-use development combining apartments with one or more complying uses (such as doctors’ offices or a daycare center) that would alleviate the need for some or all of the proposed window changes, reduce impacts on the physical fabric of the Landmark, and address public-welfare and quality-of-life concerns, Instead, in order to extract maximum profit from this site, the Applicant ignores the possibility of meeting the minimum-variance requirement through means other than relying on mechanical ventilation and artificial lighting. The standard for the granting of a variance is defined by the five required Findings set out in Section 72-21. This Application for six variances fails to carry its burden of proof relating to any of the five Findings and should be denied, PresidentRAMSA 440 WEST 54TH STREET, NEW VORK, NEW YORK 10001 TEL 212.947 5100 FAX712.967 5526. RAMSA.COM November 20, 2014 Meenakshi Srinivasan Chair, New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission ‘Municipal Building One Centre Street, 9" floor New York, New York 10007 Dear Commissioner Srinivasan: I'm writing to voice my concern about the changes being proposed to Carrére & Hastings’s First ‘Church of Christ Scientist (1904), on the northwest comer of Central Park West and West Ninety- Sixth Street, Taken as a whole these compromise Carrére & Hastings’s remarkable design which, as Land my co-authors Gregory Gilmartin and John Massengale wrote in our book New York 1900, is: “one of the city’s most compelling religious structures in the Classical manner, Carrére & Hastings’s evocation of the low church architecture of Georgian London and New England set the tone for many subsequent Christian Science churches throughout the northeast. Carrére & Hastings achieved a remarkable sense of solidity not only through the blocky composition, inspired by the English Mannerist architect Nicholas Hawksmoor, but also through the use of exicemely large blocks of a white Concord granite, a stone so hard that it shattered mechanical saws and had to be cut by hand. Inside, the church was less distinctly English in feeling. A gallery wrapped around three sides of the auditorium, and barrel vaults sprang from piers which barely cleared the galleries, creating 2 powerfully encompassing effect. The room was largely Undecorated, except for an elaborate organ case and rich Modem French plasterwork on the ceiling, which also contained rondels of concealed lighting, Supported above the auditorium arches were the church’s offices, reading rooms and extensive Sunday school facilities. Ciearly expressed on the exterior, their location reflected a unique solution to the problem of the parochial complex.” Repert A. M. Stem ROBERT A.M. STERN ARCHITECTS. LLPCHARLES WARREN ARCHITECT 2oWEST 101 STREET SEW TORK, NY 10025 TEL. 212 689.0907 GIN ESWaRREN CON November 17, 2014 Meenakshi Srinivasan, Chair New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission 1 Centre Street, 9" Floor, North New York, NY 10007 Re: 361 Central Park West, First Church of Christ Scientist, New York Dear Commissioner Srinivasan ‘The proposed changes to First Church of Christ Scientist, New York at 361 Central Park West undermine its special character and diminish its architectural integrity. The alteration chips away at this building’s special qualities as it sets bad precedent for all designated New York City landmarks. This building follows the English ehureh building traditions of James Gibbs and Nicholas Haswksmoor and evokes the American church designs of the 18th and early 19 centuries. Within this established paradigm the building represents unique innovations in church design that its architects, Carrére & Hastings, developed in response to the increasing density of its specific Manhattan sicuation. The separate masses of its tower and sanctuary, large windows, and planar walls, are all important elements in its design, they provide key connections to the history of American ecclesiastical architecture as they reveal and express its unusual interior configuration, ‘Thomas Hastings was the son of one of New York's most celebrated Presbyterian divines and the grandson of an authority on church music who composed the famous hymn, Rock of Ages, He was steeped in church history. His partner John Merven Carrére was active in his Staten Island church and together they designed church buildings for congregations as distant as Florida and Rhode Island. This particular building is notable for the incorporation of offices and meeting rooms abore the sanctuary ~a response to the size constraints of its Manhattan site. This ingenious arrangement is reflected in the pattern of upper story windows and their evidently subsidiary relationship to the ‘windows that light the sanctuary. This is especially true of the relationship between the large round windows as they relate to the small rectangular opening that flank them. The fact that these small windows are confined to the side elevations allows the entrance facade on the east to achieve a scale and monumentality that lends puri elevation fenestration would disrupt the architectural significance of the building and its visible connection to the development of Manhattan’s architecture. and pawer to the composition, Proposed changes to the street‘The proposal for an increased number and enlarged size of window openings on the Central Park West and 96" Street facades erodes the expression of the ingenious internal configuration that makes this building an important innovation. The proposed additional story and increased height is an awkward change to the massing of this building and one that alters its profile and weakens its connection to both ecclesiastical building traditions and the clarity of its Beaus Arts style composition, These changes are unnecessary. The radical alteration in the use of this building is as impractical as itis ill advised and T lament the possible destruction of this remarkable and important interior. But neither the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission nor I can prevent it. What the Commission can do is preserve the exterior of this New York City Designated Landmark. Doing so will not prevent the project from going forward, but it might require a design with fewer window, fewer rooms, or fewer apartments. I urge you to preserve the integrity of the street facade fenestration and massing of this significant building, ‘The NYC LPC has a mandate to preserve the designated landmarks of our great city, this mandate does not require the commission to permit changes merely to maximize the profit of those who speculate in the real estate market. Allowing such destructive and unnecessary changes diminishes, our architectural and cultural heritage and sets a precedent that undermines the protections the law extends to all of New York’s Landmarks. Sincerely, hw 0 dw. Charles D. Warren, ATA Co-Author, Carrére & Hasting ArchitectsLANDMARK@(QEST! THE COMMITTEE TO PRESERVE THE UPPER WESTSIDE February 9, 2015 Hon. Meenakshi Srinivasan New York Landmarks Preservation Commission 1 Centre Street, 9" Floor New York, NY 10007 RE: Adapt, Don’t Destroy the former First Church of Christ, Scientist (Individual Landmark), 361 Central Park West / 1 West 96" Street Dear Chair Srinivasan: On Tuesday, February 10, the Landmarks Preservation Commission will hold a “Public Meeting” on the application to make significant changes to the facade and rooftop of the former First Church of Christ, Scientist (361 Central Park West / 1 West 96" Street), an Individual Landmark designed by Carrére & Hastings ~ “one of the city’s most compelling religious structures in the Classical manner,” according to Robert A.M. Stern. We urge you not to vote at this “Public Meeting,” scheduled with little public notice (only officially announced on Friday, February 6) and no public information about changes, if any, to the design, which, as of the last public presentation (at the December 9, 2014, Public Hearing), proposes to cut many new windows into the massive stone of the fagade. The Commission responded to this application with justified criticism, as did independent experts and many members of the community. Any amendments to this application must be reviewed at a Public Hearing, with public testimony. As several Commissioners noted in their December 9 comments, the original design need not be compromised in order to accommodate a new use. Just yesterday, The New York Times featured the residential adaptive reuse of the upper floors of the former Brooklyn Trust Company Building, an Individual Landmark designed by York & Sawyer (“*Palazzo" Living in Brooklyn,” page 2 of the Real Estate section). The fagade of this High Renaissance-style building will remain untouched — no major alterations, no insertion of new windows, even on floors that currently have no windows. The architect is planning to rely on existing large skylights to naturally illuminate the new condominiums. The 100-buyer waiting list for the Brooklyn Trust building proves that a strong market exists for living in Landmarks. Buyers actively seek out unique spaces in adaptively reused churches, banks and other historic structures. In the case of First Chureh, the developer purchased a Landmark (designated in 1974), presumably understanding the value inherent in the building’s architectural character as well as the regulations involved, ‘AS WEST 67 STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10023 TEL: 212-496-8110 FAX: 212-875-0209 landmarkwest@londmarkwest.orgBecause Tuesday's review will take place at a “Public Meeting” instead of a Public Hearing, you will not hear again the voices of the experts and neighborhood stakeholders who spoke out at the December 9, 2014, Public Hearing and remain deeply concerned about the impact of this proposal. Past experience of “Public Meetings” teaches us that amendments to initial plans can be substantial, sometimes amounting to nothing less than a totally new proposal bearing little resemblance to plans presented at the Public Hearing. Our research indicates that there is no rule or statute that provides for this procedure. The public is simply “frozen out” of the process. We reiterate the testimony of preservation architect Page Ayres Cowley, who stated in her letter dated December 9, 2014 (copy attached): The dilemma that this proposal poses is that any re-use is acceptable and better than a vacant building. | disagree, as there is a better and less invasive approach to a residential conversion for sure. [...] When a landmarked church becomes redundant and sold for re- purposing, the use needs to conform to the character. design and existing massing and not obliterate features and the original design intent. [emphasis added] And Carrére & Hastings scholar Charles Warren, who said it best in his letter to the Commission dated November 17, 2014 (copy attached): The NYC LPC has a mandate to preserve the designated landmarks of our great city, this mandate does not require the commission to permit changes merely to maximize the profit of those who speculate in the real estate market. Allowing such destructive and unnecessary changes diminishes our architectural and cultural heritage and sets a precedent that undermines the protections the law extends to all of New York’s Landmarks, [emphasis added] The Brooklyn Trust example proves that Landmarks can be profitably adapted without being destroyed. This is the kind of precedent that must be followed, and reaffirmed, through the Commission's actions. Sincerely, Kate Wood PresidentCe re ‘August 8, 2015 Ms. Margery Pesimutter Chair, Board of Standards and Appeals New York, NY. Re: 361 Central Park West First Church of Christ Scientist New York, NY 10026 Dear Ms. Permutter, ‘The First Church of Christ Scientist is one of the most valuable works of architecture in our neighborhood and in NY. Asa structure designed by Carrere and Hastings and a designated NYC Landmark building it ‘should have been safeguarded and protected from the kind of alterations proposed by the applicant. This building was designed and built to last centuries; fo be an anchor to our neighborhood with its classical lines ‘and historic stained glass windows that relate to the Christian legacy of a unique vision by Mary Baker Eddy and the inerecible achievement ofthis community. The fact that the Landmarks Preservation Commission is allowing exterior alterations to this historic building, forthe benefit of very few people and to the detriment of the rest ofthe community is devastating. These important stained glass windows with their impeccable anc irreplaceable craftsmanship, have been portrayed as an obsiacie tothe applicant's goals, restricting light ‘and air for the new proposed individual aparment units, Actually, their removal will be of much more consequence to the neighborhood thal will be deprived forever of their beauty and historic value. “The premise that this applicant should be assisted in the destruction of many of the important features of this Landmark building by granting them variances is In direct disregard not only to the community of the upper ‘Westside, but to its Immediate netghbors that for decades have enjoyed the quiet presence of ths building ‘and the privacy allowed oy its massive walls and stained glass windows, especialy towards the interior courtyard on the north fagade, only a few feet away from our homes at 370 Central Park West. Itis clear to all of us that have been folowing the reviewing process for this application, that the community has not been well served, n terms of the protections and intent ofthe laws that were created to conserve these Landmark buildings, specifically to avoid the kind of private speculation that this applicant will be allowed if he proposal for removing, not only the stained glass, bul very large portions of masonry to create new non-contextual windows is allowed to move forward. These laws, applied as intended, would have allowed the opportunity for other entities, including non profits thet are tuly interested and invested in reserving the historic value ofthese buildings, to restore them and use them, es museums, as cultural enters, 28 university meeting halls or other. This would be in direct contrast with the present claim of hardship by this developer who is requesting that the Board of Standard and Appeals grant him these Precious variances, at greal cost o its neighbors. | urge all of you to consider the implications and the precedent that this manipulation ofthe very laws that were created to preserve our historic heritage could cause, encouraging this kind of transfer of valu, from the community to a few private hands, while at the same time affecting adversely their neighbors’ property values, Thanks-r your consideration,Uuojsionuo> yenuapisas S107 ‘snoj81124 0061 : Gs oe Bic 55M ued enue ioe ae *Aunquay 476} 247 Jo suolz{pu0r ayI]-WuN)s ay) Bul}va.128 Aq asDfjam 21)GNd ay} aulwuapuN pud Aysadoid yua2v{po fo asn ay} 410duit £})013UD}sqns pjnom 3saM Te ear’ | YdDd 1043UaD L9€ Jo sapornf Appuoras Uo SmopUlM Mau pasodo.d