Fighting a proposed high rise

Nothing.

FYI not even landmarks will work - in a landmark district, as long as they destroy the whole building, there's nothing the commish can do.

Nothing is probably right. The odds are you spend a great deal of money and accomplish nothing. Unless they do something stupid and violate zoning or an existing statute, they have every right to do this.

You can try an environmental impact study, but the last one of those they did in Manhattan cost the Indians a fortune in trinkets - all for naught, I might add - so I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

Do you mean 300 W 72nd? If so, it's a classic NYC RE story. It's a six-story semi-fireproof building with 30-odd apartments, on a 60'x100' lot. It was built in 1941, when rents on WEA wouldn't justify the cost of erecting a fireproof building to the height of the surrounding buildings. There're several others like it on WEA and RSD.

Now the co-op's redevelopment value, for its highest and best use, exceeds the value of the apartments as-is, so the shareholders would be nuts not to take the money, pay off the underlying mortgage and their share loans, and run. Same thing happened to the brownstone co-ops at 86th and WEA when 535's developer made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

The problem is for maybe 30 shareholders on the upper floors at 246 and 260, who now have river views over 300 W 72nd and the townhouses at the corner of W 72nd and RSD. Fortunately they paid for an unprotected rather than a protected view, so they'll have to suck it up.

Supposedly the Landmarks Preservation Commission is on the verge of landmarking many WEA blocks, including that corner. If that goes through, that building could be protected (or restricted, depending on how you look at it) and the shareholders could be screwed. The building itself doesn't rate landmarking, but there're a lot like that fall in landmark districts and can't redevelop.

The

NWT: 300 W 72nd is the one! Please finish your comment. Thank you.

Some apartments at 255 WEA and 310 W 72nd would lose some light, and probably have to block up their lot-line windows. Again, all they had to do was look out and know that little building couldn't last forever.

The original landlord who co-op'd the building in 1982 was Laurence Friedland. He, or maybe his son, is now developing the corner of B'way and 77th. It'd be ironic if he's the one looking to buy 300 W 72nd.

The only way to protect a building is to landmark the specific building. If it's a landmarked district, you can knock down the entire building, no probs.

Land marking is done way too much. This building is no Dakota. If the owners are better off economically selling out they should be allowed to do so. Usually the fight comes not from the existing building but from the people who live next door that lose views they were assured of. Those fights are not usually successful.

I live in the proposed landmark district, went to a few of the meetings earlier this year - and I think it's pretty much guaranteed landmark status at this point.

For years, I have been wondering when that building at the corner was going to be demolished, given the corner location and buildable square footage (other corner I'm interested in is NW corner of 70th & WEA). Prime location, huge as-of-right building square footage.

I'm with NWT - the current co-op owners would be fools not to accept. However, time may be on hojo's side. Even if the deal closed tomorrow - if the new owners apply immediately to get permits to demolish the structure (we're now in this nebulous & grey window of time when the district has been calendared but not officially landmarked). I'm a little hazy on the procedures but I'm pretty sure that the DOB will flag any application and ask for a review by the LPC, which will slow things down. But truly, is it a building of any artistic merit or any inherent "West-End-ishness" which is what the LPC alluded to in the "sense of place" comments that they made at the landmark hearing. So.. if the new owners do things by the book, they may not get permits in time.

But - if they immediately demolish enough of the building w/o building anything, any fines would probably be worth it to secure their rights.

Sorry, hojo (if you live either across the street on WEA or immediately adjacent at 310?). I think you're SOL.

Its funny that people move to MANHATTAN and want no high rises. That makes me laugh. Next thing you know you will protest earthquakes in San Francisco, rain in Seattle, and rude waiters in Paris.

>Its funny that people move to MANHATTAN and want no high rises. That makes me laugh. Next thing you know you will protest earthquakes in San Francisco, rain in Seattle, and rude waiters in Paris.

And crime in Harlem too.

Anyone wishing to sign the petition urging the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate West End Avenue between 70th Street and 109th Street and the neighboring cross streets a Historic District can find it at http://www.petitiononline.com/WEA2011/petition.html.

Don't know how else to say it - landmark district don't matter: as long as they destroy the entire building, it's all cool and legal.

The city would require Landmarks Preservation Commission's approval of the demolition and approval for the new building. LPC would probably OK the demolition, then put the developer through the wringer over the design of the new building.

Nothing's a given, though. That's why there's a whole legal/lobbying industry devoted to helping developers through the Uniform Land Use Review Process.

There are a lot of POS buildings from west 70th to west 109th that I hope do get torn down and replaced with shiny new ones. Can I start a counter petition?

I think we should tear down 300 West 72nd and restore whatever IT replaced in 1941.

Another prime candidate is 711 WEA. From 1951, again built to the six-story limit of non-fireproof (i.e. cheap) construction, only 144 apartments on a huge 200'x175' lot.

The Miller family has kept it as a rental since buying it in 1968, biding their time.

There are plenty of people, mainly owners of buildings, who disagree with the landmark proposal. I've been to a few hearings, and no-one has marshaled any meaningful opposition.

Just took a 2nd look at this building. There's something very wrong with land mark rules if this building qualifies. This sounds more like just a NIMBY thing interfering with the rights of people who own a building from realizing the value of their home. The new building would most likely increase property values as well.

Did a Google Street View of this building.

Look, I'm all about the superiority of prewar construction, but this particular building is a borderline eyesore. Sorry. Just about ANYTHING in its place would be an improvement, and I agree with Riversider that there is something radically wrong with landmark rules if something as nondescript and borderline ugly falls under protective status.

Hojo: take a look at this listing http://streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/621532-coop-300-west-72nd-street-upper-west-side-new-york.

Your building should get someone to buy this apartment, and stall the development. Forget the petition.

Excellent point. Most co-ops' governing documents require a super-majority vote to dissolve and sell. Mine is something like 75-80%. We couldn't get that many to agree on the lobby's paint color, let alone to sell.

Or maybe the soon-to-be-viewless owners across WEA could buy it and erect a one-per-floor triangular building, with the hypotenuse running between the front corners of 255WEA and 310W72nd, thus preserving their sightlines. (Just kidding....)

NYC10023: Great idea! But I've heard that the building has enough votes to have the sale of the building go through.

Last month the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the extension of the West End-Collegiate district, which includes 300 W 72nd.

In the designation report (http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/2462.pdf) the LPC says the co-op wanted its building to be designated "Style: none", which would've meant it could be demolished and replaced with an LPC-approved building. Instead, the LPC designated it as "Style: Moderne". (It's even in one of the pictures on the report's cover.) That apparently makes it much more difficult to be replaced.

We over land-mark in New York.

This building should not be landmarked, that s a given. Everybody is applying for landmarking as a way to protect their views and light. Now we have too many landmarks and it s almost comical.
Only things that are extremely unlikely to change are parks, roads and direct water views (even though they want to extend the city over Seaport...). It s NY, construction goes on everywhere, just suck it up.

>This building should not be landmarked, that s a given.

You aren't even from here. Why do you get a say?

>NWT, hat tip on the good commenting

Also, one more vote for tearing that wildly mediocre building down.

I believe in landmarking liberally, but this building's exterior and history have nothing apparent that warrant protection of any sort.

What a sea change -- if they're really considering landmark protection for this one -- from the days not so long ago that the Commission refused to create any Upper West Side landmark districts, on the basis that the area has no "cohesive architectural style", especially the townhouses!

The LPC isn't just considering protection, they've done it. Not as an individual landmark, but as part of the new district.

Once the boundaries of the district were established, the LPC looked at each of the 200 buildings to determine whether/how it contributes to the district's historic character.

If it doesn't contribute (e.g. 2 RSD) then its Style is flagged as "None." If it does, even if in some vague neighborhood-context sort of way, then it has has a Style assigned. The 1941-Moderne fire-escape railings at 300 W 72nd seem to have been what took it out of the less-difficult-to-demolish no-Style category.

There're 13 or 14 no-Style buildings out of the 200 in district, mostly rowhouses that'd been irretrievably trashed.

Oh yeah! Done.

Which is ironic, because those townhouses, with some thought and a relatively (to today's sale prices) small amount of money, gussied up to look nearly like they did originally. I know that doesn't fit any preservationist's definition of authentic, but still. This subject building will always quack like a pig, not matter what faux-restoration is tried.

Assuming no corrupt process, I wonder if the vaguely verdigris paint color made the fire escapes pop enough to attract the attention of the landmarks people. If they had been painted the usual fecal color, would anybody see the lines quite so much?

> My co-op is urging residents to sign a petition urging the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate West End Avenue between 70th Street and 109th Street and the neighboring cross streets a Historic District. The petition is online at http://www.petitiononline.com/WEA2011/petition.html.

where's the petition to allow for the construction? i want to sign that one. there's the need for more supply of homes in Manhattan.

> The problem is for maybe 30 shareholders on the upper floors at 246 and 260, who now have river views over 300 W 72nd and the townhouses at the corner of W 72nd and RSD. Fortunately they paid for an unprotected rather than a protected view, so they'll have to suck it up.

how did do these guys have the b*lls to complain when there's housing shortage in the city? who cares about their view when some struggle to find housing? they belong to Texas with their attitude.

>NWT

Do you happen to know how one can find the "Style" of each building within protected districts ?

They're in the designation reports for each district at http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/forms/reports.shtml