Photo: sps

The Landmarks Preservation Commission officially designated [pdf] the Dumbo historic today. Coming in the final LPC hearing of the year, this closes out what has turned out to be a banner year for the oft-maligned industrial heritage of the city. In addition to this designation, LPC has also designated the Domino Sugar Refinery, the Eberhard Faber Pencil Factory Historic District, the Standard Varnish Works Factory Building [pdf] (SI) and the Sohmer & Co. Piano Factory (Queens). Add to this the National Trust’s designation of the Brooklyn Waterfront as one of the nation’s 11 most endangered historic resources, and it was not a bad year at all for our industrial heritage.

Still, there are some enlightened souls who just don’t get it. For instance, this commenter on the Dumbo designation thread at Brownstoner:

when landmarking first started it was to save architecturally unique and interesting buildings and architecturally beautiful buildings. now it has become the protection of buildings just because they’re old. Dumbo has old buildings – buildings built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. can anyone point to any one building in Dumbo and explain what’s so unique or beautiful about them [sic] beyond [sic]? they’re nothing like the beautiful brownstones of Brooklyn Heights or Greenwich Village. they’re old factory buildings. they weren’t even built to be architecturally significant or interesting – just practical factories. all I have ever heard is that people in the neighborhood don’t want more J Condos. the prevention of new tall “ugly” buildings is not the same as protection of old buildings.

Well – there’s not a lot of love here for Dumbo, nor, by extension, anything that isn’t “beautiful” in the eye of the beholder. Lets take this one step at a time.

The commenter (lets call him “Guest 3:51”) starts out on pretty solid footing by saying that landmarking was intended to “save architecturally unique and interesting buildings”. Unfortunately he (for the sake of this discussion) ends the sentence with this fallacy: “and architecturally beautiful buildings”. There is nothing in the enabling legislation of the Landmarks Preservation Commission that talks about “beautiful buildings”. “Beauty”, “pretty”, “nice” – they are all words you do not find in Section 25-302: Definitions of the New York City Administrative Code. In fact, these words don’t appear anywhere in Chapter 3 (Landmarks Preservation and Historic Districts) of Title 25 (Land Use) of the Administrative Code.1

The Administrative Code is the only place where landmarks are legally defined. This is how a landmark is defined in Section 25-302 of Title 25:

Any improvement, any part of which is thirty years old or older, which has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or nation, and which has been designated as a landmark pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

Pretty broad, no? Nowhere does the concept of beauty enter into equation. The closest one can get is the phrase “aesthetic interest”, but that’s not the same as “beautiful”.

So what did the Landmarks Commission find so compelling about Dumbo? Perhaps they found it beautiful (I do, but that’s besides the point), but that is not a reason (in the legal sense) to designate a historic district. Again, lets consult the law, which tells us that a historic district is:

any area which […] contains improvements which: (a) have a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value; and (b) represent one or more periods or styles of architecture typical of one or more eras in the history of the city; and (c) cause such area, by reason of such factors, to constitute a distinct section of the city…

Clearly, whether you find the neighborhood beautiful or not, Dumbo constitutes a distinct area of the city that has a special character, a special historical interest, and, I would argue, a special aesthetic interest or value. That, and the fact that it represents one or more periods or styles of architecture, clearly qualifies Dumbo to be a historic district.

Photo: DropFocus

Quite simply, it does not have to be beautiful. It has to be a lot of things to be a landmark district, but it does not have to be beautiful.

Guest 3:51 goes on to say “now it has become the protection of buildings just because they’re old. Dumbo has old buildings – buildings built in the late 1800s and early 1900s. can anyone point to any one building in Dumbo and explain what’s so unique or beautiful about them [sic] beyond [sic]?” No – its not “just because they are old”. It is because Dumbo has a special character and a special historical interest. Or, to use an overused phrase, because Dumbo has a sense of place. The Landmarks Commission has determined that that sense of place is significant, and that preserving that sense of place is in the larger interest of the City. Perhaps there are no individual buildings in the Dumbo historic that are so unique or beautiful that they should be individual landmarks, but that is not the point.2 The sum of the parts adds up to a distinct area of the city that has a special character and a special historic and aesthetic interest.

I’m sure there are those who would say of the recently designated Sunnyside Historic District “can anyone point to any one building in [Sunnyside] and explain what’s so unique or beautiful about them” (some of those people live there, in fact). And the question more validity when applied to Sunnyside – a planned development of architecturally homogenous buildings – than it does to Dumbo. But again, that is not the point. Sunnyside, like most of Dumbo (and like most of Soho, Noho and Tribeca) merits designation as a district because it has that elusive “sense of place” quality.

Guest 3:51 digs the hole deeper when he says: “[the buildings of Dumbo are] nothing like the beautiful brownstones of Brooklyn Heights or Greenwich Village”. Lets think about the hallowed brownstone for a second – sure it is a nice enough building type, but it is also pretty ubiquitous. The brownstone districts – and I would not call Brooklyn Heights or Greenwich Village brownstone districts3 – are significant, again, for their sense of place, not because any one building or collection of buildings is beautiful. Like Dumbo, they comprise distinct areas of the city that have a special character and a special historic or aesthetic interest. Certainly, the city has designated enough brownstones, and, if they were to be judged as individual buildings, would not need to designate any more. But individual beauty is not the criteria that is applied to Park Slope or the Upper West Side; nor should it be applied to Dumbo or Soho. All of these are neighborhoods that rise to the level of a special sense of place worthy of protection.

Then we get to the ugly utilitarian building canard: “they’re old factory buildings. they weren’t even built to be architecturally significant or interesting – just practical factories.” Well, no. Today we build functional factory buildings with little regard for aesthetics (not at all unlike the way we build our residential buildings). But in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that was absolutely not the case. Yes, many industrial buildings were utilitarian in nature. But they were still decorated boxes that usually reflected the prevailing architectural style. (Are brownstones really that different? Aren’t they simply facades (brick facades, at that) decorated with stone trim?) In Dumbo, we see a wonderful juxtaposition of the decorative and the utilitarian, played out in evolving architectural styles and building materials. Many of these buildings were designed to make a statement – they were advertisements for the companies that built them, and were used as such in letterheads and advertisements. Certainly they were built for utility – they had to function, first and foremost – but beyond that there was clearly and effort on the part of owner and designer to strive for the other two Vitruvean ideals: durability and beauty.

Photo: NewYorkDailyPhoto.com

Unlike brownstones, the reinforced concrete buildings of Dumbo represent an important advance in building technology, further emphasizing their historical significance. The material itself allowed more efficient and more open buildings in an era before efficient interior lighting. And the designers of the buildings clearly struggled to both find a new aesthetic for this new material (viz, the Austin, Nichols Warehouse) and to anchor the material in the past (Gair No. 6, or the former Dutch Mustard Company building, for instance). This is just one aspect of the special historic character of the district that LPC recognized today.

Landmarks has applied the same standards to individual landmark designations. Again, it is all subjective, but recall that Councilmember Simcha Felder called the Austin, Nichols Warehouse a “piece of trash“. Never mind that it was Louis Kestenbaum’s years of shoddy maintenance that most contributed to the worn appearance of the building.4 The fact is that that building, like so many other industrial buildings of that era, was designed (by one of the preëminent American architects) with a sense of monumentality, proportion and, yes, beauty in mind.

Guest 3:51 ends his post with another common refrain: “all I have ever heard is that people in the neighborhood don’t want more J Condos. the prevention of new tall “ugly” buildings is not the same as protection of old buildings.” Here, he has a point. Yes, landmarking is used to thwart development and stop ugly (and out of context buildings). Soho, when it was designated, was threatened with the Cross Manhattan Expressway. The role of the Landmarks Commission, though, is to apply the broad and subjective standards granted to it in the city charter, not as a tool for stopping development, but as a means of protecting that which has a “special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value”. The sad fact is many city residents don’t think about their surroundings and what does (and does not) have that certain sense of place. Combine that with an understaffed Landmarks Commission that is rarely in a position to act proactively, and you have a process that is continually reacting to threats.

The bottom line, of course, is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Guest 3:51 is well within his rights to say that the buildings of Dumbo are not beautiful. But he misses the point entirely when he extrapolates his sense of the beautiful to the designation of a historic district. Because beauty is not in the Landmarks law. And it doesn’t belong there.

1 The Administrative Code can be found here. Its all encoded in Java, so I can’t link directly, but follow the directory path to Administrative Code Home->Title 25: Land Use->Chapter 3: Landmarks Preservation and Historic Districts.↩

2 Its also not true – off the top of my head, 1 Main Street, to name just one building, probably rises to the level of an individual landmark. I’m sure there are others.↩

3 Brooklyn Heights and Greenwich Village, the two earliest district designations, largely predate the brown decades of the post-Civil War era. What gives these neighborhoods their special character is their diversity of building styles and materials, and their unusual physical layout. They are, to my mind, the most wonderful districts in the city.↩

4 LPC Commissioner Gratz, in a different case, was right to note that the Commission should stand up and designate buildings that retain less than their full integrity. Particularly when that lack of integrity has come about as a result of prophylactic demolition – intentionally demolishing architecturally significant parts of a building in order to thwart a landmarks designation.↩

I just learned that the BSA has approved the application to resume construction at 144 North 8th Street (the Finger Building). BSA’s decision was based on a letter from DOB Deputy Counsel Felicia Miller, stating in part:

the permit issued in connection with Job # 301784399 for a 16 story building was a validly issued permit. We understand further that there is pending litigation regarding the applicant’s right to use roof top space at 115 Berry and 138 North 8th Street, as reflected in the plans. If they should loose that litigation, then the applicant will be in violation of open space requirements to the extent they decide to continue with construction beyond 10 stories. For this reason, there is a stop work Order in place for construction beyond 10 stories

144 North 8th Street (aka The Finger Building)
Photo: A Test of Will

The building permit for 144 North 8th, issued prior to the 2005 waterfront rezoning, expired in May, 2007 (two years after the enactment of the rezoning). Today’s BSA decision allows construction to proceed on the entire project. However, the pending litigation of which Miller speaks precludes any construction above the 10th story.

Here’s the kicker: for more than two years now local residents have wanted to sue to stop this project. Such a suit would have to be brought before BSA, and would be based on the fact that the building plans were not valid when approved (via self certification by Scarano Architects). But the neighbors can’t bring a case in front of BSA until DOB issues a “final determination” that the permit is valid. Now, one would think that a letter from a Deputy Counsel at DOB to the BSA – the very letter upon which BSA is basing its decision to allow the project to go forward – would constitute a “final determination”.

But it doesn’t.

According to DOB, a final certification can only come from the Brooklyn Borough Commissioner. Until such a determination is made, the public can’t challenge the validity of the permit in front of BSA. However, BSA is free to allow the permit to be renewed based on a not-so-final determination of the validity of the original permit by a DOB deputy counsel.

And the Deputy Counsel Borough Commissioner has, for over two years now, refused to issue such a determination.

Runs rings around you logically, eh?

When I linked to TRE’s Karl Fisher interview a few days ago, I said:

unfortunately, with the exception of 20 Bayard Street, just about every Fischer project is a box devoid of curved lines, angled lines, and, dare we say it, flair; which is probably for the better, as 20 Bayard is the worst of the opus

Photo: Curbed

When I wrote that, I hadn’t seen the base of the building since the sidewalk bridge came down. Today, Curbed posted this picture, and I have to say that I was wrong – I went way too easy on 20 Bayard. This is one of the ugliest things I have seen in ages – a senseless mashup of bad corporate park architecture and bad junior high school architecture. I can only assume that there is a cafeteria at that second floor apsis (and that it too sucks).

There is also a high degree of ridiculousness here (beyond the obvious ridiculousness of that central paired column with the metal collar). I mean M. C. Escher couldn’t find his way into this building. There’s a central stair leading to two sweeping stairs up to the second level, what looks like a secret portal between the two “columns” straight ahead, and two flanking stairs that look they’re townhouse entries. How the hell do you get into this place? Better yet, how do you get in if you’re wheelchair bound?? If the answer is a chair lift, Karl Fisher deserves to lose his license to practice architecture in polite society – chair lifts should be a last resort in rehab projects. (And if the answer is some at-grade entry off to the side somewhere, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities should slap a huge-ass fine on this project for violating the spirit, if not the letter, of Local Law 58.)

The good news is that 227 Grand Street was going to be demolished anyhow. Unfortunately, gravity reared its ugly head before the demo crew could get to that end of the building.

This is all part of the Gandar’s demolition at the corner of Grand and Driggs (where a 14-story condo is proposed – that’s the former Stinger Club at the far right of the photo). The building in question was a three-story flat house, constructed in the mid-19th century. In all likelihood, the failure of this wall was related to vibrations caused by the ongoing demolition, as well as the demo itself. But its also very likely that the side wall was compromised years ago, as it is a former party wall that was never intended to be exposed to the elements. As we recall, the building next door was demolished about four or five years ago.

A stop work order has been issued on this project (for an expired permit, not as a result of this wall failure). According to our friends on the block (who took these photos today), workers have been busy on the site for the past few days. And they weren’t doing “emergency” repairs to keep this wall standing and ensure the public safety.

The Oberserver reported today that DOB fatalities and accidents resulting in injury are down for the year to date. That is good news, indeed (though as the Commissioner herself reminds us, one fatality is one too many).

Before everyone declares victory, let’s keep in mind that the data sets are pretty small. Scaffold fatalities, for instance, fell from 6 in 2006 to 1 in 2007 (all figures are YTD), or 83%; scaffold injuries fell from 17 to 11, or 35%1. Construction-related fatalities fell from 14 to 8, or 43%; but construction-related injuries only fell from 105 to 104, or less than 1%. And citywide, accidents on high-rise construction sites rose by 83% (from 23 to 42), while accidents on low-rise sites fell 23% (66 to 51).2

For the most part, DOB’s powerpoint presentation (warning: PDF) does not provide much in the way of apples to apples to data. For instance, fatalities are down, but what are the comparisons on a per job or per worker unit basis? They do report the total number of high-rise and low-rise construction projects for YTD 2007. From that, we can learn that the rate of accidents per high-rise project rose by 65% (vs. the 83% rise the overall number of accidents) – still an unacceptable number, but at least a number that takes into account the number of project sites active in a given period. Similarly, the rate of accidents on low-rise sites has fallen a rather remarkable 43% (a combination of a 31% increase in the number of low-rise construction sites and the 23% decrease in accidents). That 43% decrease, in statistical terms, is probably a lot more meaningful than the reported 43% decrease in construction-related fatalities.3

Beyond this year-over-year comparison of 2006 to 2007, DOB does not provide any trend data. What are the comparable fatality, injury and accident rates going back 10 years? Was 2006 an anomaly? 2007?

Also missing from the report card are any data on crucial areas of DOB deficiency in recent years. How are we doing on stopping damage to neighboring buildings?4 What are the trend figures in the numbers of complaints, inspections, stop work orders, etc.?

1. The number of scaffold injuries, and construction-related injuries in general, is probably woefully underreported. Still, I’m sure that was the case in 2006 as in 2007, so all we can compare is what was reported.↩

2. Again, I would suspect massive underreporting, particularly on low-rise sites, which tend to be non-union (union sites are much more likely to report even minor accidents).↩

3. If you are doubting my skepticism in notes 1 and 2, above, take a closer look at the numbers in this last paragraph. Citywide, there were 202 active high-rise construction sites in 2007, and 4,126 active low-rise construction sites. But despite representing just 4.67% of the city’s overall construction activity, these 202 high-rise sites accounted for a whopping 45.2% of all construction accidents citywide. If that were true – and it isn’t – the city would be best served by shutting down every high-rise construction site.↩

4.DOB does report 335 inspections by the Excavation Safety Team, resulting in 153 stopped jobs. This, too, is a good thing. And based on anecdotal evidence, I do suspect the number of catastrophic accidents affecting neighboring properties is down, but DOB provides no data to support this assumption.↩

The Department of Education released its schools report card today. By and large, the local schools fared very well, almost without exception earning strong As and Bs. The one exception is the much-maligned PS 84 (Jose de Diego), which lives up to its reputation with a D. 84 has been the subject of a nasty fight between one group of parents (generally newer residents) pushing for a “progressive” curriculum and another group parents (generally older residents) and the teachers favoring “traditional” education approaches. Based on this report card, it looks someone needs to focus on basic quality, pedagogy be damned. Unfortunately, this will probably not convince the traditionalists and teachers that change is needed, and its also going to do nothing to stem the tide of progressives to private or out of district schools (including 132).

From the Times:

A “not insignificant number” of those F schools, and even some of the 99 schools that received D’s, could be closed or have their principals removed as soon as this school year, Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference announcing the grades. He added: “Is this a wake-up call for the people who work there? You betcha.”

Here’s the local rundown (by no means comprehensive, I’m sure I missed some):

PS 13 (Roberto Clemente, S3 & Keap) B
PS 17 (Henry Woodworth, N5 & Driggs) B

PS 18 (Edward Bush, Maujer & Leonard) A

PS 31 (Samuel Dupont, Meserole & Guernsey) A

PS 34 (Oliver Perry, Norman & Eckford) A
PS 110 (The Monitor, Driggs & Monitor) B

PS 132 (Conselyea, Manhattan & Metro) A
PS 184 (Jose de Diego, S1 & Berry) D
PS 250 (George Lindsey, Montrose & Manhattan) B

JHS 50 (John Wells, S3 & Roebling) A
JHS 126 (John Ericsson, Leonard & Bayard) D

El Puente Academy HS (S4 & Roebling) B
Automotive HS (Bedford at McCarren) “under review”

Harry van Arsdale HS (N5 & Roebling) does not appear on the list that I can see (it may show up as a series of mini schools).

Some caveats: The rankings appear to weight very heavily performance on standardized tests, which is different than academic achievement; they also give weight to schools that have shown year over year improvement. The grading was on a curve, so 60% of the schools received As or Bs (50 received Fs, and 99 received Ds).