http://tribecatrib.com/news/newsjan08/BMB.html
They Try a Different Top on Landmark
__
__
By Nick Pinto
JANUARY 1, 2008
[cjolor=blue]Developers proposing to top the landmark Battery Maritime Building, next to the Staten Island Ferry terminal, with a dramatic glass addition, returned to Community Board 1’s Landmarks Committee last month with a number of concessions in their design. But it wasn’t enough to please the committee, who declared the addition, a four-story glass-enclosed hotel atop the historic 1909 ferry terminal, still too big and obtrusive.[/color]
The Economic Development Corporation, which owns and restored the building, gave the Dermot Company a 99-year lease in June. Dermot’s plans call for continuing ferry service to Governors Island from the building’s ground floor while turning the 9,000-square foot great hall on the second floor into a public space available for private events in the evening.
The controversial element in Dermot’s plan, designed by Rogers Marvel Architects, is the construction of a 146-room hotel and rooftop restaurant, housed in a four-story glass cap on top of the existing building, nearly doubling the landmark’s height. Rooms are expected to cost up to $500 per night.
It was Dermot’s second presentation to the committee, and board members found much improvement to the land side of the building: a more understated entrance; a window proposed for the building’s west side that is broken up into smaller, less jarring sections; a segmented southern façade (rather than the monolithic one first proposed) that reflects the architectural divisions of the original building.
Dermot partner Steve Benjamin argued that the addition of a three-and-a-half foot railing between the original building and the addition extends the profile of the original building, further diminishing the visual impact of the addition.
“There’s no question that this is a much better proposal,” said committee co-chair Bruce Ehrmann. “Many of the issues I had have been resolved. I just don’t understand why the addition is still so high.”
Benjamin told the committee the addition, which was brought down three-and-a-half feet from the one first proposed, can’t be made much smaller.
“We squeezed the penthouse as much as we could,” he said. “The hotel rooms are already smaller than standard. To make this project make financial sense, this is what we have to do.”
However, Benjamin’s argument didn’t satisfy the committee.
“If the developer is saying they need the addition to be so big to satisfy the financial side, that’s their problem,” said committee member Marc Ameruso. “Why should a historic landmark building have to suffer for a developer’s bottom line?”
The committee asked Benjamin to consider their comments and return with further revisions before taking the proposal to the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Benjamin agreed, but warned the committee that what they see now is very close to what they will get.
“We’ve tweaked this about as much as we think is possible,” Benjamin said. “We’re happy to come back and talk to you again, but it’s not going to look significantly different.”
When Dermot first took its proposal to the Landmarks Preservation Commission in October, commissioners shared many of the Community Board’s concerns.
The developer is expected to return to the commission in January, before the full Community Board makes its recommendation on the plan.
