http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/ny...ects.html?_r=0
A Bid to Make the Park Lane Hotel a Landmark, but Not by the Usual Suspects
SEPT. 29, 2014
By MATT A. V CHABAN
Quote:
The masterpieces of Central Park South are myriad: The Plaza, the St. Moritz, the Gainsborough Studios and the Essex House all come to mind.
One property that barely registers is the Park Lane Hotel. Built in 1971 by Harry B. Helmsley, the hotel has stood since then as the tallest building on the three-block stretch — which is about its only distinguishing feature.
And yet a quiet campaign is in the works to secure landmark protection for the 46-story limestone and glass tower. It is not being led by the usual suspects, like preservationists, community groups or politicians. The charge, what little of it there is, is spearheaded by a TriBeCa architect who works mostly on downtown loft buildings; a real estate lawyer from Montclair, N.J.; and a former State Senate candidate from Queens who worked in the Giuliani administration.
Those following the effort are fairly certain that it has a particular purpose: halting plans to replace the hotel with yet another cloud-buster overlooking Central Park. But what remains a mystery is whether the three men are campaigning alone, or in concert with some as-yet-unknown party, perhaps a rival developer or wealthy condominium owner trying to protect his or her own valuable views of the park.
There are few words that will make a New York property owner cringe more than “landmark.” But this time, one might just be using it as a weapon against another.
“I’m astonished by this whole thing,” said Steven C. Witkoff, the developer who, with Harry B. Macklowe, bought the hotel last year for $660 million with plans to replace it eventually with an 850-foot tower. “I’m amazed anyone would think to stoop this low.”
The Park Lane was the flagship of the Helmsley hotel empire when it opened, a popular haunt for Led Zeppelin and Farrah Fawcett. But its architect, Richard Roth Jr., said in an interview that Mr. Helmsley was also after what everyone of a certain stripe now wants — a penthouse with stunning park views. He was hoping to impress his girlfriend, the future Leona Helmsley, then a broker at Douglas Elliman, who would go on to be known as the Queen of Mean.
Mr. Roth’s work, along with the chandeliers, marble and velvet installed by the decorator Tom Lee, are among the reasons outlined in a report arguing for the preservation of the property: “The Park Lane Hotel, a substantial building by a major midcentury architect working with a prominent developer in direct response to changes in zoning and architectural design, is clearly, substantially, qualitatively different than many of the typical contributing buildings.”
The report was prepared by a preservation consulting firm for John Furth Peachy, the TriBeCa architect, who submitted it to the Landmarks Preservation Commission on March 31. The commission rejected the request with a one-line response the next month: “After a careful evaluation, the Commission determined that 36 Central Park South does not rise to the level of an individual landmark, based on its lack of architectural significance.”
Even Mr. Roth, who was a third-generation partner of the noted firm Emery Roth & Sons, agreed it was not worth saving.
“I certainly would have picked other Emery Roth buildings first,” said Mr. Roth, 81. “It’s not even a particularly great building.”
After the landmarks commission setback, Juan Reyes, a former lawyer in the Giuliani administration who is now in private practice, began reaching out to various politicians and civic groups. Councilman Daniel R. Garodnick’s office said that until Community Board 5 supported the campaign, the councilman would withhold judgment.
Still, Mr. Reyes continued to reach out to Mr. Garodnick’s office, while also talking with the community board, Gale Brewer, the Manhattan borough president, and others. At times, he would suggest to one party that he had another’s support, only for the parties to find that that was not the case, according to numerous officials contacted by Mr. Reyes.
The community board was hesitant to give the preservation request a public hearing, since it had already approved Mr. Witkoff’s plans in February.
This month, Mr. Reyes did meet with a few board members, according to two people who were present. They said he brought along Mr. Peachy and William I. Kaplan, another real estate lawyer, who showed photos of his historic home in Montclair as proof of his passion for preservation.
According to the two people who were present, Mr. Kaplan said his love of the hotel came from time spent in Manhattan caring for his sick father, when he often walked in the park and gazed at the hotel.
“None of it made sense,” said one board member, who insisted on anonymity because the meeting was supposed to be private. “We assumed they were working for someone, but it was all so clumsy.”
Mr. Reyes has also reached out to numerous civic groups for support, but has won over none. Tara Kelly, director of Friends of the Upper East Side, did send a letter to the landmarks commission requesting a public hearing, but she said it was mostly just a courtesy to Mr. Reyes. “I don’t know if the Park Lane is on anybody’s to-do list,” she said.
Neither Mr. Reyes, who was in the news in 2012 when a flier from his campaign for the State Senate accused his Republican primary opponent of being “gay-friendly” (Mr. Reyes, who apologized for the mailing, lost), nor Mr. Kaplan responded to several phone calls and emails seeking comment.
Mr. Peachy, the architect, is starting what he calls a “grass-roots campaign” called Save the Park Lane. He said in an interview in his TriBeCa studio that the hotel was not only a historic building, but one of the few left for the average New Yorker on the park.
“You can get a room or a meal for a fair price, and the views from the restaurant there on the second floor are some of the best,” he said.
But he had never set foot in the hotel, he acknowledged, until this year, when he started working on the campaign, for which he is being paid his standard fee by Mr. Kaplan.
And yet their efforts might just succeed, if not in stopping the project, then in drawing opposition to it. The community board has acceded to Mr. Reyes’s request and agreed to hold a public hearing on the matter Oct. 6.
When it comes to landmarks, “the personal or selfish interests, those always play a role,” Mr. Peachy said. “But that doesn’t mean our goals can’t align.”
|
Community board's resolution to support the redevelopment:
http://www.cb5.org/cb5/resolutions/f...pplication_for
Quote:
BSA # 116-68-BZ, application for modification to an existing special permit at 40 Central Park South.
At the regularly scheduled monthly Community Board Five Executive Committee meeting on Tuesday, February 11, 2014, the following resolution was unanimously passed:
WHEREAS, The applicant, 40 CPS Associates LLC, is requesting approval for the transfer of excess development rights from 40 Central Park South (CPS) to 36 CPS, permitting a merger into a single zoning lot; and
WHEREAS, The site is located on a block (Block 1274) bounded by West 58th Street to the south, Central Park South to the north, Fifth Avenue to the east, and Sixth Avenue to the west; and
WHEREAS, This application seeks a modification of an existing variance which was granted to permit an eating and drinking establishment in a residential district; and
WHEREAS, The requested actions are sought in connection with the potential construction of a new building at 36 CPS with a height of approximately 850 feet; and
WHEREAS, The action would allow for the transfer of approximately 52,000 square feet of unused developments rights from 40 CPS to 36 CPS; and
WHEREAS, Much of the additional floor area being transferred is generated through the inclusionary housing bonus; and
WHEREAS, The new building which the applicant is considering building will otherwise comply with existing zoning; and
WHEREAS, BSA approval is only needed for this zoning lot merger because an underlying variance is in place for the restaurant use. If no restaurant existed on the 40 CPS site then no BSA approval would be needed for the construction of a new building at 36 CPS with 40 CPS air rights; and
WHEREAS, The Board continues to be very concerned about the proliferation of towers along the southern edge of Central Park and other open spaces and the balance of public and private benefit associated with these buildings; and
WHEREAS, Community Board Five is developing a more detailed policy statement which reflects our concerns about a more appropriate balance of public and private benefits in the context of new development and will examine a range of issues including: the impacts on open space of new development, an urban design framework which protects parks, the utility of the R-10 inclusionary housing bonus, the tax structure for these new hyper luxury apartment buildings, among other issues; and
WHEREAS, The applicant team has demonstrated a willingness to engage with the Community Board in many of these larger and more challenging questions and has been open and transparent with information about their proposed building; and
WHEREAS, The applicant has agreed to the conditions outlined below; therefore be it
RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends approval of this application with the following conditions:
1) The applicant's inclusionary housing development partner will appear in front of the Education, Housing and Human Services Committee of Community Board Five as soon as detailed information is available about the off-site use of the inclusionary housing bonus.
2) If the applicants were to merge with additional zoning lots that the applicant commits to return to the Community Board and Board of Standards and Appeals for a subsequent modification of their special permit. This modification only permits the use of 40 Central Park South air rights.
The applicant agrees to continue a discussion with Community Board Five about the design of the building as the design process unfolds.
|
With additional development rights, the project would rise beyond 850 ft.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
Last edited by NYguy; Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 AM.
|
Prev
Do you know if the adjacent sites are developable? Looking at the site quickly, it's good that the hotel spans all the way back to the 58th street wall-- lots to do in my eyes.
Linear Mode
