Fantastic analysis, as always Eli. A few thoughts:
1. Part of me hopes there's a win-win solution out there somewhere. For example, a zoning variance allowing a future developer to build more housing, in exchange for spending more $$ to preserve the original facade and providing additional arts space.
2. This reminds me of the BQE - everyone agrees the status quo is unsustainable (literally in both cases - as both could collapse in the not-so-distant future!) but the only plans to fix it require financing that will never appear, resulting in status quo paralysis.
3. Mark Ruffalo's political activism greatly frustrates me. While he has done good work on the national level, at the local level his two biggest causes seemed to be shutting down Indian Point (working with RFK Jr. and Cuomo to do so), and now this. All while buying a 3-family townhouse in Carroll Gardens and converting it into a single-family home, contributing to the housing crisis. Very frustrating!
Great piece! Really appreciate the thorough analysis.
I am admittedly one of those abundance bros who supports reforming the Landmark Preservation Commission (e.g. I believe the LPC should take into effect the impact of landmarking on new housing) but you make a very strong argument that the current law mandates that the LPC should approve the Church's hardship application. And honestly, the new housing is less important to me than the injustice of this congregation (one of the first churches in NYC to welcome lesbian and gay participation, a leader in fighting AIDS in the 1980s), being completely screwed over and demonized by local politicians.
30 years ago the landmarks law prevented owners of numerous Broadway theatres from selling their property to developers. As compensation (to avoid an unconstitutional taking) they were granted the right to sell their (theoretical) floors to other developers—not just those on adjoining lots but anyone in the district—who could then stack those floors on top of one another and build far higher than their lots were technically zoned for. Hence: matchstick towers.
I have always wanted the story behind this building - thank you so much for this well researched history and analysis. As you note, many of the factions involved do not play the role that I would have assumed they do, and it’s a fascinating mess.
Fantastic analysis, as always Eli. A few thoughts:
1. Part of me hopes there's a win-win solution out there somewhere. For example, a zoning variance allowing a future developer to build more housing, in exchange for spending more $$ to preserve the original facade and providing additional arts space.
2. This reminds me of the BQE - everyone agrees the status quo is unsustainable (literally in both cases - as both could collapse in the not-so-distant future!) but the only plans to fix it require financing that will never appear, resulting in status quo paralysis.
3. Mark Ruffalo's political activism greatly frustrates me. While he has done good work on the national level, at the local level his two biggest causes seemed to be shutting down Indian Point (working with RFK Jr. and Cuomo to do so), and now this. All while buying a 3-family townhouse in Carroll Gardens and converting it into a single-family home, contributing to the housing crisis. Very frustrating!
! GO E.M. GO !
Great piece! Really appreciate the thorough analysis.
I am admittedly one of those abundance bros who supports reforming the Landmark Preservation Commission (e.g. I believe the LPC should take into effect the impact of landmarking on new housing) but you make a very strong argument that the current law mandates that the LPC should approve the Church's hardship application. And honestly, the new housing is less important to me than the injustice of this congregation (one of the first churches in NYC to welcome lesbian and gay participation, a leader in fighting AIDS in the 1980s), being completely screwed over and demonized by local politicians.
30 years ago the landmarks law prevented owners of numerous Broadway theatres from selling their property to developers. As compensation (to avoid an unconstitutional taking) they were granted the right to sell their (theoretical) floors to other developers—not just those on adjoining lots but anyone in the district—who could then stack those floors on top of one another and build far higher than their lots were technically zoned for. Hence: matchstick towers.
I have always wanted the story behind this building - thank you so much for this well researched history and analysis. As you note, many of the factions involved do not play the role that I would have assumed they do, and it’s a fascinating mess.