|
|
| |
Split Decision Council Denial Of Landmark Status For Bank Cause Of Concern For Preservationists
|
| The sloped roof of the bank building is likely unique to Queens. Tribune photo by Ira Cohen
|
By ANDREW MOESEL
Not far from Queens Center Mall, a copper green, wing-shaped roof juts a pointed end toward the street, a stark contrast from the rounded structure next door. Paneled windows run up from the ground to meet the roof along its edges, forming a transparent set of walls. There’s nothing like it anywhere else on the street – perhaps not even in the borough.
The building, a former Jamaica Savings Bank located at 89-01 Queens Blvd., was impressive enough to be selected earlier this year as a candidate to become a city landmark. But when the issue came before the City Council, which has approved all landmarks since the Board of Estimates was disbanded in 1989, the proposal hit a roadblock.
Last week, the Council Land Use Committee approved a resolution refusing landmark status to the bank site, now a branch of North Fork. Last Thursday, the full Council voted virtually unanimously to accept that resolution. It now waits for the mayor’s pen.
With historians already clamoring for more landmarks in the outer boroughs, many are upset about the decision, only the fifth of its kind since the council began reviewing landmarks in 1992. In this case, however, it appears the building had too much going against it.
Building A Legacy
Despite its unarguably unique structure, there still exists disagreement over whether the building possesses the historical and cultural significance to merit becoming a city landmark. As a relatively young structure, historically speaking, some experts fear that politicians are prejudiced against modern architectural forms, an attitude they say could set a bad precedent when considering other potential designations.
In the early 1960s, Queens Boulevard was bristling with ambitious construction and capitalist zeal. Macy’s was building a new shopping center on a generous five-acre lot, and LeFrak City, the country’s biggest public housing development, was in its fledgling stages.
It was in this atmosphere an architect named William C. Cann arrived in Elmhurst to design a new branch for the Jamaica Savings Bank. Drawing inspiration from the 1964 World’s Fair just down the street, Cann wanted to construct a building that would be an eye-catching departure from the flat-roofed department stores surrounding it.
In June, the Landmarks Commission issued a 16-page report detailing the building’s history and arguing for its relevance as an aesthetic achievement. Calling it a “bold expression of 20th Century engineering,” commission members also cited the saddle-shaped roof and reinforced glass as distinguishing architectural benchmarks.
“This distinctive landmark, which represents the development of Queens in the 1960s, was unanimously supported by the Landmarks Commissioners, the local community board, the local City Council person and preservationists city-wide,” said landmark commissioner chairmen Robert Tierney. “We are extremely disappointed by the City Council’s action to overturn this important Queens landmark.”
But Councilman Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn), chairman of the Council subcommittee on landmarks, found the argument for the designation to be unconvincing, people familiar with the situation said. He believed the bank’s historical importance did not merit the level that should be required for landmark status.
Simeon Bankoff, executive director of the Historic Districts Council, said the City Council has a bias against modern buildings when it comes to landmarks, and this decision could be a harbinger of a philosophical shift away from newer buildings.
At the hearings last week, Bankoff said he was disturbed by several Council members’ presumption to have a better understanding of what constitutes a historically significant building than experts on the commission.
“It’s not like (the Landmarks Commission is) wandering around willy-nilly designating things,” Bankoff said. “They obviously had prioritized this one, and someone should have respect for an agency trying to have priorities.”
|
|
Water Rate Hike Town Hall Meeting
FDNY Implements New Dispatch System
Two Arrested In Internet Sting
Hit-And-Run Driver Turns Himself In
Media Piracy Penalties Stiffened
Budget Halts College Services
Classic Picasso Prints On Display
Harassed Tenants Building Support
Treatment Lessens Side Effects
Youth Baseball Conflicts Queens
Mets And Amazing Schools:
City Announces Rockaway Ferry
30th Candidates Squabble Over Details
Water Board Blasted For Rate Hike
Supermarket Stiffs Baggers
Katz Has Baby Boy
New Bank Offers Loans To The Poor
Senate Approves Summer Gas-Tax Suspense
Queens Inaugurates Its Jazz Orchestra
New Treatment Battles Epilepsy
City Provides Youth With Summer Jobs
Queens Air Gets an ‘F’ Report Says
Acquittals Cap Dramatic Bell Trial
|
| |
|
|
|
| The peaked edge and glass wall make the building difficult to heat and cool. Tribune photo by Ira Cohen
|
The Hardship Of History
The problem with historic buildings, of course, is that they are old. While still a striking visual sight, the Elmhurst branch has not held up well against the test of time: the roof leaks, the basement floods and it has virtually no insulation. Since landmark status strictly limits repair work and forbids demolition, owners of the property contest that the designation puts an undue hardship on their wallets.
In hearings on the issue this March, owners of the property, New BA Property LLC, said landmark status would dramatically reduce the value of the site. The current structure only utilizes 80 percent of the potential space justified under the area’s zoning regulations, according to representatives of the company.
Bankoff disagreed, saying the city carefully plotted that portion of property to make the back parking lot eligible for development. He also cited a Citizens Budget Commission study that says property values of landmarked buildings actually increase over time.
Although the Landmark Commission report described the building as “well preserved,” North Fork officials maintain its virtually falling apart. The basement has five pumps operating around the clock to keep the basement from flooding. With only glass and copper separating the outdoors, it costs considerably more to heat and cool than other buildings.
“The architecture is unique but it’s inconvenient for the employees who work here,” Angela Borukhov, an assistant branch manager at the bank, said in August. “It was [the employees] opinion that the bank should be torn down and for them to build a new one.”
Several elected officials said they even heard the building could be structurally unsound, and possibly could have to come down in a few years anyway.
But if every time a building owner disagreed with a landmark designation, there would hardly be any landmarked buildings, said Mitchell Grubler, executive director of the Queens Historical Society. Courts have consistently upheld that the community’s interest in preserving its culture and history trump an individual’s financial concerns.
A Political Foundation
Some officials have also pointed to the lack of political and community support behind the landmark effort. Although the local councilwoman and community board were technically in favor of giving the former Jamaica Savings Bank landmark status, their enthusiasm toward the proposal was perceived as only lukewarm.
Councilwoman Helen Sears (D-Jackson Heights), in whose district the bank sits, was the only Council member to vote against the recommendation to not bestow landmark status on the bank. She said the situation presents a tricky philosophical proposition: balancing the need to preserve history with the needs of the tenants.
In an interview several days after the full Council vote, Sears did not criticize the Council for its decision, nor did she strongly defend the bank site as particularly deserving of landmark status. She said she respected both the Landmarks Commission and the City Council for their work on the issue.
“Sometimes when there is a reversal, it’s not an indication of someone not doing the right thing,” Sears said. “We are caught in a very philosophical viewpoint.”
Some Council members said they didn’t feel Sears was entirely behind the landmark proposal, which influenced their vote, people familiar with the situation said. In the committee hearings, Felder pressed Sears on whether she really supported the landmark designation, asking her several times to expand on her answers.
Community Board 4 only voted to recommend the landmark proposal a week before the Council hearings, and even then only on the urging of Sears. No representatives came to the Council hearings.
Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside) said he voted reluctantly for the resolution to stop the landmark. Usually a proponent of community preservation issues, Avella said he only learned of the dispute the day before the Land Use committee meeting, and decided to follow the advice of his colleagues.
“We need to practice at this before the last minute,” Avella said. “It’s hard to lobby for and discuss the situation at that time.” |
[Feature
Archives] |
|