NYC demolition review gains support
June 30, 2008 03:17PM
By Adam Pincus
Tony Avella
A preservationist group's proposal for a 90-day review period for demolitions of historically significant buildings that are more than 50 years old might have a new friend on the city council.
City Council Member Tony Avella, an outspoken critic of big development who is planning a bid for mayor, said he likes the idea but still needs to review it thoroughly.
"Clearly something needs to be done," said Avella, a Queens Democrat. "A slight delay before a building is demolished and the investigation of an alternative use can only be in the public interest."
Meanwhile, the Real Estate Board of New York is on the other side of the debate and is sharply criticizing the idea, which was first reported on Curbed.com.
The proposal was drafted by the 93rd Street Beautification Association, which is behind a drive to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District and preserve the Marx Brothers' home at 179 East 93rd Street between Lexington and Third avenues.
Susan Hefti, the group's co-chair, said the proposal — which would need to be approved by the City Council and signed by the mayor to become law — is modeled on a Boston ordinance that helps preserve historic homes.
"There is nothing radical here. It has been done before," she said. "I can't understand why anyone would oppose this."
Similar legislation has been enacted in Chicago, San Antonio, Boulder, Colo., and a handful of smaller cities, according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Michael Slattery, a REBNY senior vice president, said the proposal was blatantly anti-development.
"The [demolition] permits are public information available on the city Web site," he said, adding that he saw the proposal as "an attempt to stop development."
Slattery said other attempts over the years to place reviews on demolitions have all failed.
"If the City Council thinks about it carefully, they would see the proposal really doesn't have merit," he said.
Under the Beautification Association's plan, the Landmarks Preservation Commission could declare a property historically significant, which would trigger a 90-day review before a demolition could happen.
Earlier this month, the 93rd Street Beautification Association sent the proposal to the chair of the council's powerful land use committee, Queens Democrat Melinda Katz, as well as the city Landmarks Preservation Commission and several other council members.
A spokeswoman for the LPC said it had not yet reviewed the proposal and would not comment.
Avella said he expected to work with Hefti's group. He said he wants to give more power to the LPC, and supports allowing the commission to overrule a Buildings Department demolition permit.
The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.
Comments
Anonymous
I think this proposal is great. All it needs is for Avella and his family and Hefti and her family to pay the carrying costs the developer incurs during the 90 day review period. That should only add up to tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the size of the site.
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 06/30/08
Anonymous
first of all, tony avella is not qualified to do anything other than work in mcdonalds. that is why he has long been know around queens as Tony "deep fryer" Avella. This weasel has about the same chances as Bin Laden as becoming mayor- his own mother said she wouldn't vote for him. As for this proposal, it is ridiculous. What is happening to property rights in this city? An ownerhas the right to demolish his own building. If you want to save it then BUY IT! This would cause every buyer to think twice about buying any property with a building on it for fear of it becoming landmarked and losing development rights. What a joke!!!
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 06/30/08
Anonymous
can we demolish tony avella? no review needed- i think we can all agree on that!!!!!!!!
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 06/30/08
Anonymous
can someone please get rid of this little prick avella???i cant look at his face one more time without throwing up profusely. this proposal, which must have been crafted by retards, has about as much of a chance as this dipshit becoming mayor-none..
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
If a developer working in NYC doesn't know or care enough to find out whether a building might have historic significance, he shouldn't be let loose to begin with.
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Any New Yorker who doesn't give a whit about knocking down an historic building, should move to Shanghai. That's a city that's already demolished every historic structure in sight. Without this city's history, as embodied in these grand old structures, we're just another weigh station along the highway.
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
To give the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission 10 days to sign off on a building is nothing. What's the hurry ? It's that kind of recklessness that led to cranes collapsing and floors falling through. Wake up ! It's the 21st century, and NYC is lagging far behind because the laws governing development are just as antiquated as the faulty equipment and the moldy, old methods of inspection. Any developer that can't wait 10 days for LPC to sign off is moving too fast to begin with. If LPC finds that the structure might be historically significant and starts the 90 review period, so be it. Put on your big boy pants and join the rest of the nation's industries who have to live by one of the oldest mottos in commerce "Buyer beware" !
Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Neighborhhods do not exist to serve and support developers. If developers can't respect historically significant buildings, they shouldn't be licensed in out city !
Comment #8 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
If the NYC Council does not listen to the will of the people and follow through on the promise to change the way development is occurring throughout our city, November is is going to look like one big game of musical chairs ! The developers (YOU) may be donating lots of money to the CMs campaigns, but we still pull the levers.
Comment #9 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Scott Stringer keeps saying he wants to see changes in the way construction and development happen in NYC. Well, here's his first opportunity. The Manhattan Borough President should throw his weight behind this new law and leave more than big green garbage cans as a legacy.
Comment #10 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Council Member Jessica Lappin should move this proposed zoning amendment forward with out delay !
Comment #11 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Why hasn't Council Member Melinda Katz moved on this ? It's good sound public policy. It hasn't stopped development in Chicago, Boston or any other city where it has been passed. We need to pass this law today and finally step into the 21st century. Anyone that cares more about developers having the right to knock down a building without ANY review (what's 10 days anyway ?) of the historic significance to the city and the public at large has only their very selfish interests in mind. It's that myopia that makes cranes topple ! Get a grip ! 10 days to decide whether a building should be reviewed for its historic significance is nothing. If a building has been up for 50-300 years, allowing LPC 10 days to decide whether to review it doesn't even register. If this sounds too tough than you're obviously too much of a whimp to be doing development in our city, anyway !
Comment #12 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
Along with other much needed construction reforms, this law is long overdue. With only 1% of NYC's buildings historically designated, 99% of our building stock is vulnerable to unnecessary demolition. Plundering ahead with knock-downs and NO oversight robs the city of its history & culture while placing an incalculable burden on the fragile urban ecosystem. Apparently some people welcome the idea of whiping out our city's history, culture and what little green space we have left. But, for most of us, that's a carbon footprint way too big for our toes.
Comment #13 Posted By: Anonymous 07/01/08
Anonymous
How about making the Marx brothers tenament a museum, and throwing all the current tenants out.
Comment #14 Posted By: Anonymous 07/16/08
Anonymous
look what happened to 134 montague st brooklyn - 14 tennants evicted, their doors left on the street, and the store, 9 west (shoes) IS STILL OPEN AND IN PLACE...WHY AREN'T THEY GONE TOO
Comment #15 Posted By: Anonymous 08/09/08