Parsing the fine print in the General Theological Seminary debate

Volume One, Issue 21, February 16 - 22, 2007

Talking Point

By David Halle

As a Sociologist who lives in New York City and is writing a book about development on Manhattan’s Far West Side, I have been following the G.T.S. proposals debate. I have great respect for several opponents, but I think the moral high ground here lies with the Seminary, for four reasons.

First, when the Chelsea Historic district was designated by Landmarks in 1970, the Commission promised the Seminary that it could develop its properties, writing:

“The Landmarks Preservation Commission recognizes that the needs of the General Theological Seminary in the Chelsea Historic District may change in the years ahead. By this designation, it is not intended to freeze the properties of the Seminary in their present state for all time and thus prevent future appropriate alterations needed by the Seminary for its buildings.”

It bothers me that opponents typically never mention this promise. For example, C.B. 4’s letter to Robert Tierney, chair of the Landmarks Commission, which the board adopted on Feb. 7, quotes other material from the 1970 designation report as part of its argument against the Seminary’s proposals, but omits Landmarks’s promise not to freeze the Seminary’s properties or to stand in the way of future appropriate alterations. While this promise does not end the issue, it ought to frame the debate and should not be suppressed.

Second, although the debate over what is “appropriate” is a quagmire, the Seminary’s proposal has made a reasonable case for appropriateness. The Seminary, for example, has worked and re-worked the materials (e.g., more brick) to satisfy the context. Above all, the proposed tall building is shorter than the apartment building directly across the street on Ninth Ave., which is crucial, since the 1970 Landmarks designation says that buildings across the street should be taken into account when evaluating a proposal for new buildings. To quote:

“…the Commission recognizes that the Seminary may want to erect new buildings on its grounds in the future…. The Commission looks forward to working with the representatives of the Seminary when it desires to erect new buildings on its grounds…”.

In a Historic District, the best buildings from the past can be enhanced by the addition of well-designed and appropriate new buildings. In receiving a new building proposed for an Historic District, the Commission will take into account, and the architect of the new building should take into account, the surroundings, including the adjoining buildings and those across the street [my emphasis] and along both blockfronts. A new building should relate well to its neighbors in terms of the materials which are used, the architectural proportions, the size and shape of the windows, and the details on the front of the building.”

C.B. 4’s letter dismisses Landmarks’s statement that buildings “across the street” should be taken into account when evaluating a proposed new building by basically saying, with no supporting evidence, that Landmarks did not mean what it said!

Actually, the opposition claim that the 1970 designation stresses the “low-rise” character of the Chelsea Historic district is a stretch. C.B. 4’s letter, for example, says,

”Characterizations such as ‘low-lying uniformity,’ ‘reposeful’ and ‘homogeneous use of materials’ dot the description in the Designation Report.” All I can actually find in the designation in support of this statement is a single use of the word “uniformity” and a single use of the word “homogeneity.” By contrast, the designation speaks positively of the “apartment houses…[that] began to replace the single family houses in the 1890s,” acknowledges without criticism the [tall] “London Terrace apartments,” and quotes Clement Moore as lamenting the 1807–1811 grid because it “resulted in a monotonous, flat landscape.” In short, while the 1970 Commissioners believed that Chelsea contained great buildings that should be preserved, an additional claim that the Commissioners favor only low-rise buildings, existing or future, is highly debatable.

Third, Landmarks’s 1970 promise that the Seminary could develop its properties was made years before the Chelsea 197-a plan’s imposition of the 75-foot (zoning) height rule in 1997. Fairness therefore suggests that the Seminary should have been somehow grand-fathered around the Chelsea plan, which of course it was not. For example, State Senator Tom Duane, who is a fair person, has suggested that the G.T.S. could have been included in the 2005 West Chelsea Rezoning Plan to facilitate transfer of its development rights to a suitable location outside the Historic District. Perhaps.

Still, the West Chelsea Rezoning was extracted under duress from the city by the Chelsea property owners, a well-organized lobbying group who owned property adjoining the High Line and had convinced the federal Surface Transportation Board not to approve rail-banking legislation, without which the High Line could not proceed, unless the Chelsea property owners were compensated. The Department of City Planning’s West Chelsea Rezoning Plan was intended to allow these property owners to be compensated for not developing their properties, by transferring air rights to a special (high-rise) transfer zone, mostly to the south. It seems unlikely that the G.T.S., or sympathetic local politicians on its behalf, could have had the clout to include the G.T.S. in this deal. G.T.S. had no leverage to hold up a High Line deal that many people wanted.

At any rate, the Seminary now argues that it is legally entitled to a waiver from the City Planning Commission—a waiver from the 75-foot rule under the 74-711 provision of the zoning code, which allows bulk variances so long as generated funds are used to preserve the historic buildings whose survival is threatened by the absence of a profitable use under current zoning. Most people, including C.B. 4, seem to agree that the proposal meets the standards for a 74-711. As C.B. 4 writes: “The present application appears to be consistent with the broad purpose of this section [74-711] and to fulfill the legal requirements, namely: (a) there is a real threat to the preservation of the neglected historic buildings; (b) there is a well-designed preservation plan (c) there is a proposal for continued cyclical maintenance.”

But opponents go on to suggest, nevertheless, that the Seminary should not be allowed to proceed with the 74-711. For example, at several public meetings, opponents argued that if the Seminary were allowed its 74-711, then other eligible organizations throughout the city would do so, undermining landmarking city wide. Regardless of whether this domino theory is correct, in our society based on the rule of law, it is not acceptable to deny one organization its legal right to proceed because others will request the same legal right. The proper response is to work to change the rule one does not like.

C.B. 4, in its current letter, uses a different strategy to undermine the Seminary’s 74-711 proposal, suggesting that the entire 74-711 rule is flawed because it does not ensure organizations have the economic means to carry out their plans. Again, the proper response for those who believe that is to work to change the zoning rule, not to deny a particular application. (Anyway, G.T.S. says it does have the funds to carry out its plan.)

Note, by the way, that a 74-711 zoning waiver still has to meet a “harmonious”-to-the-context standard as judged by The Landmarks Commission, and gain a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission.
Finally, I would remind people that Jane Jacobs, who is justly revered by many here, argued in her classic Death and Life of

American Cities (1961), especially chapter 10, that a vibrant neighborhood should have a mixture of tall and short buildings, old and new ones. She was absolutely not against tall, new buildings. On the contrary, she welcomed them as essential for the kind of vibrant and diverse urban community that she cherished. More than 40 years ago, she wrote that the tall buildings she welcomed would be about 22 stories, but she fully expected those heights to rise with technology and she welcomed that, too. She would have been horrified at the idea of a “75’ is the limit” movement.

David Halle lives in New York and is Professor of Sociology at UCLA. His most recent book was New York and Los Angeles: Politics, Society and Culture (University of Chicago Press, 2003).