Conservancy Supports St. Vincent’s Plans While Defending Landmarks Law
O’Toole Building
The New York preservation community is engaged in a dispute regarding the Landmarks Commission’s interpretation of the standards for hardship relief from the Landmarks Law. This dispute grew out of the proposal for St. Vincent’s Hospital to build a state-of-the-art facility at the site of one of its properties, the O’Toole Building, and to raise funds for that endeavor by selling its remaining buildings to a developer as the site for a new residential complex.
From the start, the Landmarks Conservancy supported St. Vincent’s plans. We took the position that the O’Toole Building was not one of the buildings for which the Greenwich Village Historic District was designated (click here to view 4/15/08 testimony) and that St. Vincent’s had made a compelling case that in order to achieve its charitable mission, it should be able to demolish O’Toole and put up its new building on that site (click here to view 6/3/08 testimony). The Conservancy also reviewed the proposal for the residential site, maintained that the best historic hospital buildings should be re-used, and suggested improvements to the designs of the new buildings. The final plans incorporated all of these recommendations.
The LPC approved the demolition of O’Toole based on hardship, but used a novel interpretation of the hardship “test” which could set a precedent allowing other non-profits with multiple buildings to tear down their historic properties. The Conservancy is committed to upholding the Landmarks Law, so when a neighborhood group filed a lawsuit challenging the LPC’s decision, we joined the Municipal Art Society and other national, state-wide, and local preservation groups in an amicus brief to uphold the correct hardship standard. We still support St. Vincent’s project and believe that the LPC could have reached the same conclusion applying the correct legal standard.
See The Municipal Art Society statement here.
