A blog for all seasons; A blog for one; A blog for all. As the 11th most informative blog on the planet, I have a seared memory of throwing my Time 2006 Man of the Year Award over the railing at Time Warner Center.
Justice. Only Justice Shall Thou Pursue
The motion, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, also asked a judge to allow the plaintiff’s lawyers to conduct discovery, the pretrial phase of a lawsuit in which each party can obtain evidence through depositions and other means.
The firefighter, Timothy Brown, sued the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission on Aug. 4, accusing it of acting “in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner” when it paved the way for the project by refusing to grant historic protection to the building on the site where the $100 million center would be constructed.
The lawsuit also named the city’s Department of Buildings, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the mosque’s developers as defendants.
In the motion on Tuesday, Mr. Brown’s lawyers accused Mr. Bloomberg of failing to respond “in a timely manner” to a public-records request that they said would prove the substance of their lawsuit.
The suit wont stop the project, and I consider the suit to be lacking on substance. The LPC heard evidence from proponents and opponents to the siting of the community center and its design and came away with finding that the building was not worthy of being landmarked. That reinforced a decision several years ago that found that the building was not worthy of landmarking.
On that basis, there's no reason to believe that the LPC was being arbitrary or capricious in denying the landmarking status to the building that allowed developers go ahead with the project (subject to finding financing).
This suit is nothing more than a fishing expedition and Brown and his backers are hoping that some possible shred of evidence will come out that supports their contentions.
On Tuesday, the authority signed a tentative deal to move the Condé Nast headquarters to 1 World Trade Center, the 1,776-foot skyscraper now under construction at ground zero. That would make it the building’s largest private tenant so far and one with trend-setting cachet to boot.
In the cold, mournful aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, it was unclear what companies, if any, would move back to that scarred piece of earth. For a long time, it appeared that government agencies were the only likely tenants.
Mitchell Moss, a professor of urban planning at New York University, said the Condé Nast deal could be a turning point, noting that 1 World Trade Center, which will be the city’s tallest building, sits across West Street from the newly opened Goldman Sachs headquarters.
Think: Anna Wintour, the imperious editor-in-chief of Condé Nast’s Vogue, who inspired the novel and film “The Devil Wears Prada,” and Graydon Carter, the bon vivant editor of Vanity Fair, stepping out of black limousines at ground zero.
“We will have the best-paid bankers and best-dressed editors across the street from each other,” Mr. Moss said. “What young ambitious person would not want to be downtown now?”
Condé Nast is not the only high-profile tenant now considering 1 World Trade Center, expected to be completed in 2013. Bank of New York is also considering it as one of several sites.
The Port Authority declined to comment on any negotiations with tenants. Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the authority, did say, “There is clearly momentum both in the building of the World Trade Center site and the growing interest from potential tenants.”
The publishing giant would become an anchor tenant in the Freedom Tower. Condé Nast's current landlord is the Durst Organization, which is currently working to finalize a deal to market and lease the Freedom Tower along with a stake in the building.
Some employees were looking forward to the move, which couldn't come before 2014 at the earliest (the building is still under construction), but as should be expected, others aren't looking forward to the move.
Meanwhile, the outrageous outrage over the LPC rejection of landmark status for the buildings where the Cordoba House proposes a community center and mosque continues.
A lawsuit is being filed against the LPC claiming that politics steered the decision rather than the architectural merits. Those lawsuits have little chance of success because as the LPC member statements show - they understood both the political and emotional arguments for landmarking, but the process still required looking at the architectural merits for landmarking and the buildings simply didn't merit such status.
The fact is that the lawsuit itself is a political gesture to force the landmarking of a structure that doesn't merit landmarking on the merits. But that wont stop them from trying to derail the project, which still has to get approval at the City Council.
Moreover, even if the LPC was forced to reconsider the decision, it would not derail the project. Instead, the LPC could force the Cordoba House backers to simply redesign the facade and take other measures to maintain the historical integrity of the building. It might cost more to carry out those efforts, but it would not kill the project.
As was expected, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) rejected a call to landmark 47 Park Place, which is the site of a proposed Islamic center and mosque two blocks north of Ground Zero.
The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9-0 against granting historic protection to the building at 45-47 Park Place in Lower Manhattan, where the $100 million center would be built.
That decision clears the way for the construction of Park51, a tower of as many as 15 stories that will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, and a pool. Its leaders say it will be modeled on the Y.M.C.A. and Jewish Community Center in Manhattan.
The vote on Tuesday was free of much of the vitriol that had marked previous hearings. One by one, members of the commission debated the aesthetic significance of the building, designed in the Italian Renaissance Palazzo style by an unknown architect.
Christopher Moore, a member of the commission, said the vote was not a matter of religion, though he argued that the building could not be divorced from the memory of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“It is not directly on ground zero, but it is a part of ground zero,” Mr. Moore said.
And even Moore voted against landmarking because the building itself lacked architectural merits worthy of landmarking.
The backers of the project now have to come up with the $100 million+ financing to get construction underway.
I'm actually somewhat surprised that the opponents to the project didn't make a stronger or louder showing than they actually did. The LPC picked a larger venue than usual to hold this hearing, expecting a large crowd, and while there were some vocal opponents, it was actually a somewhat typical affair.
The venue for the hearing had been shifted twice, both times to larger quarters to accommodate the expected crowds. But the hearing room at Hunter College, with a capacity of over 2,000, was filled by less than 200 folks who braved bag searches and metal detectors. Still, the LPC got an earful. Over 50 speakers gave testimony, the vast majority in favor of landmarking the building (and simultaneously making it clear that a mosque should never be allowed anywhere near ground zero). The media were out in force to capture the fireworks, and harsh words soon erupted.
The LPC is in an awkward position, as the designation proposal for the five-story Italianate building has sat in its files for over 20 years with no action. The Landmarks Committee at Community Board 1 hasn't made things any clearer: Last week they voted against awarding landmark status, but included in their resolution a statement saying that, while 45 Park Place wasn't distinguished enough for individual protection, the facade should be dismantled, stored and later used on the new building at the location.
Even if the building is given landmark status, the owners could still build above and around the existing building. The LPC also has no control over the plot next door, which is also part of the Cordoba House lot, and the proposed building does not require any zoning variances to rise to the planned 15 stories.
The LPC will take its time to consider the landmarking of the 45/47 Park Place properties.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, even the landmarking status will not kill the project, and the proponents could find ways to work around the project. The group sponsoring the project owns the properties from 45 through 51 Park Place, and could find ways to work around whatever restrictions are put on them with respect to the 45 Park Place parcel.
One of the most interesting opposition arguments was that the building should be landmarked because of the damage it sustained from debris from one of the two planes that struck the Twin Towers, forcing its closure since 9/11. That argument would actually suggest keeping the building shuttered forever in its current state, and I think that's a worse fate than repurposing the building to something that could benefit the community in Lower Manhattan that could use community space akin to the 92nd Street Y and other well known community spaces.
The group behind the proposal, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has held services in a small mosque in TriBeCa since 1983, is even contemplating changing the name to Park51, rather than the Cordoba Center. Where and how Rauf is able to obtain financing is an open question and while thus far hasn't raised any red flags, if monies raised come from dubious sources, that should be a serious concern. I would urge Rauf to be more forthcoming as to the financing and how this is a project to benefit the entire community.
Still, I don't think opponents will care much as for whatever the proposal is called or how much outreach Rauf and his group engages in. They're opposed to the project due to its proximity to Ground Zero, even as many opponents consider it part of Ground Zero (it is not). Moreover, they're opposed to the very concept of a mosque that close to Ground Zero.
UPDATE:
A couple of GOP hopefuls think that the Cordoba House presents a security risk - by Islamic terrorists targeting the mosque/community center because it's seeking to be more inclusive and moderate than the Islamists want. He also thinks that such mosques shouldn't be in line of sight with sites of special significance, like the White House or Ground Zero (and ignores that this building site at 45-51 Park Place would fit that bill).
Moreover, the additional restrictions would violate federal law -
But providing an extra standard might violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a Republican sponsored measure which outlaws any regulations imposing a “substantial burden” on religious uses. (It passed the House unanimously, which means King supported it.)
Commissioners at Tuesday's hearing will discuss architectural and historical merits of the building. A vote is expected this summer.
Rick Bell, head of the American Institute of Architects-New York chapter, says 45 Park Place is simply not good enough to receive city protection.
"If I was on the commission, I would probably vote against maintaining it," Bell said. "This is a building no one will lose sleep over it if it's gone."
Roger Byrom, chairman of the landmarks committee for Community Board 1, said his group voted not to recommend landmark designation.
The 152 year old buildings aren't sufficiently meritorious in their design or lineage to be worthy of landmark designation - so say the AIA and the CB1 landmarks committee. There are far better examples of this kind of architecture, and the buildings themselves weren't landmarked years ago when the idea first was floated to give them that designation.
Moreover, even if landmarking the exteriors is warranted and recommended by the LPC, the proposal to turn the facility into a mosque and community center isn't stopped - the proposal can work around the facade requirements.
It's not like the LPC has recommended against landmarking on historic buildings in the past - take the Edward Durell Stone building at 2 Columbus Circle that is now the Museum of Arts & Design for example. The unique and distinctive facade was the signature of Stone's design, but the LPC denied the landmark status, enabling a complete redo of the exterior with new cladding and features.
Still, all of this isn't going to keep some people from hyperventilating about how this proposal would be building a mosque at Ground Zero - when in fact it is two blocks away (and the mosque that is behind the proposal has been located about a mile from Ground Zero for more than 2 decades).
The hearing is being held at Hunter College because the LPC's hearing room was insufficient for the throngs of people expected to show up.
The Observer notes that there was opposition to a mosque proposed for Staten Island, but doesn't note that there were good reasons to question that project - the backers of the Staten Island mosque proposal had ties to Islamic terrorists and are considered a front group for those terror groups.
The reason that the LPC is involved in the approval process here is because the Cordoba House proponents want to alter the exterior of the building, and the LPC could demand alterations to the exterior plans or reject the exterior design altogether. This wouldn't necessarily end the Cordoba House project as opponents would like to think, but it would likely add cost and time to the project to comply.
The 29-to-1 vote, with 10 abstentions, followed a four-hour back-and-forth between those who said the community center would be a monument to tolerance and those who believed it would be an affront to victims of the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The board’s vote was advisory — it did not have the power to scrap plans for a center — but it was seen as an important barometer of community sentiment.
Middle school students and rabbis were among the more than 100 people who testified at the hearing, which was held a short distance from ground zero. Some carried pictures of family members killed in the attacks; others brandished signs reading “Show respect for 9/11. No mosque!”
C. Lee Hanson, 77, whose son Peter was killed in the attacks, said he opposed the center not because he was intolerant, but because he believed that building a tribute to Islam so close to the World Trade Center would be insensitive.
“The pain never goes away,” Mr. Hanson said. “When I look over there and I see a mosque, it’s going to hurt. Build it someplace else.”
Jean Grillo, 65, a writer from TriBeCa, said shutting out any faith undermined American values. “What better place to teach tolerance than at the very area where hate tried to kill tolerance?” she said.
The proposed center, called the Cordoba House, would rise as many as 15 stories two blocks north of where the twin towers stood. It would include a prayer space, as well as a 500-seat performing arts center, a culinary school, a swimming pool, a restaurant and other amenities.
The group behind the project, the Cordoba Initiative, is seeking to make major structural changes to the five-story building at 45 Park Place, which was built in the late 1850s in the Italian Renaissance palazzo style.
The Community Board's approval is only one step in the process; it still needs to get City Council approval and the Landmarks Preservation Commission has to weigh in as well. However, the Community Board's approval carries weight and signifies that the local community seeks the development, which is a factor taken into consideration by the City Council in its deliberations.
UPDATE:
The bloviation by some opponents to the proposal includes the Drudge Report which touts a bogus headline that this proposal will include a mosque at Ground Zero.
The building in question is two blocks from Ground Zero. It isn't in Ground Zero as some opponents have charged.
This isn't the case of the International Freedom Center, which rightfully was canned because of the intention of the proponents to include viewpoints that were objectionable and outrageous - a multi-cultural mashup that made mincemeat of the 9/11 attacks and who actually carried out the attacks and their rationale.
The Center may not actually go ahead unless it gets all the financing sorted out, but the proposal is not something that is objectionable in its current form unless something actually objectionable comes out regarding its financing and sources (which to date has included the Rockefeller Bros Fund and Ford Foundation). Lower Manhattan needs the facilities being proposed - theater space, community space, etc., on par with what is offered at the 92nd Street Y or JCC, and it happens that it is an Islamic group providing the possible services.
A new report indicates that the chair of the Community Board that has a say in the approval of the construction of a mosque just blocks from Ground Zero thinks that coverage has been distorted.
Days after Community Board (CB) 1’s Financial District Committee passed a unanimous resolution in favor of the Cordoba Institute moving to Lower Manhattan to build a community center with a mosque, local and national media outlets pounced on the story. Ro Sheffe, the committee chair, was disappointed, to say the least, with the coverage.
“There has been so much inaccuracy in so many of the media accounts of this proposal,” said Sheffe last Friday. “From what we were told at the meeting - what we were hearing was a secular community center with a mosque attached. Everything we heard obviously we liked. It was unanimous.”
Though the coverage has been exhaustive - from web-only news outlets to the New York Post, even an anti-Cordoba House Facebook group with 53,000 members already opposing the group - few elected officials have taken a stance on the issue, save for New York State Senator Daniel Squadron.
“Community religious and civic organizations have been a big part of the extraordinary resurgence of Lower Manhattan,” Squadron said Wednesday evening. “The Cordoba Initiative has been a part of that rebuilding, and a new community facility would contribute to Lower Manhattan’s role as a center for cultural diversity and tolerance.”
As of press time, this paper had reached out to a number of elected officials and only Squadron returned our calls.
Still, there are other reports that the financing is coming from foreign sources, in addition to those from the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Bros. Fund as I've previously reported
Then, there's the issue of landmarking status of the building in question.
A ruling on the landmark status might limit the alterations to the exterior, but may not stop the plans altogether. Often, the planners will be able to retain the exterior facade while altering the interiors. Then, there's the fact that the LPC has signed off on alterations to other historically significant buildings in the City, including the Edward Durell Stone designed building at 2 Columbus Circle that was known for its marble facing, although the LPC did end up killing a plan that would have saved St. Vincent's Hospital when they wanted to demolish and/or alter several buildings in Greenwich Village. Moreover, this building isn't actually landmarked, which means that the LPC would first have to designate it as a landmark, and the LPC declined to do so in the 1980s when the issue was first broached.
Then, there's the craziness with the claim that the community center/mosque proposal is somehow at Ground Zero. It isn't. Even those who support the idea that the mosque be allowed to go forward don't get this. Somehow, the community center's proximity to Ground Zero is just too close to comfort for some, even as the mosque itself has operated just a bit further away without any problems for years. The mosque bought the property in question so as to expand its offerings to the entire Lower Manhattan community at a time when Lower Manhattan lacks those facilities, and it happens to include a mosque.
It's several blocks away, and while the building itself sustained damage from the attacks by falling debris (including parts of one of the aircraft hijacked in the attack), it is not included in the 16 acres that comprise Ground Zero or the future memorial or museum.
I've been ambivalent over whether this project should go forward; I know the building and that block has been blighted since the attack. The Community Board seems to have a good read on this - and that's including the opposition heard at their recent meetings.
