Donald Judd’s Home and Studio at 101 Spring Street: Conserving a Monument to Contemporary Art

Image

by Kristina Nugent

The building located on 101 Spring Street in New York was inhabited but moreover, subtly transformed by the creative, minimalist philosophy of Donald Judd. Each of Judd’s own interventions in the building were deliberate acts. He approached the building and his inhabitation of it in much the same manner as he approached the design of his artwork.  At one point Judd declared:

It isn’t necessary for a work to have a lot of things to look at, to compare, to analyze one by one, to contemplate. The thing as a whole, its quality as a whole, is what is interesting. The main things are alone and are more intense, clear, and powerful. They are not diluted by an inherited format, variations of a form, mild contrasts, and connecting parts and areas… (1)

Image

My interpretation of the space, based on a series of visits, discussions with the Judd Foundation, and archival research focused on the autonomy yet relativity of the objects that reside there. The individual objects – and the building as the largest such object – stand as testament to an exciting art and social epoch in SoHo that occurred between the years 1968 to 1972, when Judd and his family occupied the building which functioned as both their home, and his primary studio.

Image

The first grounding condition for my project was a desire to examine the collection of art and everyday objects, as well as the theories and aspirations that accompanied them, which came to be “permanently installed” in 101 Spring Street by the artist himself. Existing interpretations of 101 Spring Street have tended to emphasize the differences; the building as a home versus its use as a de facto gallery space for permanently installed works of art.

Image

My interpretation aimed to show that drawing comparisons between the everyday domestic items and art objects would not limit, but rather expand the significance of the collection. This allow us to think more broadly about what Judd was trying to achieve both formally and conceptually, and why these aims are so compelling when interpreted within the particular historical context of 101 Spring Street.

Imagejudd10

An emphasis that ran throughout my interpretive experiment was to understand what the artist intended and how the works were seen or meant to be seen in the lifetime in which they were made. Of course I did not intend for this history to pretend to forget the experience of the work in the present. But I found myself wanting to have that experience in the present be as much informed as possible by what we know of the original context. This is in part because I found that many aspects of that original context carried over into the present. Many of the questions that were being asked continue to be asked. Beyond my hope for how a more objects-based interpretation might have contributed to our formal under- standing of Judd’s work and life, there was also the fact that Judd was not working in isolation and the visitor experience of 101 Spring Street needed to draw the visitor’s attention to those interactions. The experience needed to allow the viewer to become self-reflexive.

Image

In order for the visitor to better relate to the inanimate objects and understand the non-physical and historical dimension of the collection and greater building, a historically-based interrogation of the objects seemed paramount. The irony of Judd’s work and life, and the interpretation of its Minimalist, or Reductionist principles is the sheer complexity of this task. As Hal Foster observed in The Return of the Real:

On first glance it all looks so simple, yet in each body of work a perceptual ambiguity complicates things. At odds with the specific objects of Judd is his nonspecific composition (‘one thing after another’) … So what you see is what you see, as Frank Stella famously said, but things are never as simple as they seem … perception is made reflexive in these works and so rendered complex… Minimalist sculpture no longer stands apart on a pedestal or as pure art but is repositioned among objects and redefined in terms of place. (2)

Image

The material records found in 101 Spring varied from Judd’s industrially fabricated cubes, to works of art from his peers and mentors, common kitchen utensils, as well as tribal artwork of Judd’s personal collection. My first impulse was to approach each object and ask how and why these objects are situated in a particular place and in relation to other physicalities and psyches that occupy the space. My proposal was to address each object, individually but relativistically through the means of an interdisciplinary discourse investigating what those circumstances (both historical and present) might mean, and how they might change as the building is restored or through the passage of time.

Image

After inventorying all of the objects in the home and studio space that ranged from banal house- hold items to contemporary artistic masterpieces, there were hundreds of items; far too many to explore all at once. So I began to devise a strategy for interpreting the greater collection. I elected to begin with the “permanent installation,” of works of art, not by Judd, but by his contemporaries. These artworks were either gifts to Judd or purchased by Judd, and he installed them in 101 Spring Street in a manner consistent with his artistic philosophy. Many of Judd’s own formative concepts grew out of a critical understanding of the work of other New York artists during his time. Frank Stella and Claes Oldenburg were specifically referenced in Judd’s treatise on ‘Specific Objects’ in 1965. Since these works were so crucial to the personal history and development of Judd as an artist, they seemed to be a logical starting point for my interpretive concept:

The Conservation of the Novros Fresco

 Image

Now that the topic was narrowed down to a few dozen objects, I came upon a piece of artwork commissioned by Donald Judd in 1969 that seemed to encapsulate both his idea of “permanent installation,” of Minimalism, and had been unavoidably damaged with oil stains that were slowly seeping through the floor joists of the building from the ceiling above and required continual intervention by both the artist, and involvement by Judd himself. The artist of the piece, David Novros began the execution of a traditional fresco in the minimalist aesthetic in 1970 on the second floor kitchen space of the home and studio of Donald Judd. According to the artist, this was the first buon fresco he attempted:

When it was done, took into consideration every possible contingency about damage. [Judd and Novros, together] took the wall down to the brick, we scrubbed the brick with acid, we did everything we could, and really approached it from absolute by-the-book form. When it was finished it was perfect; essentially, technically, and it stayed that way for a couple of years.”

Yet, the inherent conditions of 101 Spring Street, a former garment factory, created unforeseen complications in retaining the original intention of the artist and his patron:

Image

After three years, a stain began to appear in the center in the white area, coming from the ceiling. After awhile the stain spread. It also spread on the floor above and started to brown the plaster walls. The stain, I think, and so did most of the people who were there and so did Don at the time, was coming from oil on the jousts of the floors when this place housed machinery. And this oil was migrating ‘willy nilly’ down the walls and was staining the painting. I attempted to restore it. I tried to seal it off and touch-in the affected areas. At that time, there was not too much damage. But the stain re-appeared and it kept reappearing and I kept trying to restore it and this went on for a number of years. (3)

At what point should the artist have discontinued his intervention? Was the rationale be- hind these successive efforts flawed to begin with? To what extent is this activity permissible? According to what standards of care? For most practitioners in architectural and fine arts conservation, retaining authenticity meant leaving the historic objects alone and conserving them using as much original material as possible. This accomplished, to the greatest extent possible, a visually unaltered presentation of an important remnant from the past. Yet, within the standard and most-often-referenced conservation guidelines promoted by the American Institute of Conservation, flexible standards and guidelines apply to works of art where justification for a more radical conservation approach is available.

Traditional Fresco Conservation Methods

In traditional paintings conservation there have been two camps—imitative restoration and trateggio that are most often discussed in relation to European works of art before 1900. Imitative restoration came out of the connoisseurship world and held the viewpoint that with the proper knowledge of an artist’s technique, use of ma- terials, and careful analysis, it was possible to recreate the areas of loss so that the work read as a unified whole.

To achieve this, the conservator generally applied a separating layer of varnish and then worked in custom water colors to add the missing elements, or correct the flaws, into the original image. The theory was that this intervention could all be wiped away with a damp cloth if tastes or conservation principles changed and it was useful to see the actual image with losses.

Trateggio, the other school of thought, was an Italian conservation method pioneered by the Istituto Centrale di Restau- ro (ICR) in Rome and championed by Cesare Brandi, an early and influential writer on conservation practice. Using this method, the conservator did not imitate the losses, but used sympathetic tones and tiny cross-hatches to fill the voids so that at an appropriate distance the eye “filled in” the space, but on close inspection it is clear that the losses remain.

Image

Conservation of Contemporary Art

In recent years, works by Contemporary artists have posed new challenges for art conservators, who have in turn developed new techniques and ways of determining appropriate conservation treatments in response to these challenges. On January 24th to 26th of 2008, the Getty Conservation Institute hosted a conference to investigate, “The Object in Transition: A Cross Disciplinary Conference on the Preservation and Study of Modern and Con- temporary Art.” The conference set out to address these very challenges faced by conservators, art historians, curators, and artists regarding Modern and Contemporary artworks:

There is often no codified method for conserving such works; further, the insistent but uneven rate of deterioration present in many objects has left us with countless works of art that now diverge starkly from their original form. The practical and interpretative problems that arise in relation to durability and ephemerality in modern and contemporary art are exacerbated by an art-historical methodology that tends to privilege theoretical interpretation over concrete object study.

The descriptive knowledge that originates in object and technique-based study has increasingly left the field of art history, falling instead within the domain of art conservation… However, the challenges posed by modern materials often lead to decisions about an object’s preservation and acceptable aging that are based on more subjective inferences about the artist’s original intent—an interpretive concept that many art historians view with some skepticism.

Image

Returning to the Novros fresco at 101 Spring Street, it poses a similar challenge as the one described above. On the one hand it was executed using traditional buon fresco techniques and could arguably be conserved according to standard fresco conservation methods, previously described, which include either imitative restoration or trateggio techniques. Yet, Novros’s fresco, which is categorized as a Minimalist piece of artwork, would then be considered neither “painting nor sculpture,” following Judd’s insistence, he articulated in “Specific Objects.” Therefore, this fresco necessitates a unique conservation solution, which is more in keeping with the challenges the Getty Conference attempted to address.

In common practice, there appears to be a disconnect between the various schools of thought regarding restoration of Contemporary artwork. Rarely are professional standards and personal opinions forced to be publicly reconciled in order to reach a more comprehensive resolution of how to best proceed with the art object in question. Philosophical underpinnings of artistic intent juxtaposing museum and standards of conservation and care must be negotiated in order to reconcile the historicity and the integrity of an object.

This interpretive exercise required me to jump ahead and make several assumptions in order to reflect on the value and utility of my proposal. The oil stains interfered with the reading of the artwork and masked the original artistic intent of Novros, and Judd who commissioned the work. I decided that the fresco required an extensive level of intervention, but grappled with how best to proceed. The American Institute for Conservation’s guidelines mentioned that, “In some cases a decision to allow deterioration to occur by avoiding certain preservation practices may be appropriate. Such decisions should be made only in collaboration with appropriate individuals connected with the cultural property.” When does an art object become historical – and how can we reconcile this notion by contrasting it with the point in which an object loses its integrity?

In this case, the living artist was consulted on the matter, and he insisted that if deterioration were allowed to occur, the entire piece would be lost since the oil seepage was gradual yet unending. Ultimately the entire fresco would read as an oil stain. Given the fresco’s importance, both to the artist and the Judd Foundation as the first permanently installed piece in 101 Spring Street, the conservation treatment would need to be somewhat radical. The artist’s suggestion of inserting a thin membrane of an impenetrable substrate over the original fresco and simply applying new plaster and pigment to this new surface was a suggestion that seemed sensible. For one thing, the original piece was protected and retained under the new layer of material and a careful replication of the work would be inserted as close to the original location as possible. How would the membrane affect the replica? The artist was not a conservation specialist, how can he possibly predict whether this is indeed the best solution. How would this treatment affect the rest of the building? Wouldn’t a restoration architecture firm need to be consulted. What is the cost associated with this intervention?

How has the Judd Foundation prioritized this conservation project over other projects scheduled for 101 Spring Street? What were the associated costs? The point is that these decisions are not simple and can not be entrusted to one contractor, or resolved by hearing one opinion. We shall soon see as Judd’s Home and Studio is set to open in June 2013!

Image

It will be exciting to see what programs will be announced shortly. I am hopeful that aside from viewing art, another goal of the Foundation will be to open up these dialogues, and to re-visit the objects of 101 Spring Street, understand their individual and collective meaning, and enliven the context for the interpretation and conservation of 101 Spring Street. I look forward to once-again returning to 101 Spring Street to re-visit the extraordinary life and work of Donald Judd.

Image

Please visit the Donald Judd Foundation for more information about Judd’s Home and Studio and the completion of the restoration and re-opening to the public in June 2013.

1. Donald Judd, 1965 in Twentieth Century Artists on Art. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985), 220-221.

2. Foster, Hal. The Return of the Real: The Avant-Garde at the end of the Century. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002), 37-38.

3. (These statements were transcribed from the conference held at the Getty Institute in Santa Monica held on Saturday 26, 2008 on the topic: ‘The Object in transition: A Cross-Disciplinary Conference on the Preservation and Study of Modern and Contemporary Art.’)

Advertisements

Applying the New York City Landmarks Law: St. John’s Parish Church (1829-1917)

Image

by Kristina Nugent

By the early Twentieth Century, New York City was indeed America’s most populous and rapidly growing city. It was not long before undeveloped land became scarce and the cycle of demolition and renewal began to transform New York from an early industrial city to the metropolitan “Gotham” of the present time. Local preservation efforts justifiably had an early start. The effort to save St. John’s Church in lower Manhattan from imminent demolition during the first decade of the 1900s demonstrated that ample support for historic preservation existed in order to achieve a variety of individual agendas. Rarely was the impetus for the earliest preservation efforts simply a knee-jerk reaction to the changing times. Especially in the case of St. John’s, the preservation campaign surrounding the church received broad support from both individual New York citizens, such as the collector and progressive reformer I.N. Phelps Stokes, to government officials that included President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Root and George B. McClellan, the New York Mayor at that time. Other advocates for the preservation of St. John’s included the Reform and Tammany mayors, architects Charles Follen McKim and George Post, Metropolitan Museum of Art president Robert W. De Forest, and J.P. Morgan.[1] There were several other instances in which this kind of ardent public support for preservation had been sufficient in ensuring the survival of many of New York’s beloved historical buildings to despite more lucrative development proposals. The losses that occurred in the twentieth century, for the most part, did not result from an apathetic citizenry, or a lack of political leverage, but rather from the absence of binding regulations to prevent demolition by private landowners.

Image

St. John’s was a notable failure in the early history of the preservation movement in New York City. The ultimate demolition of St. John’s Parish Church typified the shortcomings of early advocacy-based preservation efforts of concerned New Yorkers. Had the New York City Landmarks Law been in effect in 1908 when the impassioned advocacy effort surrounding St. John’s Church occurred, would the church have been saved? This paper will first discuss the protections offered by the New York Landmarks Law, which Tony Wood has called “the best landmarks law in the country.”[2] Whether this statement is true or not, will not be the focus of this paper. For the purposes of this investigation, the assumption will be that the landmarks law is as good as it can be, but that it is insufficient when not accompanied by public and political support for the landmark designation process. I will argue that a favorable social and political context, in addition to legal mechanisms for listing and saving buildings, is a crucial part of the landmarks designation process. As will be demonstrated, the benefits of legal protection for historic landmarks can not be initially secured, or later upheld by the courts, if there is not adequate public and political support for historic preservation.

The arguments in this paper were inspired by Wood’s mini-epiphany during a Preservation Vision speech during the most recent National Trust Conference in 2008 that: “Preservation happens both in space, that is in particular places AND it also happens in a particular moment in time. What a shocker that the act of preserving history actually happens in a historical context of its own and is shaped by the events of that time.”[3] From observing the historical moment in which the campaign to save St. John’s was underway, and the protections offered by the later Landmarks Law and establishment of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, this paper will additionally attempt to answer the question posed by Wood, (which was referred to earlier): “Despite having the best landmarks law in the country, why do we keep losing buildings and historic neighborhoods that we would rather have saved?”[4] Perhaps reflecting on the Landmarks Law and how it could have been successfully used in a previous era, will help illuminate why this is the case.

Image

With the passage of the New York Landmarks Law in 1965, finally there was a political mechanism in place to determine which of New York’s historic buildings merited binding legal protection from demolition. As Title 25, Chapter 3 of the New York Administrative Code Section § 25–301 stated, the purpose of the law was as follows:

The council finds that many improvements, as herein defined . . . have a special character or a special historical or aesthetic interest or value and many improvements representing the finest architectural products of distinct periods in the history of the city, have been uprooted, notwithstanding the feasibility of preserving and continuing the use of such improvements and landscape features, and without adequate consideration of the irreplaceable loss to the people of the city of the aesthetic, cultural and historic values represented by such improvements . . . .  It is the sense of the council that the standing of this city as a world wide tourist center and world capital of business, culture and government cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical and architectural heritage of the city and by countenancing the destruction of such cultural assets.[5]

Image

Reflecting back on the early years of the 20th century, would this statement have appropriately described the public and private interest in protecting St. John’s Parish Church from demolition? According to Max Page, in The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, the battle to prevent the demolition of the church represented: “One of the most intense and unsuccessful campaigns to save a building . . . [and as a result of the eventual defeat] revealed the broader possibilities for preservation and called for a ‘larger movement for economic responsibility for neighborhoods in the face of speculation.’”[6] The situation Page described seemed to be kind of circumstance that the Landmarks Law professed to prevent.

Image

St. John’s Chapel was one of the many parish churches owned by the larger Trinity Church in Lower Manhattan. Page wrote that “the church was admired for its age and its architecture for ‘antiquarian reasons.’”[7] St. John’s Church superficially represented “a preservation battle of the simplest, most elitist kind,” according to Page, since the importance of the church was mostly based on its beauty, as well as the fact that it was designed by a well-known architect. But when scratching beneath the surface, Page came to realize that the “St. John’s Chapel crusade revealed not simply a repetition of preservation campaigns following the patriotic model of Mount Vernon or the Jumel Mansion. Rather, it [showed] that possibilities for a broader notion of historic preservation were ripe [and] even as some suggested that buildings might more properly be preserved for posterity by moving them elsewhere away from the furnace of private real estate development and public works, others were beginning to argue that the historic building’s power was imminently tied to its site and use.”[8]

There were several reasons why the Trinity “mother church” was eager to sell St. John’s church in 1908. The primary one was that Trinity hoped to generate a sizable profit from the sale of the property, which it could then use to fuel the church’s further expansion into the greater city, since during that time the bulk of Manhattan’s population was moving northward with the development and speculation around Central Park. The larger issue at stake with the demolition of St. John’s was that Trinity Church was making a sly attempt to rid itself of not only the St. John’s property to generate revenue for expansion, but a second motive was that the church was trying to ‘get out of the tenement housing business’ and hoped to allow the city to shut down its tenement housing under more stringent tenement housing laws. Preservation, in this instance, transcended the architectural beauty of St. John’s Church: “Critics were enraged that the church evaluated its policy toward the tenements and St, John’s according to economic calculations.”[9] Preservation advocates, such as I.N. Phelps Stokes, “had urged that St. John’s not be moved and that it continue to be used as a church. He produced statistics showing that while some wealthier parishioners may have been moving northward there was still a sizable real and potential population for the chapel to serve. Others insisted that although the church no longer served its religious function, it could at least be used as a public forum.”[10] According to Page:  “St. John’s parishioners and clergy organized a protest and brought their case to court, attempting to stop the closing order. “Bowing to the pressure . . . Trinity agreed not to destroy the church, at first. However, with the widening of Varick Street to make way for the dual subway system and more auto traffic, the Church was [again] slated for demolition.”[11]

During the progressive era, “preservation battles came increasingly under the leadership of a group of upper-class reformers, city builders, professionals and managers,” since often they were intertwined with other social and political issues of the time. The Landmarks Law that was later adopted, “. . . hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements . . . of aesthetic interest of value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety, and welfare of the people.”[12] The “interest” in preservation based on the “health, prosperity, safety, and welfare clause,” was very much relevant in the case of the St. John’s Church, which surpassed mere issues of aesthetics. Yet, aesthetic distinction and historic significance were nevertheless central. Protection under the Landmarks Law was offered to “buildings properties or objects” that had “a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state or nation (and aged at years or older).”[13] St. John’s chapel was considered one of the city’s masterpiece buildings since it was designed by John McComb Jr., one of the designers of the architecturally-beloved, though otherwise controversial City Hall building.[14]

Had the law existed during the first decade of the 1900’s, St. John’s church could have been nominated for consideration as a local landmark to the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) by submitting a Request for Evaluation (RFE) form. Once the LPC Staff receive the RFE, the application sent on behalf of the historic church would have waited an indeterminate amount of time while the LPC Research Committee staff review the history of the nominated property in order to determine whether the proposed landmark meets the criteria for designation. The staff can either recommend that the RFE be formally reviewed by the LPC Commissioners, or retained on file with no further action. As a side note, since there is not a set timeline, this process can potentially take several years. For example, at present, the LPC has a backlog of RFE’s that were received as early as the 1970s. One such potential landmark, the Hubbard House in Gravesend, Brooklyn, was first proposed in the 1970s and designated in the fall of 2008.

Image

Continuing with the example of St. John’s Church, the considerable support of Mayor McClellan at that time should have been sufficient for the Church to avoid excessive delays in the “landmarking” process. The Landmarks Law established that the Landmarks Preservation Commission would consist of eleven members (of specified backgrounds and professions) who are all appointed by the mayor for periods that range from one to three years, including one of the members who the mayor appoints as the chair of the commission (and a vice-chair).[15] The law also outlined that the commission “may employ technical experts and such other employees as may be required to perform its duties,” which further emphasizes the political connection between the LPC, the Commissioners, and the Mayor. Once the LPC research staff review the RFE and determine that it meets the LPC criteria for designation, they are responsible for formally recommending the RFE the Commission. Following receipt of the recommendation, the Commission then has an unlimited amount of time to review the staff’s recommendation report. The next step in the process is “Calendaring” a Public Hearing, which is an official process that happens, according to the Historic Districts Council: “Once the staff, the Chair, and perhaps a Committee of Commissioners have agreed that the district has potential for designation and that they want to go forward with its designation . . . [and the potential landmark is] officially placed on the calendar of items to be considered by the LPC [However, again] there is no deadline for the LPC to move forward on designating a [landmark] after it has been calendared [and therefore] there is sometimes a lengthy period of time before calendaring and the next step, the public hearing..”[16]

During the period after the proposed landmark is officially “calendared” the Commissioners and the LPC research staff could continue to gather information and together create a formal “Designation report” that will be used during the public hearing, whenever the public hearing happens to take place. Returning to the timeframe referred to in the previous paragraph, there continue to be potential landmarks that were “calendared” several decades ago, and public hearings have yet to be held. This is where the mayor and other political officials’ support for designating St. John’s church would have given the building a tremendous advantage over hundreds of other potential landmarks that have not make it beyond this step.

Image

Returning again to the hypothetical example of St. John’s Church, assuming that a public “designation hearing” for the church was scheduled, which is mandated by the New York Landmarks Law, members of the general public, as well as LPC Commissioners would gather to discuss the merit of designating the potential landmark. Public Comments would be voiced either during the commission hearing, or submitted in paper. Typically this process would have begun with a presentation by the LPC Research Staff to demonstrate how the property meets the designation criteria of the landmarks law, then the commissioners would have been invited to present their own research or opinion, and following that, the hearing would have been open to members of the public. At the hypothetical St. John’s designation hearing, members of the congregation would have likely presented their case for preserving the church for its functional importance as a historic house of worship, while elite Manhattanites may have argued how the church represents one of the finest works of architecture in the city, as well as progressive housing advocates who would expose the insensitivity of Trinity Church and make a plea for housing reform. On the other side of the argument, Trinity Church would likely present its case for closing the parish, selling the property, and allowing for the church’s demolition. While the ultimate resolution of this case is unclear, the LPC could permissibly designate St. John’s Parish Church, even though its owner, Trinity Church, opposed its designation. The final determination would rest with the LPC Commissioners and Chair, who through the Landmarks Law are entrusted with voting to protect St. John’s Church. A majority of the Commission would have needed to vote in favor of designation in order for the landmarking process to continue, and following the public hearing would need to designate a “landmark site” for St. John’s church and indicate “the location and boundaries of such site.”[17] Additionally, following the public hearing the commission may “specify the nature of any construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any landscape feature which may be performed on such scenic landmark without prior issuance of a report [as well as] amend any specification made pursuant to the provisions of this subdivision.

© Kristina Nugent and Ephemeral Urbanity, [2013 – present]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kristina Nugent and EphemeralUrbanity with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

New York Landmarks Law (an excerpt):

e. Subject to the provisions of subdivisions g and h of this section, any designation or amendment of a designation made by the commission pursuant to the provisions of subdivisions a, b and c of this section shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the adoption thereof by the commission.

f. Within ten days after making any such designation or amendment thereof, the commission shall file a copy of same with the council, the department of AA

Buildings, the city planning commission, the board of standards and appeals, the fire department and the department of health and mental hygiene.

g. (1) Within sixty days after such filing, the city planning commission shall (a) hold a public hearing on any such designation of a historic district and (b) shall submit to the council a report with respect to the relation of such designation, whether of a historic district or a landmark, interior landmark, scenic landmark, or landmark site, or amendment of such designation to the zoning resolution, projected public improvements and any plans for the development, growth, improvement or renewal of the area involved. The city planning commission shall include with any such report its recommendation, if any, for council action with respect to any such designation of a historic district.

(2) The council may modify or disapprove by majority vote any designation of the commission or amendment thereof within one hundred twenty days after a copy thereof is filed with the council provided that the city planning commission has submitted the report required by this subdivision or that sixty days have elapsed since the filing of the designation or amendment with the council. All votes of the council pursuant to this subdivision shall be filed by the council with the mayor and shall be final unless disapproved by the mayor within five days of such filing. Any such disapproval by the mayor shall be filed by the mayor with the council and shall be subject to override by a two-thirds vote of the council within ten days of such filing. If the council shall disapprove such designation or amendment, such designation or amendment shall continue in full force and effect until the time for disapproval by the mayor has expired; provided, however, that if the mayor disapproves such council disapproval, it shall continue in full force and effect unless the council overrides the mayor’s disapproval. If the council shall modify such designation or amendment, such designation or amendment as adopted by the commission shall continue in full force and effect until the time for disapproval by the mayor has expired, and after such time such modification shall be in effect; provided, however, that if the mayor disapproves such council modification, the designation or amendment as adopted by the commission shall continue in full force and effect unless the council overrides the mayor’s disapproval, and in the event of override the modification shall take effect on and after the date of such override.

h. (1) The commission shall have power, after a public hearing, to adopt a resolution proposing rescission, in whole or in part, of any designation or amendment or modification thereof mentioned in the preceding subdivisions of this section. Within ten days after adopting any such resolution, the commission shall file a copy thereof with the council and the city planning commission.

(2) Within sixty days after such filing, the city planning commission shall submit to the council a report with respect to the relation of such proposed rescission of any such designation, whether of a historic district or a landmark, interior landmark, scenic landmark or landmark site, or amendment or modification thereof, to the zoning resolution, projected public improvements and any plans for the development, growth, improvement, or renewal of the area involved.

(3) The council may approve, disapprove or modify such proposed rescission within one hundred twenty days after a copy of the resolution proposing same is filed with the council, provided that the city planning commission has submitted the report required by this subdivision or that sixty days have elapsed since the filing of such resolution. Failure to take action on such proposed rescission within such one hundred twenty-day period shall be deemed a vote to disapprove such proposed rescission. All votes of the council pursuant to this subdivision shall be filed by the council with the mayor and shall be final unless disapproved by the mayor within five days of such filing. Any such mayoral disapproval shall be filed by the mayor with the council and shall be subject to override by a two-thirds vote of the council within ten days of such filing. If such proposed rescission is approved or modified by the council, such rescission or modification thereof shall not take effect until the time for disapproval by the mayor has expired; provided, however, that if the mayor disapproves such rescission or modification, it shall not take effect unless the council overrides the mayor’s disapproval. If such proposed rescission is disapproved by the council, it shall not take effect unless the mayor disapproves such council disapproval and the council fails to override the mayor’s disapproval.

i. The commission may at any time make recommendations to the city planning commission with respect to amendments of the provisions of the zoning resolution applicable to improvements in historic districts.

j. All designations and supplemental designations of landmarks, landmark sites, interior landmarks, scenic landmarks and historic districts made pursuant to subdivision a shall be made pursuant to notices of public hearings given, as provided in section 25–313. In addition to such notice, the commission shall give notice to the city planning commission, all affected community boards and the office of the borough president in whose borough the property or district is located in advance of any public hearing relating to such designations.

k. Upon its designation of any improvement parcel as a landmark and of any landmark site, interior landmark, scenic landmark or historic district or any amendment of any such designation or rescission thereof, the commission shall cause to be recorded in the office of the register of the city of New York in the county in which such landmark, interior landmark, scenic landmark or district lies, or in the case of landmarks, interior landmarks, scenic landmarks and districts in the county of Richmond in the office of the clerk of said county of Richmond, a notice of such designation, amendment or rescission describing the party affected by, in the case of the county of Richmond, its land map block number or numbers, and its tax map, block and lot number or numbers, and in the case of all other counties, by its land map block and lot number or numbers.

“Desesignation report.” The report prepared by the commission and used as a basis for designating a landmark or historic district pursuant to this chapter.

§ 25–302 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall mean and include:

a. “Alteration.” Any of the acts defined as an alteration by the building code of the city.

b. “Appropriate protective interest.” Any right or interest in or title to an improvement parcel or any part thereof, including, but not limited to, fee title and scenic or other easements, the acquisition of which by the city is determined by the commission to be necessary and appropriate for the effectuation of the purpose of this chapter.

c. “Capable of earning a reasonable return.” Having the capacity, under reasonably efficient and prudent management, of earning a reasonable return. For the purposes of this chapter, the net annual return, as defined in subparagraph (a) of paragraph three of subdivision v of this section, yielded by an improvement parcel during the test year, as defined in subparagraph (b) of such paragraph, shall be presumed to be the earning capacity of such improvement parcel, in the absence of substantial grounds for a contrary determination by the commission.

c-1. “Chair.” The chair of the landmarks preservation commis- sion.

d. “City-aided project.” Any physical betterment of real property, which:

(1) may not be constructed or effected without the approval of one or more officers or agencies of the city; and

(2) upon completion, will be owned in whole or in part by any person other than the city; and

(3) is planned to be constructed or effected, in whole or in part, with any form of aid furnished by the city (other than under this chapter), including, but not limited to, any loan, grant, subsidy or other mode of financial assistance, exercise of the city’s powers of eminent domain, contribution of city property, or the granting of tax exemption or tax abatement; and

(4) will involve the construction, reconstruction, alteration or demolition of any improvement in a historic district or of a landmark.

e. “Commission.” The landmarks preservation commission.

f. “Day.” Any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday; provided, however, that for purposes of section 25-303 and subdivision d of section 25-317 of this chapter, the term “day” shall mean every day in the week.

g. “Exterior architectural feature.” The architectural style, design, general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces of an improvement, as distinguished from the interior surfaces enclosed by said exterior surfaces, including, but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building material

and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.

i. “Improvement.” Any building, structure, place, work of art or other object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.

j. “Improvement parcel.” The unit of real property which (1) includes a physical betterment constituting an improvement and the land embracing the site thereof, and (2) is treated as a single entity for the purpose of levying real estate taxes, provided however, that the term “improvement parcel” shall also include any unimproved area of land which is treated as a single entity for such tax purposes.

k. “Interior.” The visible surfaces of the interior of an improvement.

l. “Interior architectural feature.” The architectural style, design, general arrangement and components of an interior, including, but not limited to, the kind, color and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such interior.

n. “Landmark.” Any improvement, any part of which is thirty years old or older, which has a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or nation, and which has been designated as a landmark pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

o. “Landmark site.” An improvement parcel or part thereof on which is situated a landmark and any abutting improvement parcel or part thereof used as and constituting part of the premises on which the landmark is situated, and

q. “Minor work.” Any change in, addition to or removal from the parts, elements or materials comprising an improvement, including, but not limited to, the exterior architectural features or interior architectural features thereof and, subject to and as prescribed by regulations of the commission if and when promulgated pursuant to section 25-319 of this chapter, the surfacing, resurfacing, painting, renovating, restoring or rehabilitating of the exterior architectural features or interior architectural features or the treating of the same in any manner that materially alters their appearance, where such change, addition or removal does not constitute ordinary repairs and maintenance and is of such nature that it may be lawfully effected without a permit from the department of buildings.

q-1. “Offense.” As used in the phrase “second and subsequent offense”, a violation encompassing some or all of the conditions or actions described or encompassed by a prior notice of violation or summons. For purposes of this definition, there shall be a presumption that the conditions encompassed by a second or subsequent offense have been in existence for each day between the time the respondent admits to liability or is found liable for or guilty of the prior offense and the time the second or subsequent notice of violation or summons is served.

r. “Ordinary repairs and maintenance.” Any:

(1) work done on any improvement; or

(2) replacement of any part of an improvement;

for which a permit issued by the department of buildings is not required by law, where the purpose and effect of such work or replacement is to correct any deterioration or decay of or damage to such improvement or any part thereof and to restore same, as nearly as may be practicable, to its condition prior to the occurrence of such deterioration, decay or damage.

s. “Owner.” Any person or persons having such right to, title to or interest in any improvement so as to be legally entitled, upon obtaining the required permits and approvals from the city agencies having jurisdiction over building construction, to perform with respect to such property any demolition, construction, reconstruction, alteration or other work as to which such person seeks the authorization or approval of the commission pursuant to section 25-309 of this chapter.

t. “Person in charge.” The person or persons possessed of the freehold of an improvement or improvement parcel or a lesser estate therein, a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee, agent or any other person directly or indirectly in control of an improvement or improvement parcel.

u. “Protected architectural feature.” Any exterior architectural feature of a landmark or any interior architectural feature of an interior landmark.

v. “Reasonable return.” (1) A net annual return of six per centum of the valuation of an improvement parcel.

(2) Such valuation shall be the current assessed valuation established by the city, which is in effect at the time of the filing of the request for a certificate of appropriateness; provided that:

(a) The commission may make a determination that the valuation of the improvement parcel is an amount different from such assessed valuation where there has been a reduction in the assessed valuation for the year next preceding the effective date of the current assessed valuation in effect at the time of the filing of such request; and

(b) The commission may make a determination that the value of the improvement parcel is an amount different from the assessed valuation where there has been a bona fide sale of such parcel within the period between March fifteenth, nineteen hundred fifty-eight, and the time of the filing of such request, as the result of a transaction at arm’s length, on normal financing terms, at a readily ascertainable price, and unaffected by special circumstances such as, but not limited to, a forced sale, exchange of property, package deal, wash sale or sale to a cooperative. In determining whether a sale was on normal financing terms, the commission shall give due consideration to the following factors:

(1) The ratio of the cash payment received by the seller to (a) the sales price of the improvement parcel and (b) the annual gross income from such parcel;

(2) The total amount of the outstanding mortgages which are liens against the improvement parcel (including purchase money mortgages) as compared with the assessed valuation of such parcel;

(3) The ratio of the sales price to the annual gross income of the improvement parcel, with consideration given, where the improvement is subject to residential rent control, to the total amount of rent adjustments previously granted, exclusive of rent adjustments because of changes in dwelling space, services, furniture, furnishings, or equipment, major capital improvements, or substantial rehabilitation;

(4) The presence of deferred amortization in purchase money mortgages, or the assignment of such mortgages at a discount;

(5) Any other facts and circumstances surrounding such sale which, in the judgment of the commission, may have a bearing upon the question of financing.

(6) For the purposes of this subdivision v:

(a) Net annual return shall be the amount by which the earned income yielded by the improvement parcel during a test year exceeds the operating expenses of such parcel during such year, excluding mortgage interest and amortization, and excluding allowances for obsolescence and reserves, but including an allowance for depreciation of two per centum of the assessed value of the improvement, exclusive of the land, or the amount shown for depreciation of the improvement in the latest required federal income tax return, whichever is lower; provided, however, that no allowance for depreciation of the improvement shall be included where the improvement has been fully depreciated for federal income tax purposes or on the books of the owner; and

(b) Test year shall be (1) the most recent full calendar year, or (2) the owner’s most recent fiscal year, or (3) any twelve consecutive months ending not more than ninety days prior to the filing (a) of the request for a certificate, or (b) of an application for a renewal of tax benefits pursuant to the provisions of section 25-309 of this chapter, as the case may be.

w. “Scenic landmark.” Any landscape feature or aggregate of landscape features, any part of which is thirty years old or older, which has or have a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the city, state or nation and which has been designated a scenic landmark pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

x. As used in section 25–317.1:

(1) “Type A violation.” Except as otherwise defined by the rules of the commission, the following work done or condition created or maintained in violation of this chapter without an appropriate approval from the commission:

(a) the removal of or alterations to, except for painting, a significant portion of an exterior architectural feature, including, without limitation thereof, removal of or alterations to:

(i) the windows on a single facade or, where original, historic or special windows exist, the removal of or alterations to a significant portion of such original, historic or special windows on a single facade;

(ii) a decorative element made of metal, glass, wood, brick, ceramic and/or stone including, without limitation thereof, a cornice, lintel, grille or molding;

(iii) the paving stones or curbstones of a stone sidewalk;

(iv) an exterior doorway or stoop;

(v) a wall, fence, railing, porch, balcony or roof, including dormers, bays, gables and parapets; and

(vi) a storefront, but not including the installation of signs, awnings, flagpoles or banners;

(b) the removal of or alterations to a significant portion of a protected feature of an interior landmark as described in the designation report;

(c) the construction of all or a portion of a new building, structure, addition or any other improvement on a landmark site or within the boundaries of a historic district. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any significant modification of the existing bulk or envelope of a building shall be a violation under this paragraph;

(d) the elimination by paving or other construction of a significant portion of an area-way, planting area, or front, rear or side yards, where such feature is a significant component of the landmark or historic district;

(e) where the improvement is not a building or an interior landmark, the removal of or alterations to a significant portion of such improvement;

(f) the failure to submit to the commission any periodic inspection report required under the terms of a restrictive declaration recorded in connection with any zoning permit, certification or authorization granted to an improvement under the jurisdiction of the commission.

(2) “Type B violation”. Except as otherwise defined by the rules of the commission, the failure to maintain an improvement in a condition of good repair in violation of section 25-311 of this chapter, and where such condition results or may result in significant deterioration of either a significant portion of the improvement or a character-defining, protected, architectural feature of such improvement.

(a) For purposes of this subdivision, and without limiting the scope thereof, the term “significant deterioration” shall include the failure to maintain:

(i) the improvement in a structurally sound or reasonably water-tight condition; or

(ii) a character-defining, protected, architectural feature in a structurally sound or reasonably water-tight condition or otherwise failing to preserve the integral historic material of such feature.

(b) For purposes of this subdivision, the term “significant deterioration” shall not include:

(i) any condition that may permit some water penetration and/or evidence slight structural deterioration, unless such condition has existed over a period of time such that it has led or may reasonably lead to significant water penetration or structural damage to a significant part of a facade or roof; or

(ii) the failure to maintain a small part of a single, character-defining, protected, architectural feature or a small portion of the decorative, architectural features of the improvement taken as a whole.

(3) “Type C violation”. All other violations of this chapter, except for violations of section 25-311 of this chapter.


[1] Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p.145.

[2] Wood, Tony. Remarks delivered at the National Trust for Historic Preservation annual conference

October 2008. Preservation Vision: NYC by Anthony Wood and Kirstin Sechler, p.2.

[3] Wood, Tony. Remarks delivered at the National Trust for Historic Preservation annual conference

October 2008. Preservation Vision: NYC by Anthony Wood and Kirstin Sechler, p.2.

[4] Ibid.

[5] New York City Charter §3020, New York Administrative Code Section 25-301, Title 25, Chapter 3: Landmarks preservation and Historic Districts, Modified Jan. 10, 2000.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p.145.

[8] Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p.145.

[9] Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p.145.

[10] Page, Max. The Creative Destruction of Manhattan, p.147.

[11] Ibid, 149.

[12] Ibid.

[13] New York City Charter §3020, New York Administrative Code Section 25-301, Title 25, Chapter 3: Landmarks preservation and Historic Districts, Modified Jan. 10, 2000.

[14] Ibid.

[15] New York City Charter §3020, New York Administrative Code Section 25-301, Title 25, Chapter 3: Landmarks preservation and Historic Districts, Modified Jan. 10, 2000.

[16] Historic Districts Council. PRESERVING YOUR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD: New York City Designation Process. Online: <http://www.hdc.org/preservingnyc.htm&gt;. Accessed May 2, 2009.

[17] New York City Charter §3020, New York Administrative Code Section 25-301, Title 25, Chapter 3: Landmarks preservation and Historic Districts, Modified Jan. 10, 2000.