St. Luke in Fields wants to add tower on the block

A rendering of the planned “Barrow St. Apartments.”  Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

A rendering of the planned “Barrow St. Apartments.” Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

BY SAM SPOKONY and LINCOLN ANDERSON  |  A West Village church hopes to construct a 15-story residential building on the corner of Greenwich and Barrow Sts., in order to fund both an expansion to its private school and the construction of a new mission building that will provide 24/7 services to L.G.B.T.Q. youth and other underserved people.

The Church of St. Luke in the Fields — which owns the entire block that is bounded by Greenwich, Barrow, Hudson and Christopher Sts. — plans to grant a 99-year lease to Toll Brothers, a luxury developer, for management of the future residential tower at 100 Barrow St., which would rise to about 153 feet. That’s 23 feet shorter than the massive Archive residential building on the other side of Greenwich St., but 33 feet taller than the building directly to the south.

Representatives of the church and its associates are quick to note that the proposed 70,000-square-foot, as-of-right building is much smaller than what zoning allows. By law, a residential development on that spot could be built up to 200,000 square feet.

The building is also planned to be so-called “80/20” housing, in which the developer would receive a tax break for making 20 percent of the units affordable. Currently, 10 of the tower’s 46 rental units are planned to be affordable, while the rest would be market rate. In an interview on Jan. 14, Barry Rice, the projectʼs architect,  said that the developer has not yet filed for a 421a exemption for the 80/20 tax break, which requires state legislative approval, but that they plan to soon.

An aerial view of the St. Luke's block showing a rendering of the new "Barrow St. Apartments" at the southwest corner, plus two stories added atop the St. Luke's School.  Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

An aerial view of the St. Luke’s block showing a rendering of the new “Barrow St. Apartments” at the southwest corner, plus two stories added atop the St. Luke’s School. Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

When explaining the plan for 100 Barrow St., those behind the effort refer to it as the “economic engine” for the church’s goals both to expand the financially strapped St. Luke’s  school — which borders the church within its self-owned lot — and build the new mission center.

“People understandably think it would be ideal if we could do those things without any new development on the block,” said Reverend Caroline Stacey, rector of St. Luke’s. “But the truth of the matter is that we need that residential building in order to provide the necessary income stream for the school to have what it needs, and for us to build the mission space.”

Since the proposed development site lies within the Greenwich Village Historic District, the plan will need a certificate of appropriateness from the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission before moving forward. Representatives of the church, the developer and their architect are currently scheduled to go before the L.P.C. on Feb. 4.

St. Luke’s, which includes pre-K to eighth grade and is currently located in a two-story building along Greenwich and Christopher Sts., had 200 students in 2012, when it started expanding.

“We realized that in this day and age, with the economic expectations and also the academic evolution of schools, to have just 200 students was not a generationally sustainable model,” said Bart Baldwin, head of St. Luke’s School.

A view from the south of a rendering of the new "Barrow St. Apartments" in relation to the Archive building, at left. Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

A view from the south of a rendering of the new “Barrow St. Apartments” in relation to the Archive building, at left. Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

Since then, the Episcopal, nonprofit school has constructed two additional classrooms and currently serves 228 students. Eventually, if the income-generating 100 Barrow St. building is approved, the school hopes to construct two additional floors — a total of 20,000 square feet, including nine classrooms and a 4,000-square-foot gym — and expand its enrollment to 320 students. The expansion level would make heavy use of yellow-colored brick. The schoolʼs current small gym would become a 200-seat auditorium/theater.

Slightly more than half the children currently attending the school live within Community Board 2, according to Baldwin. He stressed that a similar portion of those potential new school seats would serve the Village area, which has faced plenty of school overcrowding in recent years.

St. Luke’s annual tuition is $34,000. About 23 percent of the school’s students get financial aid.

The square block was formally part of Trinity Church, but in the 1970s Trinity “spun off” all its chapels, which are now independent, except for St. Paul’s.

The church currently has a Saturday night feeding program for L.G.B.T.Q. youth and H.I.V.-positive people that accomodates 80. But the program is outgrowing the space — which is why St. Luke’s wants to build a new mission center on the site of the school’s current playground at the corner of Hudson and Christopher Sts.

“It’s an incredible ministry,” Stacey said.

As for when the mission would be built, Stacey said they can’t say exactly when, since it would depend on 100 Barrow St. getting constructed, and the revenue from that.

“We don’t have the money to build it yet,” she said of the mission.

A rendering showing the proposed "Barrow St. Apartments" as the building would appear when viewed from the east looking toward the west with the far more massive Archive residential building behind it.  Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

A rendering showing the proposed “Barrow St. Apartments” as the building would appear when viewed from the east looking toward the west with the far more massive Archive residential building behind it. Courtesy Barry Rice Architect

The mission would be “townhouse scale,” with a 24/7 drop-in center. Individuals would be able to get a change of clothes and take showers. It won’t be “a homeless shelter,” Stacey said, though they are allowed under regulations to do an eight-to-10-bed facility.

In the future, the mission building could be “repurposed” to meet whatever the community’s needs may be — perhaps serving seniors, for example — she pointed out.

As for the playground that the mission would eventually replace, the expanded school would have recreational space on its rooftop.

The block’s gardens — which are the “fields” of St. Luke in the Fields, and are also known as “The Close” — would not be reduced for any of the projects, Stacey stressed. And with the construction of the Barrow St. tower, the rear gardens behind three townhouses on Barrow St. that the church owns would be better opened up to public view, though would not be available for actual public use.

As for the affordable housing component in the planned tower, Stacey noted, “It’s the first affordable housing in the West Village in — what I’m told — a decade.”

They hope to start construction on the Barrow St. tower and the school expansion this summer.

The school addition would be built “like a bridge” on piles over the existing building, which dates from 1955. Work would be done during non-school hours and over school breaks.

Andrew Bartle is designing the school expansion, while Beyer Blinder Belle is coordinating the entire project.

Regarding the three Barrow St. townhouses, the tenants there are currently non-church affiliated and on one-year leases. The buildings would be emptied and extensively renovated, also by Toll Brothers, with each townhouse getting up to $2 million worth of work on it.

Rice, the architect for the Barrow St. tower, explained that the building materials for all the new construction are based on the color palette of the type of bricks used in the area. The middle section of the new tower would be copper clad, which would take on a light-green patina over time, mirroring the church’s roof.

They stressed that there would be “no segregation” at the Barrow St. tower, with the affordable units’ tenants sharing the same entrance as the market-rate tenants.

The rector stressed that they are not a wealthy congregation — many of the worshipers are artists and self-employed — and that they need this project to move forward sustainably into the future. The church’s current endowment for the entire block is only $2 million, she said.

It’s a long-term plan the church has been carefully planning for decades, added Rice, who is also a school parent.

“It hasn’t been rushed to this point,” he said.

The St. Luke’s group presented their project to Community Board 2ʼs Landmarks and Public Aesthetics Committee later on Tuesday evening. The committee, however,  had its criticisms of the mission component, the tower’s height and some of the building materials.

Speaking afterward, Sean Sweeney, the committee’s co-chairperson, said, “St. Luke’s was saying this would help the community, but it’s a private school, and a center for troubled youth, which the community has had many problems with along Christopher St. The community found an irony in that part of their proposal.

“And how does it benefit the community to build a 15-story building that’s out of scale with the rest of the community?” he continued.

“We’re going to recommend approval of the school building, but there was some concern about the yellowish color on the top floor of the school building expansion.” Also, he added, “The tower has a window wall in the center which seems out of context with the top and bottom of the building.”

Or, as Doris Diether, the committee’s co-chairperson, said, “I thought the building they’re putting up looked ridiculous. It looked like a sandwich — it’s brick on the bottom, glass in the middle, and brick on top.”

The committee’s resolution will recommend approval of the school expansion, ask that the tower’s height be lowered and also ask St. Luke’s to provide a master plan.

The Villager encourages readers to share articles:

Comments are often moderated.

We appreciate your comments and ask that you keep to the subject at hand, refrain from use of profanity and maintain a respectful tone to both the subject at hand and other readers who also post here. We reserve the right to delete your comment.

52 Responses to St. Luke in Fields wants to add tower on the block

  1. Why would the church want to be part of destroying the "historic" in historic greenwich village? Sounds just so money grubbing. I'm sure this is not something Jesus would do. Especially when only half the students come from this area. Why can't they move the church to an area where they can serve the underserved like the school on Sullivan St. did?

    • Rudolph Rassendyll

      St. Luke is an institution defining that part of town. You are not. Why don't YOU move?

      • You're right. Private institutions should be free from oversight. Then they will always choose what is best for the public. Just look at the financial services sector.

  2. The materials look really beautiful, and it's great news that the private gardens will remain fully accessible to the public. I think it's so important that the church be able to reach the LGBTQ youth population where it exists — on Christopher Street, and the apartment building will make that possible.

    • St. Luke's out reach program to the LGBTQ youth is very admirable. Regarding public accessibility to the gardens, if you read the following quote from the article above, does that sounds to you like great news?
      "…the rear gardens behind three townhouses on Barrow St. that the church owns would be better opened up to public view, though would not be available for actual public use."

      • VillageBorn1961

        The "rear gardens behind the townhouses" are not now, nor have they ever been open to public use. They are, in fact, used as private backyards for the tenants of those houses. They are fenced in and some are quite overgrown. The new plan calls for the removal of the fences and a master horticultural plan creating a unified garden visible through an arch. An improvement, in my opinion. The gardens that have traditionally been open to the public will continue to be.

    • St. Luke's good works are irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Do not hold a knife to the throat of one of the greatest blocks in our neighborhood and tell me I must be against good deeds if I do not approve. Such fallacious reasoning.

  3. Smart move co-opting LGBT as a pacifier for the NIMBY folks. Fact is, most of the rich people buying these apartments want nothing to do with the street crime, noise, and disruptions that come from Christopher Street. Will be interesting to see if hypocritical preservationists support this one.

    • Read the piece again, Matt. No 'rich people' will be buying these apartments. They're rentals. With 20% affordable units. And given St Luke's decades long work with people living with HIV/AIDS, your comment about the church 'co-opting LGBT' as a pacifier is completely offensive.

      • The Church's use of its good works to justify this economic scheme IS offensive. At the community board hearing for landmarks and aesthetics, Rev. Stacey began her presentation by touting the Church's outreach. Since they are, undeniably, good works, this amounted to a craven manipulation: "If you oppose my plan, you oppose LGBT outreach and hot lunches for the elderly."

        These things are NOT related.

        When I am not doing well financially, I do not put an addition on my home. I tighten my belt and live within my means. So should St Luke's!

      • "20% affordable" sounds so much better than "11 rental units," doesn't it?

        St. Luke's deceptive language would make Frank Luntz blush.

      • Rich people won't be "buying", they will be "renting". Is that really the best you can do? The church would be better off being honest with residents here instead of claiming all these benefits when the real intentions are obvious.

  4. GreenwichStHome

    The church is ruining the gardens, which will now lose all of their western light.

    Who wants to sit in a garden under the shade of a 16 story hodgepodge of a tower?

    The whole point of landmark preservation is to prevent wonderful, human scaled spaces–the treasures of our city–from being destroyed by developers.

    Also, the building is ugly. You cannot name a building in the LP district of the west village that looks like this — so outrageously out of place, tall, and ugly.

    Signed,
    Resident of West Village since 1999

    • GreenwichVillage2014

      Why is there a landmark district if they can do this within it? Is not the entire point of landmark districts to prevent the erection of more towers? If they want to build a tower, maybe they should go uptown to where there's no light, no people-sized buildings, no cobble stone charm, no small pathways.

      I agree that St Luke's is set about to ruin the block, and the garden too by putting this monstrosity red Darth Vader of a building on the corner of the lot.

      St. Lukes wants money for its school and its mission. But then they should raise this money from amongst themselves, rather than tithing their neighbors by taking away the common good which is light and space and a skyline that is so nicely free in the west village of gigantic buildings like what they are proposing. The drawings make it look like a jail, or one of the old projects. What a horror!

      I understanding how an architect and developer are short-sighted. But I am shocked that the St. Lukes church also suffers from such short-term thinking.

      It's the neighborhood's job, and the job of our city's leaders, to prevent them from making this destructive mistake for everyone, including themselves. As time goes on, what becomes valuable is space, openness, charm. The church is mortgaging their future, and the future of the neighborhood, to have more money today.

      Also, landmarks should think about this as a precedent setter. Not only is St Luke's breaking down a barrier to development for themselves and their immediate neighbors, but they are doing so for the entire landmark zone. Over a generation, by just removing this one cornerstone of the city's public policy, we may see the entire charm of Greenwich Village punctured by high-rises, and destroyed by developers.

      Last thought – if St Lukes wants to make more money, they should just fix up and sell or rent the townhouses on the south of their site. This would make money, and would improve the neighborhood.

    • Just want to point out that the scientific shadow studies presented to the Landmarks subcommittee of CB2 on Monday clearly show that the gardens (which are private property of the church anyway) are NOT going to be hit with shadows thrown by the tower. The setbacks and massing of the building is specifically designed to avoid that.

    • The church has been a resident of the West Village since 1820. Just for clarity's sake. Also it's 15 stories,not 16.

      • I will support this plan if Rev. Stacey commits to living out her days on this block. But since she will likely depart after having perpetrated this audacious grab, I do not put much stock in her sunny appraisal.

        • It is interesting that you object to being tarred with evil motives, but you have no issue with doing so to others.

          • You helpfully provided yourself with the word evil. My word was audacious and I stick by it. My comment is about those who will have to live with the long-term consequences of this development. Its chief proponent is not among them. THAT'S what's interesting.

  5. The garden is private property. No one _has_ to sit in it, and the church could just as easily decide to pave it over and put low-rise buildings on it.

  6. If the church can't survive until the next century, the entire block could be sold to developers and all of it lost.

    • GreenwichVillage2014

      The money to fix up townhouses comes from the same place the money to build the 15 story high rise comes from.
      The money to fix up townhouses can come from a bank that finances capital improvements. Then the mortgage is repaid over many years with the increase in rent from townhouses that rent for very little today.

      If the Church wants to pave over its garden that the Church's choice. I love the people of St Lukes and think they can do what they want. The current generation of leaders at the church are taking care of something that was built in the 1820s.

      But when St Luke's conspires with a developer to build a slick high-rise with a 6+ FAR then they are stealing space, light and sky from their neighbors to help themselves. They are stealing from past generations their intentions, and from future generations (both congregants of the church and the city's residents) of their landmarked areas.

      The whole point of landmark conservation is to preserve the wonderful spaces in our great city, and our world, for future generations. This is from St. Luke's own website: "The landmark Church of St. Luke in the Fields, built in 1821, stands on its own two-acre city block, along with ten surviving row houses of similar age. The beauty and integrity of the block is unique. According to the New York City Landmarks register, it is the “most significant architectural ensemble in the West Village and the earliest in date.” And this is what the St. Lukes wants to destroy now and for all future generations?

      You should take a look at the reasons the block was protected under the landmark register almost fifty years ago.

      Read this for some historical perspective:
      http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports
      http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports

      (All you have to do to read them is open the pdf and then search for the word "LUKE" and you will find all the wonderful references to this landmarked block.)

      Also let us not forget, the church has an economic engine with its school and its congregation and the rent from the town homes, tax-exemption, and Lord knows what else.

      The church has survived for centuries and will go on forevermore. This development is just a case of more is better and greed.

    • Then they should focus on being a self-sustaining parish, a goal that has become farther out-of-reach now that this august neighbor has riven the community by failing to inform it, solicit feedback from without its own membership, and give this process the sunlight it needed; it only would have helped their cause.

      But now they have sown the wind and will reap the whirlwind.

  7. AViewFromTheARCHIVE

    Hi Greenwich Village 2014! Thank you for finding the old landmark designation reports! They are a treasure trove!

    I am just a renter in the Archive, but I can tell you that my view will be ruined by the highrise in the landmark area.

    Look at this from the Greenwich Village Historic District Designation Report (Volume 1, starting on page 8)

    “Walking through The Village at any time of day or night and in almost any direction, one is struck by the fact that one is in a part of the City which is very different from any other, remarkable for its old-world charm and outstanding as a great historic area of New York."

    "It is the summation of these qualities which make it such a memorable district, one which is not merely worthy of preservation but one which must be preserved at all costs."

    "It is precisely with this object in mind that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has moved to designate this unique area of the City, to check that process of attrition which eats away our best neighborhoods, bit by bit, piece by piece, until we wake up to find that a fine neighborhood has become a second-rate anonymous place. What is this process of attrition but the gradual replacement, house by house, of the good by the bad, of the compatible by the mediocre. The end result is the anonymous city block, the area we pass through without seeing. Where the fine old town house stands proudly today, a mediocre apartment house may stand tomorrow. [Ed. note: this is what will happen—a mediocre apartment house standing on this once special block—if 100 Barrow Street is allowed to proceed.]"

    "Where fine rows of town houses now remain, as a part of our architectural heritage, it is our duty to insure that they are well maintained and, if altered in any way, so altered that they retain the qualities which make them notable…"

    "Where groups of houses of different design, but uniform in their use of materials, scale and architectural details exist, the removal or alteration of any building or buildings from such a group would destroy its character. This would seriously affect the fine appearance of the street and perhaps even of the whole neighborhood. [Ed. note: isn’t the new tower going to destroy the entire character of the block?]"

    "…Among the kinds of renovations which have proven detrimental to the neighborhood, are the use of dissimilar materials in adjacent buildings…[Ed. note: Glass, steel and brick are used in the new proposed building, as well as unimaginable height. Isn’t this what the designation was meant to protect against?]"

    "…in the last twenty years New York City has lost many of its fine old buildings and attractive blocks of buildings. The purpose of designation is to give an opportunity to City government and the citizens of the City to save from destruction the best of those which are left. There are over one thousand buildings built before the Civil War within the Greenwich Village blocks…"

    "The overriding consideration in creating an Historic District is the protection of an entire outstanding areas, and only the creation of an Historic District can halt the piecemeal destruction of such a fine area."

    [Ed. note: St Lukes says they are just building on a small parking lot, but they are destroying the fabric of the entire block and trying to change precedent for the entire landmark designation. This is like cashing in on something precious that many, many generations of our forebears have wisely, courageously and with equal if not greater cost, preserved for future generations. It is not up to one generation today to rob the past and the future of something so precious.]

    May the current administration and the landmark commissioners rule with as much foresight and strength as their forebears. May the citizens come together to prevent short-termism from destroying what is precious about the Greenwich Village.

  8. While the intentions of St. Luke's have alway been good, the development fails to acknowledge the importance of sun-light. The delightful and essential landmark that the gardens have always been will be lost forever, and, Doris D is completely correct in her assessment of the less than brilliant design.

    • The gardens are not being affected; the shadow studies presented at the CB2 Landmarks Subcommittee meeting on Monday (and accessible on the St. Luke's website) show that the shadows thrown by the tower will not touch the gardens.

      • You _will_ insist on facts, won't you? :)

      • Actually, the light study is just plain deceptive; it shows that the shadow will not touch the gardens — between 9am and 3pm! A SIX-HOUR PERIOD. The day (and shadows) get a lot longer — and will touch the bell tower, Hudson Street, and the gardens in the summer evening. A huge loss.

  9. might you assist me in finding the sun studies you refer to – I cannot find them on the St. Luke's website

    • Google 100 Barrow GVSHP and follow the link to PDF of the community board presentation. If you're on Twitter, @NoStLukesTower recently tweeted an image.

  10. Regarding the person who thinks a 15 story building will not block sunlight or cast a shadow over the garden, I think you need to think for yourself. The architects "shadow studies" were pictures with shading in them. They bear no relation to what something will look and feel like all year long.

    As for BBMW, the point of a landmark area is to preserve it from being overdeveloped and turned into every other area of the city. What is so special about the village and about the block the church is on is that it is human scaled, not 15 stories tall like everywhere else in the city. People who want to live in high rises can go all over NYC but don't need to live in the village.

    • Right on. The light studies are profoundly misleading, showing only a 6 HOUR PERIOD from 9am to 3pm, when shadows are shortest. Does anyone believe a 153 foot tower will not enshroud the bell tower and some of Hudson Street at 6:30 pm in June? If Einstein couldn't break the laws of physics, hopes are not high for Barry Rice. This is common sense. Northward facing structures on Barrow depend on reflected skylight for illumination. This abominable plan steals sky from so many.

  11. I understand that St Lukes needs to raise money to keep themselves financially solvent, perhaps for St Lukes this, or something like this, is their only option. I am not however happy about having a 24/7 open door for L.G.B.T.Q. youth and other underserved people, it bring to mind of the "Neutral Zone" once located on Christopher St, which became nothing more than a hang-out for unruly teens, prostitutes and drug dealers, the vast numbers spilled out onto the streets, for those of you who remember it was a horror for the community http://thevillager.com/villager_125/gayyouthgonew
    I am all for a community center that caters to the people that actually live and work in our community.

  12. Twitter @NoStLukesTower has dates and locations for Community Board meeting and Landmarks.

  13. What Would Jesus Develop?

    • No one can speak for Jesus, of course. But it's a lot easier to see him agreeing with Jane Jacobs than Barry Rice and the Toll Bros.

  14. The shadow studies presented are absurd and deliberately misleading, which characterizes the entire presentation by the church.

    They show shadows between 9AM and 3PM.

    What about the sunrise hours between 6AM and 9AM, and the sunset hours from 3PM to 8PM? THESE ARE THE TIMES THE SUNLIGHT MATTERS in this landmark area. These are the times there is the most pedestrian traffic in the area.

    The reason they did not show the shadow studies is because crucial surrounding areas are cast in darkness because of this towering building.

    It's shameful.

    Landmarks Commission should request an environmental impact statement to show honestly, and from a third party and not the proponent of the project, what the real impact on light and shade will be in the area.

    • The archive building is the building that casts the long shadow. The new development is in the shadow of the maasive archive building.

  15. The original Historic District designation (1969) had this to say about Barrow Street between Hudson and Greenwich:

    "All in all, this is a very pleasant street in which to live, since it not only retains its old houses, but has an open feeling on the north side, where only the middle of the street has been built upon."

    May the Landmarks Preservation Commission live up to their name and defend this founding document.

  16. GRWCHVILLAGEHEART

    I want to highlight an excerpt from the Greenwich Village Historic District Designation Report, 1969, volume 1

    “Walking through The Village at any time of day or night and in almost any direction, one is struck by the fact that one is in a part of the City which is very different from any other, remarkable for its old-world charm and outstanding as a great historic area of New York…It is the summation of these qualities which make it such a memorable district, one which is not merely worthy of preservation but one which must be preserved at all costs…”

    “It is precisely with this object in mind that the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has moved to designate this unique area of the City, to check that process of attrition which eats away our best neighborhoods, bit by bit, piece by piece, until we wake up to find that a fine neighborhood has become a second-rate anonymous place. What is this process of attrition but the gradual replacement, house by house, of the good by the bad, of the compatible by the mediocre. The end result is the anonymous city block, the area we pass through without seeing…”

    Many people came before us to protect our Greenwich Village. Let's work together to prevent this eyesore from being developed.

    St Lukes should come up with some alternatives to this skyscraper. They owe it to their predecessors and the generations to come, as well as the community at large.

  17. The caption under the rendering looking from east to west at the "far more massive Archive Building" (did Barry Rice write this copy?) misidentifies the type of drawing. It is an architectural elevation, which artificially strips objects of their natural perspective and foreshortening. If you were actually at street level on Hudson, the top edge of the proposed tower at 100 Barrow would be much higher than the top edge of the Archive because it is closer.

    Community Board Two agreed and tonight recommended a denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness to St. Luke's.

    And one more thing — even if you don't agree, what kind of person votes down the earnest comment above from Ms. Bergman. Anyone should be able to identify with what she's talking about.

  18. The deceptive drawings make the new 15-story building look shorter than the old 10-story archive building which is not in the historic zone. The church never even brought the idea up with the community that it 'serves'. It chose to try to sneak the project through. How heartening to see the Episcopal Church keeping up with the times. It has become duplicitous , deceptive and self-serving.

    • The new building would be 153 feet tall. The Archive is 170 feet tall. It is totally understandable that you are opposed to the new building, but it does not help your cause to spread misrepresentations.

  19. Ms. Village's point, if you read carefully, is that an architectural elevation (which strips objects of perspective for technical purposes) shows this tower in its best light. This is part of an understandable but orchestrated campaign to sell a very wrongheaded project. Sadly, it is also part of why St. Luke's has lost credibility with the community, which, it turns out, isn't as gullible or apathetic as it appears was hoped.

    Secondly, for once and for all, the top edge of the Archive visible from the street is only six feet higher than St. Luke's proposed tower. The certificate of occupancy figure you're using is for a penthouse added in the 1980s that is not even visible from the street. Unfortunately, it is prevarications like this one that have turned the community against this project.

    What was that you were saying about misrepresentations not helping one's cause?

  20. TALLERTHANARCHIVE

    I learned yesterday at a community meeting that the renderings provided by the architect failed to show an additional 25 foot structure on top of their high-rise to house elevator equipment and water tanks. Including these items, the building is higher than the parapet of the Archive Building by 20 feet

  21. Some incredible images released at the public hearing last night. Look here:
    https://twitter.com/w1h2a3t4e5v6e7r/status/431174
    https://twitter.com/w1h2a3t4e5v6e7r/status/431174

  22. The Archives building is on the State and National Registries of Historic Buildings…I notice from the drawings that this proposed eyesore would block the view of the much more attractive and historically significant Archive building from several points. No comments on this from Landmarks?

  23. Sorry, but this is nonsense, their building what look like a very nice residential building on a parking lot. Nothing is being lost here, and the people who will live there (including those in the low income units) will be gaining valuable housing.

    It's pretty disgusting how so many people are against development only for the sake of being against development. Where would you be living if no one built the building you live in?

  24. "Where would you be living if no one built the building you live in?" This comment hurts my head.

    It is not disgusting to be against development. And you impute a rather shallow motive when you say that those who oppose this plan do so merely for the sake of being against development. We may oppose it because we have no self-interest at stake (the financial health of St. Luke's) and we are blessed with a background in architecture and aesthetics that leads us to reject this design on the merits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


− two = 1

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>