Quantcast

Tammany mutant turtle? Plan to add tortoise-shell dome atop historic H.Q.

tamany
Tammany Hall, at E. 17th St. and Union Square East, was finally landmarked last year.

BY ALBERT AMATEAU  |  Vote early and vote often” was the cynical catchword of the corrupt Tammany Hall of yore.

The Landmarks Committee of Community Board 5 needed to vote just once on Tuesday, election night, to unanimously reject a proposal to add a 30-foot-tall dome to the roof of the former Tammany Hall building designated as a city landmark only last year.

Tammany Hall, at E. 17th St. and Union Square East, was landmarked just last year.
Tammany Hall, at E. 17th St. and Union Square East, was landmarked just last year.

The proposed dome, designed to evoke a turtle shell, is part of a gut renovation and facade restoration, planned by BKSK Architects, that would add 27,000 square feet and two stories to the Colonial Revival-style building on the east side of Union Square. With the rooftop addition, the building would be about 85 feet tall at its highest point.

The turtle-shell concept was inspired by a statue in a niche on the building’s north side depicting Chief Tamanend standing on a turtle, a reference to a Native American creation myth, said Harry Kendall, the BKSK partner who presented the project to the committee. Also called Tammany, he played a key role in helping establish peace between the native Lenape and the European settlers, for which he became an iconic figure.

A rendering of the proposed tortoise shell-top addition for Tammany Hall. Courtesy BKSK Architects
A rendering of the proposed tortoise shell-top addition for Tammany Hall. Courtesy BKSK Architects

The unanimous rejection by the C.B. 5 Landmarks Committee makes it unlikely the project will fare any better at the full community board meeting later this month. Community boards are strictly advisory and the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission will make the final decision sometime later.

Committee members Tuesday night said Kendall’s presentation was imaginative, interesting and even thoughtful, but they could not accept the fact that the proposed dome would be visible above the colonnaded facade from across Union Square.

Looking at the proposed turtle shell-topped Tammany Hall.
Looking at the proposed turtle shell-topped Tammany Hall from the west. Courtesy BKSK Architects

“Our resolution must emphasize that the project involves removal of the slate mansard roof, a significant historic fabric of the building,” said Jack Taylor, a longtime member of the committee and founder of the Drive to Preserve the Ladies’ Mile Historic District.

Built in 1927 as Democratic Party headquarters, the four-story building at 44 Union Square East was designed in imitation of the old Federal Hall on Wall St. The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union bought the building in 1943 and sold it some years later. It now houses a film school, a theater and several ground-floor retail shops.

Preservation advocates worked for 29 years to have the building designated as a city landmark. The effort finally succeeded in October of last year.

A closeup of Chief Tamanend’s feet atop a tortoise on a Philadelphia statue. A similar statue on the exterior of New York City's Tammany Hall was the inspiration for the terrapin roof design.
A close-up of Chief Tamanend’s feet atop a tortoise on a Philadelphia statue. A similar statue on the exterior of New York City’s Tammany Hall was the inspiration for the terrapin rooftop addition’s design.

In response to a question from a committee member, Kendall acknowledged that when the designation was under consideration, L.P.C. was aware that changes to the building were contemplated. However, no changes were made before it received landmark designation.

Kendall said the plan of the proposed dome and facade restoration has been the subject of four informal meetings with Landmarks staff members.

“What was their reaction?” asked a committee member. “There was a high level of interest and robust discussion,” Kendall replied.

“This should have been presented before the building was designated,” retorted the member.

The architect added that one agency staff member loved the plan and said so in an e-mail.

“Staff members were comfortable with removal of the mansard roof,” Kendall said. “They didn’t seem to feel it was a significant architectural feature.”

But the mansard roof was important to the committee.

“Removal of original architecture protected by landmark designation is a major problem,” said a committee member.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the proposed rooftop addition would add eight stories to the building. However, the addition would actually only be two stories — though the total height of the building, plus the addition, would be about eight stories.