Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Hearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers decision on demolition of 30 West 67th after contested hearing
Summary
The commission heard an extended presentation and public testimony on a proposed demolition and new eight-story residential replacement at 30 West 67th Street. Testimony split preservationists and neighbors from proponents; commissioners asked the applicant for more justification and design changes and took no action.
The Land Preservation Commission on Dec. 9 heard a lengthy presentation and public testimony on a proposal to demolish the 1979 office/studio building at 30 West 67th Street (Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District) and replace it with an eight-story masonry residential building configured to provide senior affordable housing.
Ward Dennis (Higgins Quasebarth & Partners) opened the applicant presentation, locating the site at the southern edge of the historic district and framing the existing 14-story modern structure as an outlier relative to the block’s masonry context. Dan Lobitz (RAMSA) presented the new design: an eight-story brick-and-stone building with a 30-foot rear-yard setback, symmetrical compositional bays, deep-set windows, and a rooftop amenity; the architects said the scheme would yield about 90 residential units.
Public testimony was sharply split. Landmark West and its president urged the commission to reject demolition, arguing the KPF-built modern building is part of the historical record and that demolition would erase ABC campus material history. Longtime preservation advocates called the demolition unnecessary and urged adaptive reuse; neighbors said the developer’s affordability claims required scrutiny. Manhattan Community Board 7, by contrast, recommended a taller building that uses more allowable floor area to increase affordable units.
Commissioners debated both the threshold question — whether the existing modern building contributes sufficiently to the district to bar demolition — and design details for the proposed infill. Commissioner Goldblum said he could accept demolition, observing the building did not strongly contribute to the district; others, including Commissioners Mahan and Wilder, said the applicant had not provided sufficient justification and that background modern buildings can still be important to district character.
After extended discussion on massing, rooftop treatment, depth of setback and the character of mid-block facades, the commission took no final action and asked the applicant to return with stronger justification for demolition and refinements to the top-of-building design and facade depth.
