Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hanson Place Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public hearing at LPC over plan to add tower above Hanson Place Methodist Church
Summary
Developers told the Commission a large residential enlargement would fund critical facade restoration of Hanson Place Methodist Church; hundreds of residents, preservation groups and affordable‑housing advocates gave conflicting testimony during a multi‑hour hearing.
Developers and architects told the Landmarks Preservation Commission that a bold, stepped residential enlargement above Hanson Place Methodist Church is the only financially viable path to restore and stabilize the long‑vacant church. Counsel Meenakshi Srinivasan and FX Collaborative lead Dan Kaplan described a plan to add a large, tiered residential massing over and behind the church that would create roughly 240 units and fund comprehensive facade and stained‑glass restoration.
"Our proposal is for a residential enlargement above the church that will provide the investment and viability to restore and stabilize the church and at the same time provide much needed housing, including affordable housing required under the MIH program," the applicant told commissioners. The presentation emphasized extensive structural deterioration, long‑standing scaffold coverage and a multimillion‑dollar stabilization estimate.
Public testimony filled hours of the hearing. Preservation groups such as the New York Landmarks Conservancy and the Victorian Society urged denial, calling the design an instance of "facadism" that would leave only fragments of the church while obstructing views of the iconic Williamsburg Savings Bank to the north. Residents and representatives of 1 Hanson Place organized opposition, citing sight‑line loss, precedents and safety concerns. Other speakers and neighborhood organizations — including Downtown Brooklyn Partnership, housing‑advocacy speakers and multiple local residents — supported the project for restoring a derelict building and adding permanently affordable units. The Commission closed the hearing and left the record open for written comments; commissioners asked staff and the applicants to consider further refinements and to return with responses to preservation and visibility concerns.
What to watch: The application raises classic preservation vs. development tradeoffs — whether landmark buildings can be preserved through large new development above them, and if so how much historic fabric must be retained. The Commission will weigh testimony and technical studies before a future determination.
