Managing Institutional Presence
Large institutions have a notable presence on 14th Street. By building, adapting, or abandoning their often monumental structures they exert a great deal of influence over the physical fabric of the street. One subcategory of institutions is religious organizations, of which there are several in the Study Area. While many funding sources are available for the maintenance and preservation of these structures, implementation of preservation initiaves remains difficult and the fate of religious buildings is one of the most difficult challenges facing preservationists.
In addition to religious institutions, 14th Street is affected by the presence of medical, community, and educational establishments. The zoning categorization of these as “community facilities” furthers their influence by often allowing them to exceed the massing and scale of their surroundings. Additionally, the constituents of these institutions, most noticeably the huge numbers of students from NYU, Pratt, and the New School, introduce a new demographic to the area, affecting everything from traffic congestion to the types of commerce drawn to the area. Recognizing that these forces have the potential to either help or hinder the street and its resources, we propose managing these forces through zoning, facilitating community input, and providing institutions with models of successful adaptive reuse.
Example: Regulatory Management
12. (Former) Baumann Brothers' Store.
The former Baumann Brothers’ Store, located at 22 East 14th Street, which is currently owned by The New School, furnishes examples of how the above mentioned strategies can be used to manage institutional expansion (Figure 12). The Landmarks Preservation Commission has heard the proposed designation for the building, but the process stalled over disagreement concerning the size of a rooftop addition that the LPC would allow if it chose to designate. The building is built to a F.A.R. of 5.0 in a zone where 6.0 is the maximum allowed, which is equivalent to eighty three percent of bulk). As a community facility, the New School is entitled to a F.A.R. bonus of 2.0, allowing a total of 7.0. This would translate to an addition of roughly two stories. Even as a landmark, there are several options that would allow the New School to exploit the building’s unused F.A.R. either for financial or spatial gain, thus achieving the institution’s goal of creating more space, and ours of designating it as a landmark.
One option is to transfer the unused bulk from the Baumann Store to an adjacent underbuilt property through a zoning lot merger. The New School’s building occupies a lot that goes through to 13th Street, where its neighbor is a small two-story structure built to an F.A.R. of 0.5. If the two zoning lots were merged, the aggregate unused F.A.R. could be used to concentrate the bulk of new construction on the site of the underbuilt structure. This would not require the purchase or sale of either plot of land, but it would allow the New School to transfer unused development rights for its own financial gain. However, the bulk of the receiving property could easily undermine the historic scale of 13th and 14th Streets—a scale this Studio has identified as valuable. If the Baumann Store were designated a landmark, Section 74-711 of the zoning resolution could be used to arrange this bulk in a fashion more sympathetic to the height profile of both streets.
Because the New School has demonstrated a desire for increased space, a more realistic option would be the purchase by the school of the neighboring underbuilt property. In that case, the Baumann Store’s unused development rights could be transferred to the adjacent site, but the square footage enabled by the shift would belong to the New School. As in the previous case, if the building were designated a landmark, Section 74-711 would be a good tool for mitigating the distribution of new bulk.
As a landmark, the Baumann Store’s eligibility for a transfer of development rights, pursuant to Section 74-79 of the Zoning Resolution, would allow the New School to earn money by transferring its air rights to the underbuilt parcels on the north side of 13th Street. However, this would not solve the school’s space problems.
A more aggressive approach to reducing the development potential of the former Baumann Store would involve eliminating the F.A.R. bonus offered to community facilities. While this is not a viable option citywide, it is feasible to advocate for the change within the Store’s zoning district. In the event that the New School went ahead with a rooftop addition without being designated a landmark, the local community board or the proposed interinstitutional student committee could encourage a work executed with materials, massing, setbacks and sightlines to minimize its own obtrusiveness to (or maximize engagement with) the original structure.
Example: Community Involvement
Another way to manage institutional forces is through communication between the community at large, the institution’s representatives, and the institution’s constituents. Issues such as the desire for institutions to integrate with their surroundings and “give back” to the community could be addressed by a cross-community board review. Preservation and land use subcommittees of community boards bordering 14th Street could meet together to discuss the proliferation of institutional facilities in their areas. Further, they could present a unified view of their desires to institutions in an educational packet including information on façade easements and grants, TDRs, design guidelines, building maintenance, and the history and character of the area. Such a packet could also include examples of the successful adaptive reuse of historic buildings, such as the Eye and Ear Infirmary’s use of the former Mechanics and Metals Bank Building.
This communication could also stem from the institutions themselves through the development of an inter-institutional student government committee. Involving the students of the many institutions in the Study Area, the committee would serve as a mediator between the community and the institutions, encouraging accountability on the part of the institutions for their impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.