Stuy Town residents push for landmarking
Stuyvesant Town
Residents of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village are making their first public push for the landmark designation since the 110-building complex was purchased by Tishman Speyer in 2006.
The campaign, which is being led by a core group of about 10 residents, will launch with a fundraising square dance on April 26.
Residents say the landmarking campaign dates back to well before Tishman Speyer's record $5.4 billion purchase and is not directly related to it. But many long-time residents who have lived in the East Side complex fear that Tishman Speyer could make big changes and see landmarking as a form of protection.
Susan Steinberg, first vice president of the tenants association, said the neighborhood and its residents are changing quickly.
"After Tishman Speyer [bought the property], this is the first attempt to really get people conscious of landmarking, but it has not gotten very far," she said.
The push to landmark the 11,200-apartment, 110 building-complex dates back more than seven years to when the Historic Districts Council, a preservation group, announced its support.
"I think Stuyvesant Town has a unique character and sense of place that makes it worthy of consideration for landmark status," said City Councilman Daniel Garodnick, who represents the neighborhood.
About two years ago the tenants association received a letter from the state Historic Preservation Office saying that Stuyvesant Town was eligible for an honorary state landmark status.
Steinberg said she believed a binding designation from the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission would only make the complex more marketable.
A spokeswoman for Tishman Speyer said the company had no comment on the proposal.
Comments
Anonymous
This ploy doesn't even pass the laugh test. Why not Landmark all of the public housing projects in the 5 boros? They all look the same.
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 04/11/08
Anonymous
Nothing unique about Stuy Town. I believe Metropolitan Life built Parkchester in the Bronx before they built this glorified housing project.
These rent-stablilized tenants should just be grateful that they have had a taxpayer financed below-market rent all these years (yes, because their rents are not at market, the value of the complex is lower, so tax revenue is lost).
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 04/12/08
Anonymous
This is one of the ugliest building complexes in a city who's true beautiful buildings are rapidly disappearing. Surely Landmarks has an endless inbox of truly deserving historically significant buildings to focus on. This is a ploy to protect something that Landmarks wasn't designed to protect - rent stabilized tenants. I've lived in the area for years, besides the interior areas where there are some nice grassy / playground areas - this complex is no different (looking) from the Jacob Riis Housing on Avenue D - why not landmark those too?
These buildings are scary, eyesores and to landmark them would make a mockery out of everything that the Landmarks Commission stands for.
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 04/12/08
Regina
When we hear the word "landmark" we usually think of very unique buildings-Grand Central Station comes to mind. Not just because of how it visually looks but because of what it meant to New York City or what it stands for. So, I can see why the tenants want to have their buildings designated as a landmark. Correct me if I'm wrong, but communities like this were built to house people on a modest to low income. Don't we have enough homes for the wealthy few? Yes, I agree they are not "visually pleasing." But to the tenants who are fighting to keep their homes, the fight is more about livability and not beauty.
Comment #4 Posted By: Regina 04/12/08
Anonymous
@ Regina--
How much is your rent in stuy town?
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 04/12/08
Anonymous
To paraphrase Lewis Mumford in the late 1940s when Stuyvesant Town first opened, "It's housing for the police state."
There'd have far more grounds to landmark the Gashouse District and the Willard Parker Hospital at 16th Street and the East River -- if a Landmarks Prservation Commission had been around before 1965 -- than that subsidized monstrosity that the chief executive of Metropolitan Life erected with the assistance of Robert Moses.
What a joke.
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 04/13/08
Leave a Comment:
irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal
does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site.