Testimony of Wally Rubin for Community Board Five at the New York City Council Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises, Monday, August 23rd, 2010

TESTIMONY OF WALLY RUBIN FOR COMMUNITY BOARD FIVE AT THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ZONING AND FRANCHISES, MONDAY, AUGUST 23rd, 2010

Good morning. My name is Wally Rubin and I am the District Manager for Community Board Five. Thank you for the privilege of addressing you today on the topic of 15 Penn Plaza, one of the most important development projects our Board has faced in years.
Community Board Five and its Land Use & Zoning Committee spent considerable time meeting with the applicant and reviewing every available document before we voted 36 to 1 to deny this application.
Obviously, our Board felt very strongly about this application and here are the reasons why:
First, we think that the transportation improvements Vornado has proposed are inadequate. Many of the improvements are ultimately either self-serving or mandated and wholly insufficient for the 474,000 square feet Vornado will receive in exchange. Indeed, as one of our Board members put it, they are akin to Vornado cleaning up its own basement.
Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this applicant's request for a midblock up-zoning, adding yet another 266,000 square feet to a tower that is utterly lacking confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plan. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years – years - before any development scenario might move forward, which entirely demolishes the argument that we should approve this project now as a salve for our current economic troubles.
If the up-zoning were to be granted now, it would remain with the zoning lot permanently, regardless of future development plans or even if the lot is eventually sold. It is ill-advised from a proper planning perspective to approve such an up-zoning without a clear rationale for its request. This up-zoning, just blocks from the Empire State Building, will allow Vornado, or whoever might eventually own this site, to build a building that will change the iconic skyline of New York City forevermore. Such a change must be deeply considered and well thought out, both in terms of its design and, more broadly, its impact on future land use decisions in the immediate area.
Community Board Five is not opposed to development and we recognize that this site is appropriate for a large commercial building. We value the job creation that will result not only during construction but also after the proposed building is complete. But we are also acutely aware of how the area
surrounding Penn Station is poised to undergo enormous development, growth, and change in the coming decade. This means that each individual land use decision will cumulatively contribute to its transformation.
Therefore, we hope that the ladies and gentlemen on this committee and the Council as a whole will join us in asking Vornado to return to the table with their request for a permanent up-zoning when they have a rationale and a final, financed plan in place. Until such time, we urge the Council to join with City Planning, the Moynihan Station Community Advisory Committee and Community Boards Four and Five to begin to outline a Moynihan Station subdistrict zoning plan and a future for this area that is both well-considered and comprehensive.
Thank you for your time.

The PDF version of this can be found here.

NYC Council

This past weekend I was lucky enough to capture a recording of the NYC Council on Zoning meeting for 15 Penn Plaza on the NYC Gov TV Channel. Over the next few days I will be attempting to make an audio transcript of the meeting (minus the commercials). Please be patient with me as I do this. We have also reached out to CB5 for a copy of the speech that Mr. Wally Rubin gave that day, if we get it from CB5 will will gladly post it here.

Letters from CB5 to the CPC and City Council

A few posts ago I wrote about a letter that was sent from CB5 to the CPC admonishing them about their decision to approve the 15 Penn Plaza Project. And to my surprise CB5 also sent a letter to the City Council telling them how they felt.  Is it me or is the community the only sane people left in NY?

Below are a copy of those letters:


"The Board does not oppose this project per se. However, we have serious concerns about the building's proposed size, possible only through the granting of special permits, in an application that offers few public benefits in exchange.


First, in exchange for a 20% transit bonus, the applicant's proposal includes the restoration and reopening of the Gimbel's Passageway plus various other access and egress improvements, all of which we applaud. But as we note in our resolution, some of these improvements are either self-serving or mandated, and thus not sufficient for the 474,000 square feet received in exchange.

Second, Community Board Five is deeply troubled by this application's request for midblock up-zoning (from a C6-4.5 to a C6-6) adding another 266,000 square feet to an application that lacks many confirmed details, including building size, height, tenancy, construction timetable or financing plans. The applicant conceded to us that it could be many years before any development scenario might move forward. Yet if granted, the upzoining would be permanent and remain with the zoning lot regardless of future development plans or even if the lot were to be sold.

Third, we ask that the Commission evaluate this application from the perspective of consistency. The Commission recently considered the Jean Nouvel/MoMA building, and despite noting the proposed building's exemplary design and the lasting benefits that this project would generate for landmarks and cultural institutions, it voted to reduce its size due to its impacts on the city skyline and the surrounding neighborhood.

In comparison, the 15 Penn Plaza application wholly lacks the MoMA project's distinguished architectural features, produces no benefits for landmark preservation or cultural access, would have similarly detrimental impacts on neighborhood density and traffic, and would notably diminish, not enhance, the skyline position of its iconic neighbor, the Empire State Building.

Indeed, the proposed buildings would directly obstruct the view of the Empire State Building from the west, thereby fundamentally altering and diminishing New York City's skyline in a way few projects have in decades. Should 15 Penn Plaza not be held to the same standards and criteria as Nouvel/MoMA? "

__________________________________________________________

Letter sent by CB5's Chair Vikki Barbero:

"The ULURP process has ended and the Council has made its final determination. We remain distressed and dismayed, however, by the level of discussion and debate both in the media and at the Council.

The issue before the Council was not principally about women and minority employment, as important as this issue continues to be in all job areas. Yet, if you were present for the Council debate you would have thought it was at the heart of the matter being voted on. The issue before the Council was not about a battle between two major real estate developers, as many press reports made it out.
The issue before the Council was not about the need to foster jobs during this bad economic climate, for even the developer admits they won't be building for years to come. Yet, a number of our political leaders used that bogus argument as an excuse to support the project.
And the issue before the Council was certainly not about sticking it to the Empire State Building because it failed to light up for Mother Teresa.
The issue before the City and the Council was, in fact, about far more than just one project on one block of midtown Manhattan. It was about giving strategic and prudent oversight to a section of our city - the area around Penn Station - that is about to undergo significant change.
The City has created the Moynihan Station sub-district precisely because this area of midtown is poised for major development -- and the City has a responsibility to prepare for it, to be thoughtful about it, and to set the parameters for it.
One development should not be permitted to set a bad precedent for the next, as we believe this one does by upzoning an entire block without a rationale and with limited resultant public benefit. A city as dense as ours, with so many competing interests, needs to thoughtfully and inclusively plan for its future and not let one wealthy and powerful developer override that process.
That was the debate that was entirely missing this week both in most of the media and, even worse, at the City Council. We were disheartened and discouraged by its absence."


Credit to Huffington Post for publishing these letters.

CB5 admonishes MBPO and DCP

Sources tell us that CB5 is very unhappy with the decision handed down by the MBPO and DCP and told them so. CB5 states "No such letter was sent. At least not from Community Board Five."


However, CB5 made no secret to their unhappiness during the start of the public hearings of this ULURP project. with a nearly unanimous vote declining the project.

Hotel Penn Demolition Review

Although the CPC hearing is over you can still register your comments before the final decision by the CPC is made. 

Contact the CPC @

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Calendar Information Office - Room 2E
22 Reade Street, New York, N.Y. 10007

Or fax to:
(212)720-3219

Please include the following pieces of information:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• The organization which you represent, and your position, if any;
• Subject and ULURP or CEQR Application #;
• Borough.

Comments will be reviewed until June 7th, 2010

Full details on the EIS is available from:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/env_review/15_penn_plaza.shtml

PUBLIC HEARINGS OF THE FOLLOWING MATTERS TO BE SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010

NOTICE

On Wednesday, May 26, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in Spector Hall, at the Department of City Planning, 22 Reade Street, in Lower Manhattan, a public hearing is being held by the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the above ULURP hearing to receive comments related to the 15 Penn Plaza Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) concerning Amendments to the Zoning Map and the text of the Zoning Resolution (ZR); easement acquisitions; various special permits modifying mandatory District Plan elements as well as height and setback regulations within the Special Midtown District, a floor area bonus in exchange for Subway Station and Rail Mass Transit Facility Improvements, and other related actions, to facilitate the construction of a new commercial office building (known as “15 Penn Plaza”) on the block bounded by Seventh Avenue on the west, Avenue of the Americas on the east, West 33rd Street on the north, and West 32nd and Street on the south (Block 808, Lots 1001 and 1002), located in Manhattan Community District 5.

A letter to Brian Footer requesting a meeting with Ms. Quinn

I sent a letter to Mr Footer requesting a meeting with Ms. Quinn, lets see what happens now.  In the mean time I suggest that anyone wanting to go, contact me and let me know what their schedule is going to be like before we book it so we can organize as many people as possible.


Mr. Footer,

I was directed to you to request a face to face meeting with Council Woman Quinn and my colleges, in regards to the 15 Penn Plaza Project.  If possible please contact me at either this email or the phone number below to discuss a time.  Thank you.


Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation

New York, NY 10001

gregory.jones@savehotelpenn.org
http://www.savehotelpenn.org

CB5 Zoning review resolution

http://www.cb5.org/cb5/resolutions/april_/#15_penn_plaza

Here is the full CB% resolution denying the request to allow the rezoning.  As we know CB5 like most of the groups int he ULURP are only advisory and do not have the final say.  That is left to the NYC Council.

CB5 says NO to re-zoning!

Cb5 final vote to deny Vornado the rezoning, main reason was the greed, of Vornado, they are trying to "sell" the package as the next wave of the transportation hub, however the people are no fools, the supposed upgrade of the MTA is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, turns out Vornado has to upgrade the entrances to the subways anyway with or with out the rezoning, and they were attempting to get a huge re-zoning variance with a 20% bump in the area that they are re-zoning on top of it.  To quote a CB5 member "what they are asking for is way more then what they are offering".  One huge IMO issue that killed it was the fact that they have no tenants slotted for this disaster they call a project, that would even give a reason to ask for all this space.

The vote was 21-0-0-1.

Additional information on the meeting last night.  Below is a list of the companies that were in favor of the proposed plan.

Tri state transportation trust
NYC transit council
34 st partnership
The Penn group
Stonehenge partners
Madison Square Garden Corp
Building trade unions association
Utility union
Real estate board of NY
Newman real estate institute
Chief planner of NJ Transit
Macy's
Columbia university real estate
Durst Residential

Land Use & Zoning

Land Use & Zoning

Kevin Finnegan, Chair
Matthew Schneid, Vice Chair
MEETING CANCELED!!

Reminder for RE-ZONING Review!

The rezoning review board of CB5 for the Hotel Penn, was rescheduled to the April meeting. There is still time to get your speeches together and tell them what you think.



The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:


WEDNESDAY
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm



LOCATION:

Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800



Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:



THURSDAY
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm





LOCATION:

First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003

ULURP Review Process

Below is the step needed for Vornado to rezone and ultimately demolish the hotel.  Since this now goes before the CB5, we are at step 3.


ULURP Review Process

Filing of Application. An applicant must file a standardized Land Use Review Application and all required accompanying documentation with the Department of City Planning (DCP). Copies of all applications and accompanying material are sent to the affected Borough President, Community Board and the City Council within five business days of receipt. If the application involves land in more than one community district it is also sent to the appropriate borough board. The Borough Board is comprised of the Borough President, all Community Board chairs and City Council members within the affected borough.

Certification. DCP is responsible for certifying that the application is complete, and ready for public review through the ULURP process.

An application cannot be certified until DCP determines that the application includes all forms, plans and supporting documents that are necessary to address all issues related to the application. If the particular application is subject to environmental review, a negative declaration or a conditional negative declaration or a notice of completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement must be issued before an application can be certified. There is no mandated time by which this pre-certification review must be completed. The Charter permits applicants or the affected Borough President to appeal to CPC for certification after six months from the date of application submission.
Certified applications are sent within nine days to the affected Community Board, Borough President and the City Council and if appropriate, to the Borough Board.

Community Board Review. Within sixty (60) days of receiving the certified application, the Community Board is required to hold a public hearing and adopt and submit a written recommendation to CPC, the applicant, the Borough President and when appropriate, the Borough Board. The ULURP rules include provisions relating to the notice and conduct of a Community Board public hearing. ULURP provisions also govern the quorum, vote and content for a Community Board recommendation. If a Community Board fails to act within its time limit or waives its right to act, the application proceeds to the next level of review.

Borough President Review. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of a Community Board recommendation, or if the Community Board fails to act, within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the Community Board's review period, the Borough President shall submit a written recommendation to the City Planning Commission. If an application involves land in more than one community district, the Borough Board may (within the Borough President's review period) also review and submit a recommendation to CPC. If the Borough President fails to act within the time limit, the application proceeds to CPC.

City Planning Commission Review. CPC must hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the application within 60 days of the expiration of the Borough President's review period. City Planning Commission hearings are generally held twice a month on Wednesdays in Spector Hall at 22 Reade Street. Adoption of a CPC report approving, modifying or disapproving an application requires an affirmative vote of seven commissioners. If the Borough President has recommended against an application for site selection, disposition of city owned property or acquisition and has recommended an alternative site pursuant to the fair share provisions of the Charter (section 204), then nine affirmative votes are required. CPC then files copies of its decision with the City Council. In most cases, disapproval of an application by CPC is final and terminates ULURP. Disapproved applications for urban renewal plans are subject to Council review. In addition, disapproved applications for special permits, zoning text changes and zoning map changes that the Mayor has certified as necessary are subject to review by the City Council. (Note: No "certificate of necessity" has been issued by any mayor since ULURP went into effect). 
 
City Council Review. The City Council does not automatically review all ULURP actions that are approved by CPC. The Charter requires the Council to review certain actions, some only under special circumstances, and makes provision for the Council to elect to review other actions.

The City Council automatically reviews (Mandatory Review):

• zoning map changes;
• zoning text changes (not subject to ULURP but subject to Charter section 200 and 201);
• housing and urban renewal plans;
• disposition of residential buildings, except to non-profit companies for low-income housing

The Council may elect to review the following by voting to take jurisdiction within 20 days after CPC files its report (Council "call-up"):

- City Map changes;

- maps of subdivisions or plattings;

- zoning special permits;

- revocable consents, franchise RFP’s, and major concessions;

- non-City public improvements;

- sanitary and waterfront landfills;

- disposition of commercial or vacant property;

- disposition of residential buildings to nonprofit companies for low-income housing;

- acquisition of real property; and

- site selection.

Applications disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President (Triple no):

An application which is subject to elective review by the Council, will be reviewed if that application was disapproved by the Community Board and Borough President, was approved or approved with modifications by the City Planning Commission, and the Borough President files an objection to CPC approval with the Council and CPC within 5 days of receipt of CPC's approval.

Within 50 days of receipt of the CPC report on an application that is either subject to mandatory review, is "called-up" by the Council, or is a "triple no" application, the Council must hold a public hearing, and approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the decision of the City Planning Commission.
If, during the course of its 50-day review period, the Council decides it wants to approve an application with a modification, it can do so only by referring the proposed modification back to CPC. CPC must then determine if the modification is of such significance that additional environmental review is necessary or that additional review pursuant to ULURP is required. If CPC determines that additional review is needed, the Council may not adopt the modification. If no additional review is needed, the Council can adopt the application with the modification. When the Council proposes a modification, CPC has 15 days to make its determination and during that period the City Council's 50-day clock is stopped.

A City Council action approving, approving with modifications or disapproving most CPC actions, requires a majority vote of the Council. Urban Renewal Plans that have been disapproved by CPC can only be approved by a 3/4 vote of the Council.

If the Council fails to act within its review period, the Council shall be deemed to have approved the decision of the City Planning Commission.

Mayoral Review. Mayoral approval is not required. A decision by the City Council to approve or disapprove a land use application is considered to be final unless the Mayor elects to veto a Council action within 5 days of the vote. The Council, by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of its decision within 10 days of the veto.

Applications approved by CPC that the Council did not assume jurisdiction or act on within its 50 day review can also be vetoed by the Mayor within 5 days of the expired Council time period. The Council , by a 2/3 vote, can override a Mayor's veto of the CPC decision within ten days of the veto.

---

ULURP graphic:
The ULURP process is graphically shown in a diagram in PDF format (22K).
To view and print the graphic file, you will need the most recent version of the Adobe Acrobat Reader. The pdf file has been optimized for Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0 to save significantly on file size and download time. Earlier versions of the Reader will not view these files correctly. The Adobe Acrobat Reader is available for free downloading.

CB5 Zoning review

The rezoning review board of CB5 for the Hotel Penn, was rescheduled to the April meeting. There is still time to get your speeches together and tell them what you think.

The meeting of the Land Use & Zoning is scheduled for:

WEDNESDAY
April 7, 2010
at 6:00 pm

LOCATION:
Flatiron BID
27 West 24th
Suite 800

Following that there will be a Full Board meeting to approve or disapprove:

THURSDAY
April 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm

LOCATION:
First Alliance Church
127 West 26th St.
buzzer #3003

Hotel Pennsylvania CB5 Review

There's an uncertain amount of time before the CB5 review.  The potential developer currently should be putting together a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), which is a sort of prelude to the ULURP process and which has no official time frame for completion.  Once the DEIS is finished, and then certified by the City Planning Commission, CB5 will have 60 days to hold a public hearing and issue its recommendation on the proposal.

Let's not waste time on this people, let's get the word out now to the CB5 ad let them know where we stand.

CB5 Zoning review

On Wednesday  , November 4, 2009 @ 6pm the CB5 Land Use & Zoning board will be holding the first hearing of the month.  If you care to come down and voice your option about the possible rezoning of the Hotel Pennsylvania, please show up.  It will be held at Flatiron BID, 27 W. 24th, Rm. 800.


Remember this is your neighborhood too!

A letter to Tom Duane

Senator Duane:




Forgive my brief intrusion into your schedule, but if I may take a few minutes of your time today, I wish to ask you if you would lend your political support to a matter that is currently before the NYC Zoning Council.



As you may be aware, the owners of the historical Hotel Pennsylvania have filed with the city paperwork to have the current site of the hotel rezoned. Located partly within a C6-6 zoning district and partly within a C6-4.5 and is also partially located within the Penn Center Sub district of the Special Midtown District.



Vornado wants to rezone the spot to allow the construction of Single Tenant Office Scenario and/or a Multi-Tenant Office Scenario. Either of these scenarios would require the demolition of the Hotel Pennsylvania.



Numerous RFE have been submitted to the LPC, with the majority backing of CB5, as well as the HDC, and Assemblyman Gottfried. So far all have been denied for consideration. To sum it up Senator, this hotel should have been preserved years ago when the original Pennsylvania Station was demolished back in the mid 1960's. I ask that you please lend your support to aid us and help by letting the city council know that we the citizens do care about our neighborhood, and the Hotel.



Senator I thank you for your time, and hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,



Gregory Jones
Save The Hotel Pennsylvania Foundation
gregory.jones@savehotelpenn.org
http://www.savehotelpenn.org/

The City Review

A wonderful article written back in November of 2007, by Carter Horsley

http://www.thecityreview.com/hotelpenn.html

Election Year

Well the primaries are over, and we now know who will be running for office against the incumbent politicians. Running against Christine Quinn will be Yetta Kurland and Maria Passannante Derr. We will be closely watching both of these candidates. As you know Ms Quinn represents the districts that the Hotel Pennsylvania resides in. This is a crucial position to hold, and a key to the Hotel Pennsylvania getting the recognition that it deserves. If you want to assist us in contacting these candidates, Maria Passannante can be reached via her website http://www.voteformaria.com/contact and Yetta Kurland at http://yettakurland.com/contact.

If you contact these candidates please send us a copy so we can publish it.

CB5 Resolution, November 2007

Two years ago we went through the grueling process of rying to get the Hotel Pennsylvania land-marked, below is the resolution from the local community board (CB5), back from November 2007.


Hotel Pennsylvania designation.

WHEREAS, On Tuesday October 2, 2007, concerned members of the public appeared before Community Board Five at our Landmarks Committee meeting seeking support in the effort to designate as an individual landmark the building at 401 Seventh Avenue, located between West 32nd and West 33rd Streets, known as the Hotel Pennsylvania; and

WHEREAS, A subcommittee was formed in order to research and evaluate the history and worthiness of the building, and the potential to designate this as a historic landmark, so that this could be reported back to the committee at our meeting on Tuesday October 30, 2007; and

WHEREAS, In 1917, the prominent architectural firm of McKim Mead & White was commissioned to design and construct a hotel to accommodate the passengers of the Pennsylvania Railroad; and

WHEREAS, The firm of McKim Mead & White is credited as the creator of such renowned architecture as the Washington Square Arch (1889), the second Madison Square Garden, at Madison Square (1890), the Cable Building at 611 Broadway (1892), the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University (1893), the Bowery Savings Bank’s first headquarters (1893), the New York Herald Building (1894), the University Club (1899), the Pierpont Morgan Library (1903), the Manhattan Municipal Building (1909-1915), the Metropolitan Museum of Art (1911), the James A. Farley Building – New York City’s General Post Office, (1912-1914) and New York’s Pennsylvania Station, constructed between 1904 through 1910; and

WHEREAS, Despite being known for its Beaux Arts architecture at the turn of the 20th century, the firm remained active into the 1960's, long after the founders had passed away, one of their last works being the design of the prominent National Museum of American History in Washington DC, which opened in 1964; and

WHEREAS, The chief designer of the hotel is the architect William Symmes Richardson, who also helped design the Pennsylvania Station, as well as the National City Bank Building in New York, the Girard Trust Company Building in Philadelphia and the Bank of Montreal, Canada. Mr. Richardson had joined the firm of McKim Mead & White in 1906, and remained a working architect until about 1925; and

WHEREAS, The renowned hotelier Ellsworth Statler – who was later named by the American Hotel Association as “Hotel Man of the Century” – was contracted to manage this property. When The Statler Hotel Pennsylvania opened its doors in 1919, it was considered to be the largest hotel in the world. The original hotel had 2,200 bathrooms, 3,537 beds and the world’s first “high rise” elevators. Statler remained involved with the hotel for many years and eventually purchased this altogether in 1949; and

WHEREAS, Through the 1930's and 1940's the hotel’s Café Rouge was considered to be one of the most popular nightclubs in New York. Among the big bands that performed here were Duke Ellington, Count Basie, the Dorsey Brothers, and most notably the Glenn Miller Orchestra. The hotel’s phone number, Pennsylvania 6-5000, is immortalized in their hit tune, and is New York’s longest continually used telephone number. It remains the same to this day; and

WHEREAS, After 1954, when the Statler Company merged into Hilton Hotel Corporation, the property has had several owners, and several names. Statler’s name remained on the hotel until 1983, when this was renamed The New York Penta Hotel. The original historic name Hotel Pennsylvania reappeared in the 1990's; and

WHEREAS, There has been restorative work performed to the hotel in the mid 1980's and at the early part of this century; and

WHEREAS, Hotel Pennsylvania is bounded on the west by Seventh Avenue and on the north and south by West 33rd Street and West 32nd Street respectively. The building was erected on a site measuring 200’ X 400’. There are 22 floors from street level to roof, including three levels in the penthouse. On the ground floor there are lobby entrances from West 32nd Street and West 33rd Streets to the lobby, and a ballroom entrance on West 33rd Street; and

WHEREAS, The base of the building is constructed of Indiana Limestone with Milford Pink Granite at the grade levels. Much of this has been painted over. The rusticated stone façade is punctuated by a series of pilasters, the predominant number of these having scrolled capitals. At the Seventh Avenue entrance to the hotel, there are six massive stone columns capped by an ornate stone balustrade; and

WHEREAS, In between the windows of the first two floors there are several Rosso Levanto Marble decorative spandrels, many of the third floor windows appear to be original, with ornamental metal framing, six paned over six, in matching pairs. Windows from the fourth floor and above are predominantly one over one, there is stone dentil course between floors three and four; and

WHEREAS, Above the fourth floor there is a pronounced setback in the overall structure. Rising from the limestone base, the majority of the building is constructed of tan colored brick. At West 32nd Street, the building forms four individual towers partially conjoined at the building’s center. These were constructed to maximize the exposure to sunlight and airflow. At West 33rd Street the two central towers are fully conjoined; and

WHEREAS, The façades above the 17th Floor are heavily ornamented in stone and terra cotta, including fluted pilasters and a massive ornamental limestone cornice. The penthouse structures above appear to be habitable space at the Seventh Avenue side of the building, and for mechanical usage at the east; and

WHEREAS, As it is today, boasting 1,700 hotel rooms and approximately 500,000 square feet, Hotel Pennsylvania is New York’s fourth largest hotel; and

WHEREAS, In 1998 Vornado Realty Trust entered into an agreement to increase its interest in the Hotel Pennsylvania from 40% to 80, and then in 1999, by acquiring Planet Hollywood International’s 20% interest in the hotel, Vornado owned this outright, and in connection with the 1999 transaction, Vornado also terminated the licensing agreement with Planet Hollywood for an Official All-Star Hotel; and

WHEREAS, Demolition plans have been announced for the hotel and a 2,500,000 square foot office tower will be built by 2011 on its site, a building of this size would have significantly more square footage than The Empire State Building, although this may not be as tall; and

WHEREAS, Upon evaluation of the information pertaining to the architecture and rich cultural history of the hotel, during Community Board Five’s October 30th Landmarks Committee meeting, the subcommittee voiced opinions both in favor and against designation; and

WHEREAS, After hearing opinions both in favor and against designation, the committee voted to recommend in favor; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That Community Board Five strongly RECOMMENDS DESIGNATION as an individual landmark, the building at 401 Seventh Avenue, known as the Hotel Pennsylvania.

The above resolution passed by a vote of 21 in favor; 8 opposed; 1 abstention, 2 present not entitled to vote.