Transcripts For CSPAN3 New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission 20240622

I hope you will go see that exhibition. Andrew dolkart is the curator for that exhibition, and he has a very long history with new york city landmarks and architectural history. I think this has gone off now, has it . All right. Andrew is a good friend of longstanding, we like to say, rather than old friend, but we do go way that. This is one more lecture at the Skyscraper Museum, which has been going on in a relationship now for probably nearly the 17 years since the museum was started. Andrew is always there when you call on him to talk about new york city history or speak about yet another of his new books and new publications. He is an exemplary historian and someone who has a long and deep history with new york city landmarks, having worked in his youth at the commission on the , having been a consultant to them, having written many a designation thert, having authored first guidebook to new york city years now and in the since he has been at columbia, heading the historic theervation program at graduate school of architecture, planning, and preservation. He has been a friend and colleague of everyone who cares about the history of new york and the history of architecture. Indeed, tonight, were celebrating the history of architecture as part of american architecture because we are being filmed here for cspan American History channel. Im going to remind you that when we come to the questionandanswer session, youre going to use this phone in my hand in order to project your important questions. Andrew will talk about half an hour, and he has named his remarks framed his remarks around the history of the skyscraper in landmarks preservation, and a special project that he will talk about that he would rather rediscover and offered up and special drawings. They marked an importance in their association with Grand Central, mark a very important point in history of the legal decision that withheld preservations, not just in new york city, but in america through a Supreme Court case. Im going to let andrew tell you about that history. Ere is Andrew Dolkart [applause] its always a pleasure to be here. As carol noted, this is the 50th law,ersary of the landmark and im sure all of you know that, and that i am the cocurator of the exhibit called saving place 50 years of new york city landmarks. As carol mentioned, the show is supposed to close the second week in september. Actually, the show has been extended through the end of the year, but i highly recommend you go before september 13 because a lot of the architectural drawings are probably going to disappear after that date because a lot of archives are not going to extend the loan. Because of light, they cannot be on view for too long. If you have not seen the show, go before the second week in september. When carol asked me to speak about the exhibition in the it isi hesitated because not specifically a skyscraper story, and i wanted to make the talk sort of sitespecific, so i talked to carol about this and thought about what i could talk about. There are two issues i will talk about this evening that deal with skyscrapers. Thereshe topic the exhibit. And theres the book. I think we will go back to the exhibit. The exhibit was designed by the same firm that designs a lot of the exhibits here by wendy evans joseph, so theres a good connection between this exhibit and Skyscraper Museum exhibit. There are two things i want to talk about. What is the issue of when the Landmarks Commission designates the earlycially in years. This is something i talk about in my essay in the book. It is something i became very interested in, wondering about what the commission did once it was a Landmarks Commission. A landes it mean to have marks commission . The other thing i want to talk about is Grand Central. Have four drawings for the towers proposed on top of Grand Central, and i dont think they i dont think they have been on view since the days of the hearing. It was interesting to see what breuer was proposing. He actually proposed three schemes. Most people are 10 to new york city most people attuned to new york city preservation are familiar with the decision to reject the penn central corporations plan to build a tower designed by breuer on top of Grand Central, but thats about all people know. Story i did not fully understand the story, so im going to share with you a little bit about what happened there. On april 19, 1965, mayor Robert Wagner junior signed a law that created the new york city landmarks preservation commission, but what did this mean . The rule was passed in response to citizen lobbying, especially in Brooklyn Heights and greenwich village, and the demolition of many important links, among them, of course, othertation, but also buildings that might be less well known. The Brooklyn Savings Bank in Brooklyn Heights, one of my favorite lost buildings in new york, and the brokaw houses, which were demolished during landmarks week in new york. They are the building that was the catalyst to get Robert Wagner to get the idea of a cityarks law off to the council. We only to the loss of the brokaw houses on fifth avenue and 79th street for getting the law passed. Of course, many other buildings were in danger. The new commission were empowered to designate the exterior of and it was told buildings that were at least 30 and also to designate historic districts that had a sense of place. By september 1960 five, a commission had been established. There was a chair, there were commissioners, and there was a small staff that had been a civil, but now, what would they do . I think this is a question that in hindsight we have ailed to ask what did it mean to have a Landmarks Commission in new york . This was a novel idea. What would they designate . The citys most famous and most wellknown buildings . With a dive right in and designate buildings that were endangered, or would they be careful about the fragile legal basis for the new law and only designate safe buildings that have owner support . The first thing was to figure out what constituted a landmark. Fortunately, architectural historians had been compiling lists for quite a long time, at least since the late 1940s, so of potentialsts landmarks. These survive, and if you read through them, and they were put together almost entirely by architectural historians, they are either buildings of architectural interest or buildings that are very old. Those seem to be the criteria architectural distinction and serious age. So what would the commission do when it now had the power . I was surprised by what i found out and i began looking at early designation calendars. As i think most people do, that early designations would include renowned buildings such as city hall, Grand Central, the stock the Woolworth Building, the Chrysler Building, the empire state hoping these are things that i think most of us assume would have been the landmarks, that may be the Chrysler Building would have in landmark number one, but this was not the case at all. None of these buildings were among the first buildings designated. The Empire State Building had to wait until mike and 81. The Woolworth Building atomic and the Stock Exchange until 1985. Although the new commission was clearly aware that the constitutionality of a law such as that in new york had yet to be tested in court, they actually plunged right in and endangered buildings. Indeed, the first public hearing, every single building that was on that, and there was endangered in one way or another. Ome were endangered by neglect the Peter Klassen wyckoff house was still in private hands. Can see, this is a photograph that was taken by John Barrington bailey, who was commissioned to photograph potential landmarks, so this is just before the public hearing. You can see the building is in pretty terrible condition, and on a road, so the road could have been cut through at any time. Know this beloved lead mark has been beautifully restored, but it was a complete wreck. They stepped in to deal with these endangered buildings. By himre endangered pending vacancies. The customhouse was about to be abandoned as the Customer Service moved to the world trade center. That is the commandants house, which was about to be abandoned by the navy, and the future of its Historic Buildings were unknown. This was also threatening to move out of new york. So they looked at buildings that were endangered because they were soon going to be vacated, and also, they looked at buildings that were about to be demolished. All or of these had been sold to developers, and all of them had designs that were going to replace the buildings all 4 of these had been sold to developers. Jerome mansion on the bottom left had been sold for office construction, and the Metropolitan Opera House also for thece construction garment district. All of these buildings were endangered in one way or another, and all of them were part of the first public hearings. There was strong opposition to some of these designations. Interestingly, theres not a lot of news about what actually happened at that first public hearing because it took place during a newspaper strike, but fortunately, margo gale, who won many of you will know was one of the great preservationists, was at the hearing and wrote up what transpired during that day. She did not cover every single building, but she did give a sense of the tenor of that public hearing, so there was a lot of opposition, especially among the new owners of these buildings. Designated. M were of course, this is now the brotherhood synagogue, and the astra library is now the Public Theater. , the landmarks considered its first victory joseph caps announcement that the library for the Public Theater because land marking was not only about designating buildings but about saving buildings, finding uses for them. The jerome mansion was designated as well, but in the law, if you could not make a 6 return on investment, you can apply for hardship. They applied for it. They received it. The city had a year to find a new owner. They failed, and it was demolished, and the Metropolitan Opera House was never designated. It was the one building from the first series that they voted not to designate. I think it was partly because it was the forces that were Building Lincoln Center that were opposed to saving the metropolitan opera. Similarly with carnegie hall, how could we possibly support more than one opera house in new york . The rockefellers and other powerful people that were supporting Lincoln Center were opposed to this, but also nevere the exterior was considered a great, beautiful thing, and it was the interior that was considered spectacular, and the commission did not at that time have the right to designate interiors. The metropolitan opera was lost. So what about skyscrapers . None were considered in the first public hearing. The architectural historians were interested in tall hearings. At least to an extent. All this list making culminated in a book called new york landmarks that was written by alan burnham, who would later become a key member of the commission staff. In that book, he included about two doesnt skyscrapers among the list of where the buildings. The list included traditionally styled skyscrapers such as the Woolworth Building and the municipal building, which you see here. It also included buildings that advanced european modern these. Ic like conspicuously absent from this list with the citys early skyscrapers from the 1870s through about 1900 with their traditional facades, which have long been denigrated by architectural historians in favor of the chicago building that more clearly reflected their innovative structure. None of these buildings in fact, the tribune building was lost after the Landmarks Commission was established. Indeed, the only skyscraper from the late 19th century that made building butthe chicago architect louis sullivan. Also missing were the high art deco buildings such as the chrysler and Empire State Buildings, as these buildings were intensely disliked by sophisticated historians and critics, including those people that were involved with the len mark commission. It was not until 20 years later got a younger Commission Interested in art deco. In a Second Public hearing held in october 1965, the commission considered 70 buildings in lower manhattan, three of which were tall Office Buildings. Or theskyscraper first steel framed Office Building to be designated was the new york evening post building, and odd choice, as it is not a very wellknown building. It is an example of the commission heavily weighted to architectural historians choosing a building for its sophisticated architectural value and designating it even over the opposition of its owner. Ironically, this would later become the home of Landmarks Commission. When i worked for landmarks, i work here in this building i worked here in this building. This was the first building you could argue was a skyscraper to be designated. It was followed in february 1966 by the municipal building, which we saw before. That was also heard at the Second Public hearing. The third skyscraper that was heard at the Second Public building,s the louis which probably holds the record for the building that had the largest number of public hearings. It just kept on coming back and coming back and coming back, and the owners kept on being opposed, and landmarks kept on holding new public hearings until finally in the 1980s, they designated it, but they did not designate it in its early years. Its here i think that the commission was reticent to designate over powerful owner opposition. The woolworth tilting and other major skyscrapers were not in danger of demolition, so the commission chose not to deal with them because there was opposition. The law was still on constitutional grounds, so they simply ignored most of these buildings. The only other skyscraper that the Landmarks Commission designated in its early years was the flatiron building. Otherwise, they basically were , publicd houses institutional buildings, churches, Upper East Side town buildings, and not skyscrapers. The one exception to what ive said is the Singer Building. Although in his book, alan burnham did recommend the Singer Building as worthy of preservation when it was actually threatened with demolition, the commission did not act. In 1967, demolition began on the Singer Building. That you can have a lead marks commission, but it will never save everything. While the commission would step in to designate and hopefully save more buildings, when it came to a building on the scale of the Singer Building, the commission refused to act. Alan burnham noted that if the building were made a landmark, we would have to find a buyer for it or the city would have to acquire it. The city is not that wealthy and the commission does not have a big enough step to be a Real Estate Broker for a skyscraper. Hes referring to the hardship provision of the law, which meant that once the owner approved the hardship, the city had a year to find another buyer to become a real estate operator or acquire the building itself. Theyve already lost on one hardship application, and they were not going to do this again. They knew that they would have trouble finding a buyer. Thise argued often that building was built as an advertisement for singer and the floors were so small they were never economically viable. They were tiny. So who was going to acquire a building like this . In general, skyscrapers were not a priority until the 1980s and 1990s when the commission began to catch up. The greate rate art deco towers and early skyscrapers in their park row as well as masterpieces elsewhere in the city, although i have to say it was not until 2011 that the gray City Services building finally became a landmark. It took a long time to catch up with a major buildings in new york. By now, most of the great prewar skyscrapers are designated landmarks and even a few postwar masterpieces have been designated. Most of the great commercial skyscrapers were designated after the Supreme Court upheld the designation in 1978. This decision, which gave firm constitutional basis for than marking as with any jurisdictions zoning powers, made it easy for the commission to designate buildings over owner opposition. Many people have noted that the commission was quite cautious in his early years about what battles to fight. As we have seen with the Singer Building, they chose not to fight some issues at all. The of the seaw designated several dozen important skyscrapers, so lets look at the important issues. The exterior of Grand Central terminal was designated a landmark on august 2, 1967, so thats two years after the commission was established. That was shocking to recents penn station was such an important aspect of the reason why the commission was established. I would have assumed Grand Central would have been done right away. This was done just months before the first public announcement before the new York Central Railroad was seeking proposals to build an Office Building atop the terminal. I cannot help believe that the commission knew that this was about to happen, and thats why they actually heard Grand Central when they did. The initial announcement as reported in the New York Times notes that the idea had been broached with landmarks and the reception had not been hostile. But the saga really begins in june 1968 when british developer and his Union General Properties Company announced their plan for an architects 55story concrete and granite slab to be erected on top of the building. Abovewer would be floated the waiting room. He claimed it would provide the calm background for the landmark facade of the terminal and that it would work because there would be no visual because there would be a visual separation between the terminal and the new building. Here is the initial proposal. You can see it is floated above, so it saves the facade. It is separated, so thats the idea of it floating. This is the image that was in the New York Times on the day of. He announcement this is a design for the new storefront. The tower would be anchored into the waiting room of the terminal, which would be destroyed, but as a tradeoff, the concourse, which was deteriorated and covered in advertising signage many of you remember, it was not so long ago that they actually took it down that the concourse would be restored. I have to ask and the fact that interiors could not yet be landmarks, so only the exterior of Grand Central was a landmark at that time. Now, of course, the interior is a landmark as well. Changes were also opposed to the ground floor storefront that would now be the entrance to the tower, and that is what the bottom right hand drawing is. Expensive inwas an generic Tour De Force with a central core in the waiting room supporting the tower. Thanugh 4 stories shorter the pan am building, it would , since itst taller ground floor was 188 feet above the street. Competitione was between breuer and the designer of the pan am building. Reading into it, breuer what had just loved the fact that it was basically blocking the pan am building. You can see here is the juxtaposition between this, the pan am building, and there is breuers building. These are among a group of job drawing set Syracuse University these are among a group of drawings at Syracuse University. ,hen i contacted the archivist they had discovered nine. Rawings these other drawings that came before landmarks that i dont think have ever been seen before, one or two of them have been published. Theres another one you will see that has been published, but most of the others have not been. Opposition to this proposal was immediate. The article quotes donald elliott, the mayors city planning chair, saying that its the wrong building in the wrong place at the wrong time. Although there were substantial concerns about congestion in the subway and on the street, these are issues that we are hearing now about the Grand Central area, too, so a lot of this is so interesting because its the same arguments we are hearing now about the building on the corner of 42nd street and. Anderbilt avenue these issues just come back again and again and again. Although there were substantial concerns about congestion in the subway and on the street, city planning had no jurisdiction over the project because it was, as we would say today, as of right, sue city planning could say whatever they wanted, and they were actually quite vocal, but they had no say. Only the Landmarks Commission had a say in the project. The same day of the announcement, it is Louise Huxtable published a very thoughtful piece for the New York Times. The issuesclosely at of high land value and how this would impact on the character of the city. In a particularly pressing of passage, she noted that if the air over Grand Central terminal were not worth several hundred Million Dollars in rights and income over the next 50 years, there would be no Grand Central tower project. That solid gold air is there to stay, and if its superheated values continue to rise as anticipated in the coming halfcentury, manhattan could someday replace fort knox. We have not quite reached 50 years yet, but we know these values have then rising and rising and rising. Appreciated that was she said was the technical him on of the building and a certain swap is to the design, but old the it was seen as a shotgun wedding and what she called a. Rotesquerie give a grotesquerie to a good architect, she wrote, and you will get a better grotesquerie, like a better mousetrap. Mr. Breuer has done an excellent job with a dubious undertaking, which is like saying it would be great if it were not awful. In later commentary, huxtable herme much more vehement in opposition to the proposal. She said that in hindsight a few years later, she wrote that in hindsight, she found the proposal monstrous. A times editorial on the same day proposed that the proposal was announced, possibly also written by huxtable, states that as architecture of the new tower soaring over the classical terminal like a skyscraper on a base of french pastry has the bizarre quality of a nightmare. A food analogy also appeared in a talk of the town piece in the refers to theat building as an elongated meat standing on a prune souffle. This is interesting because i what know if anybody knows a prune souffle is. The writer thought the project would be impossible to stop. Its interesting that the writer thought it would be impossible to stop this project, noting that their small hope that they would be any immediate reversal of the attitude now prevalent among urban officials that the right of real estate owners to make money when coupled with architectural and engineering genius outweighs the right of City Residents and workers not. O be driven batty ironically, the design was made public only a week before breuer medal, itse aia gold highest honor. He was so excepted in the field that few artists would criticize the design on record, although a times piece noted many had resignations. Only philip johnson, of course, would go public, stating that hiring a very great architect to design the building is not enough justification to build it in the first place. Not only was there opposition in the press, but it was clear that the Lindsay Administration was proposed was opposed. Public opposition gave cover to the Landmarks Commissions decision. In july 19 68, developers of the tower requested a certificate of no exterior effect from the Landmarks Commission. You need to understand a little bit about landmarks permitting. It gives out three kind of permits the easiest permit to get is a certificate of no exterior effect, which means basically that what you are going to do is going to have absolutely no impact on the designated exterior of a building. Then they can give a certificate for minor work, which is if you want to repair your stoop, or you can go for a public hearing and get a certificate of appropriateness. It took a lot of huts but, i and developerser to ask for a certificate of no exterior effect for this building it took a lot of chutzpah. In april 1968. Ed the developer said this was outrageous. . W could they do this because they were preserving the exterior. One of the things that was most interesting because it is early in their history, and i dont think people fully understood what a landmark designation meant. Because glenn collins, who wrote most of the pieces in the New York Times about this kept on referring to the fact that landmarks was concerned with saving the facade, and that was it, and not the three dimensionality of the building. If we take that reasoning that once landmarks doesnt nate said building only the facade is designated, then i guess this has no exterior effect, although it certainly did down here. Commissiondmarks felt that it was regulating the threedimensional form of the building, so they rejected it. In april 1969, a public hearing was scheduled that would include the original proposal, plus an alternative plan, arguing rather disingenuously, i believe, that they had rejected the initial proposal, which was not true. They had just rejected it as a certificate of no effect. Presented an alternative which obliterated the front facade of the building. As you can see here, it saves the concourse and completely obliterates the front. , alwayss, said breuer questions in the minds of informed people as to if the exterior of Grand Central terminal is worth preserving. I always wondered who these informed people are, but this keeps coming back, as we will see when it goes to the court. One of the arguments they used was that informed people thought the building was not worthy of landmark designation. Was optimistic about his new design. He was in europe and sent a cable to his office that said, im sure we can win with second project. At the Second Public hearing, he presented his cheetah proposals. The one we just and that second. The council threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the law if one of these was not approved. At the hearing, i am pay i. M. Pei and the president of the History Museum spoke in favor. In her commentary about the hearing, huxtable analyzed the problem that the city faced if it sought to get what it wanted in Grand Central, seeing how rejecting the tower proposal would be, as she said, the big gamble because if they were going to reject this, there was clearly going to be a lawsuit, and the city could lose the Landmarks Commission entirely. Meanwhile, it was clear that things were not going well for the Development Team kept on asking for delays in making a decision, and they came up with what is often. Eferred to as breuer 2b this is very confusing because people have not understood the order. This is 2a and this is 2b over here. You can see it got rid of these supports over here and creates a somewhat more traditional entrance to the building. So now we have three designs altogether. Finally, on august 20 61969, the commission unanimously rejected all the proposals, saying that to protect a landmark, one does not tear it down. To protect its architectural features, one does not strip them off. Soon after the commission s design, Ther Commission filed suit against the city, claiming that the landmark designation was the taking of their property and the quality of the building was also highly debatable. The case was heard in new yorks Supreme Court, the states lowest level of court, before Justice Irving stapled. There were many delays as the owners of the city negotiated developments. Anally, in november 1974, critic for the New York Post announced that a decision was coming soon and that the new was considering withdrawing from the suit and permitting the skyscraper to be built under the condition that the owners monetary damages that they were threatening the city with, 5 million and 8 million a year, would be canceled. He did not rule on the constitutionality of the landmark law. It was only very specific to this one issue. The administration hesitated to appeal the case and was considering dedesignating the terminal, but kent barwick organized the Municipal Art Society to oppose the designation. Jackie onassis called barwick and offered her assistance, and she came to a meeting with mayor bm when she told the mayor how much her husband had loved the building. And roberta things this had a lot to do with the change of heart finally, he agreed to appeal the case, and it went before the appellate. Ivision in 1977, the case moved to the court of appeals in albany. By this time, the proponents of landmark in understood the value of celebrities at a public event. A rally was held at grand with the mayor was joined by Jackie Onassis and a group of broadway performers. The court of appeals unanimously upheld the designation of Grand Central and issued a braun decision that placed landmark designation on par with zoning regulations. Then, of course, it went to the Supreme Court, preceded, of yours, by the even more famous rally and train ride to washington, which you can see here. There is Jackie Onassis speaking at the rally. Its mondales wife, whose name i have now forgotten. With a cake in the form of Grand Central. This all culminated on june 6, 1978, with a Court Decision which provided a firm base for constitutional preservation. We have the decision signed by the justice who wrote the decision at the exhibit. The issue of air over low scale landmarks has been warned that has been recurrent at the Landmarks Commission. Over the years, proposals have been considered and rejected for towers above landmarks including a proposal for the New York Historical society we are reading left to right the Metropolitan Club, the billing on madison avenue, and the film associates plan for Saint Bartholomews Church on park avenue. Some are not very good architecture, and some are ok, this design taken all by itself is a really beautiful building, but the question was did it belong on the roof of the Metropolitan Club . This is, of course, still a significant issue since air is even more valuable than huxtable imagined in her 1968 column. Just last week, a Permanent Real Estate lawyer, whom i often chat with about preservation and development issues, the mode the fact that preservation advocates to the issue. D skyscrapers have played a key role in the history of the landmarks preservation commission. Many are now revered city landmarks, and im sure some of the more recent towers will, some decades from now, be considered for such designation as well, so thank you. [applause] i am, of course, happy to answer questions, but you have to wait for the microphone to ask your question. Questions . Are there at the beginning, you intimated i think you might have even stated that the Landmarks Commission was struggling with skyscrapers. Aey actually seemed to have bias towards older buildings that have certain characteristics. After the Singer Building came down, do you think that impacted things at all . Mr. Dolkart i dont think it did because they still did not do many skyscrapers. It was shocking how few skyscrapers were done. Theres an incredible imbalance. As such ank of them key element that they would be the first things people would look at because that was so characteristic of what makes new york, but it was not something that they considered, and i think partly and its an instinct i have but have no way of proving that its generational. The leaders of the commission were born in the early 20th century. They grew up as skyscrapers were rising. They were not something they were interested in. Were nott skyscrapers designed by the most prestigious architects. People that they were when vernon was interested in it was buildings like the daily news buildings and the mcgrawhill building. Although how many did they designate before Grand Central and the huge push, a new generation comes in, and lots more skyscrapers get designated. Might add to that from my own experience, and i believe its generational because im of that in the art history and architectural history field advocated for skyscrapers, that became interested in skyscrapers, and my professor was the one who did deco. Rst book on art that was the graduate symposium at columbia, was the first time anyone ever took do commercial skyscrapers, and were really not considered a legitimate area for study at columbia art history at the time that i was just beginning studies. Of differentcates building typologies in order to include them in the history. And rosemarys book on art deco is still one of the best. A similar story can be told that it was not until sarah landau comes along and starts doing research, she puts them on par and in some cases even as more significant than the chicago skyscrapers. Ms. Willis apropos to the orthodoxy of modernism, as they shows that there was a large constituency within the field of architecture and planning for modern slabs like defined a promethean sensibility as well, what was highvalue architecture, high style architecture, so new york buildings did not all within that definition. What was the legal justification at all given to landmark somebodies private . Operty this is my property, hardship or not, i mean, you do not tell me what to do with my private property. Its like ted turner said about colorization i own the film. Mr. Dolkart partly as the bard act which was passed in the 1950s, which gave local communities the right to designate private property, gave them the right to form landmark commissions that would designate. The courts relied very heavily on their precedent that allowed. Oning they saw this within the zoning power of the city, and that as long as you could use the building as it was intended to be used or make a 6 return on your investment, which is within the law, which the law specifically states. When they wrote the law, they noted that you had to be able to make a return on the building, so that because of that, they said it was not a taking, and if you could not make that return, then you could apply for hardship. There have been a few hardship cases. The jerome mansion. A synagogue on west 79th street that was heard after it was sold to a developer, and maybe two or three other hardship cases. It was because there was an economic out in the law and it was part of the zoning that the courts found it legal. I might make another admission something ive been very interested in a distinction between zoning and land marking in terms of municipal regulation in new york and generally nationally is the difference between public good and public toety, and zoning was really protect Public Safety when it was first established, to protect light and air on the street, protect against panic in the street in fires through density issues. The idea of Public Safety is something that protects life and isb, whereas public good something that enhances the experience of the city, and i think landmarks is much closer or it is entirely based on public good, which really does not have a precedent in municipal regulation. I think it is very significant because of that and much undervalued in that distinction. Good point. If you would, just give us a when wasreference leave her house resignation, when was the seaver building designated . Seagram was designated exactly when it turned 30 years old, so that. Ould make it about 1988 i may be off by a year or two. And lever had been done about it year or two before that. The major monuments. They more recently did chase lastand just within the year, they did the old marie midland bank. And the old pepsi building on park avenue, but they have not really gone beyond that. Theres a lot of effort to get the old human carbide building with thevenue done, chief architect was a woman, whose name i usually remember and have now forgotten. Natalie to walk natalie dubois. If thereght given to are other modern buildings that are worthy of being done. The great monuments of modernism, most of them have been designated. The sukkot immobile building was done on the exterior. [indiscernible] mr. Dolkart all of rockefeller later was done in the 1980s, i think. And the ge building . The ge building also in the 1980s. The ge building is a landmark. Your comment about the Singer Building as being not usable commercially because you had two small footprint struck my ear with horrible irony of the repurpose thing of that kind of thing happening to the Woolworth Building now. Had it survived, had it been applied to the Singer Building, which would have had magnificent mr. Dolkart im sure it could have. [indiscernible] had a survived long enough to be repurposed. Sure it couldm have been repurposed from our perspective today, but nobody was thinking about that then. Living downtown . No, not at that time. Nobody would have even imagined that, unless you were an artist. Iving in a loft nobody would live down here. Im a fan of a little building on queens boulevard in elmhurst. It was designated as a landmark in 2005. Then it was overturned by the city council. Is there any process for reconsideration . Interestingreally issue because the Jamaica Savings Bank building on queens boulevard, which is a very hunky very funky, kind of vernacular modern building was turned back by the city council, and it is an issue of education because when it was turned back, what if the city councilmembers one of the City Council Members said, bring us buildings that look like landmarks. Modern buildings did not have a lot of ornament so they could not possibly be landmarks. Serious a really problem with modern buildings. It could be heard again. The Jamaica Savings Bank in jamaica, the old 20th century, they think was turned back twice by the city council before it was designated it could be heard again and designated. Send in a letter to the Landmarks Commission. Lets see what happens. The building is pristine. Its beautiful. They redid the whole thing. Its nice. Ms. Willis other questions . Ill ask about an endorsement for another skyscraper that needs to be protected. You mentioned it at the end of your essay in the book. The Shelton Hotel. The Shelton Hotel is the most conspicuous prewar skyscraper that is not designated, and i dont understand why. Theres no building that was considered more important in the history of zoning them the Shelton Hotel, which was generally considered the first building to use the zoning law in an expressive manner, and its now a Marriott Marquis or something. It is a beautiful building and so important in the history of zoning and skyscraper design. Also, it was home to georgia okeefe who loved the building and painted it several times. There are a number of really that she did. S unfortunately, none of her urban skyscraper paintings, which i think are her best work they are all places like lincoln, nebraska, and arkansas, or whatever. Ms. Willis lets carry the flag forward for the Shelton Hotel and all new york landmarks, and thank andrew. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] wind, water, books, and pretzels. This week on first ladies, we learn about ellen and edith wilson. Ellen wilson oversaw the andtion of the rose garden improved Housing Conditions for the poor in washington, d. C. After a year and a half serving as first lady, she falls gravely ill and passed away. President Woodrow Wilson marries it is wilson, and he suffers from a stroke, making her primary role as first lady his companion and later guardian. She also became the first first lady to travel to europe. Ellen and edith wilson this cspansght on original series, first ladies influence and image, examining the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. Sundays at 8 00 p. M. Eastern, American History tv on cspan3