i
am confronted with a dilemma. GTS (General Theological Seminary) is
facing severe financial issues – i think i’ve mentioned that before on
here. we also have a very serious architectural maintenance problem with
the building that houses our administration and library facilities. built
in 1960, the building is not only undistinguished, but it is of that sad
architectural trend towards flat roofs (which leak badly) and the awful
acoustical tile dropped ceilings that sag and fall as a result of those leaks.
even where there are ‘real’ ceilings in that building, due to the moisture and
settling, the paint is falling off the ceilings. in the library where i
did all that research, the 4th floor where i was ‘living’ is a disaster zone,
with buckets and pails out to catch water from the ceilings which are also
dripping on these old volumes. obviously, we need a new building.
so,
there apparently have been several conversations over 8 years with the local
community board and with architects to come up with a design that fits in with the neighborhood, since Chelsea is an historic district and GTS has been designated an historical landmark. the zoning regs for our historic district require that new construction be no more than 75feet high, and be in character (materials as well as design) with the surrounding buildings.
so tonight i went to a community board meeting at the request of the seminary to show support for their building proposal. my dilemma is > i agree with the community. the design plan is fugly, an all glass and brick tower that is two times the legal height limit. not only does it violate the legal designation for the historical district but there is a moral issue with it as well…
the new building that would replace our current library/administration building would still house the library, but the administration would be moved onto a new building built on the side street. the frontage on ninth avenue would be for (get this) retail space! and in the tower? high income condominiums!!!
this is in a neighborhood that has been fighting gentrification since families that have been there for generations are seeing their children forced to leave because the rents are getting sky high…
the seminary says that this type of building is needed to generate the monies for preserving the historic buildings on our campus, but honestly! what about the impact on the larger community? why not include some low-income (or at least moderate-income) housing in the plans? why not have a design that falls within the legal restrictions? and when a high-income property like this goes up, the pressure on the neighboring rental properties is to raise rents. this would not be helping people to stay here, but would be forcing more of them out.
if i lived in this neighborhood i would be so in support of GTS itself, but so against this proposal. plus, i thought it incredibly rude of most of the GTS community that attended the meeting to leave before all of the speakers for the opposition had their say. they made some good points that we really need to address, but i am afraid the majority of people didn’t get to hear it all. or even enough of it.