By Alan Krawitz

The yellow tenement at 9 Minetta Street, with a dubious history of suspected illegal hotel use, located within the proposed South Village Historic District, is on track for conversion from a 20-unit building to a 5,000 square foot, one-family mansion, according to information from the city’s Department of Buildings.

The likely conversion of the 1883-built structure from tenement to mansion has preservationists and housing activists alike concerned.

Details of the project, first spotted by a local preservation group, include the addition of an enclosed parking space and an increase in the building’s height by 12 feet from 60 to 72 feet.

Andrew Berman, executive director of Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, expressed a number of concerns about the development but said that the larger context was the “growing wave of development pressure in the South Village.”

He said that the city has not moved forward with a number of proposed landmark protections which were promised, including landmark status for the entire South Village.

“They designated a very small portion of the area but we’ve been pushing to get the whole area landmarked for more than a decade,” he said.  “There’s been no movement.”

He added, “My fear is that by the time the city gets around to moving, the South Village area will no longer be landmark eligible because the very fabric of the area could be destroyed.”

Berman’s other specific concerns for 9 Minetta included the additional height. “We don’t know what that addition will look like. It could pose an intrusion on the area’s historic character or be an eyesore,” Berman said.

The group’s website notes that 11 Minetta Street is the former home of the Fat Black Pussycat Theater where Bob Dylan wrote “Blowing in the Wind,” and that nearby 7 Minetta is the home of the whistle-blowing cop played by Al Pacino in the movie Serpico.

Moreover, Berman noted that the building’s other prior problems included suspected illegal hotel use as evidenced by several recent online ads advertising the building as “Minetta Suites” and hostel space as recently as 2011.

In addition, DOB records showed complaints of illegal hotel use by local residents in the past few years coupled with a building classification as a walk-up apartment and no updated certificate of occupancy to indicate use as a hotel.

“The building has a somewhat troubling history and we’re concerned for what the future holds as well,” said Berman.

It was also unclear whether the building’s somewhat new owner would continue the property’s illegal hotel use. The building was purchased by a new owner last year for about $4.5 million, per DOB records. The building’s “gut conversion” was estimated to be around $1.3 million.

The project’s consultant, Lloyd Noel, referred questions to the building’s owner, Elisabeth M. Kovac. Kovac did not respond to an email request for information on plans for the conversion.

Sean Sweeney, director of the Soho Alliance, called the mansion conversion “an insidiously selfish scheme…to dispossess dozens of people in order for one person to live in a mansion.”

Brandon Kielbasa, a housing specialist with Cooper Square Committee, a LES organization that works to preserve affordable housing, compared the Minetta Street project to another, even more highly publicized building-to-mansion conversion over on E. 3rd Street which converted multiple dwellings into an 11,600 foot one family mansion.

“We really need to fight for a change in the state legislation so cases like this and 47 E. 3rd Street will no longer be possible,” Kielbasa said. “That particular case removed essential affordable housing from a community that is in desperate need of it.”

Richard Blodgett has spent decades getting to know the Charlton Street community

By Rebecca Temerario

Richard Blodgett didn’t expect to fall in love with New York. After graduating from Middlebury College in 1962, Blodgett relocated to New York City for a job with the Wall Street Journal. In 1968, Blodgett moved to his current address. Forty-four years later, Blodgett remains a resident of historic Charlton Street, where he serves as president of the Charlton Street Block Association, a position he has held on and off for 10 years.

Blodgett instantly fell in love with Charlton Street because of the old houses and neighborhood charm.

“Everybody knows each other. I have a neighbor who has been here since 1941,” he said.
Charlton Street possesses a rich history; Aaron Burr is credited with the conception of Charlton Street, naming the road after Dr. John Carlton, a former president of the New York Medical Society. John Jacob Astor funded the street’s development, and George Washington once resided in the area. Other notable residents have included poet Edna St. Vincent Millay, singer Mary Travers of Peter, Paul and Mary, and actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

As Charlton Street’s resident community builder, Blodgett “likes interacting with people—it’s a wonderful way to know neighbors and work together for the community.” Blodgett’s block association contains 325 houses on Charlton Street from Sixth Avenue to Varick Street. The Charlton Street Block Association is also responsible for the upkeep of Charlton Plaza, a neighborhood park.

“We have a lot of resident gardeners,” Blodgett said.

Blodgett also serves on the South Village Advisory Board, part of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation.

“Dick has been the president of the Charlton Street Block Association for more years than I can count,” said Andrew Berman, head of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation. “He is a neighborhood historian and has led fights to address traffic safety issues and to preserve the character of his neighborhood. He knows everyone in his little micro-neighborhood south of Houston Street.”

Blodgett not only knows his neighbors, he knows his restaurants and shops too. Speaking of a favorite restaurant in the South Village, Once Upon a Tart, Blodgett can say that he “was there the day it opened, twenty-some years ago.” Pointing to vintage pictures on the wall, Blodgett comments that Once Upon a Tart was once a bakery. He even knows the owner.

Blodgett’s role as community builder and historian doesn’t stop there. He has partnered with Berman and the South Village Advisory Board in order to historically preserve the South Village, and designate the area from Sixth Avenue to West Boulevard, between West Third Street to Watts Avenue. Unlike Charlton Street, which was designated as a historic district in 1966, that area isn’t protected from the possibility of buildings being torn down. Blodgett wants to change that.

Currently, Blodgett is involved with the Coalition for the Pedestrian Safety and Houston and Sixth. After a woman was killed near that intersection in August, the Coalition has petitioned the Department of Transportation for “a dedicated green light for pedestrians, so that they can cross while all traffic at the intersection is stopped,” said Blodgett. The Coalition collected 1,624 signatures on their petition, and is supported by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Blodgett and the Community Board are currently awaiting a response from the DOT.

Blodgett has also been an instrumental voice in a proposed rezoning of Houston Square. The area near Trinity Church as it stands now is mostly commercial, but seeks residential zoning. Blodgett is working with Trinity Church on the issue of building height; he stresses that the tall buildings would change the character of Houston Square.

In his role as president of the Charlton Street Block Association, Blodgett has become an integral voice of his community. He has even penned an extensive history of Charlton Street. Blodgett will surely join the list of notable Charlton Street residents as future historians and community builders look back on his admirable service to his community.

Community Board 2 (CB2) held a public hearing last week on a proposal to rezone Hudson Square, the burgeoning media district between West Houston, Greenwich and Canal Streets and Sixth Avenue.

Most workers leave the neighborhood after business hours due to its lack of housing and shops, but Trinity Real Estate, owners of more than 40 percent of the area’s properties, seek the city’s permission to transform the neighborhood into a bustling mixed-use commercial and residential community.

Local residents, business owners and activists attended the hearing to share their opinions on the company’s vision, and while most agreed that Hudson Square would profit from some level of rezoning, many worried that the current plan’s scale would damage the neighborhood’s identity.

Trinity representative Carl Weisbrod outlined the proposal, which aims, in his words, “to increase the area’s special appeal to creative companies, and to protect neighborhood character.” He explained that the plan would bolster retail and residential growth mostly by imposing restrictions—limiting the neighborhood’s currently-uncapped building dimensions, banning most building demolitions and conversions and prohibiting large hotels and nightclubs from opening without special permits. Regulations would require wide buildings to reserve ground-floor space for retail, and Trinity would provide a 444-seat public elementary school at its own expense.

The plan wants to cement Hudson Square as a “walking neighborhood,” said another representative, who promised high street walls, rows of boutique shops, many trees and bike lanes. Weisbrod claimed that Trinity expects the area’s residential capacity to increase up to 3,400 units (including 20 percent affordable housing) within 10 years, with construction beginning around the end of 2013.

Some attendees enthusiastically supported the proposal, urging CB2 to recommend the plan to City Hall “as it is.” A few speakers lined up at the microphone to applaud Trinity for considering the community’s requests for building-dimension limits and a local school.

“The neighborhood needs density to allow for a sustainable middle class,” agreed one resident. “You need to have enough buildable area in a neighborhood so that developers will come and build.”

Many other attendees, however, questioned the price the neighborhood would have to pay for development. Zack Winstine, co-chair of the Greenwich Village Community Task Force, contended new retail space would only create more banks and chain stores that would homogenize the neighborhood’s industrial, historic character.

“I’m worried about the loss of the smaller historic buildings in the area,” he told Our Town Downtown after the hearing. “Allowing residential will greatly increase the incentives for developers to knock down these buildings and build highly profitable new residential structures of the maximum size allowed by the new zoning.” He noted that smaller commercial tenants also could be priced out of the area.

Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, shared Winstine’s concern: “The proposed building heights are just out of scale for the neighborhood. On the Duarte Square site, it would allow a building as tall as Trump SoHo, and on other major avenues it would allow buildings of 320 feet in height, which is significantly taller than virtually any other building in the neighborhood except Trump.”

Berman and Winstine have joined other community leaders in demanding reduced building dimensions in Hudson Square as well as landmark protection for the neighboring historic South Village, which they argue also would be at risk for over-development. Other speakers called for the preservation of more open space in the area, a commitment by Trinity to build a connection between the neighborhood and Hudson River Park on Spring Street and fewer development restrictions on properties not owned by the real estate company.

The debate is just beginning to go public, with another hearing scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 19, at the Fire Museum on Spring Street. CB2 is one of multiple committees that will consider local opinion and critique the plan over the next several months, before Trinity submits its final draft of the proposal to City Hall for approval next year.

Photo Courtesy of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation

The City Planning Commission voted today to approve an amended proposition by Jamestown Properties to upzone Chelsea Market. This plan allows for new structures to be built atop the 9th and 10th Ave ends of the complex, a modification zoning regulations currently prohibit, according to a statement by the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP).

The next step is for City Council to vote on the decision—the Council has 50 days to hold hearings. The Council’s approval would be the final step in ratifying the plan.

In 2007 the GVSHP got Chelsea Market listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. GVSHP claims the renovations would ruin this important landmark—the former NABISCO headquarters where the Oreo cookie was founded. GVSHP Executive Director Andrew Berman said the expansion would introduce more traffic and congestion to an area already “bursting at the seams.”

GVSHP is urging City residents to contact Speaker Christine Quinn and express their disapproval for the plan, which will be voted on by the Council in coming months.

—Alissa Fleck

Photo Courtesy of Alissa Fleck

By Alissa Fleck

When the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) first discovered that developer Stephan Boivin intended to raze the 1824 federal style house formerly belonging to Beastie Boy Adam Horovitz, the group focused primarily on the house’s architectural merit. Boivin’s development group, Nordica, hoped to transform the house into apartments and retail space.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) responded to community advocates in favor of the building’s preservation by saying the house does not qualify as a landmark because it does not retain enough of its original material, though its general area in the neighborhood is still under consideration.

After this obstacle and further research, the GVSHP began to focus instead on the house’s rich history and ties to the LGBTQ community. As the group explained, the City has never before declared something a landmark based on the history of the gay and lesbian movement.

At a press conference outside the Spring Street house today, elected officials and community advocates came together to speak to this colorful history. Senator Tom Duane, the second openly gay member of the New York State legislature, appeared at the conference to make a statement, and Council Speaker Christine Quinn sent a letter in support.

Steve Ashkinazy, Stonewall Democratic Club executive committee member, said early leaders of the Gay Activists Alliance (GAA) formerly resided in the South Village home. The GAA group was the blueprint for the LGBT movement, he explained.

“Now they want to turn it into a mall,” said Ashkinazy. “The City says it does not retain enough of its original character…it’s clearly older than its surroundings. It’s visually and architecturally a standout with a story to tell.”

“The world has changed here and New York needs this landmark,” he added.

GVSHP Executive Director Andrew Berman said, of former residents with ties to the gay rights movement: “People who lived here touched others’ lives.”

He added, as an openly gay man who has worked under Senator Duane and is well-versed in the region and the struggles of civil rights groups, even “for [him], this house was a lesson.”

Laurence Frommer, a licensed NYC tour guide, said he, and others, have been reaching out to queer historians, hoping to bring the matter to national attention. While the midday turnout was a relatively small spattering, Frommer said he had been hoping for “a cast of thousands.”

“As somebody interested in chronicling and presenting LGBT history, this is important,” said Frommer. “It should be landmarked. There should be a plaque.”

“There’s so much in the City we don’t know about,” said Frommer. “How did it get lost?”

As for the civil rights angle, Frommer said he believes the City is trying presently to make up for a lack of African American historical representation, but they should be focusing on LGBTQ history also, and every other group as well. He said the City usually preserves landmarks based on architectural merit and less so cultural matters or history, but culture should be “considered a lot more.”

Photo by wallyg, courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons

“Chin and Quinn did us in!” jeered over 50 opponents to New York University’s expansion plan from a balcony overlooking City Council’s chamber. “Shame on you!”

Greenwich Village residents, community activists and N.Y.U. professors filled the chamber to capacity yesterday to witness the full City Council’s final vote to approve hotly debated zoning and map changes that will allow the university to construct four new high-rise buildings over the course of 17 years, 2014 to 2031.

The opponents became increasingly vocal as the time to vote neared, and broke into chants just before it. Speaker Christie Quinn asked for silence and warned the opponents that they would be kicked out, but the chants continued, and security escorted the entire balcony out of the building.

The proposal passed by a 44-to-1 vote.

Prior to the meeting, the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) commissioned a 32-page report that outlined the negative impacts of the expansion plan, and opponents wrote a letter to City Council that expressed the community’s dissatisfaction with the proposal.

“The NYU expansion plan will turn a residential neighborhood into a company town and subject it to twenty straight years of construction,” said GVSHP Executive Director Andrew Berman in a statement.  “The Council ignored the grave environmental impacts of this plan and the much better options that had been put forward for NYU to locate new facilities in the Financial District; this is a sad day for democracy in New York City.”

John Sexton, N.Y.U.’s president, however, said that the approval marked “a great day for N.Y.U. and for New York City,” and said that the expansion will provide the city with much-needed construction jobs and university positions.

His statement argued that the plan “strikes an important balance: permitting N.Y.U. to maintain academic excellence by meeting our educational- and research-space needs on our existing footprint over the next two decades, while at the same time addressing the concerns of our neighbors on such issues as improving access to open space.”

The opponents are now considering legal action. “We will be working closely with our partners in the NYU faculty and with our lawyers at Gibson Dunn to pursue every avenue available to us to remedy this tragic wrong which has been imposed upon the people of the City of New York,” said Berman.

Photo Courtesy of GVSHP

Full City Council voted today, 44-1, to approve NYU’s modified expansion plan, despite continued community resistance. Speaker Christine Quinn called the modified plan significantly smaller than the original proposal and was satisfied with the outcome, reported WNYC.

(by Alissa Fleck and Paul Bisceglio)

The decrease in size from approximately 2 million square feet down to 1.9 million, including reduction in density and increases in open space, did not mean much to the plan’s numerous staunch opponents, many of whom have opposed it in its entirety from the beginning. This included the 37 NYU departments which passed resolutions against the plan. Many of these groups have sought legal council, according to WNYC. Additionally, various writers have compiled a collection of protest pieces inspired by the expansion, titled While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York. 

Councilman Charles Barron was again the only holdout, imploring other councilmembers to heed the voices of Greenwich Village residents over those who may avoid the plan’s direct impact by not living in the construction zone.

Enough Greenwich Village residents, NYU faculty and other community members attended the vote to fill the Council chambers to full capacity. Opponents chanted “Chin and Quinn did us in!” from the balcony just before the actual vote took place, the Village Voice reported, and persisted as Quinn repeatedly called for silence. The entire balcony was escorted out of City Hall prior to the vote.

“This is a sad day for democracy in New York City,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, in a statement. Berman has been a major face for the opposition since the plan’s inception. He added his group would seek every possible legal avenue in continuing to fight the plan.

“The NYU 2031 plan has little to do with education, and everything to do with real estate and expansion for expansion’s sake,” said Berman. His group and others have joined together in formation of a city-wide campaign in protest: StandUp4NYC.

Jim Walden, an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher representing GVSHP, said: “We look forward to our day in court.”

Many residents in Greenwich Village at the time of the vote also expressed dissatisfaction with the proposal, citing construction noise, congestion and loss of a sense of community as major concerns.

“We don’t want another Midtown,” said one community member.

Two others were more willing to embrace the incentives that NYU included in its modified plan. “We’re getting a rent reduction,” said a resident of the University’s Silver Towers, an iconic residential complex on Bleecker Street in the middle of the proposed construction area. “So while we aren’t thrilled about [the expansion plans], that’s why a lot of us [in the Towers] are keeping our mouths shut.” (New York Press has contacted NYU housing and is waiting to confirm the details of this reduction.)

Construction on the plan is set to begin in 2014.

Andrew Berman of the GVSHP. Photo by James Kelleher.

University makes modifications to plan, likely to be approved by full Council

By Alissa Fleck
NYU’s modified expansion plan is one step closer to fruition, much to the disappointment of staunchly opposed community members. The City Council’s Zoning Subcommittee and Land Use Committee voted back-to-back on Tuesday in overwhelming support of NYU’s expansion plan, with certain mutually agreed upon modifications.

All nine members of the Zoning Subcommittee voted in favor of the project, while the Land Use Committee voted 19 in favor and one opposed. Councilman Charles Barron was the sole holdout.

“We will regret this,” said Barron, urging his colleagues to have the courage to vote no and “send it back to the drawing board.”
Council members who defended their votes in support expressed immense respect for Councilwoman Margaret Chin’s efforts. They applauded her attempts to negotiate all sides, while maintaining their displeasure with the plan despite the modifications.

Chin, whose district covers Greenwich Village, stated she had not originally supported the proposal, but tried to keep an open mind and find a way to achieve a tolerable medium for all groups involved.

“I’m confident this proposal strikes the appropriate balance,” said Chin. “It holds NYU to its responsibility as a good neighbor.” Chin explained that NYU had made significant concessions and no one got everything they wanted.

“I wholeheartedly believe NYU’s growth will occur at a sustainable pace and not overwhelm the Village,” she said, adding that the school’s willingness to cooperate in the process had been encouraging.

Council members acknowledged continuing chasms between the community and the University. Councilman Vincent Ignizio urged NYU, “Now the real work begins for you. The community has issues with you…Start the rebuilding process today.”

The primary modifications to the original plan include a 20 percent (70,000 square feet) reduction in overall density for an approximate 1.93 million-square-foot expansion, space dedicated to community use, an increase in publicly accessible space and NYU taking responsibility for the maintenance of these open spaces.

“I have put in place strong checks and balances to ensure that NYU holds up its end of the bargain,” said Chin. “If NYU fails to do so, there will be consequences.”

These “checks and balances” include funds set aside to make sure the school adheres to its promises. The university will create a yearly endowment of $150,000 toward open space maintenance, proving they want to move beyond questions of trust to tangible verification.
Brown, when questioned by Councilwoman Jessica Lappin on how the school would fund the project, said financial support would come largely from philanthropy, working capital and fundraising, adding that a certain amount of debt is to be expected. With regard to tuition, she said: “There is always upward pressure on tuition.”

Before the plan went to vote, community member Georgina Bedrosian, who lives in the area in question and opposes the plan, said she was afraid council members would accept some version of the plan.

“It lies primarily on Chin,” said Bedrosian. “We little people can make a lot of noise, but [We’ve] lost out to big real estate.”
Throughout the presentation process, disparaging gestures and outcry from audience members revealed there is still significant tension among community members who feel NYU is not being honest and forthcoming, particularly with regard to public space accessibility and conversion.

Following the vote in favor of the plan, Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, called the plan’s passage a violation of public trust.

“The changes are less bad,” said Berman, “but not less bad enough.” Berman explained that the Council has a strong tendency to defer to local council members, in this case Chin.

NYU Vice President Alicia Hurley said to the press of the Council’s decision: “It’s so important for us to have these opportunities.”
As the session concluded, several audience members were escorted out, chanting: “Shame on you, Chin, you’ve killed the Village!”
The full City Council will convene Tuesday, July 24, to provide the final vote on the plan.

Community members wait to hear the vote. Photo by James Kelleher.

University makes modifications to plan, likely to be approved by full council

(by Alissa Fleck)

NYU’s modified expansion plan is one step closer to fruition, much to the disappointment of staunchly opposed community members. The City Council’s Zoning Subcommittee and Land Use Committee voted back-to-back on Tuesday, in overwhelming support of NYU’s expansion plan, with certain mutually agreed upon modifications. All nine members of the Zoning Subcommittee voted in favor of the project, while the Land Use Committee voted 19 in favor and one opposed. Councilman Charles Barron was the sole holdout. “We will regret this,” said Barron, urging his colleagues to have the courage to vote “no” and “send it back to the drawing board.”

Councilmembers, who defended their votes in support, expressed immense respect for Councilwoman Margaret Chin’s efforts. They applauded her attempts to negotiate all sides, while maintaining their displeasure with the plan despite modifications.

Chin, whose district covers Greenwich Village, stated she had not originally supported the proposal, but tried to keep an open mind and find a way to achieve a tolerable medium for all groups involved.

“I’m confident this proposal strikes the appropriate balance,” said Chin. “It holds NYU to its responsibility as a good neighbor.” Chin explained NYU had made significant concessions and no one got everything they wanted.

“I wholeheartedly believe NYU’s growth will occur at a sustainable pace and not overwhelm the village,” she said, adding the school’s willingness to cooperate in the process had been encouraging.

Councilmembers acknowledged continuing chasms between the community and the University. Councilman Vincent Ignizio urged NYU: “Now the real work begins for you. The community has issues with you…start the rebuilding process today.”

The primary modifications to the original plan include a 20 percent (70,000 square foot) reduction in overall density (for an approximate 1.93 million square foot expansion), space dedicated to community use, an increase in publicly accessible space and NYU taking responsibility for the maintenance of these open spaces.

“I have put in place strong checks and balances to ensure that NYU holds up its end of the bargain,” said Chin. “If NYU fails to do so, there will be consequences.”

These “checks and balances” include, for one, funds set aside to make sure the school adheres to its promises. The University will create a yearly endowment of $150,000 toward open space maintenance, proving they want to move beyond questions of trust to tangible verification. NYU Senior Vice President Lynne Brown echoed Chin, calling the modifications “a thoughtful balance.”

Brown, questioned by Councilwoman Jessica Lappin on how the school would fund the project, said financial support would come largely from philanthropy, working capital and fundraising, while adding a certain amount of debt is to be expected. With regard to tuition, she said: “There is always upward pressure on tuition.”

Before the plan went to vote, community member Georgina Bedrosian, who lives in the area in question and opposes the plan, said she was afraid councilmembers would accept some version of the plan.

“It lays primarily on Chin,” said Bedrosian. “We little people can make a lot of noise, but one would think councilmembers have been wined and dined. [We’ve] lost out to big real estate.”

Throughout the presentation process, disparaging gestures and outcries from audience members revealed there is still significant tension among community members who feel NYU is not being honest and forthcoming, particularly with regard to public space accessibility and conversion. Nonetheless, the hotly contested Sasaki Garden, at the heart of the Washington Square Village Superblock, will be preserved.

Following the vote in favor of the plan, Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, called the plan’s passage a violation of public trust.

“The changes are less bad,” said Berman, “but not less bad enough.” Berman explained Council has a strong tendency to defer to local councilmembers, in this case Chin. He called the decision “deeply disappointing,” and said his group would continue to fight to full Council and beyond, and was considering legal options as well.

One NYU affiliate said he would not provide a statement to the press, while Vice President Alicia Hurley said, to the press, of the Council’s decision: “It’s so important for us to have these opportunities.”

As the session concluded, several audience members were escorted out, chanting: “Shame on you, Chin, you’ve killed the Village!”

The full City Council will convene Tuesday, July 24, to provide the final vote on the plan.

UPDATE: “The revised NYU plan remains grossly inappropriate and a violation of the public trust.  This was public land given to NYU a generation ago with clear stipulations that forbade this kind of development from ever taking place here.  There has been no true examination of viable alternatives and no real justification by NYU as to why this massive expansion of facilities must take place in the already oversaturated Village. NYU’s neighbors and faculty remain united in opposing this plan and we will continue the fight to the full Council and possibly beyond,” said GVSHP’s Executive Director Andrew Berman.

Photo by James Kelleher.

NY Press recently reported Developer Stephan Boivin filed for demolition permits for the home at 186 Spring Street, which formerly belonged to Beastie Boy Adam Horovitz. The Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (GVSHP) has been fighting to have the property preserved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).

The LPC recently declared the site not an individual landmark, the Village Voice reports. The property does not retain enough of its original material to be considered. According to the LPC’s statement, the general area is still under review, but not an immediate priority.

GVSHP Executive Director Andrew Berman told the Press this is not a vote, so the decision could change “at any time.” Berman said his group has sent the LPC further important information, hoping to influence their decision about the property.

This information includes a letter in which Berman and various advocates cite the area’s “powerful and unique connection to the early gay rights movement and New York’s earliest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) communities and their struggle.”

Declaring the area in which the house stands a landmark zone would still preserve the property, even if it’s not independently a landmark.

—Alissa Fleck