York city history or to speak about yet another of his new books and his 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 research staff, having been a consultant to them, having written many a designation report, having authored the first guidebook to new york city landmarks, and in the years now since he has been at columbia, heading the Historic Preservation program at the 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. And indeed, tonight, were celebrating the history of architecture as part of american architecture because we are being filmed here for cspan American History channel. So im going to remind you that when we come to the questionandanswer period, 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 framed his remarks around the history of the skyscraper and landmarks preservation, and a special project that he will talk about that he would rather rediscover and offered up and special drawings. The marcel drawings that were not realizied but marked an importance in their association with Grand Central, mark a very important point in history of the legal decision that withheld preservation, not just in new york city, but in america through a Supreme Court case. Im going to let andrew tell you about that history. Here is andrew dolkart. [applause] mr. Dolkart its always a pleasure to be here. So as carol noted, this is the 50th anniversary of the landmark law, 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. Which i cocurrated with donald, the architecture currator. 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 and the book, i hesitated because it is not specifically a skyscraper story, and i wanted to make the talk sort of sitespecific, so i talked with 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. One focuses on the topic i wrote theres 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 whats her last name . 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 designate what, especially in the early 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. What did it mean to have a land marks commission . The other thing i want to talk about is marcel and Grand Central. One of the things i was pleased with in the exhibit is we have four drawings for the towers proposed on top of Grand Central, and i dont think they have been on view since the days of the hearing. It was interesting to see what breuer was proposing. There were three schemes breuer proposed. 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. Actually, the story i did not fully understand the story, so im going to share with you a little bit about what happened there. So on april 19, 1965, mayor Robert Wagner, jr. Signed a law that created the new york city landmarks preservation commission, but what did this mean . The law 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, penn station, but also other buildings that might be less well known. The Brooklyn Savings Bank here 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. And they are the building that was the catalyst to get Robert Wagner to get the idea of a landmarks law off to the city council. And so we really owe it 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 was empowered to designate the exterior of and any buildings that were at least 30 years old and also to designate historic districts that had a sense of place. By september 1965, a commission had been established. There was a chair, there were commissioners, and there was a small staff that had been assembled. But now, what would they do . I think this is a question that in hindsight we have failed 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 . Would they 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 had owner support . The first thing of course was to figure out what constituted a landmark. 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. I had assumed, as i think most people do, that early designations would include renowned buildings such as city hall, Grand Central, the Stock Exchange, the Woolworth Building, the Chrysler Building, the Empire State Building 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 1981. 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 designated endangered buildings. Indeed, the first public hearing, every single building that was on that, and there was endangered in one way or another. Some were endangered by neglect. The Peter Klassen wyckoff house was still in private hands. As you 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 it stood right on a road, so the road could have been cut through at any time. You know this beloved landmark has been beautifully restored, but it was a complete wreck. They stepped in to deal with these endangered buildings. Some were endangered by impending 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 four 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. The jerome mansion on the bottom left had been sold for Office Construction, and the Metropolitan Opera House also for Office Construction for the garment district. So 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 many of you will know was one of the great preservationists, was at the hearing and wrote up a report on what transpired during that day. She did not cover every single building that was heard, 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. And three of them were designated. The Meeting House and the astra library. Of course, this is now the brotherhood synagogue, and the astra library is now the Public Theater. In fact, the landmarks considered its first victory josephs announcement that he would reuse the library for the Public Theater because land landmarking 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 a hardship. 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 . And so, you know, the rockefellers and other powerful people that were supporting Lincoln Center were opposed to this, but also because the exterior was never 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. So the metropolitan opera of course was lost. So what about skyscrapers . None were considered in the first public hearing. The architectural historians involved in the formation of the commission were interested in tall buildings. 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 dozen skyscrapers among the list of 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 aesthetic like these. 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. And were devoid of historical references. 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 the list was the building but 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 landmark commission. It was not until 20 years later that a younger commission got 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. The first skyscraper or the 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. This subtle building 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 worked here in this building. So this was the first building you could argue was a skyscraper to be designated. It was followed in february of 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 hearing was the Woolworth Building, 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 Building 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 weak 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 doing old houses, public institutional buildings, churches, Upper East Side town houses, 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. Just like the tribune building, this is proof that you can have a Landmarks 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. And so they had already lost on one hardship application, which is the jerome mansion, and they were not going to do this again. They knew that they would have trouble finding a buyer. I have argued often that this 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 . So in general, skyscrapers were not a priority until the 1980s and 1990s when the commission began to catch up. Designating the great art deco towers and early skyscrapers in park row as well as masterpieces elsewhere in the city, although i have to say it was not until 2011 that the great 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 landmarking 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. And as we have seen with the Singer Building, some issues they chose not to fight at all. But we just knew they designated several doz