Chelsea is the driving force

Volume One, Issue 25, March 9 - 15, 2007

By Robert Trentlyon

As someone who has been very active in Chelsea since 1958 and has lived in the neighborhood since 1965, I want to share my observations and, in particular, respond to the two Talking Points written by my friends Dennis Winslow and David Halle. First, let me say that nobody wants General Theological Seminary to leave. We just do not want a massive 15-story luxury residential glass tower built in the heart of the Chelsea Historic District.

Part of the problem is that so many of those allied with GTS have little or no historical memory. Even the dean has been here only 10 years, and Maureen Burnley only half as long. Many of those opposed to the proposed tower, however, have had roots in Chelsea for generations. There is a very rich both oral and written history in Chelsea, so we approach the facts from different perspectives.

Before responding to the Talking Points, I must highly recommend the excellent letter that has been sent by Community Board 4 stating its position in opposition to the glass tower. Please read it at www.ManhattanCB4.org. The recent vote in favor of sending the letter was 30–7. I should disclose that I am one of the 50 members of Community Board 4.

Let us get the historic facts straight. When Captain Clarke came to Chelsea, he bought an existing farm from Jacob Somerindyck and his wife in 1750. The southern border of the farm was what is now West 21st Street. This was then added to by family members. Seventy years later, his grandson Clement Clarke Moore gave a central block of his estate to the General Theological Seminary, which then built one small building, the West building. The rest of the estate was divided up into lots, with very strict rules of governance as to what type of housing could be built there, including requiring having small front yards for the enjoyment of passers by. When David Halle quotes from the New York Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) letter of 1970, he emphasizes the residential tower at 365 W. 20th St., but Landmarks purposely left it out of the Chelsea Historic District because it is inappropriate. He also dismisses language in the letter which states that “a new building should relate well to its neighbors in terms of the materials which are used, the architectural proportions, the size and shape of the windows, and the details on the front of the building.”

If you walk up and down in the Chelsea Historic District and note especially the buildings on the north and south sides of the Seminary, you’ll immediately see that none of the brownstones are higher than four or five stories. Two new residential buildings have been built since the City Planning Commission, in 1999, put a 75-foot height limit on new buildings. They are at the northwest corner of 22nd Street and Ninth Avenue and the southeast corner of 20th Street and Tenth Avenue. They both are good examples of architects and developers who have stayed within both height limits and contextual demands. Both are fully occupied and are welcome additions to the neighborhood. Continue north of Chelsea Market at 16th Street and Ninth Avenue, all the way to London Terrace at 23rd and Ninth, and you’ll see that the buildings on the west side of the street are seven stories or fewer. This means that the New York City Housing Authority built six low-rise buildings on Ninth Avenue and built its higher buildings mid-block so as to preserve the street wall on Ninth Avenue. I guess everyone is out of step except GTS.

For the record, Chelsea residents asked for a historic district back in 1965. GTS held it up for five years until it got a letter from LPC that stated it could build more if needed. Save Chelsea Historic District is not in favor of restricting necessary growth. We just don’t believe that LPC had in mind a predominantly glass 15-story tower that would consist of 80 luxury co-op apartments when it acceded to GTS’s demands. A glass tower is a fad. Developers are pushing glass towers for residences because those who can afford to pay $2 million or $3 million for apartments want to live in glass structures, with great views. The developers want high structures because then the same space can sell for much more on the higher floors. In a decade or two, glass towers may no longer be the fad, but the new Sherrill Hall will still be there.

What is the problem with the Seminary? Primarily a lack of transparency. It is unaccountable to the scrutiny of any public agency. Religious organizations do not have to report in the same way other not-for-profits do, so there are not the same controls. This lack of financial discipline has resulted in GTS’ present predicament, created by its neglect of the maintenance of its historic buildings. Owners of buildings in the CHD have kept up their landmarked buildings, and have gone into hock to follow Landmark dictates. They also have to pay real estate taxes from which the Seminary is exempt. These neighbors have not complained because they realize that living in CHD is a responsibility they have agreed to take on for the greater good of their block and of Chelsea, and thus the whole city. They believe the Seminary should not try to play by different rules from those that exist for the other property owners in the CHD.

The penchant for secrecy has worked against the Seminary in another way. It claims to have been working on plans for a new Sherrill Hall for the past five years. During that time, the West Chelsea Plan was created and finalized. This is the zoning plan that Community Board 4 and City Planning worked out for the area west of Tenth Avenue. Now David Halle, in the same Talking Point article, complains bitterly how property owners wrested special advantages for their air rights. The property owners referred to are not home owners but major commercial interests that owned property west of Tenth Avenue. One reason they got such a good deal was that they utilized the services of a high-paid lobbyist. If GTS had not been devising its plan in secret, it is possible that it could have built a high-rise west of Tenth Avenue. Now it is too late for the Seminary to transfer unused air rights to that area. Additionally, GTS employs one of the most powerful real estate PR firms and lobbyists in New York City, Geto & deMilly, the same firm that works for the Brodsky Organization, the developer working with the Seminary. Maybe that is why the only solution being considered is that Brodsky must build the big glass tower. For the record, Save the Chelsea Historic District has no paid PR firm or paid lobbyist.

Rev. Dennis Winslow’s talking point is directed at all the good works that GTS has done. I would not belittle what GTS has done, but over a 50 year period it is not really that much. There were many hard years in Chelsea when seminarians could have been an enormous help to local civic organizations in need of leadership. What a great lost opportunity.

Dennis Winslow, pastor at St. Peter’s on West 20th Street, a financially hard-pressed church, brought a steady flow of money into the church and great value to the community by renting out a building it owned to the Atlantic Theater, an excellent Off Broadway theater company. The Seminary, in creating the Desmond Tutu Center, is also trying to bring in additional funds. The latest figure quoted at a public meeting was that it expected to earn $2 million net from the Center. If that is true, that should go far toward maintaining its historic buildings.

When I first got active in Chelsea in 1958, I interviewed a lesbian couple who said they moved to Chelsea because it was such an accepting neighborhood. Gays moved to Chelsea because it was tolerant, because it was a home for people in the arts and because rents were so cheap. Chelsea is known for its tolerance for all kinds of people and especially for those less fortunate than most of us. NIMBY is not a term that fits Chelsea. GTS changed its rules regarding gays and lesbians living together as couples in 1993, and that was after the intervention of the NYC Civil Right Commission. I am glad that they did it, but it was many decades after the rest of Chelsea.

Chelsea is the horse that is pulling the wagon, not the Seminary. Chelsea is the creative center for the arts and a wonderful place to live and to raise families, not the Seminary. Chelsea pulled itself up by its own boot straps; the claim that the Seminary saved Chelsea is wildly exaggerated. Chelsea has produced political leadership for this city and for the state, not the Seminary.

The energy pouring into this one square mile should be used to pull all of us up to an even better life. Please don’t mess up Chelsea with a real estate deal.