Scott Stiffler for Chelsea Community News (CCNews): Who was involved in the research and writing of this report? Did its authors learn anything new during the process (information, facts, analysis, etc.)?

David Holowka for Save Chelsea (Holowka): I did the writing. Not much research was required. I worked from my ready familiarity with Chelsea’s history and NYCHA’s presentation materials and environmental-review submissions. I owe my awareness of the Chelsea 197-a Plan to Pamelaa Wolff, president of Save Chelsea, who remembers when it was created. In May of last year, Tom Lunke and I made a presentation to CB4 on the history of zoning changes in the area of the Fulton and Elliott Chelsea Houses. Tom is an urban designer who used to be a CB4 member. He was more familiar with the 197-a plan and its influence on subsequent zoning changes and remembered that the FEC campuses were “carved out” of the 1999 rezoning.

I first created the “historic context” and “zoning context” images in the Save Chelsea report for that presentation.  I did learn a lot doing that research and preparation. I could see how the 1999 rezoning respected not just landmarked buildings and districts, but other historic areas that a reduction in allowed bulk would help protect. The logic of it all clicked. I understand Ed Kirkland was closely involved in those zoning changes. As I said in the CB4 presentation, I could feel his presence as it became clear how the zoning history reflected his preservationist sensibility. By contrast, NYCHA’s proposed zoning changes are just as clueless and blundering as you would expect from parties who care only about profit.

CCNews: The report notes Chelsea NYCHA properties’ proximity to a number of New York City-designated historic districts and landmarks (Cushman Row among them). Do the 2 NYCHA properties fall within any designated and/or protected areas?

Holowka: Neither of the NYCHA properties falls within a historic district, but the entire Elliott-Chelsea campus is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. “Eligible” means the property has been recognized as historically significant, but hasn’t yet been officially added to the registers. Usually, if an owner of an eligible site (NYCHA, in this case) agrees to having the property listed, the process is straightforward. Listing would work against NYCHA’s current plan, though, by protecting the existing buildings. Listing, on the other hand, could open doors to government renovation funds.

CCNews: Does the report place the two properties–Fulton Houses and Elliott-Chelsea Houses–in similar and unique contexts?

Holowka: Regarding the Fulton versus Elliott-Chelsea contexts, they are as you say similar but unique. Interestingly, both have sensitive open spaces to their north that would be badly shadowed by new construction, the General Theological Seminary by new Fulton towers and Chelsea Park by new Elliott-Chelsea towers.

CCNews: Are there elements of this report–thematic or otherwise–that are applicable to other current concerns, like the Western Rail Yards development?

Holowka: I wouldn’t say there are elements of our report that are applicable to the Western Rail Yards. That’s a much different context, mainly surrounded by high-rise new development. In general, the idea of new development “stepping down” to low-rise, historically sensitive context is textbook planning–another reason NYCHA’s plan is so egregiously oblivious.

CCNews: The report notes that the NYCHA/Related plan “will remove 370 mature trees that play a critical role in carbon capture, and exact a  staggering cost in embodied carbon from needless replacement of structurally sound buildings.” There were other concerns (brought up during the Draft Environmental Impact comment period) regarding noise pollution and the estimated 16-yeaar time frame for accomplishing the project. Are these concerns of Save Chelsea?

Holowka: Other adverse environmental impacts certainly are a concern of Save Chelsea’s–see our recent letter to NYC Council Member Erik Bottcher which CCNews published–but this report limits itself to permanent impacts on historic context.

CCNews: Who has the report been delivered to, and what is the hope in terms of its possible impact?

Holowka: The report has been shared with Community Board 4 and with other preservation advocates.

CCNews: Is the report available to the public via your website or any other source?

Holowka: The report is posted on our website. We hope it will guide alternative plans to the destructive ones NYCHA has put forward.

CCNews: Apart from the Chelsea NYCHA matter, what are other contemporary topics/concerns of Save Chelsea?

Holowka: Save Chelsea continues to advocate for the renovation and adaptive reuse of Colored School #4. We regularly provide testimony to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission on proposals in Chelsea’s historic districts, with a particular emphasis on preventing facadism and needless gutting of historic buildings to create megamansions. We are working on a proposal to extend the Chelsea Historic District and hopeful that a future administration will be more open to further landmark designations. 

—END—