14th street and union square preservation plan - Columbia ...

14TH STREET AND UNION SQUARE
PRESERVATION PLAN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING AND PRESERVATION
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK CITY, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Statement of Purpose
II. History of 14th Street and Union Square:
A Brief Overview
III. Significant Resources
a. Introduction - Current Context
b. Hudson River to Ninth Avenue
c. Ninth to Seventh Avenue
d. Seventh Avenue to University Place
e. Union Square
f. Fourth to First Avenue
g. First Avenue to the East River
IV. The Plan
a. Proposal for Designating
Significant Resources
b. Balancing Public & Private Interests
c. Encouraging Sensitive Development
d. Managing Institutional Presence
e. Addressing Physical Deterioration
f. Promoting Appropriate Alterations
g. Enhancing Interprestation
of Open Spaces
V. Conclusion
1
2
5
6
7
11
16
19
22
24
25
27
30
31
33
35
38
STUDENTS AND FACULTY
STUDENTS
Peter Anderson
Avigail Appelbaum
Christopher Brazee
Laura Brown
Allison Chambers
Diane De Fazio
Toni Di Maggio
Brett Dorfman
Abbie Hurlbut
Mersedeh Jorjani
Iris Kashman
Olivia Klose
Chian-Ju Ku
Michelle Langlie
Cleary Larkin
Ana Linares
FACULTY
Francoise Bollack
Andrew Dolkart
Dorothy Miner
Jorge Otero-Pailos
Norman Weiss
Katherine Longfield
Marissa Marvelli
Lurita McIntosh
Katie McLaughlin
Lindsay Miller
Benika Morokuma
Lisa Mroszczyk
Caroline Pasion
Justine Posluszny
Megan Rispoli
Lindsey Schweinberg
Pat See-umponroj
Amanda Stauffer
Blaire Walsh
Pepper Watkins
II

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
As first-year Historic Preservation students, our goal
in producing a Preservation Plan for Union Square
and 14 th Street: River to River, is to present our analysis
of the specific issues affecting the built fabric and the
community on 14 th Street and Union Square, and to
propose solutions for the preservation of historically
significant buildings and sites that respect and complement
the existing economic, political, and social character of
the area.
The Plan is the result of one year of intensive research
and thorough survey of the area’s history and conditions.
However, our investigation was not confined to the
built environment: we engaged in direct dialogue with
representatives from the various communities on
and around 14 th Street and Union Square in order to
better understand the non-physical forces that affect
preservation.
The intended audience for our Preservation Plan includes
the academic community in general, professionals who
have an interest in urban historic preservation, and, most
importantly, the constituents of 14 th Street and Union
Square. In addition to providing a significant depth of
new knowledge about New York City, the Plan seeks
to present a model for activism that addresses specific
preservation issues in a timely, practical, and accessible
way.
We have attempted to synthesize our idealism as historic
preservationists while recognizing the economic,
political, and social limitations of the present time. It is
our hope that future preservation students will reference
our Plan in their learning process; that the City of New
York will take note of the concerns highlighted by our
research and analysis; that our preservation goals will be
implemented by the City and other organizations; and
that the community of 14 th Street and Union Square will
be able to utilize our plan to their benefit.
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
1

HISTORY OF 14TH STREET AND UNION SQUARE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
During the colonial and early Federal periods, in
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the area
now traversed by 14 th Street was farmland owned by the
Stuyvesants and the Van Burens, among others (Figure
1). In the early nineteenth century, the farmland of these
early settlers became incorporated into the growing city
grid, and row houses and mansions replaced open land
and antiquated farm structures. The Commissioners’
Plan of 1811 positioned 14 th Street in such a way that
it was the southern most street to run straight from
the East River to the Hudson River. Furthermore, 14 th
Street became the longest among the cross-town streets
laid out in this plan.
On the eastern waterfront edge of this area, small
commercial centers formed around dry docks used for
ship building. On the Hudson River waterfront, coal,
stone and lumber yards existed as early as the 1840s.
The small centers on the two waterfronts were the only
form of commerce in the area at this time, and stood in
contrast to the residential character of the remainder of
14 th street. By the 1830s, a locus of residential activity—
Union Square—had formed in the center of the street
at the junction of two of the north-south arteries:
Bloomingdale Road (later Broadway) and the Bowery
(later Fourth Avenue). This area was easily accessed by
horse-drawn rail cars on Broadway that began operation
in 1832. The residences along the street were joined by
churches and other upper-class residential necessities.
The open area at the junction, which had formerly been
a potter’s field, was transformed into a public park in
1839. In the 1860s the park became so popular that
several well-established businesses located along its
perimeter, converting some of the existing row houses
into commercial spaces, with ground floor storefronts.
Along with the high-end retail stores several theaters
and musicales appeared on Union Square. Theatres
became an important presence on 14 th Street, creating
a major theatre district that existed until 1910. By the
1870s, Union Square and the surrounding area had
become more commercial than residential in character,
and consequently the affluent residents who had lived
in the row houses of what had been a quiet residential
neighborhood moved uptown, presumably to find
quieter, more fashionable residences. The small-scale
retail stores were soon joined by larger department
stores that moved to the area by building their own
architecturally distinct multi-story facilities that dwarfed
the previously low-scale neighborhood (Figure 2).
Following the departure of the affluent residents from
2. UNION SQUARE AS A BUSTLING CENTER IN 1900.
14 th Street, the growth of the street did not plateau, but
rather it continued, taking on a new flavor. The “new”
character of 14 th Street was a reflection of the changing
nature of much of New York at the time that resulted
from the influx of western European immigrants and
later southeastern European immigrants. In the central
section of 14 th Street, the row houses that were vacated
by the affluent were converted into boarding houses for
working class residents. The high-end retail stores of
the mid-nineteenth century left the area, following their
wealthier clientele uptown, and were replaced by lowend
retail stores that better fit the needs of the shoppers
who frequented them. In 1881, an elevated rail line was
constructed to better serve the growing commercial hub
that existed between Sixth Avenue and Union Square,
making the area more accessible to people from all over
the city.
1. UNION SQUARE AS A RURAL ENCLAVE IN 1767.
HISTORY OF 14TH STREET AND UNION SQUARE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
Industry also found a home in the central section of
14 th Street and took on a specialized form known as
the single-bay loft building. This unusual building type,
identifiable by a single bay of large windows needed for
the admission of light to the workers within, adapted
2

its manufacturing use to the narrow city lot. Industry,
in a larger, more conventional fashion, also blossomed
on the waterfronts. The new immigrant population
flooded the eastern and western extremes of 14 th Street,
providing a work force for the new manufacturing
centers of the two waterfronts. By the 1870s, the
Hudson River waterfront had transformed from an area
of raw goods to an area used for light manufacturing
and the distribution of meat, produce, and liquor. This
area further blossomed in 1870 when the Ninth Avenue
elevated train opened with a stop on 14 th Street. The East
River waterfront, which had been used primarily for dry
docks in the early to mid-nineteenth century, was now
primarily occupied by coal yards, gas tanks, city sanitation
facilities, and manufacturing buildings. Adjacent to both
industrial waterfronts, tenements were built to house the
growing number of German, Irish, Italian, and Spanish
immigrants who flooded the area between 1860 and 1910
(Figure 3). Institutions, including most notably, houses
of worship, accompanied the tenements, matching their
diverse ethnicities. Places for mass entertainment, such
as theaters for vaudeville and movie houses for motion
pictures, also peaked during this period.
14 th Street as a commercial and industrial axis was
productive and successful in many ways in its peak
(1860-1910). However, its success was not without some
disruption. Workers formed unions to more effectively
deal with poor working conditions, and built union
centers to establish their presence on the street. Laborers
dissatisfied with conditions gathered in Union Square to
demonstrate, and the nation’s first Labor Day parade was
held there in 1882. Industry on 14 th Street lasted up until
the 1930s on the East River waterfront, and continues
until today on the Hudson River waterfront. On the East
River waterfront, the laborers and industry moved away,
favoring locations that lay outside of Manhattan that
were made accessible as inter-borough transportation
3. TENEMENTS ALONG EAST 14TH STREET. 4. STUYVESANT TOWN UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN 1946.
HISTORY OF 14TH STREET AND UNION SQUARE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
3

improved in the 1920s. On the Hudson River waterfront,
industry suffered a decline, despite the addition of an
elevated industrial rail, the High Line, in 1934. However,
unlike the East River waterfront, the Hudson River
waterfront managed to maintain a stronghold of activity
in the Gansevoort meatpacking district.
Development on 14 th Street was relatively stagnant
between 1930 and 1950. Interest in developing the street
came about after World War II, mainly in two forms.
Firstly, as a result of government sponsored urban renewal
effort, the east end of 14 th Street was condemned, razed,
and redeveloped as the large-scale “tower-in-the-park”
housing project: Stuyvesant Town (Figure 4). Secondly,
as a result of the sale of several large land holdings, by
the VanBurens and others in the late 1950s, 14 th Street
became the site of the development of large apartment
buildings for the upper middle class. The low-end retail
stores, movie theatres, and other residential necessities
that had been associated with the late-nineteenth and
early-twentieth century commercial boom of Union
Square remained a defining characteristic on the street
until the mid-1980s when a Business Improvement
District (BID) was formed on 14 th Street. By the mid
1980s, 14 th Street had developed a bad reputation as
an unsafe neighborhood, home to drug addicts and
the homeless. Symbolically, the BID showed the city’s
renewed interest in 14 th Street and revitalized the street
by encouraging economic growth and improving the
physical fabric. In 1974, the Greenmarket, a produce
market, opened on Union Square and similarly gave the
square a facelift in both the mind’s of outsiders and the
lives of 14 th Street residents. In 1984, Union Square Park
also underwent the first of a three-phase improvement,
physically making the park an even more attractive asset
to the street.
Over the past twenty years, 14 th Street has experienced
a revival in interest and activity. The Parks Department
has followed through on the 1984 Union Square Park
plan and is currently completing the third phase of
improvements to the park. The Greenmarket has
5. TODAY, THE ZECKENDORFF TOWERS AND THE CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY BUILDING LOOM OVER UNION SQUARE PARK.
continued to flourish as has commerce around the
square. In addition, improvements to the High Line and
the Hudson River Park promise further attention to the
street. Institutions and developers alike have recognized
this renaissance and have effectively capitalized on the
action by building large-scale apartment and dormitory
buildings. The meatpacking district is now part of the
Gansevoort Historic District and several industrial
buildings have been converted to high-end retail and
commercial uses. The eastern end of 14 th Street has
seen the least amount of change despite the upsurge of
activity along the rest of the street in the last twenty years.
The blocks between First Avenue and the river remain
much the way they were following the development of
Stuyvesant Town.
This overview of the history of 14 th Street is in no way
an exhaustive history. Rather, it touches on the defining
moments of the formation and growth of the street.
For further information please refer to the 14 th Street
and Union Square Preservation Plan for an extended
discussion of the history of 14 th Street.
HISTORY OF 14TH STREET AND UNION SQUARE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
4

SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
1 4th Street is the longest cross-street in Manhattan, and marks the widest point of
the island. It has traditionally been treated as the boundary line between “uptown,”
with its orderly grid of streets, and “downtown,” with its centuries-old crooked street
pattern. 14 th Street bisects many different neighborhoods and districts, and is often
described as an “in-between” area. In fact, 14 th Street has a remarkable diversity of
urban expression in its buildings, its character, and people. From river to river, the street
changes in feeling and in how people perceive it. These changes have come to define
our understanding of the street and, accordingly, we have divided the street into six
geographic regions for study. They are:
- From the Hudson River to Ninth Avenue
- From Ninth to Seventh Avenues
- From Seventh Avenue to University Place
- Union Square
- From Fourth to First Avenues
- From First Avenue to the East River
While understanding the street’s discreet areas is helpful for the in-depth analysis
necessary in creating a plan, it is also important to understand the characteristics of the
entire street. The components of “character” that we will be looking at are zoning, use,
age, scale, materials, and conditions.
Zoning – There are three types of zoning on the street: manufacturing, residential, and
commercial. The manufacturing zones are concentrated on both the western and eastern
waterfronts, while residential and commercial zoning designations are concentrated
in between. Often the combination of residential and commercial is produced by a
commercial zone overlaid with its residential equivalent.
Use – The land use follows the zoning closely, although commercial enterprises are
encroaching on the traditionaly industrial western waterfront. Scattered along the entire
street are government, institutional, and church buildings
Age – The buildings that exist today on 14 th Street and Union Square span almost two
hundred years of development, from 1820 to 2006. The majority of buildings were
built in an eighty-year range, from 1870 to 1950.
Scale – While it is difficult to make broad generalizations concerning scale on the
longest street in Manhattan, buildings on the north side of the street are generally taller
than those on the south side. Also, buildings near the western and eastern extremities
of the street are generally lower than those towards the street’s midpoint at Union
Square. Eighty-one percent of the buildings in the Study Area are six-stories or fewer.
Materials – The majority of buildings in the Study Area are made of brick. Other
prevalent façade materials include stucco, cast iron, glass, terracotta and stone.
The following section will present a brief look at the character of each Geographic
Region. Special attention will be given to the Significant Resources located within the
area.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES
5

HUDSON RIVER TO NINTH AVENUE
Most of the area is a part of the Gansevoort Market Historic District, bounded
by Chelsea to the north and Greenwich Village to the south. The area is
characterized by the low-scale, brick industrial buildings and tenements built for
neighborhood workers in the mid-nineteenth century. It is experiencing a shift from
the meatpacking industry to commercial high-end retail stores. The area is segregated
from the waterfront by the West Side Highway.
THE HIGH LINE
The High Line is a 13-mile long elevated railway extending from 35 th Street all the way
to St. John’s Park Terminal on Manhattan’s West Side. The High Line was built in 1934
in response to a long and serious history of accidents and deaths associated with cargo
trains running at street level. Its function was to transport goods and materials (including
lumber, bricks, fruit and coal) on a short, one-track route between the Hudson River
piers and the markets and warehouses of Chelsea and Greenwich Village. The High
Line is significant because it represents a technological innovation that had a short-lived
usefulness within the history of New York City’s transportation infrastructure, and
because it was a vital part and distinguishing feature of the wholesale market economy
of the Chelsea/Greenwich Village neighborhood. (Figure 1)
THE HIGH LINE BUILDING
The former Cudahy Cold Storage Facility, at 450 West 14 th Street, was the first of four
buildings designed and built expressly for through-passage of the High Line railway.
The five-story Art Deco brick and cast-stone structure was completed in 1932 by
engineers of the New York Central Railroad Company, as part of New York City’s
West Side Improvement project. The High Line Building is an integral part of the
history of the High Line railway, and is significant as a demonstration of the large-scale
industrial design projects championed by federal and municipal agencies during the
Great Depression in America. (Figure 2)
LIBERTY INN
The Liberty Inn, designed by Richard R. Davis, was built in 1908 for the Conron Brothers,
who were poultry dealers. Originally known as the Strand Hotel, it accommodated
sailors from the nearby piers. When the Titanic survivors were brought to these piers,
the New York Times used the hotel as a headquarters. Other uses have included a
boarding house, speakeasy, night club, and restaurant. Its many alterations reflect the
changes in the Gansevoort area from shipbuilding to meatpacking to night-life hot
spot, and it stands out within the area as one of the few buildings still retaining its
original use, that of a hotel. (Figure 3)
1. THE HIGH LINE. 2. THE HIGH LINE BUILDING. 3. LIBERTY INN.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: HUDSON RIVER TO NINTH AVENUE
6

NINTH TO SEVENTH AVENUES
Surrounded by Greenwich Village to the south, Chelsea to the north, a commercial
zone to the east, and the historically industrial Meatpacking District to the west,
the section of 14 th Street between Seventh and Ninth Avenues is characterized by a
diverse assortment of small-scale buildings. Residential buildings, including many midnineteenth-century
rowhouses, with ground-level commercial spaces predominate,
while commercial, light-manufacturing and religious buildings dating from the latenineteenth
to the early-twentieth century dot the streetscapes. The rich variety of
building uses, ages, architectural styles and materials, combined with the small scale of
the structures, help to create a distinct sense of neighborhood.
The building occupied by Guadalupe is a mid-nineteenth-century brownstone that
has been masterfully converted from a posh rowhouse to a double-height sanctuary,
complete with a monumental entrance, side chapel, tiny balcony, and clerestory. This
transformation which makes Guadalupe extremely rare, if not unique, in the city
spanned two decades and involved several notable architects one of which was Gustave
Steinback. Steinback, known for his work on religious projects, designed No. 229’s
classically proportioned Spanish Revival façade in 1921. Although the church remained
extremely popular, it was consolidated with nearby St. Bernard’s parish and closed in
2003. Today, Guadalupe is clear architectural trace of Little Spain. (Figure 5)
ST. BERNARD’S PARISH
Historically, St. Bernard’s Parish was considered one of the most important parishes in
the city. In the 1870s, the congregation was primarily composed of Irish immigrants
and descendants of Irish immigrants. Irish-born architect Patrick Charles Keely was
selected to design a new St. Bernard’s and the cornerstone was laid in May of 1873. The
church is built in the Victorian Gothic style with the twin towers, triple-portal entrance,
and rose window inset into a pointed
arch reveal a masterful blending
of French and English influences.
(Figure 4)
242 WEST 14 TH STREET
The building located at 242 West 14 th Street is a great example of a residential to partial
commercial conversion due to its intact, double-height cast iron storefront. (Figure 6)
(FORMER) ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH OF OUR LADY OF
GUADALUPE
Founded at the turn of the twentieth
century by the Augustinians of the
Assumption, Guadalupe was the
first Spanish-speaking Catholic
parish in New York City and for a
time served as the national parish for
Spanish-speaking Catholics. At this
time 14th Street between Seventh
and Eighth Avenues was the heart
of “Little Spain,” and working-class
Spanish immigrants composed
most of the early congregation.
4. ST. BERNARD’S.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: NINTH TO SEVENTH AVENUES
5. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE. 6. 242 WEST 14 TH STREET.
7

NEWTON BUILDING
The Newton Building was designed by the architect, James Farnsworth in 1890 as a
speculative office and manufacturing building, which was caused by the development
of nearby Gansevoort Market. The unusual combination of the large manufacturing
building on the West 13 th Street and a narrow office building on the 14 th Street represents
the developer, John Pettit’s intention to make the building more marketable by taking
advantage of the prominence of the West 14 th Street as a commercial district. (Figure 7)
210 WEST 14 TH STREET
It is here that French Dadaist artist Marcel Duchamp lived from 1942 until the
year of his death, 1968, on the top floor. Due to the fact that the building itself, an
1849 brownstone, has been altered since Duchamp resided here, the significance is
compromised. While it is important to acknowledge this connection with the artist’s
later works that have only recently been found and exhibited, the alteration means that
less can be learned from the building than if it were not the case. (Figure 8)
BANKERS’ TRUST COMPANY BUILDING
The former Bankers’ Trust Company building is an excellent example of the setback,
Art Deco-style office tower strongly associated with Manhattan’s pre- Depression
financial and building boom. Commissioned by Vincent Astor for his investment
banking firm, the building was completed in 1929 to serve the meat and poultry
dealers in the market district of Chelsea and Greenwich Village. In striking contrast
to the two fine examples of the low, classically-inspired purpose-built bank standing
on opposite corners, the former Bankers’ Trust building uses expressive Art Deco
ornament and the monumentality of the ziggurat form to establish itself in the
neighborhood. (Figure 9)
INTERIOR
The small office lobby of the
former Bankers’ Trust building is a
sumptuous exposition of high Art
Deco design and materials. The
tight, streamlined composition of
highly-polished marble surfaces,
smoked glass and bronze grillework
articulates the principles of
craftsmanship, elegant detail, and
luxury demonstrated by the finest
examples of Art Deco design.
(Figure 10)
7. NEWTON BUILDING. 8. 210 WEST 14 TH STREET.
9. BANKERS’ TRUST COMPANY BUILDING. 10. INTERIOR, BANKERS’ TRUST
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: NINTH TO SEVENTH AVENUES
8

LITTLE SPAIN
11. JEANNE D’ARC.
200 WEST 14 TH STREET (JEANNE D’ARC)
Also known as the Jeanne d’ Arc, 200 West 14 th Street was designed by architect James
W. Cole and built for owner Henry Meinken between 1888 and 1889. Cole designed
more than fifty buildings in New York City throughout his career, and is perhaps best
know known for his Charles A. Vissani House, a designated New York City landmark
on the Upper West Side. 200 West 14 th Street originally housed eight families above
ground-level commercial spaces, and is listed in the 1889 docket books under “French
flat,” a category then used for buildings that fell between single-family dwellings and
boardinghouses. Cole’s intention to present the building as a middle-class dwelling
remains evident in the sophisticated facades of this corner building. They are composed
of American-bond brick; carved brownstone sills, lintels, stringcourses, and pilasters;
and a projecting pressed-metal cornice. Cole’s rhythmic and lively north elevation
directs a viewer’s eye to a central entrance surrounded by carved figures, and above it,
a stone statue of Joan of Arc. Aside from its architectural merit, 200 West 14 th Street is
significant as the earliest existing French flat along 14th Street, and as a remnant of the
street’s brief period as an upper- and middle-class residential enclave. (Figure 11)
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: NINTH TO SEVENTH AVENUES
At the turn of the century, Spanish immigrants settled in the area around West 14 th
Street. The degree to which this was the center of Spanish life in the city is visible in
the number of services that were offered within the area, and particularly on the block
between Eighth and Seventh Avenues. In the first decades of the twentieth century,
the Casa Maria, a Spanish settlement house protecting the “temporal, social, mental,
moral, and religious welfare of young
women and Spanish speaking people,”
the Spanish Benevolent Society, and St.
Raphael’s Spanish Immigrant Society all
located on this block, while still more,
such as the Spanish American Workers
Alliance, the Hotel Espanyol, and
many other businesses serving Spanish
and Spanish-speaking people located
nearby. In 1902, the Augustinians of the
Assumption established the Our Lady
of Guadalupe Roman Catholic Church,
the first Latino church in Manhattan, in
order to “do [their] work for the Spanish
speaking people.” In 1939, the New
York City Guide published by the WPA
acknowledged that, while “the Spanish
Colony has declined,” many remaining
institutions “still preserve[d] the Iberian
flavor.” Continuing waves of Spanishspeaking
immigrants, most noticeably
those from Puerto Rico in the second
half of the twentieth century, have also
12. LITTLE SPAIN.
gathered in this area. Today, the area serves the larger Hispanic community of New
York with the Spanish Benevolent Society, the Asociacion Tepeyac de New York, the
Centro Español La Nacional, Spanish-language bookstores, and the Lady of Guadalupe
Church, albeit relocated and consolidated with nearby St. Bernard’s Parish. While
there have been and continue to be many geographic centers for Spanish and Hispanic
immigrants, 14 th Street’s Little Spain is significant as being the first major gathering
place for generations of Spanish and Hispanic immigrants. (Figure 12)
9

240 WEST 14 TH STREET
240 West 14 th Street, a mid-nineteenth-century rowhouse in the
Italianate style, is architecturally significant for the elaborate
cast-iron window and door surrounds applied to its brownstone
façade. (Figure 15)
STREETSCAPE (ANDREW NORWOOD BLOCK)
13. 244 WEST 14 TH STREET 14. 314 WEST 14 TH 15. 240 WEST 14 TH
STREET.
STREET.
244 WEST 14 TH STREET
The Greek Revival, Italianate, and Second Empire style
rowhouses along the north side of West 14 th Street, between
Seventh and Eight Avenues, were constructed between 1840 and
1860. Surviving in a nearly intact row, these buildings represent
the period when West 14 th Street, from Union Square to Ninth
Avenue, was regarded as a fashionable address for upper- and
upper-middle-class New Yorkers. (Figure 16)
Constructed in 1930, 244 West 14 th Street is a two-story taxpayer in the Art Deco style.
One of fifteen taxpayers along 14 th Street, this structure is the most notable for its
patterned brickwork and stylized cast-stone ornament. (Figure 13)
314 WEST 14 TH STREET
Built in 1907 by retail druggists Daggett and Ramsdell, the three-story loft building
at 314 West 14 th Street is one of the earliest examples of the wave of commercial/
manufacturing loft development that transformed 14 th Street in the early 20th century.
Additionally, it is one of the few remaining single-bay loft buildings constructed on a
25-foot-wide lot on 14 th Street. (Figure 14)
16. STREETSCAPE (ANDREW NORWOOD BLOCK).
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: NINTH TO SEVENTH AVENUES
10

SEVENTH AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
The area contains continuing reminders of 14 th Street’s involvement with the
commerce of the avenues that interest it and is defined mostly by medium scale
commercial architecture from the 1880s-1930s with the exception of several institutions
and large mid-twentieth-century apartment buildings.
THE SALVATION ARMY’S NATIONAL & TERRITORIAL HEADQUARTERS
The Salvation Army’s National and Territorial
Headquarters buildings strove to change the public’s
negative perception of the organization, integrate
social and charitable aspects with its religious past, and
physically reflect the Salvation Army as a progressive
organization. These goals were accomplished with
innovative materials such as cast stone and the selection
of modern architect Ralph Walker to design a new
headquarters influenced by the German Expressionist
style. (Figure 17)
(FORMER) MACY’S SITE
The former Macy’s building, designed by architects Schickel & Ditmars
in 1898, located at 56 West 14 th Street, is the last remnant of Macy’s
presence on 14 th Street where the store got its start and went from a
small dry goods store to full-fledged department store occupying the
ground space of eleven buildings in this area. (Figure 19)
(FORMER) GEORGE C. FLINT CO./LATER COWPERTHWAIT &
CO. FURNITURE STORE
This five-story Renaissance Revival cast iron building was designed by
architects William Field & Son in 1875 for the furniture emporium of
George C. Flint & Co., later becoming Cowperthwait & Co. Furniture
Store in 1894. It was erected at a time when 14 th Street was part of
“Furniture Row”. (Figure 20)
19. MACY’S
SITE.
(FORMER) 14 TH STREET STORE
The (Former) 14 th Street Store, located on the southeast
corner of 14 th Street and Sixth Avenue, was designed
by the architects Cady, Burg, and See for the major
department store developer Henry Siegal. The site was
chosen for its location near the stop of the Elevated
Train, and because it was the site of the Macy’s store.
This building is notable, not only for its connections
with a well-known architecture firm and developer,
but also for its architectural dialogue with Chicago’s
Carson Pirie Scott Building, which was commissioned
at the same time as the 14 th Street Store by the same
developer, but designed by Louis Sullivan. The building
also currently marks the southern-most point of the
Ladies’ Mile on Sixth Avenue and continues to represent
a transitional piece of architecture moving from the
arcaded commercial style of the late nineteenth-century
towards a more modern expression. (Figure 18)
17. SALVATION ARMY HQ.
18. 14TH STREET STORE.
THE DIX BUILDING
Designed by Louis Korn and completed in 1907 for developer Samuel Weil, this building
located at 116 West 14 th Street has become to be known as the Dix Building, for long-term
occupant and progressive employer
Henry A. Dix, dressmaker. While Dix
maintained an “open shop” (which
employs non-unionized workers), his
business practices were progressive
in a time that employers, especially in
the garment-making industry, treated
employees poorly and kept appalling
work conditions. Dix was one of the
first employers to instate the fiveday
work week without reduction
of wages, as well as paid vacation
time. In 1923, at the age of 72, Dix
retired and handed his business over
to his employees, whom all became
shareholders. (Figure 21)
20. COOPERWAITH STORE. 21. DIX BUILDING
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: SEVENTH TO AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
11

(FORMER) GREENWICH SAVINGS BANK
The former Greenwich Savings Bank was built in 1952 by prominent New York bank
architects Halsey, McCormack & Helmer. The building’s exterior, with its simple
architectural vocabulary, evokes the stability and staid conservatism of the savings bank
industry. It is a remarkably late example of classicizing Art Deco architectural design.
(Figure 24)
527 SIXTH AVENUE
22. J.G. JOHNSON STORE. 23. LUDWIG BROTHERS STORE.
(FORMER) J.G. JOHNSON DEPARTMENT STORE
This nineteenth century building elevation bears a cast-iron façade, designed by
architect Alfred Hoe in 1879 following the Renaissance Revival Style, very popular in
the 1870’s and 1880’s, for the shopping emporium of J. G. Johnson. Erected at a time
when 14 th Street was a busy commercial thoroughfare, it is a significant remnant of the
time. (Figure 22)
527 Sixth Avenue is a Romanesque Revival commercial building designed by Theo
Thomson and erected in 1896. The brick and granite structure is actually composed of
three separate buildings erected on three contiguous lots clustered on the southwest
corner of 14 th Street and Sixth Avenue. The buildings were designed in response to the
site’s proximity to the Sixth Avenue elevated train, which first opened on 14 th Street
in 1881, and the round, turreted corner tower of building announces its prominence
and commercial prowess. From ground level, pedestrians would see the main entry
surrounded by Corinthian columns, and the heavily ornamented doors and windows
capped by the first-level stringcourse. From the tracks of the El, riders would clearly
see the corner tower with its turret, rising above the second-level stringcourse and
solidly articulated in buff colored brick and heavily rusticated details. This building is
significant for the way its unified architectural program reflects a special relationship
with the Sixth Avenue elevated train. Additionally, the building represents an unusual
application of Romanesque Revival style to the commercial building form. (Figure 25)
(FORMER) LUDWIG BROTHERS DRY GOODS STORE/LATER ROTHENBERG &
CO. DEPARTMENT STORE
This five-story Renaissance Revival cast iron department store building was designed by
prominent architect William Wheeler Smith in 1878 for the Ludwig Brothers’ dry goods
company. It was later altered and expanded when it became Rothenberg & Co. in 1899.
Erected as a grand emporium catering to a middle and upper-middle class clientele,
the Ludwig Brothers Dry Goods Store was one of several grand department stores
constructed along 14 th Street, between Sixth Avenue and Broadway, and is representative
of a time when that area was a fashionable shopping district. (Figure 23)
24. GREENWICH SAVINGS BANK. 25. 527 SIXTH AVENUE.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: SEVENTH TO AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
12

(FORMER) BAUMANN
BROTHERS’ STORE
The Baumann Brothers’
Store is significant both as
an artifact of 14 th Street’s
retail past and as a marker in
the evolution of the oeuvre
of architects D. & J. Jardine.
The building represents the
Jardines’ later work in cast
iron—a period in which they
had broken with mimicry of
Italianate forms in iron and
embraced the possibilities of
the material. Commissioned
for the fashionable Union
Square retail district in 1880
by New York business icon
and 14 th Street resident James
McCreery, the structure was
first occupied by the Bauman
n Brothers’ Furniture and
Carpet store after it moved
uptown from Hudson Street.
Invoking elements of the 26. BAUMANN BROTHERS’ STORE.
Aesthetic movement and the Queen Anne style, the building freely integrated rich
classical motifs with contemporary design elements while employing a playful virtuosity
rarely seen in the city’s other cast iron. The exuberant façade distills a unique moment
in New York architecture—one in which the moribund technology of cast iron was
used with unconventional design inspiration to create a building bound to the past
but also breaking with it. The evolving Jardine aesthetic of cast iron is still visible in
New York’s built fabric, starting with the remaining Thomas Twin (1869), progressing
to B. Altman’s Sixth Avenue Store (1877), and ending with the Baumann Brothers’
Store (1880). McCreery’s building is a powerful reminder of 14 th Street’s former retail
magnetism, of the way that commerce and manufacturing were housed under one roof,
and of how architects were squaring innovation, function, and aesthetics in a moment
of major change. (Figure 26)
154-160 WEST 14 TH STREET
The steel frame twelve-story loft building at
14 th Street and Seventh Avenue was designed in
1912 by Herman Lee Meader and is a spectacular
example of the use of polychrome terra cotta.
The base consists of golden terra cotta tiles with
white floral relief work and green diamonds
with blue surrounds. Blue diamond accents are
used below each window in the central section
of the tripartite design. The top of the building
is emphasized with elaborate laurel wreaths
and floral elements to the upper stories and the
cornice.
Meader’s use of polychrome terra cotta in this
building was one of the boldest of its time. The
organic motifs and geometric building forms,
along with the use of laurel wreaths near the
cornice selected by Meader for this loft building
indicates the influence of Austrian architect Otto
Wagner and his followers on the architecture of
New York City. (Figure 27)
28 EAST 14 TH STREET
27. 154-160 WEST 14 TH STREET.
28 East 14 th Street is notable for its striking cast-iron façade
that features central bay windows. It is possible that this
address represents a last-minute shift in the utilization of
cast iron (from commercial to residential) before its usage
fell out of fashion. (Figure 28)
28. 28 EAST 14 TH STREET.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: SEVENTH TO AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
13

45 WEST 14 TH STREET
In 1959, this 1875 rowhouse was purchased by
the Painting Industry Funding Corporation, and
converted into the office building for use by the
International Union of Painters and Allied Traders.
Located within two blocks of Union Square, a historic
center of labor activity, protest and organization,
this site was appropriate to serve the activities of
the Union. Consecutively with the occupation of
their new headquarters, the Union played a major
role in the 1960s fight for legislation regarding labor
and civil rights.
20 EAST 14 TH STREET
Perhaps capitalizing on the prosperity of neighboring Baumann Brothers’ stores, 20
East 14 th Street erected its own cast-iron storefront in 1911. Though spare in detailing,
it remains a good example of cast-iron’s small-scale applications, both on 14 th Street
and in New York City. (Figure 30)
108 WEST 14TH STREET
108 West 14 th Street is a notable example of the typical conversions from residential
rowhouses to commercial entities. The double-height cast iron storefront is simple but
is also a good example of small residential conversions. (Figure 31)
The Union commissioned William Conklin of the
Mayer, Whittlesley, and Glass to adapt the existing
structure in the modern context. The design of the
new façade with the sunshades was inspired by the
arches of the cast iron buildings in its neighborhood.
This acknowledgement of historical influences in
“modern” design was a radical departure from the
historical design theory of the time. Furthermore,
Conklin successfully incorporated the practical
concerns and function requirements, such as the 29. 45 WEST 14 TH STREET.
need to shade large areas of glass and convenient access for cleaning, into its design.
Hence, this building is significant in that it is the remnant of the rowhouse development
in the neighborhood in 1870s, and it represents the relationship with the history of the
labor unions on the 14 th Street and the innovative design idea in early 1960s. (Figure 29)
30. 20 EAST 14 TH STREET. 31. 108 WEST 14 TH STREET.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: SEVENTH TO AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
14

FIFTH AVENUE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
The speculative commercial buildings on the western corner 14 th Street and Fifth
Avenue provide a strong visible boundary between East and West Fourteenth Street
and illustrate the differing scale of the avenues and the cross street. The building on
the south corner was designed by Buchman and Fox and was completed in 1907, while
the building on the north corner was designed by Robert Maynicke and was completed
in 1902. These buildings exemplify the incorporation of new technology into the
preferred architectural styles of the period. (Figures 35 and 36)
32. THE VICTORIA. 33. WEDGEWOOD HOUSE.
WHITE BRICK APTARTMENT BUILDINGS
14 th Street is home to a number of mid-century white-brick apartment buildings,
notable for their monumental size (a result of the sale of large landholdings), their sleek
modernist design, their use of modern materials (including white brick and aluminum),
and, finally, their pretentious names, like the “The Victoria” and “Wedgewood House”
(Figure 32 and 33)
33 WEST 14TH STREET
The building is significant as part of the taxpayer
properties created by the Van Beuren family on
the northern side of 14 th Street. The family’s
speculation activities on 14 th Street are recorded
in the surviving taxpayers and these buildings
reflect different periods of economic expansion
and contraction on the street. (Figure 34)
35 AND 36. FIFTH AVENUE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.
34. 33 WEST 14 TH STREET.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: SEVENTH TO AVENUE TO UNIVERSITY PLACE
15

UNION SQUARE
Since the early nineteenth century, Union Square has been a public, political and
social gathering space for commerce, entertainment, labor, political events and
recreation. Developed as a major transportation hub within the city, Union Square
consists of a two-part whole: the park plus the buildings that surround the park. The
park has historically been a primary location for political, social and cultural expression
contained within the defining walls of the conglomeration of buildings that reflect
diverse use, age, character, scale and architectural style. Their architectural significance
derives from the various design responses they present for the early exploration of the
skyscraper in New York.
UNION SQUARE PARK
As the oldest green space in the Study Area, Union Square Park has changed and
evolved with the street, but is most of all important in the role that it has played as a
historic gathering spot for protests, celebrations and memorials. (Figure 37)
SPINGLER BUILDING
Located on the west side of Union Square,
this Classical-inspired building was built in
1896 by architects William H. Hume & Son,
appointed by the firm of James L. Libby &
Son, who designed it as a commercial building
that housed a variety of uses such as stores,
showrooms, manufacturing enterprises and
industrial lofts. Its structure was built at a
time when Union Square was changing its
character and appearance, no longer the
site of fine residences, luxury hotels and
theatres, but rather a more commercial
and manufacturing area. It represented a
new typology in the distribution of space
required by the flourishing garment industry,
which demanded spaces for showrooms and
manufacturing processes, all in the same
place. The building’s façade, made out of limestone at its base, and
buff brick and terra cotta in the remaining stories, portrayed the
architectural ideas of the time, following the “tripartite scheme” in
a unique way by introducing a transitional level above the base, and
reflecting the style set forth by the World’s Columbian Exhibition
held in Chicago in 1893. It has become an important element of
Union Square’s built fabric, a reflection of its character and an
important vestige of its history. (Figure 38)
38. THE SPINGLER BUILDING.
COMMERCIAL TRADERS BUILDING
A vernacular Beaux Arts building, this single bay loft was designed
by amateur architect William Pigueron for his brother George,
an active developer. The façade adapted the features of a wildly
popular style to a singularly New York building typology, resulting
in a building that, when new, would have been fashionable, quite
tall, and desirable to rent. (Figure 39)
37. UNION SQUARE.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: UNION SQUARE
39. COMMERCIAL
TRADERS BUILDING.
16

(FORMER) TAMMANY HALL
Tammany Hall is the former
headquarters of the infamous
political machine by the same
name, which occupied the
building from 1928 to 1940. It
also served a second life as the
headquarters for the International
Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.
Their use of this building, and 40. TAMMANY HALL.
particularly Roosevelt Hall,
established the building as a center of labor union activity and contributes to this aspect
of Union Square’s history. Architecturally, the building serves as an imposing example
of Neo-Colonial architecture in its emulation of Pierre L’Enfant’s 1789 Federal Hall in
New York City. The structure, with its grand order, monumental rise, and pedimented
portico, was designed by Charles B. Meyers and Thompson, Holmes and Converse in
1928. The details of Flemish bond Harvard brick, corncob and wheatstalk cartouches,
and images of the “Tammany Brave” and Christopher Columbus present a nostalgic
and patriotic image. Its architectural value, combined with its important role in the
political development of New York City, make Tammany Hall a significant part of the
built fabric of Union Square and New York City as a whole. (Figure 40)
(FORMER) SCHIRMER’S STORE
Gustav Schirmer’s store (D & J Jardine, 1880) is one of the few mostly intact vestiges
of the high end retailers, particularly of music goods, that once occupied Union Square
and served the musical and theatre community that developed there. Schirmer’s was a
prominent business, noted for being the first to publish the
works of Wagner in America. His building contributed to the
architectural eclecticism of its unique block by employing
a stripped, almost abstracted classicism in its facade. The
structure reflected the transitional nature of architecture in
the 1880s as it moved away from facades of cast iron toward
brick here experimenting with the structural expressivity of
the Neo Gréc and the ornament of Queen Anne (sunflowers
bookend the spandrels, and a triangular parapet once
crowned a garlanded cornice). Gustav Schirmer’s store is a
singular survivor that conveys a largely lost piece of Union
Square musical history, and records the transitional work of a
masterful New York architecture firm. (Figure 41)
41. SCHIMER’S STORE.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: UNION SQUARE
50 EAST 14 TH STREET
Emery Roth’s 20-story office tower
of 1929 is the only Art Deco tower
on Union Square—and stands,
with the Salvation Army and
Bankers’ Trust Company Building,
as one of the few examples of the
style on 14 th Street. From street
level to roofline, Roth’s design is
remarkably free of ornament except
for a cast-iron and glass “screen”
treatment on the third through
fifth floors and a unique castellated
cornice on the uppermost tier. The
architecture of the tower displays a
strong vertical emphasis typical of
art deco designs, as well as setbacks
required by the 1916 zoning
resolution. The original entrance
of the building, which once
included a portal to the subway,
42. 50 EAST 14 TH STREET.
features a handsome mural of
stylized birdflight and foliate motifs. Roth’s plan for the building carefully regulated
the unusual space dictated by the lot lines, arranging stores on the floors behind the
façade screen, and offices and lofts on the upper levels. Filed for the relatively modest
cost of $700,000 in 1927, Roth produced a building of great efficiency and utility, but
also up-to-date style. Emery Roth’s Union Square tower stands as the only Art Deco
building in its eclectic context, and exemplifies the speculative boom of the twenties in
the hands of a master, constrained by budget though he was. (Figure 42)
17

PAVILION—UNION SQUARE
UNION HALL
The Italian Renaissance inspired pavilion in Union Square was designed for the New
York City Parks Department in 1931 by the Department’s architect Charles Schmieder.
Schmieder joined the Parks
Department as a draftsman in
1912 and served as Department
architect from 1922 until his
death in 1950. During this time he
designed many structures in parks
throughout the city, including a
boathouse in Central Park and a
field house in Inwood Hill Park,
in 1931 and 1933 respectively.
The Pavilion was part of greater
park improvements made during
subway construction, and at its inception housed a bandstand and comfort station. The
pavilion has since served as a meeting point, a playground, a restaurant and a “soap
box” for political protesters. (Figure 43)
27-29 Union Square West, the union meeting and offices, represents
the rise of the trade and labor unions in the 1950’s. Its architectural style
is representative of vernacular modern architecture. (Figure 45)
HARTFORD BUILDING
This eleven-story corner building built in a neo-Renaissance style
was designed by Youngs, Bergesen, and Cornell in 1894. Built as a
speculative office and loft building by Charles Wadsworth to meet the
increasing demand of the wholesale and manufacturing establishments
that moved to Union Square since the 1880’s, the Hartford Building
represents the transition of Union Square’s built fabric and character,
going from residential to commercial in the late nineteenth century.
(Figure 46)
43. PAVILION—UNION SQUARE.
46. HARTFORD
ZECKENDORFF TOWERS
BUILDING.
24-30 UNION SQUARE EAST
Once four individual Greek Revival rowhouses, these buildings are an excellent
example of the evolution of New York architecture from residential to commercial.
The re-cladding of the structures in cast iron, designed by architect Henry Fernbach,
characterizes the shift from traditional masonry facades to a progressive style of the
late nineteenth century. (Figure 44)
These large-scale, residential mixeduse
towers on the southwest corner
of Union Square were built by the
prominent real estate developer
Zeckendorff in 1988. Its significance
lies in the fact that it played a large part
in the revitalization of Union Square,
an area which had been in decline since
the 1960’s. (Figure 47)
47. ZECKENDORFF TOWERS.
44. 24-30 UNION SQUARE EAST. 45. UNION HALL.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: UNION SQUARE
18

FOURTH TO FIRST AVENUES
This neighborhood located between First Avenue and Fourth Avenue is
characterized by surviving immigrant presence manifested in tenements, ethnic
stores and cultural support networks. It is a transitional “valley” between Union Square
and Stuyvesant Town, and still retains vestiges of affluent mid-nineteenth-century
residential development.
ENGINE COMPANY NO. 5
Built in 1880 by architect Napolean LeBrun,
Engine Company No. 5 is the earliest firehouse
built during a wave of New York City firehouse
construction to still be used for its original
purpose and maintains its original appearance.
The austerity and simplicity of this early design,
illustrative of the professionalization of the latenineteenth-century
Fire Department, provides
interesting and valuable contrast to his later, more
ornate firehouses, several of which have already
been designated. Engine Company No. 5, located
on the south side of 14 th Street between First and
Second Avenues, is one of the last functioning
firehouses remaining from the major 1880s
firehouse building campaign. (Figure 48)
48. ENGINE COMPANY NO. 5.
(FORMER) ITALIAN LABOR CENTER
Dating from 1920-21, the (former) Italian Labor
Center building is a significant reminder of the Italian-
American working class community which flourished
in New York City in the early to mid-twentieth century.
One of the few extant examples of a labor unionbased
community service center in New York City,
the (former) Italian Labor Center’s notable façade,
designed by Bronx-based architects John Caggiano,
Matthew Del Gaudio, and Anthony Lombardi is
modeled after well-known Italian architectural ideas.
Originally constructed for the members of the
International Ladies’ Garment Worker Union (I. L.
G. W. U.) Local 48 with a public store on the ground
floor, more recently the Ukrainian Center for Social
Research, and now a six-story apartment building with
a theme-based bar on the first floor, the building has
long been a gathering place for New Yorkers. Further,
it, like the Triangle shirtwaist factory, is a “reminder of
the period at the beginning of the twentieth century
when the garment industry was the largest employer 49. ITALIAN LABOR CENTER.
in New York City.” Notable features include intact
breccia pernice wainscoting detail on the first and second floor interiors and, most
strikingly, two decorative terra-cotta bas reliefs depicting scenes of Italian, family,
and labor-related significance located between the second and third floors. The
eastern panel clearly shows a content working family. The western panel illustrates
the naked Roman goddess Minerva, patroness of craftspeople, in the foreground
before a shirtless laborer. An early work in the career of Matthew Del Gaudio, the
(Former) Italian Labor Center acknowledges the versatility of this architect, who
was later recognized for his work on both the Williamsburg Houses and the Civil
Courthouse of the City of New York (with William Lescaze). (Figure 49)
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: FOURTH TO FIRST AVENUES
19

(FORMER) FIRST GERMAN BAPTIST CHURCH/
NOW TOWN & VILLAGE SYNANGOGUE
The former First German Baptist Church (now the
Town and Village Synagogue), located on the south
side of 14 th Street between First and Second Avenues,
is indicative of the ethnic changes that occurred in this
area of New York City. The building was originally built
with a German architectural influence, later added to
with Ukrainian influenced onion domes, and the removal
of the Christian-themed stained glass when it became a
Synagogue. (Figure 50)
50. TOWN & VILLAGE
SYNOGOGUE.
LABOR TEMPLE
The Labor Temple, located on the southwest corner of Second Avenue and 14 th Street,
was designed by a prominent New York City architect, Emery Roth, as an experimental
reaction of the Presbyterian Church to reach out, for the first time, in a deliberate and
public way to the working class immigrants that inhabited 14 th Street. The building
was designed to spread the beliefs of the Presbyterian Church in a subtle and nonthreatening
manner by incorporating many different activities and uses that were more
community-based rather than religious. (Figure 51)
52. MCCREERY HOUSE. 53. MECHANICS & METALS NATIONAL BANK.
JAMES MCCREERY HOUSE
This largely intact mid-nineteenth century rowhouse, with its Greek Revival doorfront
and its Italianate cornice, was originally the home of James McCreery, a New York
business icon and founder of the James McCreery & Company Dry Goods House.
The house was built in 1851 by McCreery, who lived there with his wife and seven
children until 1869. He owned the property until his death in 1903. James McCreery
was born in Ireland in 1826. Twenty years later, he came to the United States and
settled in Baltimore, where he worked for the dry goods house of Hamilton Easter &
Company. In 1851, he moved with his family to New York, and in 1867, he founded
the firm of James McCreery & Company, a dry goods house that would later become
one of the biggest businesses in the city. Besides being a successful business man and
merchant, he was also a developer, one of his projects being the Baumann Brothers
Store building. Until his death on February 26, 1903, he was known as “The Grand Old
Man of Business.” (Figure 52)
(FORMER) MECHANICS & METALS NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
The former Mechanics & Metals Bank, located on the northwest corner of 14 th Street
and Second Avenue, was designed by the prolific bank architects, the Hoggson Brothers,
during the 1920s when New York became a world leader in banking, indicating the
importance of the business district surrounding Stuyvesant Square. (Figure 53)
51. LABOR TEMPLE
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: FOURTH TO FIRST AVENUES
20

THE CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY BUILDING
The impressive expansion of the Consolidated Gas Company Building mirrors the
explosive growth of the utility industry in the first quarter of the 20 th century. Henry
J. Hardenberg’s original tall office building was designed with wonderful Beaux-Arts
ornament that was created to highlight the building’s architecture especially at night,
when it was illuminated with the emerging technology of the electric lamp. Warren &
Wetmore later added their mark on the building by erecting a skyscraping tower that
still rises far above the low-rise neighborhoods of Greenwich Village and Gramercy
Park. (Figure 54)
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
COMPANY BUILDING
The First Federal Savings & Loan building, located
on the southwest corner of 14th Street and First
Avenue, is a physical testimony to the perceived
importance of Stuyvesant Town; its main entrance
on the corner directly facing the “new” housing
project. (Figure 55)
HISTORIC STREETSCAPE
The tenements found in this area on 14th Street, 55. FIRST FEDERAL S&L.
between First and Third Avenues specifically, are
architecturally significant because they create the desirable “neighborhood valley”
connecting the busy commercial area of Union Square to the large housing complex
of Stuyvesant Town. (Figure 56)
56. HISTORIC STREETSCAPE.
54. CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY BUILDING.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: FOURTH TO FIRST AVENUES
21

FIRST AVENUE TO THE EAST RIVER
1 4th Street from the East River to First Avenue serves as a border between the Lower
East Side to the south and Stuyvesant Town to the north. The north side of the street
is characterized by large-scale, post-war urban renewal masonry development, while
the south side features low-scale, mid-twentieth-century commercial developments
(taxpayers) interspersed with tenements dating from the 1860s to the 1910s. The area
terminates at the Consolidated Edison Company’s historical heavy industrial facility.
628-640 EAST 14 TH STREET
Designed in 1890 by George F. Pelham, one of New York City’s most prolific housing
developers of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, the series of nine
connected “dumbbell” tenements at 628-640 East 14 th Street are significant as one
of the earliest experiments in large-scale, immigrant housing development. While the
façade of the Pelham row (still largely intact) exhibits attention to detail in the use of
popular architectural styles and durable materials, the interior layout of each tenement
reflects the minimum quality of light, ventilation and sanitary facilities required under
the 1879 Tenements Law. (Figure 57)
EAST RIVER GENERATING STATION
The Consolidated Edison Company’s East
River Generating Station dominates the
eastern section of 14 th Street. It was erected
primarily in two phases, the first campaign
completed in 1926 and the second in the
1950s. The station is a powerful presence
on the East River, not only hearkening back
to the industrial nature of this waterfront
throughout history but, more specifically,
Consolidated Edison’s prominence and
importance in the city’s viability. The strong
architecture of the the phases is indicative
of New York Edison’s transformation
from a young, civic-minded company
into a government-regulated corporation.
To sustain these buildings as a symbol
of historic significance and an iconic
New York corporation will appropriately
maintain this strong presence on 14 th
Street at the East River. (Figure 58)
58. EAST RIVER GENERATING STATION.
STUYVESANT TOWN
Stuyvesant Town is New York City’s largest moderate-income housing project, begun
in 1943 and completed in 1947 as a joint
venture of the city and the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company. Architecturally,
Stuyvesant Town is significant as an
embodiment of the revolutionary “tower in
the park” planning ideals of the first half of
the 20 th century. However, it also possesses
transcendent historical importance as the
site of an early Civil Rights struggle to
win equal housing opportunity for African
American citizens. (Figure 59)
59. STUYVESANT TOWN.
57. 628-640 EAST 14 TH STREET.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: FIRST AVENUE TO THE EAST RIVER
22

602 EAST 14 TH STREET
As a “taxpayer” building, meant to
generate the taxes on an expensive piece
of land, 602 East 14 th Street is by definition
a transient structure. However at some
point select long-lived taxpayers such as
this one become an establishment within
the neighborhood. 602 East 14 th Street
stands as a counterbalance to towering
Stuyvesant Town and its presence is
essential to the local neighborhood 60. 602 EAST 14 TH STREET.
character. Since this site and many others
like it are highly under built, the numerous taxpayers on East 14 th Street will play a vital
role in its future redevelopment. (Figure 60)
EAST SIDE TENEMENTS
Historically, these blocks were part of a larger immigrants’ neighborhood that was
formed when the Lower East Side, the traditional residential location for this group,
began pushing north. Many of the former industrial sites were replaced with tenements
as early as the 1850s. About twenty tenements and flats still remain on the south side
standing in contrast to Stuyvesant Town to the north. (Figure 62)
UNITED STATES POST OFFICE—STUYVESANT BRANCH
The Stuyvesant Branch of the United States Post Office was designed by architects
Wechsler & Schimenti in 1949. Along with several banks and retail stores, this building
is a wholly intact remnant of the residential boom following World War II and the
opening of Stuyvesant Town in 1947. (Figure 61)
61. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE—STUYVESANT BRANCH.
62. EAST SIDE TENEMENTS.
SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES: FIRST AVENUE TO THE EAST RIVER
23

THE PLAN
After highlighting the character, significant resources,
and issues—both positive and negative—of each
geographic region, we compiled a group of “street-wide
issues,” including:
- Unprotected Historic Resources
- Public-Private Interface
- Institutional Presence
- Development
- Open Spaces
- Physical Deterioration
- Alterations to the Built Environment
Out of these “street-wide” issues, we developed general
initiatives that would address each issue in a broad way
(i.e. “Balance Public and Private Interests”).
While we felt that this approach was helpful in identifying
our goals generally, we also realized the importance of
singling out instances and examples in order to create
an executable plan. For each of these specific examples,
we have suggested certain tools that address the specific
needs of that situation. The examples that we have
identified are in no way an exhaustive list of the instances
where certain issues play out on the street, however they
are the most illustrative.
We have also written this plan with the assumption that
the most important tool to be applied in order to protect
our primary and secondary resources would be landmark
designation. Designation would be achieved through
education and advocacy that would also concurrently aid
in other preservation goals.
should be taken towards landmark designation: making
our research available to the public, both on the internet
for academic and professional use, and for promotion
through themed events and walking tours; signaling
the significant resources to advocacy groups such as
the Historic Districts Council or the Municipal Art
Society; and preparing landmark nomination forms for
submission to local, state, and national registers; and
organizing letter writing campaigns in defense of the
significant resources.
Engaging the building owner in the process is also
instrumental to the success of any designation campaign.
Without owner consent, the designation process can
become marred by legal difficulties or even halted
altogether by an owner’s insensitive efforts to prevent
designation through defacing or demolishing their
building.
Example: 154-160 West 14 th Street
One historic resource that would benefit from public
and owner education is 154-160 West 14 th Street, a
polychrome terra cotta loft building located on the
southeast corner of Seventh Avenue. Not only is the
building currently deteriorating, there is the likelihood
that the owner will strip the ornament from the entire
façade in order to prevent violation of Local Law 11
in the most economical way possible. By educating the
building owner about the building’s importance and the
benefits deriving from landmark status (such as grants
and tax incentives for historic rehabilitation), he or she
would hopefully become more inclined to support a
designation campaign as well as maintain the building.
PROPOSAL FOR DESIGNATING SIGNIFICANT
RESOURCES
Having identified the significant resources worthy of
landmark status in the Study Area, the following steps
THE PLAN
24

BALANCING PUBLIC & PRIVATE INTERESTES
For purposes of definition, “public” interests are issues
raised by, concerning, or affecting the community.
“Public” community groups may be grass-roots
organizations, civic organizations, or government-funded
institutions. “Private” interests spring from entities not
available for public use, control, or participation, such as
commercial enterprises.
1. MORRIS LAPIDUS BUILDING BEFORE DEMOLITION.
Balancing public and private interests is another guiding
goal of the plan. The Study Area has a history of publicprivate
conflict over the fate of buildings, from the
Zeckendorff Towers that rose to obscure a view of the
beloved Consolidated Edison clock tower, to the recent
“demolition-over-night” of Morris Lapidus’ Patterson
Silks building, which had been awaiting its hearing before
New York City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission
(Figures 1 and 2).
The fact that 14 th Street divides many different Community
Boards presents a serious barrier to communication
among different interest groups; this dynamic has
been acknowledged as a problem by representatives of
many of the Community Boards. Improving both the
communication between Community Boards that border
each other and between Community Boards and the
City—about not only demolition and new construction
but also about alterations to historic buildings—would
ameliorate this problem. Further, giving Community
Boards the power to call for such things as a “Delay of
Demolition” would better balance their interests with
the private forces that shape the public environment.
Our Study Area provides many examples of the
complexities involved in balancing public and private
interests. Two recent and highly publicized examples
particularly illustrate how the desires of the general
public have not been successfully incorporated into citydirected
private initiatives.
The plan was conceived by a grass-roots organization
called Friends of the High Line, but, as it gained citywide
popularity, it was adopted as a cause by celebrities and
the wealthy residents and merchants of Chelsea and the
Meatpacking District (Figure 3). The winning design for
the park transforms the High Line into a sleek, glassy,
statement of design that is elegant but ultimately fails to
reflect the industrial history of the area (Figures 4 and 5).
The Department of City Planning has considered the
risk that the public will view this as the City catering to
private developers and the area’s wealthy constituents.
City Planning has addressed this by ensuring equal
public and private access at all entry points, and creating
the High Line Transfer Corridor, which is a zoning
mechanism to prevent new tall buildings from crowding
the High Line.
Our hope is that the original meaning of the Highline
is not lost in the city’s willingness to “package” public
places as consumer-and-leisure oriented “experiences”
of urban New York.
We have not chosen to focus on the Highline for new
design proposals; however, we recognize it as a distinct
2. MORRIS LAPIDUS BUILDING DURING DEMOLITION.
Example: The High Line Park
The High Line project is a city-funded plan currently
underway for the creation of a landscaped public
park on the High Line elevated railway. The Highline
represents a unique public-private interface in that the
proposed design for the Highline would create a public
park that runs through privately owned buildings, as
well as the development of private spaces on top of and
underneath the park.
3. STAR-STUDDED GROUND BREAKING CEREMONY OF THE
HIGH LINE PARK
THE PLAN: BALANCING PUBLIC & PRIVATE INTERESTS
25

4. PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE HIGH LINE PARK
5. PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE HIGH LINE PARK
public/private interface and through advocacy would
like to insure that its industrial meaning is preserved.
Example: The Pavilion in Union Square Park
One element of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s
proposal for Union Square Park is the establishment
of a permanent seasonal restaurant to occupy the
park’s Pavilion building, which is in need of substantial
conservation work. Since 1992, a “temporary” seasonal
restaurant, called Luna Park, has existed right next to
the Pavilion, using the Pavilion’s facilities and providing
outdoor seating for paying customers (Figure 6).
From its beginning, many members of the Union Square
community have voiced their opposition to a private
restaurant operating within a public park. Jack Taylor,
long-time resident of the area and vociferous member
of the Union Square Community Coalition, said, when
asked why he found the restaurant offensive, “You are
escorted to a table by a maitre d’ in the most proletariat
square in NYC.”
Taking into consideration these sentiments, but also
recognizing that the public has come to accept the
presence of a restaurant (and indeed enjoys its services),
we feel that an appropriate solution would be to locate
an entirely non-profit, self-service restaurant within the
Pavilion. Currently, the restaurant operators pay the city
$130,000 of rent annually, all of which goes to the city’s
General Fund and does not benefit Union Square in any
way. Our proposal would call for a portion of all restaurant
proceeds to be invested directly into maintenance and
restoration of the Park and the Pavilion, modeled on the
organization of the New Leaf Café at Fort Tryon Park.
Greenmarket produce would be a featured ingredient in
the food offered by the restaurant, and customers would
serve themselves, eliminating the need for a wait staff.
The Parks Department’s preliminary design called for
the raising of the seating to the Pavilion level, and the
connection and extension of the playground. This plan
would still be used, but the seating would be available
for use by the general public. No maitre d’ would be
needed, ridding the Pavilion of the air of exclusivity it
currently has.
The justification for continuing a private use within the
Pavilion is that any use is better than no use at all, with
respect to the long-term maintenance and preservation
of a building. Our proposal provides for limited private
use, while broadening the public sphere associated with
this use.
6. LUNA PARK RESTAURANT IN UNION SQUARE.
THE PLAN: BALANCING PUBLIC & PRIVATE INTERESTS
26

ENCOURAGING SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
The real estate economy is a major factor defining the
growth of New York City, especially with respect to the
physical and functional “recycling” of the built fabric.
Looking broadly at the Study Area, we identified different
economic trends prevailing on West 14 th Street, Union
Square, and East 14 th Street, respectively. West 14 th Street
supports the widest range of economic activity, from
discount stores to haute-couture fashion houses. Diversity
in the area’s historic fabric attracts people and provides
rich opportunities for entrepreneurs. Union Square, on
the other hand, has traditionally accommodated larger
businesses because of its central location, its role as a
major transit hub for the city, and the large scale of the
existing building stock. 14 th Street east of Union Square
fosters economic activity on a much more local level
because of the smaller scale of building stock and the
prevalence of residential use.
7. DESIGN FOR THE NEW DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STORE IN
THE MEATPACKING DISTRICT
THE PLAN: ENCOURAGING SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Example: Merchants’ Association
The Meatpacking District is a model of successful
adaptive reuse of industrial buildings for high-end retail
use, and our plan seeks to encourage this trend through
the formation of a Merchants’ Association (Figure 7).
A Merchant’s Association would strengthen a sense of
investment in the special identity of the area, and serve
as a magnet for similar high-end businesses by setting
the example of how incorporating innovative store
design into existing historic fabric can be an effective
marketing tool. Development of the High Line Park
and the opening of the “Italian Craft Village” on Pier
57 could lead to a major increase in density for the area,
and the presence of a Merchants’ Association would
help the local economy sustain the impacts of increased
daytime and nighttime population.
Example: Business Improvement District
The Union Square Partnership (a Business Improvement
District) has guided the redevelopment of Union Square
over the past twenty years, achieving remarkable success
in improving the physical appearance of the streetscape
and Union Square Park and also in attracting major retail
chains to occupy buildings with large square footage.
One model of their success is Barnes & Noble’s use of
federal tax credit money to restore the landmark Century
Building on the north side of Union Square. Upon
its inception, the primary goals of the Union Square
Partnership were street maintenance and security, but
it has evolved to become a major player in real estate
and economic development for the area. Although
some citizens feel that the Partnership has overstepped
its founding mission, its increasing financial leverage
has allowed it to expand its focus to include community
services like educational programming.
While Union Square is a natural location for high
commercial volume sustained by national and regional
chains, the blocks east of Union Square are home to
small-scale commerce. The economic health of the area
has improved in recent years, but capacity for further
development exists in the form of underbuilt nonhistoric
buildings, vacant lots, and generally cheaper
real estate. Our proposal is to lay the groundwork for
economic revitalization of the blocks east of Union
Square –specifically, the blocks east of First Avenue—
by establishing a Business Improvement District (BID).
The primary mission of the Business Improvement
District would be street maintenance and security, based
on the principle that an attractive streetscape contributes
to lively street life, which in turn contributes to retail and
residential stability.
The BID would evolve towards more proactive
methods for retail stabilization, like facilitating façade
improvements and “brokering” the purchase of retail
space by merchants. The BID would also actively recruit
businesses to fill vacant storefronts; targeted businesses
could range from individual merchants (to complement
the quirky array of existing small businesses) to
“chainlets” and franchises, such as a stationary store (to
serve the increasing student population) or sports club.
The importance of attracting small businesses to an area
like East 14 th Street is simply the fact that local merchants
are more inclined to care about their street and their
storefront than employees of a chain or franchise. Small
businesses, in order to survive, must recognize and take
advantage of the particular assets and markets existing
within the local community; they are able to adapt to the
existing character and in so doing often extend the life of
old buildings without compromising the “sense of place.”
Finally, the goal of the BID could evolve to incorporate
advocacy for affordable housing development funded
in part by the city’s Housing Preservation Department.
Increased residential population would help to sustain
increased economic activity.
27

Example: Sensitive Design
Design is another way to affect sensitive development,
especially with respect to new construction. The goal
of sensitive design is not to homogenize the built fabric
of the street, nor to mimic the past in contemporary
designs, but to respect the existing significant resources
and enhance their presence towards enriching the identity
and public perception of the street. The following is an
explanation of how design can be used to both develop
sites and help sustain historic resources, based on
principles incorporated into design proposals produced
during an intense three-day charrette undertaken by the
Studio.
The development of infill buildings in an area with
a specific and defined architectural character or
streetscape is relevant to various soft sites and empty
lots along the street. A condition that occurs more
than once within the Study Area is the presence of a
series of intact rowhouses, creating a distinct character.
The design of new buildings along these blocks must
be particularly sensitive to issues such as scale, height,
materials, rhythm, and streetwall. One of the two
proposals addressing such a situation allows for a freer
use of more modern materials while maintaining the
basic façade composition, rhythm, entrance location,
street wall, and scale of the surrounding rowhouses on
the block. In effect, this continuity in several aspects
creates a harmonious feeling within the block while the
use of different materials does not try to feign historic
relevance (Figure 8).
Another charrette proposal is located on a block that
contains both rowhouses and tenements, but maintains
the scale of four to five stories and twenty-five-foot
8. SPRING 2006 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDIO CHARRETTE PROPOSAL FOR EMPTY LOT AT 214 EAST 14TH STREET.
THE PLAN: ENCOURAGING SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
28

wide lots. Through its modern interpretation of the
architectural elements and materials around it, such
as bay windows, cornices, and brick, the new design
is complimentary to but not indistinguishable from
its surrounding historic resources. The building takes
advantage of a through-lot to spread the institutional
program over a wider area, thus maintaining the current
rhythm of the twenty-five foot façade module on the
street.
Potential development within a defined streetscape is
relevant to other scenarios as well, such as the site on
Union Square addressed by another proposal (Figure 9).
This design addresses the dynamic and varying skyline
of the block, emphasizing the piston-like composition
of the adjacent buildings. The massing of the design
embodies the dynamic skyline in its own form, as well as
filling voids created by underbuilt surrounding buildings.
The façade design itself is a study in fenestration patterns
and rhythm in the historic context. The final outcome is
one in which the new design helps unify the different
buildings of the block.
In the instances where new buildings are developed in
proximity to buildings of monumental character, the
hierarchy in which these historic and contemporary
designs are placed is important. An example for this is
a proposed design for a site that is on the corner of
an intersection dominated by three monumental banks
(Figure 10). The proposal chooses not to detract from
the monumental buildings, but instead compliments
them with a building that relates proportionally to two
of the buildings and fills the void that currently exists
on the corner. The materials are modern, and do not
subvert the high quality of ornament and construction
of the three monumental banks with mimicry.
9. SPRING 2006 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDIO CHARRETTE
PROPOSAL FOR UNDERBUILT SITE IN UNION SQUARE.
10. SPRING 2006 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDIO CHARRETTE PROPOSAL FOR A SITE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 14TH
STREET AND EIGHTH AVENUE.
THE PLAN: ENCOURAGING SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT
29

MANAGING INSTITUTIONAL PRESENCE
Large institutions have a notable presence on 14 th Street. By building, adapting, or
abandoning their often monumental structures they exert a great deal of influence
over the physical fabric of the street. One subcategory of institutions is religious
organizations, of which there are several in the Study Area. While many funding sources
are available for the maintenance and preservation of these structures, implementation
of preservation initiaves remains difficult and the fate of religious buildings is one of
the most difficult challenges facing preservationists.
In addition to religious institutions, 14 th Street is affected by the presence of medical,
community, and educational establishments. The zoning categorization of these
as “community facilities” furthers their influence by often allowing them to exceed
the massing and scale of their surroundings. Additionally, the constituents of these
institutions, most noticeably the huge numbers of students from NYU, Pratt, and the
New School, introduce a new demographic to the area, affecting everything from traffic
congestion to the types of commerce drawn to the area. Recognizing that these forces
have the potential to either help or hinder the street and its resources, we propose
managing these forces through zoning, facilitating community input, and providing
institutions with models of successful adaptive reuse.
Example: Regulatory Management
The former Baumann Brothers’ Store, which is currently owned by The New School,
furnishes examples of how the above mentioned strategies can be used to manage
institutional expansion (Figure 11). The Landmarks Preservation Commission has heard
the proposed designation for the building, but the process stalled over disagreement
concerning the size of a rooftop addition that the LPC would allow if it chose to
designate. The building is built to a Floor Area Ration (FAR) of 5.0 in a zone where
6.0 is the maximum allowed, which is equivalent to eighty three percent of bulk). As a
community facility, the New School is entitled to a FAR bonus of 2.0, allowing a total
of 7.0. This would translate to an addition of roughly two stories. Even as a landmark,
there are several options that would allow the New School to exploit the building’s
unused FAR either for financial or spatial gain, thus achieving the institution’s goal of
creating more space, and ours of designating it as a landmark.
One option is to transfer the unused bulk from the Baumann Store to an adjacent
underbuilt property through a zoning lot merger. The New School’s building occupies
a lot that goes through to 13th Street, where its neighbor is a small two-story structure
built to an FAR of 0.5. If the two zoning lots were merged, the aggregate unused FAR
could be used to concentrate the bulk of new construction on the site of the underbuilt
11. FORMER BAUMANN BROTHERS’ STORE.
THE PLAN: MANAGING INSTITUTIONAL PRESENCE
30

structure. This would not require the purchase or sale of
either plot of land, but it would allow the New School to
transfer unused development rights for its own financial
gain. However, the bulk of the receiving property could
easily undermine the historic scale of 13th and 14th
Streets—a scale this Studio has identified as valuable.
If the Baumann Store were designated a landmark,
section 74-711 of the zoning resolution could be used
to arrange this bulk in a fashion more sympathetic to the
height profile of both streets.
Because the New School has demonstrated a desire for
increased space, a more realistic option would be the
purchase by the school of the neighboring underbuilt
property. In that case, the Baumann Store’s unused
development rights could be transferred to the adjacent
site, but the square footage enabled by the shift would
belong to the New School. As in the previous case, if
the building were designated a landmark, section 74-711
would be a good tool for mitigating the distribution of
new bulk.
As a landmark, the Baumann Store’s eligibility for a
transfer of development rights, pursuant to section
74-79 of the Zoning Resolution, would allow the New
School to earn money by transferring its air rights to
the underbuilt parcels on the north side of 13th Street.
However, this would not solve the school’s space
problems.
A more aggressive approach to reducing the development
potential of the former Baumann Store would involve
eliminating the FAR bonus offered to community
facilities. While this is not a viable option citywide, it
is feasible to advocate for the change within the Store’s
zoning district.
In the event that the New School went ahead with a
rooftop addition without being designated a landmark,
the local community board or the proposed interinstitutional
student committee could encourage a work
executed with materials, massing, setbacks and sightlines
to minimize its own obtrusiveness to (or maximize
engagement with) the original structure.
Example: Community Involvement
Another way to manage institutional forces is through
communication between the community at large,
the institution’s representatives, and the institution’s
constituents. Issues such as the desire for institutions to
integrate with their surroundings and “give back” to the
community could be addressed by a cross-community
board review. Preservation and land use subcommittees
of community boards bordering 14 th Street could meet
together to discuss the proliferation of institutional
facilities in their areas. Further, they could present
a unified view of their desires to institutions in an
educational packet including information on façade
easements and grants, TDRs, design guidelines, building
maintenance, and the history and character of the
area. Such a packet could also include examples of the
successful adaptive reuse of historic buildings, such as
the Eye and Ear Infirmary’s use of the former Mechanics
and Metals Bank Building.
This communication could also stem from the
institutions themselves through the development of
an inter-institutional student government committee.
Involving the students of the many institutions in the
Study Area, the committee would serve as a mediator
between the community and the institutions, encouraging
accountability on the part of the institutions for their
impact on the surrounding neighborhoods.
HABUS ETOR HALI SES MERVIUS INATU ESSILIN HOS RENA RESSIL UNUM CONSILINIMIS MO NONFIT; IAM TEMORTUM
31

ADDRESSING PHYSICAL DETERIORATION
Physical deterioration of the built fabric is a pervasive
problem along 14 th Street, but with the help of
conservation-related tools, this problem can be
correctly addressed. After analyzing the composition
and behavior of building materials in the Study Area
and assessing the forces acting upon them, a set of
recommendations and treatments that can be used to
prevent or ameliorate adverse material conditions has
been formulated.
When considering recent and past conservation efforts
on 14 th Street, it becomes apparent that conservation
thus far has not been orchestrated in any coherent or
street-wide manner. In order to create a uniform system
of assessment, building conditions in the Study Area
were categorized in a range from 1-5, with “1” being the
poorest condition and “5” the best.
The survey showed that eighty percent of the buildings
in the study area rank as threes, fours, or fives, suggesting
that the majority of the built fabric along the street is safe
and in reasonably good condition (Figure 12). However,
subsiding land on the eastern extremity of 14 th Street, an
area which was reclaimed from the East River, may be
affecting the tenements at 628-640 East 14 th Street and
possibly other buildings; however, further appraisal from
a structural engineer would be needed to confirm this.
While an in-depth survey of the conditions on 14 th Street
and Union Square is an integral part of a preservation
plan, the size of this study area was prohibitively
large for carrying out a fully comprehensive survey.
Therefore, two blocks were selected because of the
range of materials and conditions present, and were
used as a representative cross-section of the street-wide
data as well as a solid methodological foundation for
the study. Both sides of 14 th Street between Sixth and
Eighth Avenues were examined, covering a total of 74
buildings, including a sizable proportion of tenements,
THE PLAN: ADDRESSING PHYSCIAL DETERIORATION
12. CONDITIONS OF BUILDINGS IN STUDY AREA.
commercial structures and row houses.. Observations
were made from the sidewalk, using the naked eye
aided by binoculars, as needed. Building interiors were
not examined or considered in this survey. The range
of problems affecting the facades spanned from simple
soiling (which is pervasive) to the more extreme (and
dangerous) bowing of facades and failure of parapet
walls.
Aside from general soiling, the most prevalent
conservation issues found were: cracking, mortar loss,
and cornice deterioration, with surface erosion and
water staining as close followers (Figure 13). The survey
concluded that, while some level of general soiling and
deterioration resulting from the urban environment is
inevitable, owner neglect has exacerbated the rates and
levels of deterioration and decay along 14 th Street.
32

Materials Assessment and Proposals for
Treatment
Selected case studies were chosen to provide a more
in-depth assessment of these conditions and others.
The specific problems affecting the built fabric were
analyzed in greater detail through the façade mapping
of the tenements at 628-640 East 14 th Street and the
photographic case study of 240 West 14 th Street. A
comprehensive glossary, which explains and identifies
various instances of material failure, also includes
suggested methods of treatment.
Just as conservation on 14th Street has not been
undertaken in any street-wide, coherent manner, it would
be very difficult to enforce or implement a street-wide
plan for conservation; the decision of how to maintain
a building is, by and large, left to each individual owner.
However, for the conservation-minded building owner,
there are indeed resources available to provide practical,
instructive, and financial assistance.
Certain organizations offer emergency loans to property
owners for critical situations, such as serious structural
problems. One of these available locally is through the
New York Landmarks Conservancy; their Emergency
Loan Program is available for those structures that are
either designated to the National Register or eligible for
designation.
Financial assistance for rehabilitation projects is largely
available to non-profit groups and to buildings already
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (or
within a National Register Historic District). As of now,
there are few buildings in the study area that are listed on
the National Register; however, for those that are or may
be in the future, the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit
program is a powerful tool.
On the national level, funding for the rehabilitation
of private residences is scarce; however, opportunities
do exist at the local level. The New York Landmarks
THE PLAN: ADDRESSING PHYSCIAL DETERIORATION
13. CONDITIONS REVEALED ON BUILDING FACADES BETWEEN SIXTH AND EIGHTH AVENUES.
Conservancy maintains a Historic Properties Fund. The
Fund offers low-interest loans and project management
assistance to owners of historic residential properties, as
well as non-profit, religious, and commercial structures
throughout New York City. Such structures must be
designated as a New York City Landmark, as a building
within a Historic District, or as eligible for inclusion on
the State and/or National Register of Historic Places.
Other underutilized resources for conservation in the
city are the local Business Improvement Districts. In
the past, many BIDs have held workshops and created
groups for the removal of garbage and graffiti, as well as
other general maintenance and upkeep issues. One option
for advocacy and education for conservation would be
to hold BID-sponsored workshops and lectures. Since
the 14 th Street BID is already involved in the screening
of potential contractors, it would be simple to develop
a database of those companies specializing in the
conservation and restoration of historic properties and
make this database available to the tenants and property
owners of the street. The proposed BID on the eastern
end of 14 th Street could advise building owners about
building maintenance as well.
There are currently workshops in New York that offer
basic instruction and technical assistance on a variety of
building materials and structural systems. One of these
is RESTORE, which offers introductory level classes on
subjects ranging from masonry to building ventilation
systems.
33

PROMOTING APPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS
The next factor affecting the historic resources of 14 th
Street and Union Square is the most concrete: alterations
to the built fabric as a result of use conversions or
periodic aesthetic “upgrades.” Façade alterations are
the most common architectural characteristic in the
Study Area, and affect our ability to “read” history in
the streetscape. At its best, the haphazard juxtapositions
of style, materials, signage and building type (reflecting
different uses) creates a richly layered atmosphere
attractive to economic and social diversity; at its worst,
this parti-colored streetscape threatens to obscure 14 th
Street’s oldest and rarest substrates of built fabric.
The historical and architectural variety of buildings in the
Study Area, discussed in depth in this document, is largely
obscured on the current streetscape. Large awnings,
unifying cornices and signs dominate the ground floor
and represent the street’s current commercial character
with mostly middle and low-end retail. Since many of
the buildings are old and some were not built with retail
in mind, most of the storefronts on the street are later
additions. Flashy signage has been a characteristic of 14 th
Street since the early 1900s and the Plan proposes to
maintain this diversity.
However, it seems that today one encounters two separate
streets: a non-descript and monotonous ground floor,
and upper levels displaying rich architectural styles. The
goal is to propose storefront designs for the previously
identified historic resources as a way of showing how
sensitive design can respond to the existing architecture
of the building and the modern needs of commerce
without compromising the nature of the street as a
bustling shopping area. Ultimately, these storefront
designs will also enhance the hsitorical “legibility” of the
buildings.
Since 14th Street is not considered an economically
disadvantageous area and therefore not eligible for many
THE PLAN: PROMOTING APPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS
14. TAX PHOTO OF THE BASE OF THE DIX BUILDING, 1939.
economic incentives, finding appropriate economic
tools to help with this issue has been a difficult process.
For non-designated buildings, the Plan proposes the
implementation of a Retail Assistance Program to be
administrated by the street’s BID or other non-profit
community organization.
This program will promote the removal of illegal
awnings and canopies, as well as give recommendations
for appropriate façade alterations. It can organize
storefronts workshops and coordinate efforts to
improve the streetscape through adding plantings and
street furniture. This program should provide technical
assistance, apply for and administer grants obtained from
various city agencies. If the Plan’s recommendations
for landmark designation should come to pass, the
Landmark Preservation Commission will publicly review
new designs in order to induce appropriate alterations.
The in-depth study of one building that would be wellserved
by more sensitive storefront design is given
below.
34

Example: The Dix Building
The considerations for the design of the new storefront
for the Dix Building at 116-118 West 14 th Street involved
a thorough analysis of the façade, a study of historic
photos, and a working knowledge of the historic
significance of the building (Figure 14). The current
storefront and signage combination is not appropriate
for this building because the long horizontal sign cuts the
building off in a way in which the building appears to be
“floating” above the sign and the insensitive storefront
below. The current storefront does not respond to the
entire building in any way. It does not follow the existing
rhythm of the fenestration or the massive feeling that the
building portrays through the use of massive material.
The storefront is also unbalanced and confusing to the
observer (Figure 15).
The proposed new design of this building’s storefront
would therefore continue the rhythm and pattern of the
fenestration and the materials of the building down to
the street level. The sign would also be broken up into
two wire mesh sign holders on each end of the building
above the first story. While two vertical blade signs would
project from the pilasters on the center of the facade
beginning at the top of the third story and ending at the
top of the first story (Figure 16). In this way the vertical
signs accentuate the verticality of the center, while the
wire-mesh signs do not detract from the distinguishing
qualities of the building. This scheme opens the center
of the building to create a grand two-story entranceway
that is much more inviting to the customer and more
responsive to the entire building.
15. CURRENT STOREFRONTS. 16. DESIGN PROPOSAL FOR STOREFRONTS OF THE DIX BUILDING.
THE PLAN: PROMOTING APPROPRIATE ALTERATIONS
35

ENHANCING INTERPRETATION OF OPEN SPACES
The open spaces along 14 th Street and Union Square are
a distinctive characteristic of the Study Area, and they
act as a positive draw in terms of cultural identity and
potential for economic development. Because of its
strategic location as the dividing line between “uptown”
and “downtown,” 14 th Street, and especially Union
Square Park, served as the city’s spiritual gathering place
in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade
Center; this is just one example of the latent cultural
meaning of 14 th Street’s open spaces.
Spaces like the Hudson River Park, Piers 56 and 57, and
the eastern terminus of 14 th Street once had industrial
uses. However, as these uses gave way to commercial
and residential use, and availability of open space
decreased, these spaces found new uses as recreational
parks; some were owned by the city and some belonged
to private planned communities. Conversely, Union
Square Park has functioned as an open space as long
as residents have inhabited its perimeters, though it too
has changed greatly in appearance. Regardless of their
history as long-standing open spaces or adapted open
spaces, these parks tell the history of the street, function
as place markers, and create a sense of place for visitors
and residents alike.
Previous plans for the design of many of these spaces
have tended to respond more to land use issues and
traffic concerns, and have neglected their story-telling
ability. These spaces, despite general success as urban
attractions, have failed to address the unique histories
that enhance their meaning. Two such examples are
Pier 56 and Union Square Park. In both cases, design
techniques can be used as a tool to improve accessibility
and enhance historical interpretation.
Example: Pier 56
Pier 56 was once a pier used for the Cunard White Star
THE PLAN: ENHANCING INTERPRETATION OF OPEN SPACES
17. SPRING 2006 HISTORIC PRESERVATION STUDIO CHARRETTE PROPOSAL FOR PIER 56.
Lines and was the dock for ocean liners of such stature
as the Titanic. As steamship travel became less popular
in the early twentieth century, Pier 56 fell into disuse,
as did many other Cunard White Star Line piers. Its
neglect was compounded by the construction of the
Miller Elevated Highway in 1931, which effectively cut
off the unused pier area from the remainder of 14 th
Street. The reconstruction of the West Side Highway
at grade (which resulted from its collapse in 1973), and
the addition of the Hudson River Park brought new
attention and activity to the pier. The pier can now be
viewed by anyone traveling down the foot path in the
Hudson River Park. However, the pier is still partially
inaccessible as a result of the fast moving traffic along
36

the West Side Highway that divides the Hudson River
Park and 14 th Street.
We propose to use design as a way to physically bridge
the Pier 56 area with the High Line. The addition of
a footbridge from the pier to the High Line would
encourage and increase pedestrian traffic and thus
increase the acknowledgement of this important historic
resource. Secondly, the pier’s history should be recognized
and interpreted in the redevelopment of the site. We
have created a design that interprets the pier as both
the unused place of the twentieth century by keeping it
as an archaeological ruin, and as the important thriving
pier of the late nineteenth century by the installation of
historic plaques (Figure 17). Our proposal intervenes in
a minimal way with the physical remains of the pier by
adding a pedestrian ramp on which informational panels
are located. The walk along the ramp in between the
panels reveals images and facts pertaining to the history
of the pier.
Increasing recognition of the intrinsic design value of
industrial sites, and the rich history they possess, has led
cities around the country, and even around the world, to
reclaim abandoned industrial sites for public parks. New
York City has demonstrated its willingness to reinvest in
its own industrial past with the High Line Park project,
and Pier 56 presents a natural extension of this effort.
Example: Union Square Park
Union Square is the most important and most highly used
open space on 14 th Street. Its long history, connected
with the development of the area, further emphasizes its
importance to the study area. However, its history—both
in the evolution of the park’s design and in the square’s
relationship to the labor movement and surrounding
buildings—has not been clearly expressed to the public.
Though the park’s plans have changed many times
throughout its 150 year history, the use has remained
generally the same within the park; it is the activity
THE PLAN: ENHANCING INTERPRETATION OF OPEN SPACES
and circulation patterns on the park’s perimeter that
have seen the most change. Historically, the northern
end of the park was used for public gatherings and
demonstrations; however since the renovation of the
south end in the 1980’s, and with the Greenmarket in
the north end, the stepped plaza has become the popular
spot for gatherings today.
After analysis of the current design, it was decided that
the design proposals would focus on four objectives:
first, that Union Square should be a place primarily
for people, not for cars; second, that the evolution of
the park’s designs need to be expressed to the public;
third, that the park connect to its building context and
concurrent labor history; and fourth, that the park have
a means of conveying its use as a political gathering
space, in the past, and for current and future use.
Objective 1: Circulation
In order to ease the circulation conflicts throughout
Union Square, the focus of the design should be the
movement of people throughout the square, not the
movement of automobile traffic on the street. Expanding
the park’s boundaries to the north and the east solves
many of the problems Union Square currently faces.
The expansion creates one-way streets at Union Square
East and 17 th Street, turning the streets around Union
Square into a traffic circle and allowing easier and safer
pedestrian crossings. The expansion allows more room
for people to move around the perimeter of the park
and also provides more space for the Greenmarket on
three sides of the park. If, historically, the park was the
only densely landscaped space in Union Square, new
proposals should maintain Olmsted’s intention that the
park be a place of repose and isolation in the middle of
the square.
Objective 2: Evolution of park designs
The formal plan of the design has evolved over the
park’s 150-year history but there is no evidence left of
18. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR UNION SQUARE PARK.
its origins. To further public understanding of the park’s
history, it is important to illustrate the most significant
aspects of the previous designs while not disturbing the
current function of the park.
The proposal layers the 1872 network of paths that
radiate from the historic location of the fountain and
connects the 1872 paths to the current ones. Materials
for the 1872 paths will be similar to what might have
historically been used; grass cellular paving planted
throughout will visually distinguish the old from the new,
while maintaining the current use of the grassy areas for
sitting. The center will be re-established with a flat circle
of water, representative of the fountain installed for the
1842 Croton water celebration (Figure 18).
37

Objective 3: Connection between park and labor history
in adjacent buildings
Historic Lot Lines—one of the goals for interpretation
of labor history is that the information must have a
physical connection with the building context; it must
connect the park with its surroundings. Using the 1890’s
Sanborn maps as a reference, the mapping of historic lot
lines of adjacent buildings starts to denote the historic
presence of labor at Union Square and will work in
conjunction with the history markers.
History Markers—Union Square’s current interpretive
plaques are embedded into the southern perimeter of
the park. They depict a timeline of events, arts, culture
and historical development connected with Union
Square. However, the plaques have no consistent theme,
and they are not highly visible due to their placement on
the ground. The materials have little contrast with the
pavement and the engraving is not easily read.
The proposed history markers will present the relationship
of labor history and the surrounding context; only
buildings that have a history of involvement with labor
will have a history marker. Each four-foot tall marker
will start with the Cor-Ten lot line “peeling up” off the
ground and ending with a small informative panel (Figure
19). Each panel will have a photograph of the building’s
former appearance at its height in labor history, as well
as written text that states the building information.
The history markers peel at various distances from
the building so as to provide the best vantage point
appropriate in regards to the historic paragraph, but they
will also be placed so as to avoid interrupting circulation
and activities around the perimeter of the square. The
verticality of the markers succeeds in drawing the eye
and grabbing the attention of passerby.
Objective 4: Promote character of demonstration
Union Square Colonnade—the northern end of
Union Square was the site of many historic labor
demonstrations and public gatherings, but today the
smaller southern end is typically used. The purpose of
our design solution is to highlight the history of this area
of the Square, while facilitating future demonstrations
and gatherings in the historic space. Through an analysis
of the current circulation patterns of the Square it was
determined that the southern end is frequented by small
groups of demonstrators, while the northern end is still
used for larger gatherings. By studying the historical
section of the park at this end, it is apparent that the
large gatherings were facilitated by the lack of barriers
between the park and the building faces of 17 th Street.
Today, as well as in the proposal currently planned for
the park’s future, there is some type of obstruction
present, cutting the circulation space in two.
The proposal narrows the road to one lane, alleviating
some of the traffic at the north end and making it
more attractive to large gatherings, and eliminating
the obstruction between the open space in front of
the Pavilion and the street and sidewalk adjacent. We
propose building a colonnade in front of the Union
Square Pavilion (on the north side) for the display of
interpretive panels, cultural advertisements, and protest
banners (Figure 20). Calvert Vaux’s redesign for Union
Square in 1872 included a lighted colonnade in the same
location as the proposed colonnade. The new colonnade
is a modern interpretation of Vaux’s original idea
proposed for a new era, referencing the past without
mimicking, and creating an amenity that will make use
of the space for large gatherings more attractive and
pointed.
19. PERSPECTIVE OF PROPOSED HISTORY MARKERS.
20. PROPOSED COLONNADE.
THE PLAN: ENHANCING INTERPRETATION OF OPEN SPACES
38

CONCLUSION
What we hope will be instructive from our study
and the conclusions we have made are the
implications they offer, not just for the development of
14th Street and Union Square but also for the insight it
may offer in the creation of preservation plans for other
places in other neighborhoods, in other cities. That said,
it is this essence of 14th Street’s character that our study
attempts to define.
The following is a list of buildings that capture the
essence of Union Square and 14th Street, and whose
precarious existence demonstrates the need for historic
preservation. The buildings on this list are “at-risk”
buildings, meaning that if all potential tools have been
exhausted, or if no effective tools present themselves,
and landmark designation is not achieved, the building is
at risk of being demolished or seriously defaced.
1. The church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, located
on West 14th Street, is at risk because it currently
sits vacant, having lost its congregation after a recent
merger of two congregations. The building is owned
by the Roman Catholic Church, which has a checkered
history of stewardship to historic buildings. Finally,
the Archdiocese of New York has been engaged in
institutional restructuring that results in the closing of
church facilities, like schools.
2. The former Schirmer’s Store, located on Union Square
West, is at risk because it is significantly underbuilt and
is flanked on the right side by another vastly underbuilt
lot occupied by a one-story “taxpayer.” The rising real
estate values on Union Square could make these two lots
attractive to a developer seeking to merge two 25-foot
lots for demolition and redevelopment.
3. The former Greenwich Savings Bank, located on the
northwest corner of 14th Street and Sixth Avenue, is
at risk because it is a one-story building located on a
prominent commercial corner near Union Square.
4. The polychrome terra cotta loft on the southeast
corner of 14th Street and Seventh Avenue is currently
suffering from lack of maintenance, and runs the risk
of having its terra cotta detailing stripped because of
Local Law 11.
5. The row of tenements at628-640 East 14th Street
are currently suffering from lack of maintenance and
structural failure, and could be demolished in the future
for redevelopment. The fact that several different parties
own groupings of tenements in the row increases the
likelihood of partial demolition.
6. 527 Sixth Avenue currently suffers from lack of
maintenance, and is also an underbuilt building located
on a prominent commercial lot.
7. The still-functioning firehouse on East 14th Street
is at risk of closure, which would lead to deterioration
and possible condemnation. In light of the New
York City Fire Department’s acknowledged policy of
abandoning nineteenth-century fire houses in favor of
modern facilities, it is a matter of particular urgency to
raise public awareness about the value of the Engine
Company Number 5.
We realize that we as preservationists cannot save every
building, nor do we think this is constructive in an
evolving city. Our Plan seeks to address the best possible
way of balancing the integrity of the historic built fabric
with the need for change.
CONCLUSION
39

CONCLUSION: IMPLEMENTATION CHART
Group
Action
Make Study
Area
research
available to
the public
Prepare
landmark
designation
forms
Integrate
public
interest,
design, and
education of
history in
the High
Line Park
Designate
identified
resources as
landmarks
Establish
not-forprofit
café
in Union
Square
Pavilion
Enact
Community
Facility
Zoning
reform
Enhance
Historical
Interpretation
of
Open
Spaces (Pier
56 and
Union Sq.
Park)
Organize
walking tour
of Study
Area
Start a
letterwriting
campaign
Educate
building
owner about
designation
issues and
benefits
East Side
Economic
Revitalization:
trash
collection,
security,
merchant
assistance
Manage
economic
development
of
Meatpacking
District
Encourage
appropriate
adaptive
reuse of
Meatpacking
District
buildings
Promote
sensitive
alterations
to buildings
through
education of
building
owners
Advocate
for
Community
Facility
Zoning
reform
Review and
guide
institutional
activity
throughout
the area
Educate
institutions
about
appropriate
adaptive
reuse of
historic
buildings
Facilitate
communicat
ion between
institutions
and the
community
Provide
building
owners with
workshops,
resources
and a
glossary for
conservation
(RESTORE)
Help
businesses
with façade
improvements,
and
building
maintenance
(RAP)
GSAPP at Columbia University
Historic Districts Council
X X X X X X
X X X
Municipal Art Society/ City
Lore/Place Matters
New York City Landmarks
Preservation Commission
New York State Historic
Preservation Office
National Resister of Historic
Places
Department of City Planning
X X X
X
X
X
X X X
X
Department of Parks and
Recreation
Department of Small Business
Services
Friends of the Highline
X
X
X
X
Friends of Terra Cotta
X X X
Friends of Cast Iron
X X X
Union Square Community
Coalition
Stuyvesant Town Tenants
Association
Union Square Partnership
X X X X X
X X X
X
X
Cipriani Group
X
East 14 th Street BID
Meatpacking District
Merchants’ Association
Cross-community board
agencies
Inter-institutional student
committee
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X
One-time events
Ongoing actions
Existing organization
Proposed organizations
CONCLUSION: IMPLEMENTATION CHART
40