A Statement from the Municipal Art Society Regarding St. Vincent’s Hospital

On December 31, 2007, St. Vincent’s Hospital applied to demolish the O’Toole Building so that it could build a new, state-of-the-art hospital facility on the building’s site. The essentiality of St. Vincent’s to its surrounding neighborhoods and its importance to all of New York City are indisputable, as is the imperative to modernize the hospital’s facilities. Notwithstanding the significance of St. Vincent’s application, however, the demolition of a building found to contribute to one of New York City’s most iconic and cherished historic districts is a drastic measure. Ultimately, the hospital’s application presented what is widely acknowledged as one the most difficult and complicated matters ever to come before the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).

After two years of public hearings and meetings, during which time MAS submitted testimony on various aspects of the development, the LPC granted St. Vincent’s application pursuant to a complex and rarely-applied doctrine known as the “judicial test” for hardship. In response to the LPC’s decision, a neighborhood group called Protect the Village Historic District, which was formed in opposition to redevelopment of the hospital at the O’Toole site, sued the LPC. MAS and the New York Landmarks Conservancy (NYLC) were invited to join the lawsuit but declined to do so. A statement from the NYLC is available here.

Months later, and long after the time for public input had passed, the LPC issued its final approval of the demolition in what is known as a Notice to Proceed. The Notice to Proceed announced a troubling and previously unheard of campus-based exception to the legal doctrine on which the hardship test is based. The LPC reasoned that where a non-profit owner of “campus” properties within an historic district has demonstrated to the agency’s satisfaction that the impact of the landmarks regulations on certain of those properties warrants hardship relief, but that the demolition of those properties is impracticable, other “campus” properties may be demolished to alleviate the hardship without an analysis of whether the buildings to be demolished meet the criteria for hardship relief themselves. Concerned that this campus-transfer rationale would be exploited by non-profit owners going forward, MAS and the NYLC, and other preservation groups including the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Preservation League of New York State, filed a brief in the lawsuit, Protect the Village Historic District v. LPC, as amici curiae, or “friends of the court.” The brief sets forth the proper hardship analysis, and is critical of the LPC’s campus-transfer rationale. Unlike the neighborhood group, which claims that the O’Toole Building cannot be demolished under the hardship standard because it does not meet the criteria for such relief, our brief does not reach a conclusion as to what the outcome would have been if the LPC properly applied the judicial test.

In filing our brief to correct the LPC’s misapplication of the judicial test for hardship, MAS and our co-amici were focused on preventing the establishment of a campus-transfer precedent which has the potential to severely undermine the protection of New York City’s historic districts. MAS does not oppose St. Vincent’s plans to develop a modern hospital facility. Our interest is in protecting the integrity of the Landmarks Law.