ScoutingNY profiles an imperiled treasure

September 13, 2010 11:21 AM

"Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture."
posted by jefficator (38 comments total)

Oh, that library building. Reminds me a lot of the San Francisco North Beach branch that was recently selected for landmark status.
posted by blucevalo at 11:28 AM on September 13, 2010

I grew up near Garden City and this really hit home. My school bus went by St. Paul's every day and always wondered about it and the kids who went there. I didn't realize it was no longer in use but then I haven't lived on Long Island since 1975.

I was still living at home when the Garden City Hotel's equipment and furnishings were auctioned off. I remember news stories about people buying the silverware. They tore it down and then new construction was started in its place. But something happened and the steel girders sat exposed for years. I guess they managed to finish off the new hotel.
posted by tommasz at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2010

Some more context on that Penn Station quote.
posted by cazoo at 11:39 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

Vincent Scully on the transformation of Penn Station: "One entered the city like a god. One scuttles in now like a rat."
posted by exogenous at 11:56 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

What category of value does this building belong to? We all love it and can see that it is worth more than the all of Garden City's contemporary architecture put together. At the same time, nobody values it so much that they would invest the hundred million or so it would take to make it into something useable, and then to lose that $100 million dollars, because there is just not $100 million worth of use value in the place. I doubt of there is a big market for condos in gloomy old buildings outside of Manhattan. Of course, as an aesthetic object, it's priceless. Which kind of means, worthless.
posted by Faze at 11:57 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

These things truly sadden me. North America has so little architectural history, could we chill on the frantic destruction of what history we do have?
posted by Stagger Lee at 12:20 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Faze, I've seen properties in much worse shape converted into apartments and/or offices, it just takes the right developer willing to take the risk (and usually some government help). That building looks like it's in pretty good shape, it'll need a lot of interior work but the outside structure looks solid. Compare that to this old cork factory in my city that looked like this a few years ago and now looks like this and there's a waiting list to lease apartments in it.
posted by octothorpe at 12:22 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Some more context on that Penn Station quote.

Every few months or so I run across something that links to that page, and every time I look through it and gaze in awe at what Penn Station had been. And then I curse the fools who tore down such a magnificent work of art and architecture to put up the disgusting monstrosity that is Madison Square Garden.
posted by spitefulcrow at 12:39 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Octothorpe, I mean, I'd totally want to live in St. Paul's and all but I can also understand some hesitancy in developers not leaping for it - I'd imagine Garden City, Long Island isn't exactly like downtown Pittsburgh in terms of demand for lofts.

That said I really don't understand why this didn't just go to a second round of "ok condos or just use the facade guys," evils of first-past-the-post etc etc
posted by The Bridge on the River Kai Ryssdal at 12:48 PM on September 13, 2010

At the same time, nobody values it so much that they would invest the hundred million or so it would take to make it into something useable, and then to lose that $100 million dollars, because there is just not $100 million worth of use value in the place.

It said right in the first link that the demolition itself is going to cost $6M; seems they could find a developer to pay at least that for a 500+ room Victorian building.

At the very least they should get somebody to convert it into something like the Kennedy School.
posted by rkent at 12:55 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Any city/state/country gets the government it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves. Why should our architecture be any different?
posted by norm at 1:01 PM on September 13, 2010

"One entered the city like a god. One scuttles in now like a rat."

Chicago's Union Station is no Penn Station by a long shot, but it does have a fairly nice hall which was once the room in which people waited for their trains. The building is still there. The hall is intact. But now they've torn out the benches and furnishings pictured at that link and you have to go wait, rat-like, in a horrible windowless sub-basement with too-low ceilings of acoustic tile and blue-gray industrial carpeting and cheap plastic chairs while this incredible 1925 space constructed especially for this purpose sits completely empty not 100 feet away. (Apparently it is now rented out for garishly-lit corporate events, another Daley privatization I suspect.) There is some kind of pathology in this drive to make sure that every public space be made as squalid and dismal as possible.
posted by enn at 1:02 PM on September 13, 2010 [6 favorites]

Oh, so that's what a gazebo looks like.

(Seriously, though, I hope St. Paul's gets saved.)
posted by bettafish at 1:05 PM on September 13, 2010

Reading the "Save St. Paul's" link contents it appears that the folks who are trying to 'save' this building have a priori rejected any solution that involves allowing private development of the property. It is a beautiful building. It would be a sin to tear it down, but a pox on both their houses if it comes to that because the building's champions are unwilling to consider that maintenance of it need not be a perpetual taxpayer expense. It has beautiful bones, but may be time for some of that massive amount of space to be converted to new use.
posted by meinvt at 1:05 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Just because a building is old and beautiful doesn't mean it should be -- or even can be -- saved. The shell might be in decent shape (it doesn't look that way from the photos -- lots of gaps in the morta -- and the roof gables are in bad shape, which implies that the weather seal isn't all it could be, and if this is the case, this would probably imply significant internal structural damage.

So, I did some searching.

A village newsletter [pdf] from July, 2002 states clearly that the roof was at that time in bad shape and "Unlikely to survive another winter and that main masonry required repair "as soon as possible". A later report, from October, 2003 [pdf] puts the cost of stabilization of only the roof, upper masonry and windows at $6-7 million.

Time passes. A later presentation from December 2005 [pdf] now puts the cost of stabilization at $15-16 million -- implying that little to no work has been done on the roof or windows since the urgent 2002 report -- and a later report [pdf]confirms this, and states the cost of a new roof alone at $4M. It also notes the continued reluctance to spend public money on this project, so a search for a private developer continues. Restoration of the building to "minimal public use" is now listed as costing about $33M.

Time passes. In February, 2008, an MOU is signed with a developer, but the village is clear that this near the end -- either this MOU will result in the restoration of the building in private hands, or demolition. In September, 2008, Brokergeddon occurs and the Great Recession hits.

And that's it. In May, 2009, the village is issuing draft environmental impact statements about the demolition. Nobody is coming forward with the money -- probably at least in the $50 million dollars to put this building in minimal use. That critical roof hasn't been touched since 2002, the masonry that was worrying in 2002 is going to be leaking like a sieve in 2010. Estimated costs of mothballing the building are now close to $14 million, with $200K per year in running costs.

It's not going to happen. Mothballing this building is almost certainly going to throw $14 million away. Rebuilding this thing is going to be a gut rehab on a 500 room building, with a real estate market that states quite clearly that the last thing it needs is more on-market property.

The time to save this building was in 1990. Nobody did. Nobody really tried.

At least the village saved the fields -- 39 acres of parkland is a very good thing indeed.
posted by eriko at 1:28 PM on September 13, 2010 [5 favorites]

I rather like that library.
posted by Flashman at 2:13 PM on September 13, 2010

We build our cities like we are renting them. This is sad. We should build them like we own them.
posted by nickjadlowe at 2:18 PM on September 13, 2010 [4 favorites]

We build our cities like we are renting them. This is sad. We should build them like we own them.

I would say we build our cities like we will live in them for three years until the eligible capital gains period has expired, and then we will sell them to upwardly-mobile members of minority groups we will be attempting to move further away from.
posted by jefficator at 2:21 PM on September 13, 2010 [9 favorites]

Rebuilding this thing is going to be a gut rehab on a 500 room building, with a real estate market that states quite clearly that the last thing it needs is more on-market property.

Can't they just give it away?

Free to anyone willing to pay for renovation: one giant, gorgeous building and several dozen acres of prime parkland. Want to start your own college or private school? How about your own nursing home? Hospital?

The reason you don't tear stuff like this down is because nobody is building stuff like this any more. Labor and materials are quite simply way too expensive. Even multi-million dollar homes don't get this kind of treatment. Look at the different types of stone in the arches below "ST. PAUL'S," the decoratively stone tiles around the entry way, the iron fence with quatrefoils that match the brick spires… and the whole building is just covered with them. That covered porte-cochère is out of fucking Hogwarts, man. You can't tear that shit down.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:06 PM on September 13, 2010 [7 favorites]

I'm not sure people understand just how difficult taking these buildings and making them usable again is. There are a lot of regulations and codes that these admittedly beautiful buildings never had to follow. Issues like mold and asbestos can raise the cost of gutting upward by an order of magnitude. Going through and putting in brand new HVAC, plumbing, and electricity is no joke. I'm not saying it can't or shouldn't be done, but it's not easy to sell a project that's several times more expensive than 6 million dollars to a project based on sentimentality.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 3:35 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Just to be clear, that building is painfully beautiful, and the fact that it will almost certainly be replaced with something hideous is heartbreaking.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 3:36 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

There's no way that a village of 20,000 people could support the renovations necessary for a 500 room school, or any public use of that scale. It needs someone with big ideas, or a wealthy benefactor with ridiculously deep pockets. And there is nothing that could replace such a building and not be seen as inferior or hideous by comparison. I hope that some features are re-used, because the ornate, detailed work is like nothing you will find in new construction, at least not to this scale.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:28 PM on September 13, 2010

I was very surprised to click on the quote above and see that it apparently wasn't written by James Howard Kunstler.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:29 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure people understand just how difficult taking these buildings and making them usable again is.

Haven't you guys put a man on the moon?

I mean, crazy talk, this is just a Canadian here, but here's how that speech went: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too..."

And ultimately that's his point. That as a country, America is no longer willing to do the hard things.
posted by mhoye at 5:10 PM on September 13, 2010 [9 favorites]

Amen to mhoye!
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 5:28 PM on September 13, 2010

Can I get some tin-can government to go with that?
posted by sneebler at 5:44 PM on September 13, 2010

I find it remarkable that a building like that could be slated for demolition in this day and age. It just would not happen in my state. Back in the 60s was the last time we were vandals like that.
posted by wilful at 6:04 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

If only Long Island had hipsters like Detroit has.
posted by Eideteker at 9:09 PM on September 13, 2010

No wheelchair access. No elevators. No A/C or space between floors for HVAC ducts. Far too few restrooms, usually no or only one women's restroom. Knob-and-tube wiring that has to be replaced entirely, no fiberglass insulation, asbestos and lead paint everywhere, lead-soldered pipes that leach lead into the water, no thought to fire safety at all. By the time you're done restoring a building like that, you're spending well more than it would cost to demolish and start from scratch.

My city recently spent $200 million restoring a 2 million sf office building from the 30s, empty since the 70s. It's kind of a neat story (who the hell builds an office building that large outside of Manhattan?) but not a wise financial investment at all.

I do wish some architect would figure out a way to imitate the exteriors of old buildings using modern materials, while keeping the nice, safe, equal-access interiors we're used to in the 21st century.
posted by miyabo at 9:28 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

miyabo: By the time you're done restoring a building like that, you're spending well more than it would cost to demolish and start from scratch.

Start from scratch and build something wonderful, or start from scratch and build yet some more ticky-tacky shit?

I can't think of any nation on Earth (save the one in question) that so resolutely refuses to find a way to protect their significant cultural buildings. Maybe it gets turned into a museum, maybe a hotel, maybe who knows what, but the actual building stays, because those types of things matter.
posted by paisley henosis at 10:32 PM on September 13, 2010

I can't think of any nation on Earth (save the one in question) that so resolutely refuses to find a way to protect their significant cultural buildings.

<derail>China, though there might be ways to improve the situation.</derail>
posted by Vetinari at 10:51 PM on September 13, 2010

My God, that's a gorgeous building. Inside and out. The thought that people are even considering tearing it down boggles my mind. Couldn't they just let it be if all else fails? The inside looks a bit dusty but totally usable once they get the plumbing up and running, etc. Not sure why it's assumed that it will need a kazillion dollars worth of restoration/renovation. Tearing up the inside would be a crime in and of itself. Europeans live in the same buildings for centuries, why can't we?
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:58 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

By the time you're done restoring a building like that, you're spending well more than it would cost to demolish and start from scratch.

Only if you were building a giant concrete box.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:24 PM on September 13, 2010

By the time you're done restoring a building like that, you're spending well more than it would cost to demolish and start from scratch.

One of the things that this line of reasoning never considers is that you simply, at this time and place, cannot get a building exactly like that again. The craftsmen are gone, the labor is too expensive. You can mimic a few details, and I'm sure the new building will be potentially more useful, easier to heat/cool, all that, but you cannot build this exact building again, if that's what's important to you.

There's probably not much of a business case for it, but I think it's important to recognize that in considerations about its fate.
posted by maxwelton at 11:48 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Free to anyone willing to pay for renovation: one giant, gorgeous building and several dozen acres of prime parkland. Want to start your own college or private school? How about your own nursing home? Hospital?

Nobody wants to pay for the renovation. The property is actually valued in the negative millions, because of the rotting building that you'll either need to stabilize or raze. That brings it to merely worthless. You'll still need to spend millions to make it useful in any sort of way.

The asbestos and lead removal alone is a nightmare -- of course, it's a nightmare if you tear it down as well, but at the end, you'd have a flat piece of ground, not an unusable shell worth basically zero dollars.
posted by eriko at 7:55 AM on September 14, 2010 [1 favorite]

enn, I had no idea that they'd taken the benches out of Union Station. That's a dirty shame. I used to love going through that big hall and up those marble steps that were worn in the middle from decades of travelers. (For those of you that haven't had the pleasure, you may remember the scene from Brian De Palma's The Untouchables that's his homage to the "Odessa Steps" sequence in Battleship Potemkin.) At least they haven't turned it into a mall, the way that developers did with St. Louis' Union Station (although I wouldn't be one little bit surprised if some bright-eyed son of a bitch has tried to make it happen).
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:37 PM on September 14, 2010

Also WRT the subject of the FPP: sorry, folks, but eriko's right. Scout seems to take at face value the estimate from the preservation society that the building can be preserved indefinitely for the same amount of money that it would take to tear it down (plus $200K in annual upkeep costs), but that's probably the most conservative estimate.

I've seen this happen with preservation societies and landmark commissions all over: the people who get on them tend to be the worst sort of hoarders--any building that was built before, say, WWII (and many after that) has at least one allegedly unique feature that means that the owner can't tear it down, or even alter it in a way that would make it commercially viable, lest the world lose a priceless example of the way that the Veeblefetzer school used decorative fonebones on the archway. It's pretty easy when you're basically spending other people's money; when I was living in Memphis, one homeowner who had put in a curved walkway to his front door had to tear it out and put in a straight one because that was more architecturally correct for that style of house or something. It may not sink to the petty rules of a HOA, but it's a not-inconsiderable expense and inconvenience. At around the same time, the Landmark Commission tried to stop the demolition of an old warehouse downtown to make way for a new ball park because it had, way back in the day, started life as a mule barn, and as you might expect, there aren't many mule barns around any more. It ended up going under the wrecking ball, and an unlovely box made way for a lovely ball park.

Don't get the idea that I want all the nice old buildings torn down to make way for E-Z-2-maintain beige boxes; hell nah. (See my comment about Union station above.) But in this case, it really does come down to the money, and a non-trivial amount at that. It's pretty easy to come to town, take a few photos, say "Wow, somebody else should really take better care of that," post a few links and drive on.
posted by Halloween Jack at 1:03 PM on September 14, 2010

And ultimately that's his point. That as a country, America is no longer willing to do the hard things.

If you can't think of more important things for a municipality or state to do with millions of dollars, you're not thinking very hard.
posted by ripley_ at 4:15 PM on September 14, 2010