Saturday, December 8, 2007

The next LPC designation

The Allerton 39th Street House, 145 East 39th Street, Manhattan, New York, Built 1916-1918; Arthur Loomis Harmon architect.

Constructed in 1916-18 by architect Arthur Loomis Harmon, the Allerton House at 145 East 39th Street provided a unique housing opportunity for the burgeoning ranks of young, middle class, single men and women in the early 20th century.

The Allerton was large enough to provide low rental prices and personal freedoms to residents, yet small enough to encourage community spirit, without any religious associations such as those imposed by organizations like the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) or the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), which offered similar residential accommodations.

Between 1913 and 1924, six Allerton Houses were built in New York City. All of the facilities were designed for men and intended for semi-permanent guests, with the exception of the hotel at 128-30 East 57th Street, which was specifically designed for women.

The Italian Renaissance-style building at 145 East 39th Street is constructed primarily of red brick with projecting headers, which ascend to a central hipped roof tower. The base of the building is clad in granite and its main fa├žade is structured around three bays of windows. At the roof garden level, there are three arched openings separated by twin terra cotta columns Arthur Loomis Harmon (1878-1958) graduated from Columbia University School of Architecture in 1901. He then worked as a designer for McKim, Mead & White from 1902 to 1911. In 1913, Harmon became a partner with the architectural firm of Shreve & Lamb, which later went on to design the Empire State Building. Harmon was also the design and construction consultant for Parkchester, Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village.

In 1956, the Salvation Army converted the building to the Ten Eyck-Troughton Memorial Residence for Women. It remained in use by the Salvation Army until very recently.


And this building should be designated a landmark before all of the significant historical and architectural sites in Queens because...?

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Its getting designated in part because the Queens Preservation community is inept, not DEMANDING that they get their fair share and THREATENING to overturn the landmarks law if they don't.

confused said...

If "the Queens Preservation Community is inept", then who cares if they "threaten to overturn the landmarks law"?

Anonymous said...

When you have a post like this, it would be nice if you gave two or three examples of buildings in Queens that have been proposed for landmarking and have been turned down or have not gotten a decision yet. I assume you do not object to this building being landmarked, but you think Queens has comparable buildings that also should be landmarked. You can't deny that Manhattan has many more older buildings of architectural or historical significance than Queens, which was mostly farmland 100 years ago.

Queens Crapper said...

No, I do object to this building being designated.

Anonymous said...

You want some examples of buildings in Queens that should have be landmarked? How about the Hackett Building (first Queens boro hall), St. Saviour's (Richard Upjohn church), or the Trylon Theater (art deco, ties to the 1939 world's fair)?

Anonymous said...

A landmark need only be 30 years old to be designated, so I fail to see the point about one borough having more "old" buildings. Queens had more farmhouses from the 18th and 19th centuries than Manhattan did that should have been preserved and they weren't designated. Now they're gone.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a city hall big shot lives there. That's usually how it works.

Anonymous said...

Great, this boring building will now be eligible for grants made up of our tax dollars.

verdi said...

If this building were located in Queens.....
the LPC would calmly say,
"It doesn't meet our criteria" !

But alas......Manhattan is sacred soil !

Anonymous said...

If a building need only be 30 years old to be a candidate for landmarking, why isn't the NYS Pavilion landmarked?
The Manhattan apartment building looks like a brick box with some light Romanesque touches. And if I hear of Greenwich Village or SoHo getting yet another landmark, I will tear my hair out in anger!

Anonymous said...

When you have a post like this, it would be nice if you gave two or three examples of buildings in Queens that have been proposed for landmarking and have been turned down or have not gotten a decision yet.

-----------

Where in the hell have you been living - under a barrel?

Anonymous said...

If "the Queens Preservation Community is inept", then who cares if they "threaten to overturn the landmarks law"?

----------

Everyone. It is the only way we can get noticed. Outside of this, nothing will ever change.

Manhattan will hog everything and in Queens we will have little people going around and around and around in circles because thats what the Manhattan folks told them to do.

Anonymous said...

St. Saviour's was denied because it differs too much from the original building because of a fire in the early 70s that gutted the church. The Hackett Building was old but it didn't stand out architecturally. I don't know much about the Trylon.

What is the objection to this building in Manhattan getting designated?

Anonymous said...

"St. Saviour's was denied because it differs too much from the original building because of a fire in the early 70s that gutted the church. The Hackett Building was old but it didn't stand out architecturally. I don't know much about the Trylon."

Spoken like someone who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Anonymous said...

"The Hackett Building was old but it didn't stand out architecturally."

The Hackett building was historic. A building doesn't have to stand out architecturally. Just take a look at this pile of shit that LPC just designated.

Julie said...

The St. Saviour's excuse doesn't fly either because they have designated properties with more extensive renovations. It was also proven that much of the historical fabric is intact underneath. The fact that this is the only Richard Upjohn country wooden church in the city is reason enough to landmark it.

Patty said...

"What is the objection to this building in Manhattan getting designated?"

What is the significance of this building? That it was a YMCA without the religious affiliation? That it was designed by an architect who has done much better work? Did something historic happen here?

Anonymous said...

Puh-leeze.....
if somebody important belches
on a street corner in Manhattan....
LPC will declare it a landmark.

Anonymous said...

now there's no need to be nasty.i think that it is being named a landmark, maybe because it was one of the first to offer non religious community housing for young adults. besides there might be someone out there who has some link to the building and doesn't want it to be brought down. there might just be someone who thinks that old buildings are nice. just because you can't find a reason to make it special, doesn't mean that there isn't something sentimental about it to someone here.