Divine intervention appears to be lacking for the old Public National Bank at 1770 Madison Avenue. This building with the doric columns at the west side of 116th Street was formerly used as church but has been shuttered for the past couple of decades until it was placed on the market last year. A report from a few years back explains that the owner of the property had been waiting for divine help to come up with money to restore it one day:
LINK.
Scaffolding appeared on the 2-story corner retail property last year but now recently filed permits show that the new goal is demolition. Public records show that the property sold for $2.35 million last month (higher than the asking price of $2 million) and that the new owner has been listed as Low Income Marketing Corp. So does this mean more low income housing for the area as opposed to affordable housing?
If this is the case it will be a hard step in the wrong direction. Taxpayers are what we need in Harlem not more subsidized housing. I believe it is Chris who has pointed this out more often than not.
ReplyDeleteAnd the previous owner got it for 35k and let it fall into ruin, 'waiting for God'? What a load of nonsense. Get these cuckoos to repair their property before it gets to this point. What is the benefit for the new owner to develop as low income housing? My only guess is there is some sort of economic incentive on offer from the city.
ReplyDeletewhenever I passed I could always see that it was a once-beautiful building, and it's current state always underscored some deep dysfunction in the way he treated beautiful things. (I always thought of those science fiction movies where ruins of great buildings were now slags of radioactive rubble.) Too bad about the low-income housing; I would think we were drowning in that already.
ReplyDeleteThis is more then just a shame.. have we learned nothing from the past?
ReplyDeletedestroying a beautiful historic building like this is criminal.
Harlem wake up and demand protection from Landmarks.
City of New York needs more policies and encentives to restore these buildings and punishment for letting them deteriorate.
would have been a great space as a restuarant, theater, anything but MORE low income housing. WE need MORE market rate housing, and adaptive re-use of old buildings.
I am sad for our City that its priorities are all messed up and politicized.
There are so many ways this building could have been used. What a pity it was allowed to fall into such disrepair
ReplyDeleteSo disappointing. I live a block away and always hoped that someone would renovate this building into a vibrant commercial property that can clean up the block. (I.E. Harlem Tavern/Bier International). Low income housing? There's already a ton of that across the street and around the block. A great opportunity missed.
ReplyDeleteSO SAD! I don't understand why most buildings always have to be completely demolished to make way for a new one. Incorporating the facade of the former bank building could be such an interesting architectural statement (see the Norman Foster building on 57/8th ave)
ReplyDeleteHarlem could be such an interesting place for modern archtitects, instead it is badly duplicated what is existing.
I still don't understand what the incentive is for low income housing, why so much of it is in Harlem and how the city can afford it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is sad is that so many voices here are upset about low-income housing while there is no concern for low-income people. I am far from a bleeding heart, and have a significant investment in the "new" Harlem, but I cannot help but lament that our society is becoming so callous. Every once-grand building is Harlem is not worth saving, either. If that happened, Harlem would become a museum, not a neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteValgb, most get upset with low income housing because it usually means subsidized housing, which means tax $$ sucked in instead of tax $$ paid out. As Chris said we need a growing tax base, that is how services are paid for and how the community can demand better services.
ReplyDeleteValgb you are a bleeding heart.
ReplyDeleteembrace it.
Who is asking Harlem to be a museum ? We would love to see this building adapted and re-used by people..... how does demolishing it for bland public housing - and yes we already have enough of it up here despite what the politicians say - (did Rangel ever give up the extra 3 rent stabilized apartments?).
and one really has nothing to do with the other - you can want affordable housing and also want to save this building.
build on the many existing vacant lots before you teat this down.
HarlemBBC, agreed, we need tax payers, not more subsidized individuals. We are already drowning in low income housing with the massive housing projects, the balance needs to be tipped the other way. Harlem needs pride of ownership which has been at the root of the last decades improvements to Harlem.
ReplyDeleteDrive around Harlem and you will see there is no shortage of low income housing. Section 8 housing abound. I don't think there is any danger of that changing. There are some nice new cafes, restaurants etc., but the state schools are still shockingly awful and lack modern amenities. It would be nice to think that more tax payers in the neighborhood would see the tax income being passed down to local schools and after school programs etc. There needs to be a balance. Then again, Harlem also still seems to be pervaded with that whiff of corruption that sadly would see any extra monies go into the pockets of corrupt individuals as opposed to helping the people and kids that most need it.
ReplyDelete@Mike212: You don't know me, so don't try to define me.
ReplyDeleteNow, I agree that one can want affordable housing and still want to save this building. This is not about one building; it's about an attitude that often shows up from some posters here; that Harlem is "drowning" in low-income housing and that every old Harlem building should be saved and re-purposed. Why isn't that outcry heard more often below 110th St., where buildings are routinely demolished and replaced with new structures? Because they don't have Harlem's low-income population, that's why. Yes, in past decades, huge housing projects were overbuilt in Harlem. That is not a reason to object to smaller, low-income buildings being scattered throughout the neighborhood. The undercurrent of many posts I see here is that poor people no longer belong in Harlem, now that we who are blessed to be better off are willing to live here. I do not agree. I, for one, think Harlem has the opportunity to be an example of a Manhattan neighborhood where people of many income levels can co-exist. Elitist, entitled attitudes will not contribute to that. By the way, low income people also pay taxes. That's just the kind of talk that leads to divisive, strained relations between ole and new Harlemites.
Overbuilt public housing is a reason to object to more low income housing, it is called enough already.
ReplyDeleteOutcry at protecting architecture below 110th street does exist, in fact much more so than in Harlem.
As for the term “blessed to be better off”, few if any of those who are better off are living off a trust fund, most worked very hard and made sacrifices for a better future and are now better off and earned it.
As for taxes, build a market rate building and the city gets higher tax paying residents, build a low income subsidized building with tax breaks and the city gets less taxes.
Having lived downtown for more than 25 years in very desirable neighborhoods, I disagree that there is more hue and cry about demolishing buildings that are not iconic. The Lower East side and The Bowery, for example, have been absolutely transformed by new buildings. I have also worked hard for whatever I have; I consider having had the health and talent to do that a blessing. Being able to afford more does not make me want to displace or make sweeping generalizations about those who have less. Also, what are the credentials of those who presume to say how much low-income housing is too much? If they are qualified to make such statements, I'd be more interested in what they have to say.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly prefer to have more low or medium rise affordable housing scattered throughout the neighbourhood that might in future enable the city to start dismantling high density housing projects.
ReplyDeleteSay one thing though. Nothing gets people going on this blog like the words "affordable housing". Like flicking a switch.
Go to a planning meeting below 110th street and you will see plenty of concerned residents, I have seen more of this downtown and Harlem’s architectural treasures deserve similar protection.
ReplyDeleteAs for blessings of talent, Harlem has a lot of talent rotting on the vine of generational welfare. Welfare is essential as a hand up but no good for anyone as a hand out.
How much is too much low income housing, in a major international city it is a disgrace we should have swaths of generational welfare throughout Manhattan.
Why do you assume I haven't been to a planning meeting in 25 years of living downtown? Just one final point from me, as I know you and I are destined to disagree. Regarding the tax benefits of market rate housing to Harlem, my husband reminds me that we, like MANY Harlem newcomers, enjoy a 25-year tax abatement that has us paying a fraction of what the actual taxes should be.
ReplyDeleteSnap
DeleteThese 25 year tax abatements for new developments are mostly provided on the condition that some non market rate units are included in the building, so the cities tax coffers are lighter for allowing low income individuals. Aside from property tax, the market rate residents are higher income individuals and in turn pay more tax at the end of the year to both city and state, plus they do not rely on government subsidies. In short, market rate individuals carry their own freight, low income individuals are carried by tax payers at many levels. As for downtown planning meetings, there are many dedicated preservationists at work and Harlem’s architecture needs similar protection.
ReplyDeleteI do like the spirited debate, it is what is needed here and in many other places. As long as no one takes it too personally, all points are very valid.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Valgb, these abatement are used all over the city to get lots that would otherwise stay empty and derelict developed. Depending on the area the abatement can be 10 to 25 years. I have friends on Upper East and Upper West is what would be considered "posher" neighbourhoods that have abatement as well.
The truth is that without them most of these new Harlem buildings would probably never have been built as the developers would have had no incentive and the newcomers would more than likely not have come, most of us included.
Westsider is also correct in the assumption that more market rate apts bring more taxes, look at all the new restaurants, look at Best Yet Market, look at the old markets on Harlem trying to "up" their game. With that all said I am not one to throw people away but I do think that it is an injustice to Harlem and to it's residents to think that they always needs "assistance". I am sure that most would rather survive and prosper on their own steam.
Is it too late to save this great historic bank building?
ReplyDelete@Harlem BBC: You make some great points. Please don't assume that I am against tax abatements; we are quite happy to have one. I am just making the point that the city gives assistance to New Yorkers of many income levels. I happen to love the fact that Harlem, unlike most Manhattan neighborhoods, has high, middle and low-income residents.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there are NO low-income units in the luxury condo where we enjoy a 25-year tax abatement.
ReplyDelete@ valgb: I too like this about our piece of NYC, I would venture that most of the "animosity" against affordable/lower comes because of what people have observed in their day to day interactions.
ReplyDeleteOwner, think before you demolish this great building.
ReplyDeletewould be a great restaurant and entrance to a bigger building in the back.
So many sensible comments! This is so refreshing.
ReplyDeleteAgree 200% with everyone's statements that:
1) This is a fantastic, beautiful historic structure that makes me sad and hopeful all at once whenever I go by it. It needs to be saved.
2) What Harlem does NOT need is "low-income housing" but taxpayers and market-rate housing that brings energy, commerce, money and, geez, nice stuff to the neighborhood.
Glad to see so many other people living in Harlem feel the same way... now how the heck do we organize and get the LPC to pay attention to the history and beauty of Harlem (and, following that, the rest of the city)?
Contact: Robert B. Tierney, Chairman, Landmarks Preservation Commission
ReplyDelete212-669-7888
rtierney@lpc.nyc.gov
what makes this building a landmark exactly? Why is it worthy of preservation?
ReplyDeleteHELLO EVERYONE...I AM JUST RUNNING ACROSS THIS ARTICLE AND I AM THE PASTOR OF THIS CHURCH..IN 2009 MY GODMOTHER PASSED AND LEFT ME AS THE PASTOR ALONG WITH A NEW BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I FOUGHT 3 YEARS FOR HELP TO RESTORE THIS PROPERTY. WE HAD GREAT PLAN FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THERE HAS BEEN A LEGAL BATTLE THAT HAS ROBBED US OF ALL OUR FUNDS. ALSO CAUSED US TO LOOSE OUR CURRENT PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE PASTORS ONLY SON FELT THAT HE SHOULD INHERIT THE PROPERTY SO HIM AND HIS LAWYERS HAVE STOLEN IT CHANGED THE BOARD AND CAUSED GREAT HARDSHIP...REV. MADELINE PUGH DID GREAT WORK IN THE HARLEM COMMUNITY AND COULD NOT DO MUCH BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SUPPORT. THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY DAMAGED BY THE CITY OF N.Y. HPD. THE SAME IS HAPPENING TO ME PASTOR GLENDA R. PHILLIPS LEE..PASTOR OF INTERNATIONAL GOSPEL HELPERS CHURCH....347-777-3769...2.3 MILLION AND THE PASTOR IS IN A SHELTER YOU FIGURE....
ReplyDelete