Landmark Plan Gets Final 'No' In Council

New York City Council unanimously voted for the second and final time yesterday to block the proposed partial landmark status for the Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine, overriding Mayor Michael Bloomberg's veto.

Bloomberg's staff did not provide an explanation for his veto of the council's original vote.

The proposal--backed by the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission--would have landmarked only the cathedral structure, clearing the way for development by Columbia University or another developer on two parts of St. John's property. But the council decisively rejected the partial-landmarking proposal, calling upon the preservation commission to landmark the entire cathedral property to ensure direct public oversight of the future development.

City Council's action was led by Council Member Bill Perkins, the deputy majority leader, whose district includes Morningside Heights and much of Harlem. His firm stand has been interpreted by some as the "opening shot" in a bid for Manhattan borough president in 2005, according to a source close to the council.

Little fanfare surrounded yesterday's vote, and Perkins did not make a formal statement about St. John during the council meeting. But in a later interview, he reiterated the concerns he expressed during the council's first vote two weeks ago, raising far-reaching questions about the scope and role of the landmarks process in general.

Perkins particularly underscored the need to "maintain the integrity of the landmarking process."

"It's not their job to structure development deals," he said.

The landmarks commission's proposal emerged from a detailed agreement with St. John specifying restrictions on the two development sites. The agreement also provided for a design review committee including two members appointed by the commission. But the committee's role would be only an advisory one, and the cathedral trustees would have the final word on any building designs.

Perkins said that allowing the cathedral trustees to retain ultimate authority over building designs would set a "bad precedent" for future landmarks.

"The best way for them to do this is to have the whole thing designated as a landmark and to develop in that context," Perkins said. "It is clear that the church and the Close are landmark-worthy."

But the cathedral opposes landmarking the entire property because it would add "uncertainty" that could deter potential developers, according to Lee Silberstein, a St. John spokesman.

Cathedral officials have long maintained that development is necessary to secure desperately needed revenue to address a variety of needs, including deferred maintenance on the existing buildings.

City Council Members expressed concern for the cathedral's financial crisis but maintained that financial considerations should not enter into the landmark designation process. The landmarks commission has other avenues for addressing financial hardship once landmarks have been designated.

"I am deeply sympathetic [to] the dire need for the Cathedral to raise money," Perkins said, adding that he is "committed to helping them in whatever way I can."

For the time being, the cathedral building has no landmark status--and its development plans are moving ahead. Silberstein said that an agreement with Columbia may be completed "in a matter of weeks."

Perkins has said such development "could be problematic if there's no public review," but Silberstein said that the cathedral will expect the developer of the sites to present its plans to the community for feedback.

"Columbia has said that it will have a community review process to discuss the designs for the buildings," Silberstein said.