Landmarks Approves Relocation of Tin Building at South Street Seaport

Rendering of the relocated Tin Building.Rendering of the relocated Tin Building.

Another piece of the puzzle that is the Howard Hughes Corporation’s plan to revitalize the South Street Seaport is one step closer to fitting into place. On Tuesday, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved the relocation of the Tin Building.

The Tin Building, 1907.

The Tin Building, 1907.

The structure, once part of the Fulton Fish Market, was originally designed by the Berlin Construction Company and constructed between in 1907. It was rebuilt by Wank Adams Slavin Associates following a fire in 1995.

The Tin Building following the 1995 fire.

The Tin Building following the 1995 fire.

Diagram showing the post-fire reconstruction of the Tin Building.

Diagram showing the post-fire reconstruction of the Tin Building.

The plan is to disassemble the building and reconstruct it to the east, to function primarily as a food hall run by Jean-Georges Vongerichten, better known simply as Jean-Georges.

Rendering of the front of the relocated Tin Building.

Rendering of the front of the relocated Tin Building.

The presentation was introduced by Aileen Gorsuch of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC), who noted that the building has been vacant since 2006. She said the piles that support it are at risk of collapse. She also noted that in order to raise the building one foot above the 100-year floorplain, the building needs to be moved east. Otherwise, it would crash into the FDR Drive. The building was heavily flooded by Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Rendering of the back of the relocated Tin Building.

Rendering of the back of the relocated Tin Building.

Chris Curry, the Howard Hughes Corporation’s point man on the project, hopes that with Tuesday’s LPC approval, the project can go to the City Planning Commission in April, back to Community Board 1, and then back to City Planning for approval from that agency in May.

Rendering of the back of the relocated Tin Building.

Rendering of the back of the relocated Tin Building.

Preservation consultant Elise Quasebarth of Higgins Quasebarth & Partners spoke to a little more of the building’s history, noting that when it first went into service as an active fish market, fish was being delivered to it by boat. She admitted that relocating buildings in historic districts isn’t a generally accepted practice, this is a special case, and in this case the structure is too brittle to actually move.

Engineer Mark Plachety and architect Richard Pipers spoke to some of what does remain of the original structure, which isn’t much. In fact, the current roof is where the third floor used to be. What you see now is a false front, done in fiberglass. The pilasters and window framing are original, but in such poor shape that they wouldn’t be re-used even if the plan was for an on-site restoration. What will be re-used are some of the canopy trusses and columns, as well as steel connectors in between them. All reconstruction will be done in sheet metal.

The site currently, with the new Pier 17 mall under construction east of the Tin Building.

The site currently, with the new Pier 17 mall under construction east of the Tin Building.

Architect Gregg Pasquarelli of SHoP Architects, the lead firm on the South Street Seaport project, spoke to the access drive that will essentially extend Fulton Street and wrap around in between the new Tin Building and the recently re-approved and nearly topped out Pier 17 mall to the current end of Beekman Street. Bollards will be used on this access drive. As for the Tin Building itself, it will feature glass roll-down pieces, that can be fully opened when the weather is fine. Mechanical equipment will be on the roof and minimally visible from the ground, but will be visible from vantage points like the Brooklyn Bridge.

The commissioners were very supportive of the proposal. “It’s hard to say it’s not appropriate,” said LPC Chair Meenakshi Srinivasan. “Very positive project.” She also said that approving this application would not set any sort of precedent.

Commissioner Diana Chapin was happy with how the Tin Building’s new position will make it more visible and also open up the pedestrian access corridor.

Community Board 1 found the proposal appropriate, but objected to the segmented way that the Howard Hughes Corporation is presenting the pieces of its plan for the Seaport.

A representative of both Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and Council Member Margaret Chin backed the proposal. So, too, did Alex Herrera of the New York Landmarks Conservancy, who said it was a “miracle” that we even still have the Tin Building. Also supporting it were representatives of the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), the Alliance for Downtown New York, and the Association for a Better New York (ABNY).

The Historic Districts Council seemed to echo Community Board 1. “While HDC finds this proposal to be sensitive overall, and appreciates the care being taken to honor the Tin Building, we question the applicant’s strategy of presenting a segmented plan for a much larger scheme in the South Street Seaport,” HDC’s Barbara Zay testified. “We urge the Commission to look ahead and consider the broader goals of this project and their impact on the historic district.”

Testifying against the proposal was Tara Kelly of the Municipal Art Society (MAS). “The threshold for permitting the relocation of a designated structure should be set high. An approval for the relocation of the Tin Building would set a terrible precedent, potentially encouraging a rash of inappropriate and unwarranted relocations of historic structures,” she said.

Two representatives of Friends of the South Street Seaport also testified against the proposal. Joanne Gorman, however, also addressed the Howard Hughes Coporation-owned property at the South Street Seaport that doesn’t sit within the South Street Seaport Historic District and urged expansion of that boundary. Maureen Koetz questioned how the relocation would even be accomplished, saying it would be a back door way to demolish the New Market Building, and called it a “real estate contrivance.”

In the end, the commissioners voted to approve the proposal, but mandated that the applicant work with LPC staff to establish a timeline for the relocation process and a storage location for the pieces of the existing building to be retained.

View the full presentation slides here:

tinbuilding_20160322_01 tinbuilding_20160322_02 tinbuilding_20160322_03 tinbuilding_20160322_04 tinbuilding_20160322_05 tinbuilding_20160322_06 tinbuilding_20160322_07 tinbuilding_20160322_08 tinbuilding_20160322_09 tinbuilding_20160322_10 tinbuilding_20160322_11 tinbuilding_20160322_12 tinbuilding_20160322_13 tinbuilding_20160322_14 tinbuilding_20160322_15 tinbuilding_20160322_16 tinbuilding_20160322_17 tinbuilding_20160322_18 tinbuilding_20160322_19 tinbuilding_20160322_20tinbuilding_20160322_21tinbuilding_20160322_22tinbuilding_20160322_23 tinbuilding_20160322_24 tinbuilding_20160322_25 tinbuilding_20160322_26 tinbuilding_20160322_27 tinbuilding_20160322_28 tinbuilding_20160322_29 tinbuilding_20160322_30 tinbuilding_20160322_31 tinbuilding_20160322_32 tinbuilding_20160322_33 tinbuilding_20160322_34 tinbuilding_20160322_35 tinbuilding_20160322_36 tinbuilding_20160322_37 tinbuilding_20160322_38 tinbuilding_20160322_39 tinbuilding_20160322_40tinbuilding_20160322_41 tinbuilding_20160322_42 tinbuilding_20160322_43 tinbuilding_20160322_44 tinbuilding_20160322_45 tinbuilding_20160322_46 tinbuilding_20160322_47 tinbuilding_20160322_48 tinbuilding_20160322_49 tinbuilding_20160322_50 tinbuilding_20160322_51 tinbuilding_20160322_52 tinbuilding_20160322_53 tinbuilding_20160322_54 tinbuilding_20160322_55 tinbuilding_20160322_56 tinbuilding_20160322_57 tinbuilding_20160322_58 tinbuilding_20160322_59 tinbuilding_20160322_60tinbuilding_20160322_61 tinbuilding_20160322_62 tinbuilding_20160322_63 tinbuilding_20160322_64 tinbuilding_20160322_65 tinbuilding_20160322_66 tinbuilding_20160322_67 tinbuilding_20160322_68 tinbuilding_20160322_69 tinbuilding_20160322_70 tinbuilding_20160322_71 tinbuilding_20160322_72 tinbuilding_20160322_73 tinbuilding_20160322_74 tinbuilding_20160322_75tinbuilding_20160322_76 tinbuilding_20160322_77 tinbuilding_20160322_78 tinbuilding_20160322_79 tinbuilding_20160322_80 tinbuilding_20160322_81 tinbuilding_20160322_82 tinbuilding_20160322_83 tinbuilding_20160322_84 tinbuilding_20160322_85 tinbuilding_20160322_86 tinbuilding_20160322_87 tinbuilding_20160322_88 tinbuilding_20160322_89 tinbuilding_20160322_90 tinbuilding_20160322_91 tinbuilding_20160322_92 tinbuilding_20160322_93 tinbuilding_20160322_94 tinbuilding_20160322_95 tinbuilding_20160322_96 tinbuilding_20160322_97 tinbuilding_20160322_98 tinbuilding_20160322_99 tinbuilding_20160322_100tinbuilding_20160322_101 tinbuilding_20160322_102 tinbuilding_20160322_103 tinbuilding_20160322_104 tinbuilding_20160322_105 tinbuilding_20160322_106 tinbuilding_20160322_107 tinbuilding_20160322_108 tinbuilding_20160322_109 tinbuilding_20160322_110 tinbuilding_20160322_111 tinbuilding_20160322_112 tinbuilding_20160322_113 tinbuilding_20160322_114

Broad Exchange Horizon
.