来源 ：北京市公安局 2019-12-10 11:53:41|大肖
[What you need to know to start the day: Get New York Today in your inbox.]
The developers had big plans for the space at the top of an old office building in Lower Manhattan that they were turning into condominiums: a penthouse with a tower valued at nearly million.
But there was one problem: The tower held a historic clock sometimes described as New York’s Big Ben. The clock has to be “wound” by hand — heavy weights that keep it ticking have to be reset — every week. It would be accessible only by passing through that very expensive apartment at 108 Leonard Street.
The developers dealt with the complication by persuading the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to allow them to cut off access to the clock tower, even though it is a landmark. The tower is an interior landmark, one of only 120 in New York City. The massive building itself holds the more common exterior landmark designation.
Now the penthouse plan is delayed and the clock is at the center of a court fight, just as a wave of anger is rising against the rich, and the privileges they claim.
Economists say income and wealth disparities have swelled to levels not seen since the 1920s, helping to fuel the populist backlash that torpedoed Amazon’s plan to build a campus in Queens. Now Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state lawmakers are pushing a tax on multimillion-dollar second homes that would be the first of its kind in the nation.
In the clock tower case, the developers plan to turn the building into more than 140 apartments, with prices starting at about .5 million for one-bedroom units, according to listings on StreetEasy. The most expensive was to have been the penthouse with the clock tower. It was to be spread across several levels, with five bedrooms — although one was marked “gym” and another “spa” on the plans. Long outdoor terraces would provide views of the Brooklyn Bridge and the courthouse that television viewers know from “Law and Order.”
Michael S. Hiller, a lawyer for the opponents, said the developers were “seeking to privatize an interior landmark for use as a luxury residential apartment so they can turn an additional profit of more than million.”
“It’s not as if they can’t make a killing on this property from the sale of the other condominium units,” he added.
For now, the clock tower penthouse is not part of the plan, according to Samantha Sax, the chief marketing and design officer for the El Ad Group, one of the developers.
A judge in State Supreme Court ruled in the opponents’ favor in 2016, and the Appellate Division upheld the decision in 2017, saying the landmarks commission’s action was “irrational” and based on advice from its lawyer that the judges said was mistaken.
“This majestic clock, and its historically significant functioning mechanism, is a perfect example of the very reason the landmarks law exists,” the appellate judges said in their opinion. Referring to the Landmarks Preservation Commission by initials, they added, “The actions of the LPC in this case are contrary to that purpose.”
The state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, heard the case last month, and a ruling is pending. “Our plans may change depending on what comes out of the litigation,” Ms. Sax said, adding that the case was “not for us to win or not win.”
“It’s about whatever Landmarks and the city deem appropriate for the use of the clock,” she said.
The opponents have directed their dissatisfaction at the landmarks commission. “This is about preserving preservation,” said Tom Bernardin, who, as the founder of a nonprofit group called Save America’s Clocks, is the lead plaintiff in the case.
He and the other opponents say that a landmark should be forever and that the Landmarks Preservation Commission should not allow a builder to close off public space.
The commission, in a statement, said its job was “to work with all stakeholders, from property owners to the community, to ensure they are protected.” As for the clock tower, “this project includes an incredible restoration of the building and the banking hall” — a space elsewhere in the building that is also covered by the interior landmark designation — “and preserves an important piece of city history.”
In court papers, the city’s lawyer echoed that idea, saying the project had “an overwhelming net positive impact” and calling the opponents’ arguments “long on histrionics but not substance.”
The city also said the landmarks law “presumes that owners should be afforded ‘maximum latitude’ to use and adapt what is — it bears repeating — private property.”
The blocklong building that houses the clock was owned by the city, which sold it in 2013 to the developers. The next year, the developers went to the landmarks commission about the clock tower, saying that it was inaccessible to the public and that they wanted to electrify the clock mechanism without moving it.
Some clock experts worry that electrifying it could ruin it.
Access is necessary because the clock can only be maintained by hand, say opponents of the penthouse project. For nearly 40 years, the city’s official clock master, Marvin Schneider, did the job.
[Meet the man who turns back New York City’s clocks, hand by hand.]
That was easy when the city owned the building, and at first, the new owners — the developers — allowed him in. But in March 2015, he said, they told him he was no longer welcome. The clock stopped soon after that, Mr. Schneider said.
“Supposedly, the New York City landmarks law was given a jump-start by the demolition of Penn Station” in the 1960s, Mr. Schneider said. “Something of great significance like that should not have been summarily torn down. There should be protection. So that’s pretty much how I felt about the clock. It’s a testament to American pre-eminence in the clock field in the late 19th century, that a clock like that could be made on that scale to function well enough in this age. You could still set your watch by it.”
Ms. Sax, the developer’s marketing chief, said that the clock “had to be protected from dust” during construction for the condominium conversion and that “it was dangerous to have access to the space at the time.”
Mr. Schneider, 79, was heartbroken. He had spent nearly half his life tending the clock after resuscitating it in 1980.
Back then, Mr. Schneider was a supervisor for the city’s Human Resources Administration with no experience with clocks. He took it upon himself to learn what makes them tick. He and a colleague worked on the mechanism of the clock at 108 Leonard Street during their lunch hours, untangling what had become a jumble of chains and gears.
Before long he was looking after more than a dozen classic old clocks, several of them at City Hall. In 1992, Mayor David N. Dinkins named him the city’s clock master, a position Mr. Schneider still holds.
But in the court case, more is at issue than access to reset the weights and oil the gears. At the Court of Appeals hearing, Associate Judge Eugene M. Fahey asked how the interior landmark designation affected the value of the tower space.
“It eliminates the value of it,” answered James P. Rouhandeh, the lawyer for the owners, according to a transcript of the hearing.
Mr. Hiller, the opponents’ lawyer, said in an interview that tower clocks like the one in the building once played an important role in the city. They were meant to be seen and heard, their bells chiming the hours because only wealthy people could afford watches.
“The rest of us would have had to wait until the bells went off,” Mr. Hiller said. “That’s the category I would have been in.”B:
【平】【哥】【回】【来】【了】，【跟】【着】【回】【来】【的】【还】【有】【来】【福】【一】【家】【三】【口】。 【赶】【着】【两】【辆】【马】【车】，【拉】【了】【满】【满】【的】【两】【车】【东】【西】，【先】【是】【在】【下】【院】【老】【太】【太】【那】【站】【了】【脚】，【大】【家】【一】【起】【吃】【了】【饭】，【然】【后】【接】【了】【巧】【丫】【头】，【回】【家】【开】【始】【准】【备】【订】【亲】【成】【亲】。 【祥】【花】【的】【事】，【二】【姑】【和】【老】【太】【太】【拿】【主】【意】，【因】【为】【到】【了】【年】【纪】，【二】【姑】【早】【就】【慢】【慢】【准】【备】【了】。【虽】【说】【时】【间】【紧】，【但】【也】【来】【得】【及】。 【时】【间】【虽】【赶】，【但】【订】【亲】【该】【有】
【朝】【曦】【楼】。 【轩】【辕】【紫】【苏】【紧】【皱】【眉】【头】【坐】【在】【院】【落】【里】【面】【的】【秋】【千】【上】【面】，【秋】【千】【轻】【轻】【的】【摇】【晃】，【发】【出】“【咯】【吱】【咯】【吱】”【的】【声】【音】。 【在】【她】【的】【面】【前】，【站】【着】【一】【个】【戴】【着】【雪】【白】【色】【面】【纱】【的】【少】【女】。【她】【穿】【着】【一】【身】【紫】【色】【的】【罗】【裙】，【头】【发】【盘】【成】【流】【苏】【髻】，【两】【肩】【处】【垂】【下】【的】【头】【发】【柔】【顺】【的】【贴】【在】【胸】【前】，【头】【上】【带】【着】【碎】【花】【细】【钿】。【一】【双】【水】【灵】【灵】【的】【双】【眸】【认】【真】【的】【看】【着】【轩】【辕】【紫】【苏】，【没】【有】【恭】【敬】【也】【没】
【王】【宫】【的】【广】【场】【花】【坛】【中】【央】【竖】【立】【着】【一】【座】【高】【约】【十】【八】【米】【的】【雕】【像】，【具】【凯】【茜】【所】【说】，【那】【是】【弗】【洛】【克】【达】【伊】【的】【第】【一】【任】【国】【王】，【也】【是】【建】【立】【了】【弗】【洛】【克】【达】【伊】【的】****，【卡】【尔】【顿】【约】【翰】【王】。 【这】【座】【雕】【像】【正】【是】【在】【他】【逝】【去】【以】【后】【这】【个】【国】【家】【为】【了】【纪】【念】【这】【位】【伟】【大】【的】【王】【而】【建】【立】【的】。 【值】【得】【一】【提】【的】【是】，【王】【宫】【正】【门】【外】【的】【大】【街】【正】【是】【以】【卡】【尔】【顿】【约】【翰】【王】【命】【名】【的】【大】【街】，【热】【闹】【非】【凡】。 大肖【汪】【云】【锦】【生】【性】【洒】【脱】，【又】【处】【事】【随】【意】，【对】【宫】【廷】【礼】【仪】【本】【就】【避】【之】【不】【及】。 【不】【管】【出】【于】【何】【种】【缘】【由】，【既】【然】【周】【皇】【后】【不】【愿】【摆】【弄】**【排】【场】，【她】【也】【懒】【得】【卑】【躬】【屈】【膝】，【当】【既】【就】【顺】【着】【台】【阶】【下】“【谨】【遵】【娘】【娘】【旨】【意】！” 【周】【皇】【后】【还】【以】【为】【传】【说】【中】【残】【暴】【粗】【野】【的】【汪】【云】【锦】【很】【嚣】【张】【傲】【慢】【呢】！【一】【听】【这】【话】【当】【即】【愉】【悦】【地】【笑】【了】【出】【来】，【看】【来】【传】【言】【威】【力】【果】【然】【厉】【害】，【她】【是】【真】【没】【看】【出】【来】【这】【孩】
【新】【书】《【大】【宋】【狂】【生】》【发】【布】，【已】【签】【约】、【放】【心】【读】，【敬】【请】【看】【官】【移】【步】。 【书】【号】：1016303271。 【创】【世】【地】【址】： 【故】【事】【内】【容】： 【狂】【生】【不】【一】【定】【要】【打】【打】【杀】【杀】，【也】【可】【以】【斯】【文】【儒】【雅】。 【比】【如】，【立】【个】【党】、【变】【个】【法】、【罢】【几】【个】【宰】【相】，【再】【蹂】【躏】【蹂】【躏】【皇】【帝】。 ------------ 【子】【曰】：“【君】【子】【矜】【而】【不】【争】，【群】【而】【不】【党】。”