Suit seeks to stop mega-tower being built next to Grand Central

An 82-year-old preservationist is single-handedly waging conflict in opposition to a 1,645-foot mega-tower that’s set to go up next to Grand Central — claiming the behemoth constructing would mar the “heart of New York.”

Christabel Gough, the secretary of the Society for the Architecture of the City, filed swimsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court Wednesday looking for to stop the mission at 175 Park Avenue, which the grievance says would “completely overwhelm and resign to utter insignificance the grandeur of Grand Central.”

“I came here with my grandfather when I was a small child,” Gough instructed The Post.

“This is the heart of New York and it should be protected. Why do we have a landmarks law if not to protect buildings like Grand Central?”

Developed by RXR Realty and TF Cornerstone, the proposed building can be greater than 5 occasions the scale of the 26-story Grand Hyatt resort its changing on East forty second Street.

In her swimsuit, Gough marvels over the transportation hub that she says she “regularly frequents” to take pleasure in its “beauty, historic and architectural eminence and cultural significance.”

This graphic shows planned 175 Park Ave. next to Grand Central Terminal. It's taller than One Vanderbilt to the west.
Developed by RXR Realty and TF Cornerstone, the proposed constructing can be greater than 5 occasions the scale of the 26-story Grand Hyatt resort its changing on East forty second Street.
courtroom exhibit

She is accusing town’s Landmark Preservation Commission of issuing an advisory opinion, as an alternative of greenlighting the 83-story construction with a proper opinion, which is legally required and entails a better bar for approval.

The LPC ought to have required the MTA, because the proprietor of Grand Central, to file an utility for a “certificate of appropriateness” for the mission — since it should alter the terminal and its viaduct, the courtroom papers say.

But as an alternative, the LPC allowed the MTA to merely file a request for a “report and recommendation” — a extra relaxed and non-binding normal for mission proposals, the submitting alleges.

The LPC issued that report and suggestion in February.

“Why do we have a landmarks law if not to protect buildings like Grand Central?”

Christabel Gough, the secretary of the Society for the Architecture of the City

“The Landmarks Commission has a responsibility to take care of the landmarks — the viaduct and the interior of Grand Central — and I think they are shirking their responsibilities,” Gough stated. “They are using technicalities to avoid looking at these proposals.”

The tower would open in 2030 with work not beginning till 2025, the builders have estimated.

“The Landmarks Preservation Commission effectively greenlighted a plan to alter Grand Central Terminal, one of America’s most iconic landmarks, without complying with the exacting standards contained in the Landmarks Law,” Gough’s lawyer Michael Hiller instructed The Post in a press release.

“The commission recommended approval of a massive, hulking tower more than 13 times the size of Grand Central directly next door, resigning this legendary landmark to utter insignificance,” Hiller stated.

Gough needs a choose to vacate the LPC’s February report and for the fee to conduct a overview of a certificates of appropriateness for the mission.

A spokesperson for each builders stated the mission had been reviewed and endorsed by the LPC and the State Historic Preservation Office. The rep stated the swimsuit takes difficulty with “a small piece of sidewalk and a modification to a passageway” contained in the terminal.

This graphic shows planned 175 Park Ave. next to Grand Central Terminal. It's taller than One Vanderbilt to the west.
The tower would open in 2030 with work not beginning till 2025, the builders have estimated.
SOM architects

“The lawsuit has no impact on the transformative project and, regardless, we are confident we will prevail,” the spokesman stated.

“As we continue to move through the land use review process, we are committed to following all necessary administrative steps, and will continue to work with the City, LPC, MTA, and SHPO,” the assertion stated.

MTA spokesperson Meredith Daniels stated “we do not comment on pending litigation.”

The metropolis Law Department declined to remark.

LPC didn’t instantly return requests for remark.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.