Williamsburgh Trust Company Building (later Holy Trinity Cathedral) Historic District ARCHITECT: Helmle, Huberty & Hudswell DATE: 1905-06 STYLE: Neo-Classical Completed in 1906, the Williamsburgh Trust Company Building is a monumental Neoclassical style bank building recalling Williamsburg’s industrial prosperity of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Designed by Helmle, Huberty & Hudswell, major Brooklyn architects who designed some of the borough’s most significant early-20th-century banks and park structures, it initially served as headquarters of the Williamsburgh Trust Company. It is a superlative example of the luxurious “banking temples” constructed in Manhattan and Brooklyn starting in the late 19th century, featuring classical porticos with acroteria on its two street facades, as well as a saucer dome recalling that of the Pantheon. Originally intended to stand in isolation, the building is remarkable for its four fully developed classical facades as well as its unusual facing material of white terra cotta. The building was acquired by the City of New York and from 1916 to 1958, it served as Magistrates’ Court for the Fifth District of Brooklyn. The building’s cross-shaped plan and central dome made it attractive for conversion to an Orthodox church, and in 1961, it was acquired by the Holy Ukrainian Autocephalic Orthodox Church in Exile, which renovated it to serve as its Holy Trinity Cathedral. Since then, the church has diligently and sensitively maintained the building, enabling this lavish structure to endure as one of Williamsburg’s most prominent and imposing landmarks.

In November 2014, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) announced a plan to clear 95 properties that had been on its calendar for five years or more, but not yet designated as landmarks. The wholesale removal of these properties without considering each one’s merits would have represented a severe blow to the properties and to the city’s landmarks process in general, sending a message that would jeopardize any future effort to designate them. The properties represented years of research and support from New Yorkers, elected officials, community groups and the Commission itself. To broadly reject all of that through an administrative action would be disrespectful to the efforts and judgment of previous LPC Commissioners and staff. Further, the removal of these 95 sites from the LPC’s calendar would render the LPC powerless in the case of any proposed work or demolition project involving those sites. The Historic Districts Council acted strongly in opposition to this action, and advocated for a more considered, fair and transparent approach. To further prioritize this advocacy, HDC made the initiative one of its Six to Celebrate in 2015, calling it “Landmarks Under Consideration.” As part of this effort, HDC worked with Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and a coalition of other preservation organizations to submit an alternative plan for the LPC’s consideration. The plan eventually formed the basis for the LPC’s initiative, entitled “Backlog95,” calling for a series of public discussions to evaluate the properties in geographical groupings. Announced in July 2015, the LPC’s initiative was the direct result of the advocacy of preservation groups and concerned New Yorkers, over 200 of whom wrote to the LPC to demand a fair process for considering the sites on their individual merits. In fall 2015, the LPC held four “special hearings” in which the items were grouped according to their location by Community District, with roughly 5-12 items per group. At these hearings, the public was given the opportunity to comment. HDC wrote and delivered statements for nearly every item. In February 2016, the LPC held another special hearing to discuss and vote on how to proceed. The Commission was given three choices for the fate of each property: prioritize for designation by the end of 2016; remove from the calendar by voting not to designate (based on a lack of merit); or remove from the calendar by issuing a no-action letter (this allows an item to be taken off the calendar without prejudice, meaning it could be brought forward for designation at a later date). On that day, 30 items were prioritized for designation, five were removed from the calendar with a vote not to designate and the rest were removed from the calendar by issuing a no-action letter. The five properties that the Commission voted not to designate were largely irreparably altered or had been demolished. This story highlights some of the sites considered throughout this 15-month process. HDC chose the following sites in order to provide a snapshot of the geographic, historic, cultural and typological diversity of the 95 sites considered by the LPC in its historic “Backlog95” action. This selection was not influenced by the outcome of the hearings. Many of the sites listed have now been designated as NYC Landmarks by the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission.

By Robert Pigott When most New Yorkers think of courthouses, they visualize Foley Square in lower Manhattan or perhaps Court Street in Brooklyn. But there was a time when the City’s courthouses were not so centralized. If you travel to Brooklyn’s Sunset Park neighborhood and walk along 42nd Street towards the East River, when you get to Fourth Avenue, you will come upon a truly majestic building. An apparently recent sign out front says “Community Board 7.” But engraved in stone over the entrances on opposite sides of the building are the words “MAGISTRATES COURT” and “MUNICIPAL COURT.” This building unlocks the story of New York City’s lost neighborhood courthouses. Until a 1962 amendment of the New York State Constitution, there were Magistrates’ Courts handling minor criminal matters and Municipal Courts for small civil cases. By 1962, these courts had been abolished, and the City’s courthouses were largely centralized in each Borough. But from the late 19th century through the early 1960s, you could find courthouses in every corner of New York City. Some were very modest structures that you would not expect to have been preserved. Others were very grand structures that either has been put to new uses or are sadly lying fallow. Read this in its original format here.