Landmark Woolworth Building Selling Coke—and Its Soul? By Ronald Drenger Yes, the revered and stately Woolworth Building is called the “Cathedral of Commerce,” but has someone taken that notion too far? Last month, a nearly block-long banner ad for Vanilla Coke was installed on a sidewalk bridge that wraps around the building’s lower floors, leaving lovers of the 1913 Cass Gilbert masterpiece agape. “I see it every day,” said Peter Gale, who has had a law practice in the building for 22 years, “and I mutter to myself, ‘Why is this graceful building selling its soul to some advertiser?’” “It’s outrageous,” said Judy Duffy, Community Board 1’s assistant District Manager. “This is the Woolworth Building, for God’s sake.”   Because the building is a designated landmark, its owners, the Witkoff Group, would need permission from the Landmarks Preservation Commission to make the slightest alteration to the facade, much less to erect an eye-popping billboard. But the landmarks agency has no jurisdiction when it comes to signage on sidewalk bridges, said Sherida Paulsen, its chairwoman. The city’s Buildings Department, though, does have a say, and on Nov. 21, the department slapped the building’s owners with four violations. According to Sid Dinsay, a department spokesman, the owners were cited for hanging a sign without a permit, having a prohibited sign on scaffolding—only signs for businesses inside the building are allowed—and putting up unlawful advertising in a commercial district. The sign is also triple the allowable limit of 200 square feet, according to the department. A permit for the scaffolding itself, which was erected for facade work, was issued in October and expires next April. The owners were instructed to remove the sign by the end of this month. If the ad is not pulled down, a court date will be set for early January, and a fine can be imposed. But the maximum fine is $2,500 for each violation, according to Dinsay. And a sign that large on such a renowned building in such a busy part of town, right across from City Hall Park, is estimated to command tens of thousand of dollars a month from an advertiser. “The prominence of that sign there must equal a full page ad in the New York Times,” said Roger Byrom, co-chair of CB1’s Landmarks Committee. “They should be fined $60,000 a day, because that’s the benefit they’re getting.” Steven and Amy Witkoff of the Witkoff Group did not return phone calls seeking comment. Duffy, who has taken on numerous battles against illegal billboards Downtown, said the problem is not uncommon. “Often the revenue generated by the signage far exceeds the fine,” she said. “It just becomes part of the cost of doing business.” The Buildings Department can issue additional violations and the court can impose more fines. But if a building owner pays the fines and the violation is eventually “corrected” when the sidewalk bridge is taken down, “unfortunately, the person putting up illegal advertising has gotten away with it,” said Dinsay. Carole De Saram, chair of CB1’s Quality of Life Committee, said that inappropriate outdoor signage is proliferating in Lower Manhattan. “It’s a form of corporate graffiti,” she said. “They feel they have immunity. We should organize a boycott against companies that put up these signs. Maybe we can give a good-guy award to Pepsi and a ticky-tacky award to Coca Cola.” Susan McDermott, a Coca Cola spokeswoman in Atlanta, said she was not familiar with the Woolworth Building sign but that “generally, we’re trying to find high-traffic areas.” “With a new product like Vanilla Coke, temporary outdoor advertising is a great way to make some noise for a short amount of time,” she said. “We’re just trying to raise awareness and get people to try it.” A spokesman for the New York Coca Cola bottler, which McDermott said makes local advertising decisions, could not be reached for comment. Nell Cote, who has a technology consulting business in the building, was “aghast” when she first saw the sign, but now has mixed feelings. “You wouldn’t wrap something like that around City Hall or a cathedral,” she said. “At the same time, I know what it’s like to be a Downtown business and make ends meet.” Cote believes the owners, who had planned to convert the upper floors to apartments before the view changed dramatically on Sept. 11, found themselves in need of extra revenue. The Witkoffs drew fire from some preservationists two years ago when they proposed to put two-story glass penthouses on the building’s two 29th-floor setbacks. Critics said the penthouses were inappropriate, even sacrilegious alterations that would violate the building’s aesthetic. After revisions, smaller penthouses were approved by the Landmarks Commission, but they have gone unbuilt. Paul Whitby, senior vice president at Van Wagner Communications, the outdoor advertising company that placed the ad on the Woolworth Building, defended the sign, saying the building is already concealed by the sidewalk bridge and that most scaffolding is uglier without advertising. “What would you rather see, a bunch of construction material painted in those awful green and blue colors? Would that be nicer? I would rather see decent signage.” Whitby declined to say how much Coca Cola pays for the exposure, but said for anyone fixing up a building, signs can be an important source of income. “It costs building owners a lot of money to do renovations and to put up scaffolding,” he said. “Many factors go into making these decisions about signs. It’s a much broader, complex issue than some people see out of their little windows.”