Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 085419
Manhattan, Block: 722, Lot: 10
451 West 24th Street - Individual Landmark Historic District
A transitional Greek Revvial/Italianate style rowhouse built by Philo V. Beebe in 1849-1850. Application is to construct a rear yard addition and a new rear façade.

HDC Testimony
Although the size and massing of this proposed rear yard addition is approvable, the design is all wrong. The vast amounts of glass and wood in an amorphous design are completely out of character with this house and the rest of the row of individual landmarks. In addition, the proposed alteration of the top two floors wipes out all the historic materials of this nearly untouched façade including the brick corbelling at the roofline and the window fenestration of the top floor, a feature that the LPC regularly protects on rowhouses through out the city. HDC urges that a new design for a modest rear yard addition be found – one that respects, not annihilates, the special historic fabric and style of this individual landmark.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086734
Manhattan, Block: 1111, Lot: 1
Central Park Zoo - Scenic Landmark Historic District
A menagerie remodeled as a zoo by Robert Moses in 1936 within an English Romantic style public park designed by Olmstead and Vaux in 1856. Application is to construct a new stable building and install fencing adjacent to the zoo parking lot.

HDC Testimony
HDC does not feel this proposal is the most appropriate one for the issue of stabling horses in Central Park. Ideally the 1879 Central Park Stable, now used as a police precinct stationhouse, should be the home of police horses. With the recent closing of the landmarked Claremont Stables, there has been talk of creating public stables in Central Park. Rather than tacking the police stables on to a zoo building in a crowded corner of the park, we feel that they should be integrated into the design of a public stable. This should be part of a larger Master Plan for Central Park. It has been over 20 years since the last plan, and now is as good a time as any to review much of the excellent work of the Conservancy and reassess future goals for this treasured public space. New Yorkers are lucky to have a world famous work of art as their front yard, and we encourage the Commission to take a more proactive role in its curation. HDC urges you require a more suitable, fully thought out, long term solution to the issue of stabling horses be found.

LPC Determination:

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 085018
Queens, Block: 8047, Lot: 24
248 Hollywood Avenue - Douglaston Historic District
A vernacular Colonial Revival style freestanding house built in 1966. Application is to demolish the existing house and to construct a new house.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds the size of this new construction appropriate and is pleased to see such quality materials as slate, brick and limestone proposed. However, we feel the design details and their scale need to be toned down to better integrate the new structure into the Douglaston Historic District. The proposed entry of double doors flanked by two pairs of columns is too grand. A single door with sidelights and perhaps a plainer pair of columns or pilasters would be a more attractive and appropriate entry. The bay windows on the front elevation are too tall, and the central window of each (and the one in the tri-part above) should be 6-over-1, rather than single pain. Quoins are not a design detail found in this district. In the rear, we find the fenestration too crowded on the first floor and too jumbled on the second. The resulting look is that of a two-family house in a district of single-family homes. The design is obviously being driven by the floor plan, and HDC would like to see more thought and order put into the exterior fenestration.

New construction is an opportunity to design a building that harmonizes with its historic neighbors. The examples of other Colonial Revivals provided in this presentation show a simpler aesthetic than the one proposed. We urge the staff to work with the applicant to create a proposal that is a bit more modest and consistent with the character of the Douglaston Historic District.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 085815
Queens, Block: 8037, Lot: 1
300 Beverly Road - Douglaston Historic District
An English Cottage style house constructed in 1937 and designed by Edwin Kline. Application is to legalize the replacement of a driveway gate and the relocation of brick posts without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this application for legalization. The original wooden driveway gates and their brick post were specifically called out in the historic district designation report as notable site features. The new gate is wider, taller (than even the posts) and of a different design. Examples presented in this proposal are not comparable as they are either on much larger plots of land, are open ironwork (not solid wood), or aligned with buildings. HDC recommends the Commission reject this application for legalization and require the installation of a gate that replicates the original in design, material and size.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086561
Manhattan, Block: 484, Lot: 17
503-511 Broadway - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
Three store buildings designed by J.B. Snook and built in 1878-79. Application is to install storefront infill.

HDC Testimony
HDC is pleased to see that this application includes the removal of the large sign, canopies and flagpoles. We feel though that the proposed, new storefront infill is bringing the building in the wrong direction and seems just wasteful as the existing storefront was installed only ten years ago. The present storefront’s proportions and articulation, such as the paneled doors, are more appropriate. We recommend the retention of this storefront, and for a fresh look a new coat of darker paint.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086082
Manhattan, Block: 607, Lot: 45
469 6th Avenue - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse designed by William Hurry and built in 1842. Application is to install storefront infill, windows, and a cornice.

HDC Testimony
There is a considerable amount of nice restoration work proposed in this project, and HDC would like to see the applicants go just a little further. We do not feel the entire storefront should be recessed as proposed. The nice historic photo of Grossman's pharmacy shows the entrances are recessed, with show windows flush with the street wall. Doing this would not only be more historically suitable, but would also give the business a bit more floor space. We also think the historic format of a central business entrance with flanking storefront windows and a residential side entry would be more attractive and appropriate. With these changes, HDC would happily support this application.

LPC Determination: Approved w/mods

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 084674
Manhattan, Block: 613, Lot: 6
277 West 4th Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A brick building built in 1827 and altered in the late 19th century. Application is to install new storefront infill.

HDC Testimony
While this building is admittedly rather plain and certainly altered, HDC feels this proposal does not move 277 West 4th Street in the right direction. The storefront is very transparent and open, and we especially dislike the frameless glass door. Overall, it is inappropriate for a residential street. There are a few nice touches apparent in the historic photo, like the projecting store cornice, which, in addition to a more solid door, could help create a more appropriate, attractive storefront.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 4/8/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086392
Manhattan, Block: 1269, Lot: 30
678 Fifth Avenue - Individual Landmark Historic District
A French Gothic style church and parish house, designed by Cram, Goodhue, and Ferguson and built in 1909-1914. Application is to request that the LPC issue a report to the City Planning Commission relating to a Modification of Bulk pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.

HDC Testimony

HDC concurs with Community Board Five, the West 54th-55th Street Block Association and others who feel the detrimental effect this construction would have outweighs the benefits of the proposed 74-711 and 74-79 Modifications of Bulk. A vast amount of air rights has been bought, shifted and twisted to create what could be the third tallest building in the city, three times the size of an as-of-right building for this slim plot of land, mid-block on a relatively small side street.

There is no harmonious relation, as talked of in 74-711 and 74-79 requirements, between the proposed and the University Club and St. Thomas. There is really no way a building so tall could do anything but tower over, eclipse and distract from its neighbors. Both individual landmarks are hardly the dilapidated, abandoned buildings 74-711 and 74-79 were created to help. The estimated $25 million for St. Thomas' stained glass windows seems exorbitant, and while we have not heard the price tag for the University Club’s sidewalk, roof and window repairs, there is sure to be money left over. If air rights are to be sold, HDC urges the Commission to have as strong a role as possible in overseeing that all the money, and any interest gained from it, goes purely towards the preservation of these landmarks.

While two individual landmarks, the University Club and St. Thomas’s, are willing to suffer whatever side effects there may be from the construction of a 1,155-foot tower in return for the money to be put towards preservation purposes, it should be remembered that there are other individual landmarks just across the street that will not enjoy such benefits. The Starr Mansion, Lehman Mansion, Goodwin Mansion, Rockefeller Mansion and Rockefeller Apartments, as well as many historic, non-designated low and mid-rise buildings, will endure all of the pain, and none of the gain. In summary, HDC feels that the preservation purpose does not seem sufficient for a project of this magnitude.

LPC Determination: Approved

Return to Testimony Archives