| Statement of the Historic Districts
Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
PM Item 1
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
072265- Block 1391, lot 14-
980 Madison Avenue – Upper East Side Historic District
A modern gallery building designed in 1948-1950 by Wlker & Poor.
Application is to alter the facades; to demolish roofotp and rear
additions; construct an addition and to establish a Master Plan
governing the future installation of storefront infill.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
HDC thanks the Commission for opening this Public Meeting item
to testimony.
This proposal was a difficult one for HDC’s Public Review
Committee. The applicant has taken time and considerable thought
to create an addition that better relates to the Park Bernet Building
and the Upper East Side Historic District, something the prior application
completely lacked. If this were a new building proposed for a vacant
lot, it could be very acceptable. If it were an addition to a non-landmarked
building, it could be an exciting project. Whether it belongs atop
a fully designed and constructed building of some acclaim and history
in a landmarked district was a matter of much discussion. Some on
the committee felt the addition with the accompanying restorative
work was appropriate. Others believed that the addition overwhelmed
the building, damaging its design and its relationship to the neighboring
structures. Still others found the project interesting, but feared
that it set a dangerous precedent for every low-scale building in
an historic district to be considered a base for something more.
When considering the design of the proposal, there were some details
we agreed upon.
Many of the committee members believe, as is often stated here
by Commissioners, that an addition should be subservient to the
original, historic structure. Knowing that zoning prohibits a set
back of this addition, we would recommend taking it down a floor
or two. Doing so would decrease what some felt was a heavy design
suffocating the Park Bernet Building
The committee appreciates the nod to other buildings in the districts
with limestone bases and brick upper floors, but we feel the examples
do not quite fit here. In such buildings the upper brick portions
are all taller than the limestone bases, none are split through
the middle. With this in mind, and, again, in an attempt to make
the addition less heavy, the committee thought a lighter color would
be more appropriate.
As much has been made about keeping the street wall level, the
committee feels the louvers that tilt out a number of feet from
the façade break this line and the attempted unity of the
two buildings. The existing structure is purposely very flat. The
one exception is William Wheeler’s sculpture of Venus giving
the arts to Manhattan over the entrance, a defining feature of the
Park Bernet Building. In order to maintain the prominence of the
existing building and its design, the louvers should fold inward.
Finally, while we all were happy to see the proposed removal of
later additions and alterations, some feared it was a “Faustian
bargain”. The restoration of the solid wall on the third floor
would allow Wheeler’s sculpture to once again stand prominent
against the more pristine façade. We also particularly appreciated
the proposed restoration of the storefronts – an element that
is all too often sacrificed on the alter of “modern”
retail needs. The removal of the added upper floor would, indeed,
restore the Park Bernet’s proportions. Yet, the addition proposed
would, without question, considerably change how one sees this building,
and in the minds of some, would lessen the impact of the restoration.
In the end, we are faced with a conundrum – ideologically,
what is an appropriate addition to this building, if any? Does this
proposal irretrievably alter what the Landmarks Preservation Commission
is mandated to preserve in the Upper East Side Historic District?
What does this proposal mean in terms of the ever-evolving standards
of appropriateness with regard to other buildings – perhaps
even less-distinguished but still protected by the Landmarks Law?
HDC does not have the final answers to these questions, perhaps
there are no final answers; but these questions must be addressed
before this proposal is decided upon.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 9
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
088515- Block 13, lot 27-
25 Broadway - Interior Landmark Historic District, Cunard Building
A neo-Renaissance style office building designed by Benjamin Wistar
Morris and built in 1917-1921, with consulting architects Carrere
and Hastings. Application is to install interior lighting , and
alter the historic flooring, ceiling and wall surfaces.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
The Cunard Building’s interior, designed by architect Benjamin
Wistar Morris and decorated by gifted artists Ezra Winter, Barry
Faulkner, C. Paul Jennewein, John Gregory and Samuel Yellin is one
of the most beautiful interiors of New York City.
HDC is opposed to the large rings of lights proposed for under
the domes as we fear they will interfere with views of the ceiling.
Discreet cove up lighting could be used to illuminate the ceiling,
and other equally thoughtful, less obtrusive lights should be found
to light the rest of the space. Not everything in this interior
needs to be lit evenly. It is not something the designers intended
or even considered in 1917. The play of dark and light adds depth,
interest and mystery to this exquisite space.
We also find the introduction of carpet into this space inappropriate
and hope that is being considered as a temporary answer to the present
problems with the flooring. The 1995 designation report, while listing
other alterations, does not mention damage or concrete additions
to the floor. Rather, the report calls out that “the decorative
program and high craftsmanship of the ceiling is continued onto
the other surfaces of the Great Hall” and goes on to describe
the floor of travertine trimmed in bands of marble and marble mosaics.
The carpet is an unusual intrusion into a space devoid of fabric
where the focus is on stone and metal. The floor is part of the
cohesive design of this landmarked interior and should be treated
with as much consideration as the rest of the interior.
HDC is also concerned about the mention of moving the original
travertine ticket desks to a nonlandmarked part of the building.
We are wary of cannibalizing a landmarked interior and moving historic
fabric elsewhere.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 26
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
088674- Block 474, lot 6-
52 Greene Street - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
An altered warehouse building built in 1867. Application is to replace
the storefront infill and remove vault lights.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
HDC would like to compliment the applicant on a fine storefront
proposal. The use of quality materials and historic detailing combined
with a very clear presentation makes for an application we can support.
HDC does, however, object to the removal of the vault lights. As
this Commission has regularly ruled, vault lights are an integral
part of the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District, one of the pieces
that sets its “special sense of place.” Restored, salvaged
or replaced vault lights would be the crowning touch (even if underfoot)
to a nicely restored storefront.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 27
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
090166- Block 230, lot 42-
5-7 Mercer Street - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A warehouse designed by J.B. Snook and built in 1861. Application
is to construct a rooftop addition, extend the fire-escape and install
storefront infill.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
I would like to preface our testimony by acknowledging the fact
that Mr. Lombardi is a member of HDC’s Advisory Board.
HDC supports this application finding that much work and study
has gone into creating an appropriate design for an historic storefront.
The rooftop addition has been made minimally visible by dropping
the addition into the roof and by slightly raising the parapet.
We believe such thoughtful attention to details and alterations
make this application appropriate.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 28
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
081545- Block 515, lot 25-
155 Wooster Street - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A Classical Revival style store and loft building designed by George
F. Pelham and built in 1897-1898. Application is to construct a
one-story rooftop addition and modify secondary facades.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
I would like to preface our testimony by acknowledging the fact
that Mr. Lombardi is a member of HDC’s Advisory Board.
Although HDC approved of the raising of the parapet to help hide
the rooftop addition at 5-7 Mercer Street, we feel that a similar
strategy here at 155 Wooster Street has not been as successful.
Raising the parapet 3 ½ feet gives the roofline a different,
much more solid shape. In addition, this building is on a very prominent
corner in this district (Wooster and Houston) making the impact
of the change that much more noticeable. We feel this may be one
of those cases where, in a district like SoHo with its industrial
past, designing a slightly visible rooftop addition may make more
sense than trying to hide it.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 30
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
086074- Block 521, lot 73-
4,6 Bleecker Street - NoHo East Historic District
A rowhouse built c.1813 and altered in the Italianate style in 1868
by Nicholas Whyte. Application is to install new storefront infill
and signage.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
When we first saw this application at public review in March, HDC
found the applicant’s desire to clean up the building and
return it closer to an historic appearance admirable but thought
the solid stretch of wall along Bleecker Street was too heavy. The
item was laid over, and we are happy to see it again, this time
with storefronts. Our only suggested change now would be to line
up the transoms of the storewindows and the entries.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 29
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
086237- Block 529, lot 29,30-
41-43 Bond Street – NoHo Extension Historic District
A vacant lot. Application is to construct an eight-story building.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
The fact that the NoHo extension’s first CofA application
is for a new building speaks to the amount of change that this neighborhood,
particularly this block, has undergone in very recent memory. Needless
to say, HDC is happy that new construction such as this must now
come before the commission to ensure its harmonious relationship
to the neighborhood. Like any proposal for a new building, this
should be judged not on its design merits as an exciting new project,
but on its appropriateness to the historic district based on materials,
massing, and design.
While we find much of this design to be a nice addition to the
district, overall it is too tall, so tall in fact that it rises
over its neighbors and can be seen from behind on Bleecker Street
two blocks away. The building should come down a story, maintaining
the street wall, and then set back as suitable. The overhang on
the setback rather defeats that point and should be eliminated.
The fire shutters are an interesting touch, but they are only features
of secondary facades, not the front elevation. If the applicant
is looking to use metal in a decorative way, we recommend considering
some take on the neighborhood’s cast iron facades. A few variations
on the entrance were shown at Public Review on Friday. HDC finds
the variation with a higher transom more appropriate than the longer
transom that gives the front door a squat appearance. The canopy
is not typical to this district, should not be part of the design.
Finally more of a cornice is needed to finish off the top.
On this block where a number of new structures and additions have
been built recently, it is important that the latest building relates
sensitively to the landmarked buildings of the city’s latest
historic district. With a slight reduction in height and a few detail
changes, HDC feels this building could do just that.
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
6/17/2008
Item 35
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
088535- Block 187, lot 16-
377 Greenwich Street - TriBeCa West Historic District
A hotel approved by the Commission in 2004. Application is to legalize
construction of the hotel penthouse in non-compliance with Miscellaneous/Amendment
05-3836 and to change the material of the upper east façade.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s
designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation.
Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic
districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the
application now before the Commission.
This design has gone through a number of changes from its first
appearance at a public hearing several years ago, and it might be
understandable that a few mistakes have been made. However, simply
put, this is not the penthouse the Commission approved. It is larger
and closer to the edges of the building making it more visible.
The roofline is mansard rather than hipped also adding to the addition’s
bulk. Finally, the penthouse built has many more decorative details,
such windows with divided panes, lighting fixtures, a cornice and
a other features, than originally approved giving it a much more
residential, fussy look than the industrial, mechanical-style rooftop
additions normally found on TriBeCa rooftops. While this not a new
rooftop addition or bulkhead atop an historic building, the feeling
of this historic district and its roofscapes should be considered
in the penthouse’s design. HDC urges the Commission require
the penthouse that was approved be built instead.
Return to Testimony Archives
|
