Hearing Date: 5/6/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086098
Queens, Block: 133, Lot: 34
39-13 48th Street - Sunnyside Gardens Historic District
A brick rowhouse with Colonial Revival style details designed by Clarence Stein, Henry Wright and Frederick Ackerman and built in 1927. Application is to construct a brick garden wall and to alter the rear porch.

HDC Testimony
This is not a simple application to alter a rear porch, but an application that adds 36 square feet to the existing structure. HDC is opposed to increasing the footprint of homes in the Sunnyside Gardens Historic District as it not only alters the carefully planned buildings, but also imposes upon the equally important courtyards. The 8x8 foot enclosed porch that exists now is the typical size of enclosed porches in this neighborhood and should be made no larger. In addition, the design of the proposed does not have the appearance of an historic enclosed porch. With all its brick and few windows, it looks more like a small room added on to the house. This court is relatively free from incursions and should be preserved as such.

We are also opposed to the brick garden wall that ranges in height 1 ½ feet tall with 3-foot tall posts. There is nothing to retain now, so a retaining wall is not needed. Its solidity and closing off of the front yard are antithetical to Sunnyside Gardens’ design principle. We are particularly bothered by the gate. While some grandfathered gates can be found to the yards of corner 3-family houses along the alleyway paths, no gates appear in the front yard in the middle of a row. It would be rather like adding a stoop fence to a townhouse on the Upper East Side, something the Commission has repeatedly turned down. HDC would also like to remind the Commission that you rejected a gate proposed for 39-02-06 45th Street in this district last November, and we urge you to do the same in this case.

Throughout the designation process, we heard from both residents in favor of landmarking and those opposed that, although they differed in their means, the preservation of the openness of space, particularly the courtyards, was a priority. Now the district is landmarked, and we not only have the means, but also must implement them, to preserve what gives Sunnyside Gardens its special sense of place. HDC urges you to reject this application.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

Hearing Date: 5/6/2008
LPC Docket Number: 084565
Queens, Block: 8059, Lot: 25
233-41 38th Drive - Douglaston Historic District
A one story stable built circa 1920. Application is to relocate the stable and to construct a new two-story house.

HDC Testimony
HDC feels a number of changes must be made to this application before it can be approved. We have no problem with the subdivision of this lot, unusually large even for the Douglaston Historic District, or the construction of a new house, but the design of this house is not appropriate. The new home proposed is too large for its lot, leaving very little green space. In addition, the design is very elaborate with extremely large, overly divided windows, heavily designed window surrounds, a myriad of roof shapes and a profusion of materials. The home should be toned down in size and style so that it may relate better to its simpler neighbors.

While we are happy the 1920 stable building, which retains its historic windows, doors and other details, is being retained, we are disappointed that it will be hidden behind the large new home. A smaller house would relate better to this historic structure that will serve as its garage.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

Hearing Date: 5/6/2008
LPC Docket Number: 087458
Manhattan, Block: 829, Lot: 50
1170 Broadway - Madison Square North Historic District
And 12 West 28th Street. A Beaux Arts style store and office building, designed by Schickel & Ditmars and built in 1902-03; and a neo-Classical style store and offic ebuilding designed by Samuel Edson Gage and built in 1916-17. Application is to install new storefront infill, awnings, rooftop bulkhead and mechanical equipment on 1170 Broadway and alter the façade of 12 West 28th.

HDC Testimony
In general, HDC approves of the work proposed for 1170 Broadway. On the ground floor we would only like to see the awning over the front door removed as it interrupts the monumental entrance and hides details of the beautiful arch. On the roof, we are fine with the bulkhead and mechanics, but feel a more detailed restoration of the distinctive cupola is needed. As proposed now, the window surrounds appear too flat.

12 West 28th Street features a façade designed for the Corn Exchange Bank by Samuel Edson Gage in 1912. The upper floors, according to the Madison Square North Historic District designation report, are “largely intact” to this historic alteration. The designation report also refers to Gage’s design for the two-story storefront being published in the March 1912 issue of Architecture magazine. HDC feels that more documentation, including this drawing and others from DoB when the alteration occurred, should be included in this application and taken into account in the design so that the lower floors may harmonize with the historic upper floors of this landmark.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 5/6/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086789
Manhattan, Block: 1149, Lot: 31
366 Columbus Avenue - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style flats bulding designed by Thom & Wilson and built in 1891-92. Application is to install signage, a canopy and a green fence.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this application as neither the signage nor the green fence has anything to do with the Upper West Side Historic District. While green roofs, not seen from the public way, are all well and good, a wall of foliage at street level is another thing, one certainly not typical on a Columbus Avenue storefront. Many of the photos presented as examples of historic signage are not labeled and do not appear to be of the Upper West Side (and possibly not even Manhattan). We urge the applicant to look into simpler, flat sign bands over the windows, a more appropriate approach for this district.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 5/6/2008
LPC Docket Number: 082324Manhattan, Block: 1254, Lot: 1
West 101st Street - Scenic Landmark Historic District
An English Romantic-style park and parkway, built in 1873-1902 and designed by Frecerick Law Olmsted with modification and additions built in 1934-37. Application is to replace artificial turf.

HDC Testimony
HDC is not in favor of the use of artificial turf in Riverside Park for a number of reasons. Aesthetically, HDC is disturbed by the increasing artificiality of our city’s parks, particularly in Scenic Landmarks. There are presently only three parks designated Scenic Landmarks and a handful of other public parks that fall under LPC jurisdiction as parts of historic landmark designations. Extra effort should be put into keeping these spaces as natural and authentic as possible.While we prefer the green turf and are certainly pleased to hear this artificial turf does not use recycled tires that were of particular health concern, there are still health and environmental issues to consider. In this era of talk of greening the city, vast fields of artificial turf do the opposite. They contribute to the urban heat island effect, absorbing sunlight and emitting heat. While grass fields have been found to be a few degrees cooler than their surroundings on hot summer days, synthetic turf fields have been known to be 30 degrees hotter. This poses not only an environmental issue, but also a health and safety issue for those on the field. Water is used to temporarily cool down the fields as well as to decrease static cling and wash away bacteria and fluids that may be on the fields – decreasing the argument that such artificial turf does not require water as natural fields do. On the economic side, the special report titled “A New Turf War” put out by New Yorkers for Parks in Spring 2006 found that the annual cost of synthetic versus natural fields was notconsiderably different. If environmental concerns and cost effectiveness are the main argument for artificial turf, one should also take into account the removal and disposal of such fields every eight to ten years.

There are other options. A sand-based field of natural grass with a drainage and irrigation system, like that installed at the Great Lawn in Central Park, could be installed. Or there could possibly be a trade off – reinstating natural grass at the 104th Street ballpark where baseball, a sport much kinder to grass than soccer, is played if artificial turf is allowed here. Our city’s scenic landmarks are certainly worth the extra effort.

LPC Determination: Approved

Return to Testimony Archives