June 2, 2009
Statement of the Historic Districts Council
before the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing
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 following application that was before the
Commission.
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 097269
Queens, Block: 133, Lot: 60
39-87 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. Appliciton is to install a fence.
HDC Testimony
In an ideal world, and in the original plans for and spirit of
Sunnyside Gardens, no fence would be appropriate in this location.
Although it is in a rear yard, due to the mews-like configuration
of Jefferson Court and the house’s position near the street,
it is readily visible from the public way. Five-feet tall, the
trellis-like fence would be a incursion on the landscape.
In the interest of compromise though, which seems to be a guiding
principle the Commission’s rulings on Sunnyside Gardens,
HDC asks for a design more like the trellis seen in historic photos,
like the photo of Madison Court North on the cover of the designation
report. Although 39-87 48th Street would not be the proper location
for such a fence, they were used on the ends mews, not on interior
houses, the open design at least would be appropriate. Or now
that we hear that 3’6” fences are allowed at staff
level, we would also recommend a fence of that height with plantings
to meet the applicant’s needs.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 093008
Bronx, Block: Various, Lot: Various
- Fieldston Historic District
A romantically planned suburb developed by the Delafield Estate
in 1914… Application is to establish a Master Plan to govern
certain types of alterations to buildings, other improvements
and landscape improvements within the Fieldston Historic Diestrict,
authorizaing the staff to aprove such work if it meets the requirements
of the Master Plan.
HDC Testimony
At the 9/9 PH commissioners voted to calendar this (after it was
already on the schedule) - will be heard later though, as MS says
the community wanted more time to review. One interesting thing
he commented on - the size of staff-approvable additions is larger
than those allowed in Douglaston, they're based on Douglaston
additions Commissioners have approved.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 097317
Brooklyn, Block: 147, Lot: 2
365 Jay Street - Individual Landmark Historic District
A Romanesque Revival style civic building designed by Frank Freeman
and built in 1892. Application is to replace doors.
HDC Testimony
While we understand the issues of a retail in this space, HDC
would rather see thicker, heavier framing more reflecting the
original design and the proportions of the Romanesqure Revival
style. If at all possible we also recommend using in some areas
something like the prismatic glass seen in the wonderful historic
photos. Finally, we had questions about details like hardware
on the doors.
Suriving examples of Frank Freeman’s work are exceptionally
rare for such a talented and prolific architect. HDC is thrilled
to hear about the planned restoration of this individual landmark,
and we urge that any alterations keep to the spirit of the original
design.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 098385
Brooklyn, Block: 311, Lot: 21
194 Baltic Street - Cobble Hill Historic District
A brick rowhouse buil c. 1846. Application is to install dormers
and skylight.
HDC Testimony
HDC understands the urge to replicate what is next door at 196
Baltic Street, but those dormers are not historic. Rather they
were added in 2002. At the time, HDC supported that application
with a suggestion to make it smaller and more in keeping with
its 1840’s building and pleasingly cohesive streetscape.
The end result – which we see today –was modified
through consultation with the LPC and improved, although we still
feel the dormers should have been shorter, more like those at
198. While many things might change in seven years, our critique
of these dormers has not. To wit, HDC feels that to replicate
196’s dormers on 194 would only compound the slow erosion
of the historic character of this block. In short, two wrongs
would not make a right. Finally, the rear fa?ade and roof are
very visible due to a neighboring playground. While HDC would
not object to well-proportioned dormers in this location, the
skylight is definitely not appropriate.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 096531
Manhattan, Block: 145, Lot: 12
125-131 Chambers Street - TriBeCa South Historic District
aka 95-99 West Broadway; and 101-107 West Broadway, aka 113 Reade
Street. A Gothic Revival/Italianate style hotel building built
in 1844-1845, with additions built in 1852-1853, 1867-68 and 1869,
and altered in 1987-1989; and a two sotry building, constructed
in 1967-1968. Application is to modify the entrance and construct
a rooftop bulkhead on 125 Chambers Street, and to demolish 101
West Broadway and construct a six-sotry building.
HDC Testimony
While HDC does not object to the demolition of 101 West Broadway,
we do not find the proposed new construction to be appropriate
for this district. The use of brick is good, but we find the brick
to be too orangey - a deeper red/brown should be used instead.
The all glasss storefronts lacking bulkheads or any other detailing
leave the building without a base and looking like an unfortunate
alteration performed before designation. We appreciate the attempt
to call out the corner, but the result appears to be a tower without
a top. The top floor designed with different materials and fenestration,
is not a successful finish to the building. Again, it resembles
an inappropriate roof-top addition built before designation. The
change in materials cuts the building off suddenly and makes the
building look shorter than the taller buildings around it. Instead,
more of a cornice of sorts is needed to finish the building off
properly. The new building is not modern, and it is not 19th-century
inspired. All in all, the design is flat and lacks details that
would make it a contextual addition to TriBeCa South Historic
District.
The proposed entrance on the old hotel shows that the lack of
holistic thought is not limited to the new building. While it
might relate to the base of the proposed building, it is at odds
with the rest of the historic building. The attempt at making
it light and modern has instead ended up looking very thick and
heavy instead. HDC recommends that the applicant work with staff
to find an entrance and a new building that relate better with
the existing historic structure.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 097508
Manhattan, Block: 619, Lot: 41
226 West 10th Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1847-1848. Application
is to construct a rear yard addition and alter the rear facade.
HDC Testimony
This rear facade is very visible from Christopher Street down
an alleyway. With this in mind, the usual freedom given rear facades
and additions should be rethought in this case. Although we appreciate
the use of brick in this project, HDC finds the level of detail
to be rather elaborate and fussy, more like a front facade than
the rear one, especially on a building of this age and style.
While we do not object to the size of the addition, we are rather
nervous about the removal of original masonry rear wall. These
buildings are very delicate, and it seems silly to risk anything
for what appears to be just an extra sink in the master bathroom.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 097587
Manhattan, Block: 1121, Lot: 25
15 West 68th Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A Beaux Arts style rowhouse designed by Buchman & Fox and
built in 1909-1910. Application is to modify a window opening
to accommodate an at-grade entrance.
HDC Testimony
In general, HDC approves of this plan to modify a window opening
to accommodate an at-grade entrance. Our only suggestion is that,
rather than fabricate a new gate, the existing be retained and
modified with an added panel at the bottom.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 098132
Manhattan, Block: 1387, Lot: 14
19 East 72nd Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A modern/neo-Classical style apartment building designed by Roasario
Candela and built in 1936-1937 Application is to replace windows
and a door, and install awnings and signage.
HDC Testimony
HDC does not object to the awnings or signage proposed as they
are fairly discreet and can be easily removed. We feel though
that with these forms of advertising, there is no real need to
replace the door and windows. As noted, the top of the bottom
pane is already six feet above the side walk, making the “double
hung versus plate glass”concern a non-issue. Instead, we
urge the applicant to work within the original design of this
Rosario Candela apartment building.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Hearing Date: 6/2/2009
LPC Docket Number: 077900
Manhattan, Block: 1906, Lot: 28
101 West 121st Street - Mount Morris Park Historic District
A rowhouse designed by John Burne and built in 1890. Application
is to alter the areaway and rear yard, construct a rooftop bulkhead,
replace the entrance door, and legalize the removal of stained
glass transoms without LPC permits.
HDC Testimony
HDC is happy to see someone is taking on the large project of
restoring this abandonned building. The boards at Public Review
on Friday though were rather spotty on details, and so HDC cannot
comment on the areaway or rear yard alteration. No details were
provided on the type of stained glass that was removed or what
is proposed to go in its place, and we urge the applicant to work
with staff to find the most fitting design possibile. The one
item that did seem to have any details, the replacement entrance
door, we find to be too glassy for a building of this age.
There are a lot of technical issues and questions raised by what
is obviously a considerable restoration, and the lack of details
provided does not inspire confidence in the project overall. HDC
recommends that the applicant and staff work very closely together
to plan for the best possible restoration.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Return to Recent Testimony
