March 9, 2004
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 these applications that were before the Commission.
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 010803
Manhattan, Block: 552, Lot: 35
147 West 4th Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
An Italianate style residence built in 1849-50. Application is
to legalize the installation of a stoop gate without Landmarks
Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
busy street like West 4th Street. However, we, as a matter of
policy, object to stoop gates. To pedestrians on the street, stoop
gates create cages out of a rowhouse’s stoop area. This
particular stoop gate, installed without the permission of the
Commission, is objectionable because it detracts from the mid-nineteenth
century Italianate style residence. Moreover, the stoop gate draws
one’s attention away from the wonderful cast iron stoop
railings, which are referenced in the designation report for the
Greenwich Village Historic District as being of “oblong
design.”
Last December, the Commission denied a request
for a stoop gate at 27 West 74th Street. Therefore, HDC believes
that the Commission would not have approved this stoop gate had
the applicant come to the Commission for permission prior to installing
it. We urge the Commission to deny this application.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044244
Manhattan, Block: 846, Lot: 67
12 East 18th Street - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A Commercial style building designed by William Schickel and built
in 1886-87. Application is to legalize alterations to the storefront
infill and the installation of an awning, signage, and flagpole
and banner without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that this storefront infill
and signage, installed without permits, are not entirely appropriate
for the Ladies’ Mile Historic District. We urge the Commission
to deny the request for legalization and work with the applicant
to develop a better storefront.
HDC’s first concern is that the awning is
too large and overwhelming for the building and that it hides
a great deal of historic fabric. Currently, the awning extends
beyond the storefront opening to cover the two piers that flank
the ground floor. An awning that is contained within the ground
floor opening would be much more appropriate. In addition, HDC
finds the lettering on the slope of the awning to be inconsistent
with other awnings approved by the Commission in Ladies’
Mile. A new, retractable awning with lettering only on the awning
skirt would be much more in keeping with the other storefronts
in Ladies’ Mile. Also, we note that the red color of the
awning does not harmonize with the color of the building and should
be reconsidered.
While pin letters are appropriate for storefronts
like this one, the existing pin letters are too large and should
be replaced with smaller lettering. Also, the flagpole and flag
are objectionable and should be replaced with a bracket sign.
Lastly, HDC questions whether the solid transom is legal, as the
storefront would be much improved with a glazed transom that would
allow light into the interior.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044338
Manhattan, Block: 1390, Lot: 7501
30 East 76th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A neo-Venetian Renaissance style apartment building, designed
by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon, built in 1928-29. Application is to
legalize the construction of a greenhouse addition without Landmarks
Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to work performed
without the permission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
In this instance, the applicant performed major, highly visible,
construction work without proper permits. Therefore, the Landmarks
Preservation Commission must not reward an applicant like this
one with a lower standard of review.
The Historic Districts Council has long been concerned
with the enclosure of terrace space for living space. We feel
that terraces on apartment buildings should be kept open because
they were built as part of an FAR package and were not meant to
be residential space. Greenhouse additions distract from the overall
volume of the building and interrupt the building’s original
design intention.
The particular greenhouse before us today is troublesome,
since it is quite conspicuous on the building from a distance.
The greenhouse design is too heavy and bulky, thereby drawing
too much attention to itself. Unlike the other existing greenhouse
additions on the building, which incorporate gentle curves, this
greenhouse is boxy and cumbersome. HDC urges the Commission to
deny the legalization of this greenhouse addition. Moreover, we
ask that the Commission to work with the building to develop a
master plan for the appropriateness of greenhouses.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043261
Manhattan, Block: 1408, Lot: 29
173 East 73rd Street - Individual Landmark
A Romanesque Revival style carriage house designed by Hobart H.
Walker and built in 1893. Application is to construct a roof-top
addition and alter the front façade.
HDC Testimony
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 Historic Districts Council finds this application
for 173 East 73rd Street to be extremely confusing and troubling.
The presentation boards we reviewed showed no images of a mock-up
and its visibility, nor did they indicate sightlines. Although
the Commission staff informed us that the rooftop addition will
not be visible, the addition nonetheless seems to be quite near
the front of the building. We are concerned because the mock-up
that is currently in place is indeed visible, even though we are
told that the proposal has since been modified. We found it confusing
that the proposal was altered but that the mock-up was not. HDC
cannot support the rooftop addition until a new mock-up proves
that this rooftop addition will not be visible from any public
thoroughfare.
That said, as a whole, HDC is pleased with the
restoration work the applicant is performing on the front façade
of the building. This includes removing the air conditioning vents
below two of the windows and restoring the brick in these locations.
However, HDC finds the new proposed doors to be highly inappropriate
for a modest and utilitarian carriage house like this one. The
proposed doors would be at home on a more ornate and elaborate
carriage house, but on this building, the doors are trying to
make the building into something it is not. We urge the Commission
to require the applicant to install doors that are simpler in
design and that resemble those that are portrayed in the tax photo.
Lastly, we ask that the new doors be hinged on the sides rather
than roll-down doors.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044265
Brooklyn, Block: 234, Lot: 55
120 Willow Street - Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A Gothic Revival style rowhouse constructed in 1850. Application
is to alter the rear façade.
HDC Testimony
Although the Historic Districts Council finds the design of the
new rear yard addition to be handsome, we believe it is wholly
inappropriate for a mid-nineteenth century rowhouse like this
one. We primarily object to the removal of the bay feature on
the existing extension. The existing bay matches the bays on the
rears of the two neighboring buildings, creating a lovely line
of three similar rear yard extensions. Even if this bay is not
original to the Gothic Revival rowhouse, it is nonetheless a significant
feature in the rear yard. In addition, HDC objects to the enlargement
of the window openings on the rear façade, as they are
destroying the historic fabric of the rear wall.
That said, HDC does not object to inserting modern
windows into the blank wall of the existing rear yard extension.
However, we ask the applicant to reconsider the proposed materials.
We ask that brick be used rather than stone.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 986150
Brooklyn, Block: 260, Lot: 54
310 Hicks Street - Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 846. Application is to
legalize ther replace of bluestone sidewalk and the installation
of windows without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council reminds the Commission that illegal
changes made to landmarked buildings should not be legalized unless
the changes meet the normal standards of the Commission. In this
instance, HDC feels strongly that the Commission would not have
approved the installation of the storm windows and the destruction
of the bluestone sidewalk had the applicant sought permission
prior to doing the work. We therefore ask the Commission to deny
this application for legalization.
Regarding the windows, the Commission must require
the applicant to restore the historic window configuration. Likewise,
we ask that the applicant be required to replace the tinted concrete
sidewalk with bluestone. Bluestone is not only aesthetically appropriate
for the Brooklyn Heights Historic District, but is also reasonably
priced and highly durable. Unfortunately, in New York’s
historic neighborhoods, historic sidewalks of bluestone are rapidly
being replaced with ordinary concrete. Bluestone sidewalks are
significant architectural features of New York’s historic
districts that significantly add to the character of the streetscapes.
In New York’s designated districts, these sidewalk materials
are deserving of Commission’s protection.
Unfortunately, the boards did not provide us with
information as to the condition of the bluestone before it was
replaced with tinted concrete. However, the pictures provided
on the boards do show that the bluestone in front of the building
next door to 310 Hicks Street is still in good condition, with
the exception of one cracked piece. The applicant has thus therefore
ruined the effect of an extended expanse of bluestone and has
contributed to the slow eating away of historic fabric.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 004706
Brooklyn, Block: 260, Lot: 54
152 Dekalb Avenue - Fort Greene Historic District
An Italianate style rowhouse built circa 1865. Application is
to legalize the installation of a security grille at the entrance
door without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to work performed
without the permission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
In this instance, the security grille installed at the entrance
door is entirely inappropriate for this Italianate style rowhouse.
The security grille cages in the door area, creating a hostile
and unfriendly environment for not only this rowhouse, but also
for all of Dekalb Avenue and the Fort Greene Historic District.
The Fort Greene Historic District designation
report calls out the rowhouse’s “double doors and
round-arched transom…set into a paneled enframement.”
The installation of the security grille completely blocks these
important features of the building, thereby denigrating its integrity.
HDC is confident that the Commission would have never approved
such a gate had the applicant applied for a permit before performing
the work. We therefore urge the Commission to deny the request
for legalization and require the applicant to promptly remove
the gate and repair any damage its installation caused on the
historic building fabric.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044282
Queens, Block: 1266, Lot: 38
79-01 35th Avenue - Jackson Heights Historic District
A neo-Georgian style apartment building designed by Joshua Tabatchnik
and built in 1939. Application is to legalize the removal of roof
tiles and the installation of new shingles without Landmarks Preservation
Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council asks the Commission to deny this
request for legalization because the work that was performed without
a permit has had a detrimental affect on the building’s
architectural integrity. HDC wholeheartedly regrets the loss of
the original roof tiles of this building. The new shingles that
were installed are of an inappropriate material. Moreover, the
changes to the roof seem to have affected the original roof slope.
The designation photo of the building shows a slight overhang
of the roof that is no longer present, and overall, the roof seems
to be much flatter. Moreover, the profile of the brick cornice
appears to have been altered and another coarse of brick seems
to have been added.
All of these illegal changes have had a harmful
affect on the aesthetics of the building. We urge the Commission
to deny legalization and require that the roof materials and slope
and the brick cornice be restored to their original state.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: March 9, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 036262
Queens, Block: 1276, Lot: 15
35-20 77th Street - Jackson Heights Historic District
A neo-Georgian style garden apartment building designed by George
H. Wells and built in 1921-22. Application is to legalize the
replacemtn of windows without Landmarks Preservation Commission
permits.
HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to owners who
flout the Landmarks Law and make changes to designated buildings
without first getting a permit from the Commission. In this instance,
the owner replaced significant wooden windows with run of the
mill metal windows. HDC particularly objects to the replacement
of the windows that have upper sashes that contain rounded arches
with windows with flat heads. The original windows were of a special
character, and the new metal windows do not match in configuration
nor in detail the original window design. Moreover, the installation
of the new windows damaged the brick moldings that form the window
surround. HDC urges the Landmarks Preservation Commission to deny
the request for legalization and require the applicant to restore
the wooden windows.
LPC Determination:
Return to Recent Testimony
