March 23, 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 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044856
Manhattan, Block: 15, Lot: 19
19 West Street – Downtown Athletic Club Individual Landmark
An Art-Deco style skyscraper designed by Starrett and Van Vleck
and built in 1929-30. Application is to create new window openings.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that this proposal is
a sensitive and well thought-out solution to the problem of adapting
the Downtown Athletic Club to residential use. We feel that the
addition of one line of windows and spandrel panels on both the
West Street and Washington Street facades is appropriate and respects
the verticality and architecture of this individual landmark.
In addition, HDC does not object to the introduction of several
rows of windows the building’s southern elevation.
HDC’s one objection to this proposal is
the replacement of the brick grillwork with windows on the Washington
Street façade of the building. While we sympathize with
the need to bring light and air into the interior at these locations,
this brick detailing is a significant feature of the building
that should not be removed.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044845 & 044851
Manhattan, Block: 215, Lot: 5
415 Greenwich Street - TriBeCa North Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style warehouse building designed by Victor
A. Bark and built in 1912-13. The first application is to construct
a rooftop addition, restore the loading docks, and modify ground
floor infill. The second application is to request that the Landmarks
Preservation Commission issue a report to the City Planning Commission
relating to an application for an Authorization pursuant to Section
23-111 of the Zoning Resolution for a Modification of Use.
HDC Testimony
Historic District Council’s Public Review Committee found
the presentation boards for this proposal to be completely confusing
and overly-complicated. For instance, the boards we reviewed did
not indicate clearly where the ground floor infill will be modified
and where the proposed new entries and loading docks will be located.
Elevations illustrating what the ground level of each of the building’s
façades will look like once the work is complete are needed
to fully understand the impact of the proposed changes. Therefore,
HDC cannot support the work at the ground floor level at this
time, but would be willing to reconsider our stance if more information
were provided.
More importantly, the applicant’s presentation
boards did not adequately represent through its sightlines the
visibility of the new rooftop structure. A site visit to the neighborhood
proved that the mock-up currently in place is visible from Greenwich
Street near Vestry Street, from Laight Street between Greenwich
Street and the West Side Highway, and from Greenwich Street near
North Moore Street. HDC finds the omission of images showing the
mock-up and its visibility to be misleading. We cannot support
the proposed addition to the rooftop, as the new addition will
be too visible and will detract from the building’s monumental
metal cornice.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044159
Manhattan, Block: 532, Lot: 25
643 Broadway, aka 75 Bleecker Street - NoHo Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style store and loft building, built by Stephen
D. Hatch, and built in 1878. Application is to install new storefront
infill.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that his storefront restoration
is extremely well done and should be approved by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission. We thank the applicant for removing the
inappropriate lights, revealing the storefront columns and eliminating
the inappropriate awnings. We look forward to the positive effect
this storefront will have on Broadway in the NoHo Historic District.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044571
Manhattan, Block: 627, Lot: 24
59 Horatio Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style house built in 1847. Application is to install
new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council does not object to this proposed
storefront renovation as long as it retains the cast iron column.
The Greenwich Village Historic designation report specifically
notes, "The store at street level preserves a fine cast iron
column at the corner of Greenwich Street." Although the presentation
drawings state in its notes that the applicant will keep the column,
the drawings themselves do not depict a round column with capital
elements. Rather, the drawings show a flat, un-detailed column
that does not bear resemblance to the existing column. If the
column is preserved in the new storefront, HDC believes that this
new storefront will be an improvement to the Horatio Street and
Greenwich Street streetscapes.
LPC Determination: Approved w/modifications
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043760
Manhattan, Block: 633, Lot: 58
551 Hudson Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
An apartment building built in 1900 designed by Moore & Landsiedel.
Application is to legalize the installation of lighting and roll-down
security gates at a storefront without Landmarks Preservation
Commission permits and to install an awning.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council cannot support a legalization like
this one. We are certain that the Landmarks Preservation Commission
would never have permitted the installation of the lighting, exterior
roll down security gate and excessive signage had the applicant
come to the Commission prior to doing the work.
The current awning, although retractable, has
too much writing on its skirt. The awning should only state the
name and address of the establishment, not advertise all the different
products that are sold within the store. Moreover the awning is
ill-sized and does not properly fit within the storefront opening.
The three signs advertising the ATM within the store are excessive
and utterly inappropriate to the character of Hudson Street in
the Greenwich Village Historic District. Moreover, HDC points
out that the applicant has painted the masonry around the storefront
blue, which must be removed.
HDC asks the Commission to deny this legalization
and work with the applicant to remove the excess signage, the
inappropriate lights and exterior security gate.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044952
Manhattan, Block: 621, Lot: 38
377-379 Bleecker Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
Two Italianate style dwellings, built by Louis Burger in 1867.
Application is to install new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council does not object to the installation
of a storefront at the ground floor of 377-379 Bleecker Street,
which is now occupied by apartments. The proposed design is headed
in the right direction, as it continues the cornice line of the
neighboring buildings and incorporates pilasters and columns that
are appropriate for the 1867 building. However, we believe that
the design needs improvement before it can be acceptable for the
Greenwich Village Historic District.
Overall, HDC believes that the storefront has
too much glazing and would benefit from a larger bulkhead, a transom
and heftier mullions. We also ask that the storefront doors be
wooden, not glass, so that they are more substantial. Lastly,
we question the unusual, asymmetrical design for the entry door
to the apartment building. HDC believes that the door, which has
side-lights only on the left-hand side of the door, is not appropriate
for this building and should be reconsidered.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044875
Manhattan, Block: 1290, Lot: 69
699-703 Fifth Avenue (aka 2-12 East 55th Street) – St. Regis
Hotel Individual Landmark
A Beaux-Arts style hotel building designed by Trowbridge &
Livingstone and built in 1901-04, with an extension designed by
Sloan & Robertson and built in 1927. Application is to install
new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that the St. Regis Hotel,
which the Guide to New York City Landmarks refers to as “among
the most elegant Beaux-Arts buildings in the city,” would
benefit greatly from a master plan for its storefronts. While
the design for the storefront before us today is not entirely
objectionable, we believe it does little to add to the grandness
of this individual landmark. We urge the applicant to search for
historic photographs and records that may indicate what the St.
Regis storefronts looked like originally. In addition, we hope
that the Commission will reach out to the owners of the St. Regis
Hotel to encourage them to develop a master plan for the building’s
storefronts.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043718
Manhattan, Block: 875, Lot: 59
22 Gramercy Park South - Gramercy Park Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse with Italianate style influences,
built in 1845-46. Application is to alter window openings on the
front and rear facades, to alter the rear roofline, and to construct
a rooftop addition.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council first commends the applicant for
the restoration work on the front façade. The restoration
of the stoop and entryway and the removal of the through-the-wall
and the window air conditioning units will go a long way in improving
the look of this Greek Revival rowhouse. Unfortunately, these
thoughtful and careful restorations do not make up for the other
damaging changes the applicant is proposing for the remainder
of the front façade, the building’s roof and the
building’s rear.
On the front façade, the Historic Districts
Council strongly objects to the enlargement of the western-most
third-floor window. The other two windows at this level were already
enlarged prior to designation. Therefore this western window is
the only remaining original window opening on the third floor,
and it must be protected. 22 Gramercy Park South, like most Greek
Revival rowhouses, has a hierarchy of windows that reflects the
hierarchy of the interior rooms and floor levels in a mid-nineteenth
century rowhouse. The parlor floor, as the most public and socially
important part of the house, traditionally had the largest windows.
As the floor levels increased, the window sizes decreased, so
that the smallest windows were located at the top floor of the
building, where the servants roomed. The proposal before us today
tries to reverse this traditional window pattern by making the
top windows the largest, not the smallest, windows on the façade.
Moreover, the enlarged window on the third floor
will cut into the building’s cornice, which is a significant
feature of the building. 22 Gramercy Park South’s cornice
appears to be a rare survival of a cornice with windows cut into
it to allow light into the attic. Indeed, in Charles Lockwood’s
book, Bricks and Brownstone, he writes that Greek Revival rowhouses
had an attic, “lit by small windows which unobtrusively
pierce the fascia board of the cornice. These small windows, usually
a single pane or two horizontal panes, usually do not survive
on Greek Revival row houses in New York.” Two of the three
windows in the cornice have already been lost. The Commission
cannot allow the applicant to destroy this remaining rare and
extremely important
feature of the building. In fact, the look of the building would
be greatly improved if the applicant restored the cornice and
lowered the other two windows to match the one remaining historic
window.
The Historic Districts Council also objects to the casement windows
proposed for the two parlor floor windows. We ask the applicant
to install two-over-two double hung windows in these openings,
as they are the historic window type. In addition, HDC questions
the replacement of the ironwork on the front façade, particularly
the iron grilles at the parlor floor. We ask for more research
into the historic ironwork. Lastly on the front façade,
HDC notes that the designation report for the Gramercy Park Historic
District states, "Some of these houses have delicate pastel
colors of pink and blue." We therefore raise the question
of whether the pastel paint on 22 Gramercy Park South is a protected
feature of the building.
On the roof of 22 Gramercy Park South, the applicant is proposing
a substantial, highly visible, and extremely damaging alteration.
Currently, the building has one dormer that appears to be in its
original configuration and one dormer that has been altered and
enlarged. The applicant is proposing to create one large mass
out of these two dormer windows. Because the building is located
on the southern perimeter of Gramercy Park, this roofline alteration
will be visible from a substantial portion of the neighborhood.
The dormers are an integral part of the building’s style
and history. The Commission cannot, in good conscience, allow
the applicant to make such a destructive alteration.
On the rear of the building, HDC again raises
considerable objections to the alteration of the roofline and
window patterns. The new rear façade in essence erases
the historic mansard roof. Although this rear façade is
not visible from a public thoroughfare, the applicant is causing
serious damage to the historic integrity of the building by creating
an entirely modern rear façade. Just as the dormer windows
in the front must be protected as a significant feature of this
1845 house, so too should the original rear mansard roofline,
which has survived over 150 years, be maintained. Like the proposed
front façade renovations, the new rear façade interrupts
with the traditional hierarchy of windows. Moreover, it appears
as if the applicant is proposing to increase by about one-third
the volume of the balcony at rear’s third floor.
In conclusion, HDC notes that Community Board
6 has not yet had the opportunity to review this extremely significant
C of A item. We ask the Commission to hold its determination until
the Community Board has had the opportunity to comment.
LPC Determination: No Action
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043463
Manhattan, Block: 1168, Lot: 56
250 West 77th Street – Hotel Belleclaire Individual Landmark
An Art Nouveau and Secessionist style hotel building designed
by Emery Roth and built in 1901-03. Application is to replace
windows on all of the secondary elevations.
HDC Testimony
apartment hotels. Designed early in Emory Roth’s career,
the Hotel Belleclaire stands out in its use of flamboyant ornament
in the Art Nouveau and Viennese Secessionist styles. The building’s
unusual twelve-over three wooden windows with varying pane sizes
is one of the building’s most defining features. Indeed,
the Guide to New York City Landmarks states that the Hotel Belleclaire’s
façade has “fine carved detail and complex window
sash.”
It is remarkable that the Hotel Belleclaire retains
so many of its unusual original windows, especially on its secondary
facades. In fact, only a few windows throughout the secondary
facades have been changed during the building’s hundred-year
history. The Hotel Belleclaire’s windows are thus much more
intact than the majority of New York’s other individual
landmarks, and they deserve the utmost of protection.
The Historic Districts Council simply cannot support
a proposal to replace the numerous original wooden windows on
all of the Hotel Belleclaire’s secondary elevations. Although
the new aluminum windows attempt to match the historic windows
in configuration, they do not have real divided lights and will
not have the same texture and visual effect of the original wooden
windows. Moreover, the existing windows appear to be in good condition
and are not at all beyond repair. The Commission cannot, in good
conscious, allow the applicant to trash these extraordinary and
wonderfully intact historic windows that are such an integral
part of Roth’s design for the apartment hotel. We urge the
applicant to repair any of the deteriorated windows and replace
those that are beyond repair with wooden windows that match in
both detail and configuration the historic window design.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044807
Manhattan, Block: 1197, Lot: 56
52 West 84th Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A neo-Grec style rowhouse with Queen Anne style elements built
in 1884-85 designed by Frank F. Ward. Application is to alter
a window opening.
HDC Testimony
HDC cannot support the enlargement of this basement window because
it eliminates the ventilation window situated below the basement
window. A ventilation window with an iron grill cover appears
to be a common historic feature of the basement levels of the
Upper West Side’s rowhouses. Indeed, many rowhouses on West
83rd and 84th Streets have such a window. We therefore ask that
the Commission require the applicant to retain the ventilation
window and grill.
In addition, HDC does do not support the replacement
of the two-over-two wooden window with a one-over one window.
We are pleased that the new window will be wood, but believe that
a one-over-one window is just too much glazing for a window of
this size and location.
Lastly, HDC notes that the thin wooden panel proposed
for below the window opening is inappropriate if the Commission
permits the window enlargement. 52 West 84th Street’s twin
at 50 West 84th Street has a masonry panel below its basement
windows. If the Commission approves the window enlargement, we
ask that the applicant install a masonry panel to match the existing
panel at 50 West 84th Street.
LPC Determination: No Action
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044371
Manhattan, Block: 1521, Lot: 21
125 East 92nd Street - Carnegie Hill Historic District
A vacant lot. Application is to construct a five story townhouse.
HDC Testimony
Overall, the Historic Districts Council is pleased that a new
single-family residential building is being constructed on this
empty lot. When HDC thinks back to earlier proposals for this
lot, which were entirely out of scale because of the community
facility bonus, we are thankful that this proposal is relatively
modest. The design of the front façade is reserved, yet
modern, and is entirely appropriate for the Carnegie Hill Historic
District.
That said, the Historic Districts Council believes
that the bulk of the new building, while certainly better than
other proposals for this lot, is still too large, especially in
the rear. The rear of the building extends beyond the extensions
of the neighboring buildings, creating dark dead spaces in portions
of the neighbors’ rear yards. HDC urges the Commission to
consider the detrimental effect the rear bulk will have the neighboring
landmarked buildings and require the applicant to reduce the depth
of the new building to that of its neighbors.
In addition, HDC wholly objects to the design of the new building’s
rear façade, which is entirely comprised of glass. This
is too much glazing for even a modern building. The interiors
of New York City’s blocks have traditionally been private
spaces where neighbors generally do not see each other. The sense
of privacy in the doughnut, both for people within this new building
and for those who will be looking into it, should be protected.
We ask the Commission to require the applicant to redesign the
rear façade so that it is not comprised in its entirety
of glass and is more in keeping with a private New York City residence.
LPC Determination: Approved w/modifications
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044567
Manhattan, Block: 1501, Lot: 16
1242 Madison Avenue, aka 17 East 89th Street - Carnegie Hill Historic
District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building built in 1924-25 and
designe by Gaetan Ajello. Application is to install new storefront
infill, security gates, and awnings.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council cannot support this application,
which proposes to remove historic storefront elements at 1242
Madison Avenue. This storefront at 1242 Madison Avenue is coded
“red” in the Commission’s Madison Avenue guidelines,
indicating that the storefront has historic features that the
Commission has deemed worthy of retention. The guidelines mandate
that “Historic fabric and new fabric which replicates the
historic fabric must be retained and restored.” The tri-partite
wooden storefront with a recessed entry is a significant historic
storefront type. We urge the Commission to require the applicant
to retain the wooden storefront, its tripartite configuration,
and the door location.
In addition, HDC highly objects, as always, to
the proposed exterior roll-down security gate, which is not appropriate
for a Madison Avenue storefront. We also request that the Commission
reach out to the building owner to develop a master plan for the
awnings on this building.
LPC Determination: No Action
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044870 & 044871
Manhattan, Block: 1404, Lot: 71
713 Park Avenue - Upper East Side Historic District
A neo-French Classic style residence built in 1915-16 and designed
by McKenzie Voorhies & Gmelin. The first application is to
alter the front step and entrance door. The second application
is to request that the Landmarks Preservation Commission issue
a report to the City Planning Commission relating to an application
for a Modification of Use pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning
Resolution.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that this application
is a misuse of the 74-711 provision of the NYC Zoning Resolution.
713 Park Avenue is building that was properly maintained over
the years by its former owners. It is not a building that has
been neglected, nor is it a building that requires a change in
use in order for it to be economically viable. Thus, HDC questions
what the preservation purpose of this proposal is, since the building
is already well-preserved.
This project does not meet the threshold of restoration
work that has traditionally been associated with the 74-711 provision.
Therefore, the Historic Districts Council does not think that
it is within the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s purview
to recommend a change of use for this building.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: March 23, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043552
Brooklyn, Block: 248, Lot: 7
81 Remsen Street - Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A Greek Revival Style rowhouse built in 1840. Application is to
construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council questions why the Sanborn map on
the presentation boards does not accurately depict the existing
condition of this block’s rear yard doughnut. If there is
a more updated map that illustrates where the existing rear yard
additions are located on this block, then we ask the applicant
to provide such a map.
Nevertheless, the Historic Districts Council cannot
support the proposed rear yard extension. Although the extension
in and of itself is modest in size, it is the straw that broke
the camel’s back. Over the years, modest incursions into
a block’s rear yard doughnut add up so that eventually,
very little space remains in the block’s garden core. This
addition in particular is objectionable because it will abut the
addition of the building behind it. If this addition is approved,
the garden core of this block will be cut in two and will no longer
be a continuous stretch of open space.
The Historic Districts Council urges the Commission
to preserve what is left of this block’s doughnut and deny
this request for a rear yard addition.
LPC Determination: Approved
Return to Recent Testimony
