November 6, 2003
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: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041204
Manhattan, Block 90, lot 4-
5 Beekman Street - Individual Landmark Historic District
An eclectic office building built in two phases in 1881-83 designed
by Silliman and Farnsworth in the Queen Anne, neo-Grec, and Renaissance
Revival styles, and in 1889-90 by James Farnsworth in the Romanesque
Revival style. Application is to install new storefront infill
and to replace windows.
HDC Testimony
HDC’s Public Review Committee found the presentation boards
we reviewed to be ambiguous, especially on the storefront details.
We ask the applicant to provide more historic photos and documentation
so that the merits of the proposed storefront design and window
replacement can be better assessed.
Overall, we applaud the general restoration of
the storefront infill. However, we ask the applicant to restore
the historic window configuration, as the proposed is incorrect.
Moreover, we object to the piecemeal window replacement in this
individual landmark and ask that the Commission require the applicant
to develop a master plan for the restoration of the original window
configuration.
In addition, on Theater Alley,
we object to the removal of the cast iron framing and the installation
of the aluminum. The applicant is, in essence, ruining the historic
look of the building on the alley. We urge the Commission to ask
the applicant to retain as much cast iron on the storefront as
possible and replicate those cast iron details that cannot be
saved or that are missing.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042019
Manhattan, Block 180, lot 8-
1 Harrison Street - TriBeCa West Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style store and office building, designed by
Schwartz & Gross and built in 1919. Application is to construct
a rooftop addition and install mechanical equipment.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council does not object to the replacement
of the current, non-historic rooftop addition with a new structure.
However, we ask that the new addition be as invisible from the
street as possible. Moreover, if any portion of the rooftop addition
is visible, we ask that the applicant reconsider the materials,
as aluminum is not an appropriate material for the roof of this
neo-Renaissance white terra-cotta building.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042054
Manhattan, Block 146, lot 15-
146 Duane Street - TriBeCa South Historic District
An Italianate style store and loft
building built in 1859-1860. Application is to install new ground
floor infill and a barrier-free access ramp.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council regrets that the applicant is not
taking the opportunity to create a ground floor infill that is
more in keeping with the building’s Italianate style architecture.
Along Duane Street, the line of cast iron loft buildings creates
a wonderful streetscape that is a quintessential scene in the
TriBeCa South Historic District. The building next door to 146
Duane Street is currently undergoing a sensitive restoration,
and thus we are disappointed that this application is taking the
building in a direction away from restoration.
More specifically, the Historic Districts Council
feels that there is far too much aluminum in the new doorway design.
Wooden, paneled doors that incorporate a transom and paneled bulkhead
would be a much preferable treatment for the ground floor infill.
In addition, while we are sympathetic to the design difficulties
associated with ADA compliance, we hope that the Commission will
work with the applicant to make the proposed chairlift have as
little impact as possible on this 1860s store and loft building.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041917
Manhattan, Block 107, lot 34
246 Front Street - South Street Seaport Historic District
A vacant lot. Application is to
construct a new six-story and penthouse building.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council in general finds the tripartite
façade of this new building to be too flat. To alleviate
this design-flaw, we ask that the cornice extend to the maximum
depth allowable under the building code. In addition, by insetting
the windows more into the façade, the texture of the building
will be greatly improved and will be more in keeping with the
neighboring early-nineteenth century commercial buildings in the
South Street Seaport Historic District.
HDC also asks the Commission
to require the applicant to provide a sample of how the bricks
will be imbedded in the mortar, as we fear that the proposed brick
and mortar pattern may not be appropriate to the district. Lastly,
at the penthouse level, the windows should be multi-paned, not
single-paned, if they are visible in any way.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041496
Manhattan, Block 1116, lot 29
33 Central Park West - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A neo-Renaissance style school building
built in 1902-04 designed by Carrère and Hastings. Application
is to extend the time period for the installation of temporary
banners.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council objects to
the extension of the time period for the banners. The banners,
in essence, create a sign out of this neo-Renaissance style building.
Moreover, they obstruct the building’s architecture, namely
the characteristic pilasters, and distract from the unique streetscape
of Central Park West. The banners were approved with a time limitation
for a reason – so that they do not become permanent fixtures
on the building and in the Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District. Temporary should mean temporary, and these banners must
be removed when their time period expires.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 040939
Manhattan, Block 1391, lot 29
55 East 76th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
A neo-Grec style flathouse built in 1882-83 designed
by F.T. Cramp. Application is to replace the sidewalk.
HDC Testimony
Across New York’s historic neighborhoods, historic bluestone
sidewalks are rapidly disappearing as the city and building owners
replace the bluestone 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. In fact, as many
Commissioners may remember, beginning in 1989, the LPC and the
Department of Transportation collaborated to draft guidelines
for public projects that affect public rights-of-way in historic
districts. Although these guidelines were never formally adopted
by either agency, they indicate the importance with which we must
treat historic paving materials.
Although the Upper East Side
Historic District is not known for its bluestone sidewalks, where
this historic paving exists, it should still be retained, repaired
and replicated. Indeed, its rarity in the district makes this
particular swath of sidewalk all the more significant. 55 East
76th Street is one of the finest and most unique residential buildings
on Upper East Side. The neo-Grec style flathouse’s architectural
integrity is enhanced by the presence of the bluestone in front
of the building. Portions of this bluestone are over 120 years
old, and although the sidewalk is in disrepair, it has proven
its durability over the century of use. The applicant’s
proposal to remove the bluestone slabs and replace them with concrete
is therefore quite regrettable. From materials the Committee reviewed,
it appears as though many of the bluestone slabs slated for replacement
are indeed salvageable. We urge the Commission to stick to a hard-line
of materials preservation and require the applicant to retain
as much of the historic bluestone as possible. Those pieces of
bluestone that are beyond repair should be replaced with bluestone
and not with concrete. Bluestone is not only historically and
aesthetically appropriate for this site but is also reasonably
priced and highly durable.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042008
Manhattan, Block 1307, lot 5-
3 East 95th Street - Carnegie Hill Historic District
A Beaux Arts style townhouse
built in 1913-16 designed by Horace Trumbauer. Application is
to construct a one-story roofotop addition above the penthouse.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council notes that 3 East 95th Street is
not merely within the Carnegie Hill Historic District, as the
agenda states, - it is in fact an individual landmark, designated
in 1974. Thus the Commission should treat this grand neoclassical
limestone building with the utmost of respect.
In December 2001, the Historic Districts Council’s
Public Review Committee testified in favor of the design of the
Classically-inspired new building at 5 East 95th Street, which
now adjoins this individual landmark. At the time of that application,
HDC and the Carnegie Hill community were told by the building
owners that they would not be adding more bulk onto the historic
building. We are therefore quite upset that less than two years
later, the applicant has come back with a proposal for a rather
large rooftop addition.
For many reasons, the Historic Districts Council
urges the Commission to reject the proposed rooftop addition,
which calls for not only the addition of another floor to the
existing penthouse but also the extension of the penthouse to
the north. Moreover, the drawings indicate that the proposal includes
filling in the lightwell of this building, which is quite lamentable.
We also question whether the additional bulkheads will be blocking
the east-facing windows of the solarium, which would be a design
mistake.
The Historic Districts Council
regrets that the applicant is maximizing his investment at the
expense of this individual landmark, which was originally designed
to resemble a Parisian town house from the era of Louis XVI. The
new addition is entirely too bulky for a delicate building such
as this one and must be rejected.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042005
Manhattan, Block 1720, lot 21-
10 Mount Morris Park West - Mount Morris
Park Historic District
An early 20th century hospital building. Application is alter
window and door openings and to construct a rooftop addition.
HDC Testimony
Overall, the applicant is taking this early 20th century hospital
building in the right direction and is significantly improving
its appearance. However, we ask the applicant to make a few refinements
in the design so that the building is more in keeping with the
Mount Morris Park Historic District.
The Historic Districts Council does not object
to the rooftop addition, as we believe it is a sensitive design.
However, we ask for a more refined restoration of the front door
so that is closer to the original design. Similarly, on the east
elevation, the lower façade should be re-configured so
that it is more of a reproducation of the building’s original
design.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041855
Brooklyn, Block 948, lot 51-
153 Lincoln Place - Park Slope Historic District
A Romanesque Revival style
townhouse constructed in 1886-87 and enlarged in 1896 by Lamb
and Rich. Application is to construct a rooftop addition, modify
the facades, and construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council adamantly objects to this application,
as it is one of the most appallingly inappropriate proposals we
have seen in many years. The proposed additions and alterations
to the building, particularly the rooftop additions, are all highly
visible and immensely harmful to the architectural character of
this Romanesque Revival townhouse.
153 Lincoln Place, formerly the F. L. Babbott
House, is one of the most beautiful and architecturally distinct
buildings in the Park Slope Historic District, with remarkably
intact detailing. In fact, the designation report for the building
refers to the house as an “exceptionally fine Romanesque
Revival town house with a spacious yard.” As a free-standing
house, 153 Lincoln Place is set apart from the brownstone rowhouses
that characterize the district and is a highly prominent building
within the neighborhood. The propose changes to the building would
therefore have a conspicuous presence within the district and
would mar its integrity.
The designation report states, “With its
deep yard to the east, the handsome east elevation, as well as
the front, may be seen to advantage.” It is precisely on
this highly visible “handsome east elevation” that
the enormous rooftop addition will be inserted and, as the mock-up
clearly illustrates, it will be extremely discernable. The application
calls for extending the height of the roof to match the height
of the two gables on the east façade. However, the house’s
roofline is characterized and defined by its varying heights and
shapes. By extending the roofline and inserting awkward rectangular
windows, the new proposal is ruining the fanciful nature of the
building. The new roofline will create an ill-proportioned façade
that will permanently change the Romanesque Revival character
of the house.
Although the building’s
western façade is not as prominent in the streetscape as
the eastern façade, it is nonetheless visible from Lincoln
Place. Like the eastern façade, the western façade’s
roofline profile is varied and is distinguished by its gables.
It will likewise be adversely affected by the extension of the
roof. The proposed rear yard addition and additional staircase
are also highly objectionable. At the new staircase, the proposal,
if approved, will result it the substantial loss of quoining brickwork,
brick courses, and rusticated stone arranged in a criss-cross
design. The house’s fine Romanesque Revival details, which
have survived over a century, will be substantially altered for
the sake of a building owner trying to maximize his profit at
the expense of the historic house’s architectural integrity.
The Historic Districts Council regrets that a project of such
a low caliber has come before the Commission. Instead of respecting
the architecture of the house, the application exploits the fine
Romanesque Revival house and the Park Slope Historic District
as a whole. This project is not worthy of the Commission’s
consideration and should be rejected outright.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041851
Queens, Block 1457, lot 1, 6
83-10, 12 35th Avenue - Jackson Heights Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building designed by E. Adelsohn
and built in 1930. Application is to replace a chain link fence
with an iron fence.
HDC Testimony
Chain link fences completely flout the ideals of the garden city
movement, particularly that of the open yard, and they give the
visual effect of incarcerating the greenery. Therefore, the Historic
Districts Council is pleased that applicant is removing the existing
chain link fence. While we agree that the new fence is “more
beautiful, more historic, and more in keeping with the historic
neighborhood,” we would prefer that the applicant have no
fence at all around the perimeter garden. The designation report
states that this building “characteristic of the later phase
of apartment house development in the historic district,”
and thus there would not have been a fence incorporated in the
building’s original design.
Jackson Heights is a planned garden city in which front gardens
are meant to visually meet the sidewalk in such a way that the
passerby has a sense of a public view of private space. The height
of the proposed fence negates that sense and separates public
from private in a way that is not appropriate in a district designated
as a garden community. If the applicant insists on a fence, we
insist on certain design changes. First the 6-inch concrete base
is entirely too high. Perhaps 3 inches would be a more appropriate
base height. In addition, the height of the fence itself should
be decreased by at least a foot. Finally, we did not see on the
boards the design of the gates along the fence. The Commission
should review the design of the gates before approving this fence.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042000
Queens, Block 1289, lot 58
37-39 78th Street - Jackson Heights Historic District
An Anglo-American Garden Home style semi-detached residence designed
by Benjamin Dreisler, Jr. and built in 1926-27. Application is
to legalize the installation of paving in the front yard without
Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
This semi-detached residence is part of a development of forty-six
houses that typifies the garden community developments in Jackson
Heights in the mid to late 1920’s. These houses on 78th
and 79th Street are clustered in such a way that each cluster
appears more like a larger single entity than a series of houses.
All of the forty-six houses were originally designed with front
yards, providing a long sweep of greenery on both 78th Street
and 79th Street. By paving over their front yard, the applicant
has ruined the continuity of its cluster’s garden and its
contribution to the garden sweep on the entire block.
The Commission would never have approved this
application had the applicants come to the agency before paving
over their front garden. If the Commission were to legalize this
violation, then it would be rewarding those who have purposefully
flouted the Landmarks Law. The Commission must require the applicant
to remove the paving and replace it with appropriate greenery.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number: 037166
Manhattan: Block 1126, lot 38
10 West 74th Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A Moderne style apartment building built in 1940-41 designed by
H. Herbert Lilien. Application is for building-wide window replacement
on the front façade.
HDC Testimony
Moderne style apartment buildings like 10 West 74th Street are
marked with a design simplicity that emphasizes details, like
window configurations, that in a more ornamental style would have
been of secondary importance. When 10 West 74th Street was designed
in the early 1940’s, the building’s steel casement
windows were its primary form of ornamentation. Thus, as the windows
have been haphazardly replaced over the years, sometimes in violation
of the Landmarks Law, the building’s architectural integrity
has been severely compromised.
In fact, very few of the original steel casement
windows remain on 10 West 74th Street. Rather than restoring the
original window configuration, the application before us today
calls for the replacement of these windows with double-hung windows,
an inappropriate type. In other words, this proposal for a building-wide
replacement of the windows on the front façade institutionalizes
the atrocities that have occurred to the windows in recent decades
rather than restoring the building to its former glory. Any application
for window replacement should work to bring the building closer
to its original design, especially since the building’s
casement windows are one of it’s most important design elements.
As we enter the twenty-first century, new windows
that replicate historic configurations are becoming viable options
for owners of historic buildings. The applicant to should look
at the Majestic on Central Park West and West 72nd Street, which
has installed new windows that attempt to match the historic.
The Historic Districts Council urges the Commission
to deny this awful application. The Commission should require
the applicant to retain the existing historic casement windows
and should work with the applicant to develop a system for the
replacement of the non-historic windows with those that replicate
the historic window configuration.
LPC Determination:
Hearing Date: 11/6/2003
LPC Docket Number 040106- Block 1381, lot 1-
44 East 67th Street - Upper East Side Historic District
An Art Deco style apartment building designed by Rosario Candela
and built in 1940-41. Application is to establish a master plan
governing the future installation of windows and through-the-wall
air conditioning units.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council objects to the proposed master
plan for windows and through-the-wall air conditioning units.
We note that this Art Deco apartment building is rather simple
in design and draws its ornament and appeal from its decorative
brickwork and multi-paned casement windows. These are precisely
the two elements this application will destroy, if approved.
Regarding the windows, the applicant should be
asked to revise the master plan so that the replacement windows
are in compliance with the Commission’s window guidelines.
The Commisison’s window guidelines note, “In most
historic buildings, the window sash, window framing, and the architectural
detail surrounding the windows were carefully designed as an integral
component of the style, scale and charcacter of the building.”
This Art Deco apartment building’s multi-paned casement
windows are no exception to this statement and should therefore
be treated with the utmost care and protection. Despite this,
the applicant is proposing to install windows whose panes are
a few percentage points larger than they should be under the window
guidelines. As the Commission’s window guidelines allow
for a great deal of flexibility for building owners in replacing
their windows, we urge the Commission to require the applicant
to comply with these accepted and quite reasonable guidelines.
The Historic Districts Council
also strongly objects to the proposal for 18 through-the-wall
air conditioning units to be installed in decorative brickwork.
Although the Commission allowed 55 Central Park West to install
air conditioning louvers that attempt to mimic the brickwork,
this example in fact proves that the louvers do not replicate
the brick and only serve to mar the decoration of the façade.
In other words, the experiement approved for 55 Central Park West
failed, and the Commission should not allow another Art Deco building
to make the same mistake. HDC asks the Commission to work with
the applicant to find another solution to the air conditioning
problem.
LPC Determination:
Return to
Recent Testimony
