October 28, 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 the application now before the Commission.
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 04041527-
Manhattan, Block 592, lot 26-
345-347 Sixth Avenue - Greenwich Village Historic District
A residential and commercial building with Federal sytle
details built in 1825, and enlarged in the mid- and late-19th
century; and a Greek Revival style residential and commercial
building built in 1848. Application is to install new storefront
infill and signage.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council is pleased that the applicant is
proposing to insert a storefront into what was formerly a closed-up
opening on West 4th Street. The new storefronts create a more
open feel for this Greek Revival style residential and commercial
building dating from 1848.
That said, HDC believes that the amount of signage
proposed for the storefront is excessive. We specifically ask
the applicant to remove the interior hanging illuminated signs,
as they are redundant and unnecessary.
LPC Determination: No Action.
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 030977
Manhattan, Block 621, lot 37-
375 Bleecker Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A rowhouse deisgned by Louis Berger and constructed in
1867. Application is to legalize alterations to the roof, dormers
and cornice without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to work done
without the permission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
When the Commission legalizes in appropriate proposals like the
one before us today, it in essence rewards buildings owners who
purposefully flout the Landmarks Law.
HDC notes that the Commission would have never
approved the changes to the roof, dormers and cornice had the
applicant come to the Commission before embarking on the renovation.
We regret that by re-shingling the sloping roof, the applicant
has removed the lovely diamond pattern that was formed by the
red shingles. We urge the applicant to restore this diamond pattern.
In addition, the new copper-cladded dormers are an eyesore and
must be restored so that the details of their surround are articulated
as they are in its neighbor to the south.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 035708
Manhattan, Block 645, lot 29
416 West 13th Street - Gansevoort Market Historic District
A neo-Classical style factory/office building designed
by Trowbridge and Livingston and built in 1901-02. Application
is to alter the ground floor window openings and to install bracket
signs.
HDC Testimony
This proposal is one of the first significant alterations proposed
for the Gansevoort Market Historic District since its designation.
No doubt in the future there will be many more proposals to rehabilitate
market and industrial buildings as retail space. Thus the Commission
must consider this gravely flawed application carefully, as it
will be a precedent for future applications.
In addition to being a precedent, this application
deserves the utmost attention of the Commission because 416 West
13th Street, also known as the P.F. Collier & Son Building,
is one of the most important buildings within the Gansevoort Market
Historic District and was designed by an important architecture
firm, Trowbridge & Livingston, who designed many school buildings.
In fact, the designation report for the district states, “The
building’s two fully-developed neo-Classical style facades
by the eminent firm of Trowbridge & Livingston, with their
tripartite composition and well detailed fenestration, and the
elaborate main entrance on West 13th Street, make it a significant
presence in the Gansevoort Market Historic District.” The
building’s significance is further illustrated in the fact
there was discussion that the building was worthy of designation
as an individual landmark before the designation of the entire
district.
That said, the Historic Districts Council objects
to the alterations of the windows and bulkhead on the West 13th
Street façade of the building, as the changes will remove
historic fabric and completely change the look and intention of
the building. By extending the window openings down to create
doors, the applicant is proposing to remove historic stonework
at the bulkhead, which is completely unacceptable. The existing
height of the bulkhead is essential to the overall effect of the
building, and lowering it creates the appearance that the building
is sinking into the sidewalk. In addition, by creating several
entrances on this façade, the proposal breaks up the continuity
of the façade and diminishes the importance and the grandeur
of the main building entrance. The building owner would be better
served by finding one tenant who could use the entire storefront
and therefore the main entrance. Perhaps if another entrance is
needed, one could be sensitively inserted at the western end of
the façade.
Lastly, we ask that the applicant conduct a paint
analysis before re-painting the window frames and surrounds. We
believe that the dark green is not an appropriate color for this
building and hope that a historic color will be used if the building
is to be repainted.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041993
Manhattan, Block 627, lot 5
36-40 Gansevoort Street - Gansevoort Market Historic District
A building constructed in 1947-48. Application is to
replace the façade and construct a three story and penthouse
addition.
HDC Testimony
As the first application for a significant addition to a building
in the newly designated Gansevoort Market Historic District, this
building requires the utmost attention of the Landmarks Preservation
Commission. The replacement of the 1947-48 market building with
a new façade and the addition of three stories and a penthouse
will have a tremendous effect on the district and will be a precedent
for future applications in Gansevoort.
Overall, the Historic Districts Council believes
that portions of the design of the new building are appropriate,
but that several of the details need revision. Foremost, the bulk
of the building is entirely too great, and its bulk is accentuated
by the design. Perhaps a setback above the second or third level
would alleviate the bulk of the building and allow more light
to penetrate into plaza area.
At the ground floor level, HDC believes that the
storefront design is appropriate for the district. In addition,
we applaud the incorporation of a metal canopy into the building
design, but note that the majority of the canopies in the Gansevoort
market tilt up rather than down for ease in hanging meat. While
a downward tilting canopy is not unheard of in the district, they
are more commonly found in other districts like Tribeca. An upward-tilting
canopy would better identify the building as a part of the Gansevoort
Market Historic District. At the second-floor level, the square-shaped
windows appear strange and are too large. A more conventional
window design would be more appropriate for a new façade
in the historic district.
Above the second floor, the three levels of continuous
casement windows should be redesigned. While casement windows
are an appropriate window type for the district, their unbroken
repetition results in a building that contains far too much glass.
Large windows are a feature of many buildings in the Gansevoort
neighborhood. However, in these buildings, the windows do not
overwhelm the rest of the building as they do here. The incorporation
of masonry to frame the windows and a cornice to top the building
would be a great improvement. Lastly, the design of the penthouse
needs reconsideration, as it is not in keeping with the design
of the rest of building or the other buildings in the historic
district.
LPC Determination: No Action
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Numbers: 041982 & 042012
Manhattan, Block 796, lot 36-
655 Sixth Avenue - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A neo-Grec style department store designed by Mortimer
C. Merritt and built in 1887. Application is to construct a two-story
rooftop addition and to request that the Landmarks Preservation
Commission issue a report to the City Planning Commission relating
to an application for a Modification of Bulk pursuant to Section
74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that this application
meets the high standards of restoration set forth under the Section
74-711 of the Zoning Resolution. We applaud the applicant for
proposing to restore the signature drums and domes that once flanked
this Hugh O’Neill department store building. When this restoration
is complete, it will be a showcase for the continuing revitalization
of the Ladies’ Mile Historic District.
That said, we ask that the Commission work with
the applicant to reduce the visibility of the proposed rooftop
addition, especially where it can seen from the Shearith Israel
Cemetery on West 21st Street.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 035002
Manhattan, Block 821, lot 21-
28 West 20th Street - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style store and loft building constructed
in 1902-02 designed by H. Waring Howard, Jr. Application is to
install new ground floor infill on the West 19th Street façade.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council asks the applicant to look to the
West 20th Street storefront of this through-the-block neo-Renaissance
style store and loft building for an example of how the West 19th
Street storefront should be designed. As the two facades of this
building are identical in design, it is assumed that their storefronts
would have also been identical. The West 20th Street storefront
is nearly intact, and thus provides the applicant with a good
indication of how glass, bulkhead, and door of the proposed storefront
should be designed.
HDC questions whether the applicant is proposing
to install security gates. If so, we ask that the gates be interior
and not exterior. In addition, we ask the applicant to clean the
graffiti on the storefront, as it is an eyesore in the Ladies’
Mile Historic District.
LPC Determination: Laid over
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 037408
Manhattan
59th Street- Columbus Circle Station – IRT Subway Station
Underground Interior Individual Landmark
A Beaux-Arts inspired underground subway station designed by William
B. Parsons with Heins & LaFarge and built in 1904. Application
is to rehabilitate the station, including replacing tiles and
moving walls.
HDC Testimony
The 59th Street-Columbus Circle IRT station is layered with many
alterations that illustrate the expansion of the subway system
in the nearly 100 years of its operation. The station’s
layered historic fabric is a quintessential feature of New York’s
subway system and is deserving of the utmost protection by the
Landmarks Preservation Commission and the MTA. We are therefore
pleased that the MTA is restoring several of the station’s
distinctive features, such as the Santa Maria faience plaques,
the mosaic panels and the stone lintels where they are missing.
On the other hand, the Historic Districts Council
is extremely opposed to moving the landmarked walls of this station.
By moving the historic walls, the MTA is destroying the sinuous
curves that are a definitive feature of many of the IRT stations.
Moreover, the relocation of the walls are needlessly endangering
what little historic fabric is left in this station from the time
of its construction. As has been found in the renovation of the
110th and 116th Street subway stations, the mosaic tiles, glazed
tiles, faience plaques and moldings, and brick wainscoting in
the historic subway stations are all extremely fragile landmarked
features. They should be handled only when absolutely necessary
and only with extreme care. HDC does not feel that the improvement
to the pedestrian flow in this station is so needed that the historic
fabric of the subway station should be risked.
In addition, we ask the MTA to restore the original
ceiling of the station and develop a lighting scheme that is more
in keeping with the station’s historic design. We also request
that the MTA recreate the scoring pattern on the floor. Finally,
we note that the new doors on the southbound platform near the
new entrance are a missed opportunity to install a door that would
be more sympathetic to the station’s 1904 appearance.
LPC Determination: Favorable Report
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041415
Staten Island, Block 1955, lot 1-
475 Brielle Avenue - NYC Farm Colony-Seaview Hospital Historic
District Historic District
A Dutch Revival style utilitarian building, built in 1914 with
additions in 1926 and 1931, located within a campus of dormitory
buildings and grounds built in 1905-1917 designed by Raymond F.
Almirall and Renwick, Aspinwall and Tucker. Application is to
demolish portions of the building and to alter the building.
HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council would like to begin with thanking
the Parks Department for granting members of our staff and Board
a tour of the project site. For a project as important as this
one, it is gratifying to see care given to reach out to interested
parties and we are especially pleased by Parks’ actions
to make this process as transparent as possible.
While HDC is very pleased that Parks has secured
money for the re-use and re-activation of this portion of the
Farm Colony as a recreation center, we find it unacceptable that
the proposal calls for the sacrifice of two historic buildings:
the 1914 two-story structure and the 1927 Chapel and Morgue. The
Chapel and Morgue were the only buildings of these types in the
entire Sea View and Farm Colony complexes, and therefore they
served both institutions. They are a particularly significant
feature of the historic district, and their loss is highly objectionable.
HDC understands that the City’s current
fiscal situation makes funding for capital projects like the one
proposed difficult. However, historic resources are, by their
nature, irreplaceable, and therefore a higher standard of feasibility
must be applied. The situation we have been presented with –
that this project will only go forward if these two buildings
(which are arguably more important than the 1931 maintenance garage
that is to be retained) are demolished – conflicts with
the purpose of the designated historic district, and causes an
undue tension in municipal policy towards the area. This historic
district was designated to preserve and protect this area’s
unique built fabric, not to allow for a design review of its demolition.
The issue of governance and maintenance is quite beside the point;
Parks is now responsible for this designated historic district
– one of only two in Staten Island. Everything possible
must be done to preserve this resource.
HDC urges the Parks Department to use the allocated
money to seal and stabilize the two buildings rather spend money
on their demolition. We insist that all possible options be examined.
With enough creativity, we are convinced that a reuse plan could
be created to build some, if not all, of the recreational amenities
desired while retaining the historic buildings for later use.
We have faith that at some point more funding – either public
or private – will become available for the further restoration
and revitalization of the complex. When that time comes, we look
forward to seeing the Farm Colony join the select group of historic
properties such as Snug Harbor, Ellis Island, the Empire Stores
and Floyd Bennet Field – all historic complexes in New York
City that have been adaptively-reused as public space. Until that
time, however, the Parks Department’s number one priority
should be the prevention of further deterioration of this precious
and fragile historic complex.
LPC Determination: No Action
Hearing Date: 10/28/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042058
Staten Island, Block 6666, lot 1-
509 Seguine Avenue - The Mannee-Seguine Homestead, Individual
Landmark
A late 17th-century rubblestone house, enlarged in the 18th century
and again in the early 19th century with a wood-frame house addition.
Application is to restore the house, to construct a new access
street, and to construct three new houses.
The Mannee-Seguine Homestead is one of the oldest
buildings in Staten Island and the entirety of New York City and
is even more rare because it remains in its original site and
setting. Therefore, the house and its setting should be treated
together as a first-class and immensely important individual landmark.
Very little of New York City’s 17th century built fabric
remains at the start of the 21st century, and the Historic Districts
Council is appalled that the owner of this rubblestone home does
not take more pride in the building’s historic fabric and
setting. Many Americans spend thousands of dollars each year vacationing
in European cities in order to experience 17th century architecture
and townscapes. However, here in New York projects like the one
before us today illustrate how little respect is paid to our extremely
rare 17th century heritage and how maximizing one’s profit
is seen as more important that preserving the remains of our early
Colonial years.
The applicant claims that the division of the
lot and the construction of new houses are essential for the stabilization
and restoration of the historic homestead. However, we note that
under previous ownership, this individual landmark was in good
repair and had not yet deteriorated to such a state that threatened
its stability. The owner of this homestead has long had an obligation
to keep it in good repair and should not be allowed to let the
building deteriorate further as he mines its setting for its real
estate value. The first priority for the owner and the Landmarks
Preservation Commission should be the restoration of this 17th
century house, not the development of its land.
The Historic Districts Council understands that
the applicant has the right to make a reasonable return on his
property. However, we object to the proposal before us, as the
three new houses completely obstruct the historic structure and
therefore undermine its significance and value. The siting of
the historic house, as called out in its designation report, is
critical to understanding the home’s connection to the oystering
activities that were such an important part of Staten Island's
history. The new development on the site causes the homestead
to lose its connection to the water and to its history. In light
of the importance of the house and its setting, the Historic Districts
Council suggests that the applicant research the possibility of
donating a conservation easement on the land. In return for selling
development rights, the property owner could be given generous
tax deductions that could offset the cost of restoration of the
homestead. HDC is happy to the work with the applicant and the
Landmarks Commission if the applicant wishes to pursue the issue
further.
If a conservation easement is not possible, then
any new development on the site must be carefully considered.
There is no doubt that this proposal overdevelops the lawn of
the Mannee-Seguine Homestead. If nothing else, the new house that
is sited to face Purdy Place must be eliminated from the proposal,
as it blocks completely the historic structure. The two houses
that line Seguine Avenue could be acceptable if significant changes
were made to their placement on the site. Perhaps if the buildings
were brought closer to the road so that their rear yards back
up onto the front of the Mannee-Seguine Homestead, they would
be less objectionable since they would leave a front lawn for
the historic house.
Mayor Bloomberg has been supportive of managing
development on Staten Island and has even set up the Staten Island
Growth Management Task Force. The Task Force is currently developing
zoning guidelines, and if they are adopted, then the new private
road in this proposal would be in violation of the guidelines.
The width of the current road is 30 feet, but the proposed guidelines
require a 38’ width if there are more than two houses on
the site. HDC vehemently objects to the private road as it needlessly
paves over the yard of the historic house and is inappropriate
in such a location.
HDC regrets that the restoration of such an important
17th century homestead is contingent on the development of the
land. We urge the Landmarks Commission to do whatever it can to
protect the historic structure and its setting as an irreplaceable
part of New York’s early history.
LPC Determination:
No Action
Return to
Recent Testimony
