HDC@LPC

LPC Docket Number: 110451
Brooklyn, Block: 249, Lot: 36
150 Montague Street – Brooklyn Heights Historic District
An Anglo-Italianate style rowhouse with commercial ground floor, built c. 1861-1879. Application is to install storefront infill and signage.

HDC Testimony
While the proposed may be an improvement over the existing, HDC feels the tax photo should be used more as inspiration for the new design.  If the applicant is going to go through the trouble of changing the storefront, it should be in a way that reflects more what was historically there and what continues to define this handsome rowhouse on its upper floors.  More articulation and details including transoms are needed, and wood rather than anodized aluminum would be more appropriate to the city’s first historic district.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 109869
Brooklyn, Block: 386, Lot: 41
164 Bond Street – Boerum Hill Historic District
An apartment building with neo-Grec and Queen Anne style elements, built c.1880. Application is to construct balconies at the rear.

HDC Testimony
The proposed will be visible from more than one location, particularly during those times of the year when there is less foliage than featured in the photos, and so anything added to the rear of this freestanding building must be carefully considered.  The proposed are not balconies as described in the application – they are not  platforms projecting from the façade of the building.  These are more akin to decks, propped up on four legs and built into the ground.  With their rather industrial design and gangly proportions, the decks bear no relation to the Queen Anne style apartment building.  HDC asks that this project not be approved until a far more sensitive design is proposed.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106425
Manhattan, Block: 107, Lot: 50
277 Water Street – South Street Seaport Historic District
A building built in 1881 by Giblin and Lyons. Application is to install storefront infill, signage, and a flue.

HDC Testimony
277 Water Street has come a long way since its designation days.  HDC approves of the alteration to the storefront and the flue in the back which will not be visible when new construction is soon finished.  We however do not approve of the new rail for the ramp as the picket fence design with its residential feel is atypical to this district.  Also repeating the name of the business five times and in a different color to make it stand out more creates too much signage.  HDC would rather see the existing rail left in place.  If a more closed design is needed, something that harkens to the building’s fire escape should be considered or the district should be studied for sympathetic examples.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106942
Manhattan, Block: 486, Lot: 2
64 Wooster Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A warehouse building designed by E. H. Kendall and built in 1898-99 Application is to install new storefront infill and alter the building’s base.

HDC Testimony
In general HDC finds this proposal appropriate, but we do have two comments.  Repurposing a former raised loading dock is a tricky task.  As handled in this application, the opening would become a pair of humongous doors, nearly 13 feet tall and 11 feet wide.  Besides the issues of practicality of operating such doors, they would be terribly out of proportion with the rest of the storefront, roughly twice the size of other entrances.  Another creative solution for this problem area is needed.  Additionally, HDC asks that as much grille work as possible be saved as it is such a defining and attractive feature of the building.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 109808
Manhattan, Block: 592, Lot: 18
361 6th Avenue – Greenwich Village Historic District
A building originally built in 1827 and altered in the early 20th Century. Application is to install new storefront infill and signage.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds the existing storefront to be far more appropriate than the proposed which is simply a generic, aluminum, sidewalk cafe design.  The transom, bulkhead and retractable awning of the existing are all features that should remain.  Rather than relying on storefronts from the extension designated less than two months ago as precedents, the historic photo presented of this building should be used for inspiration if any changes are to be made here.  For example, instead of the boxy signage proposed, the quirky 1939 curved sign on the corner could be referenced.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 103463
Manhattan, Block: 837, Lot: 48
390 Fifth Avenue – Gorham Building, Individual Landmark
A Florentine Renaissance style building designed by Stanford White of Mckim, Mead and White and built in 1904-06. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
While the proposed replacement windows are not particularly objectionable, HDC is troubled by the piecemeal approach being taken on the individually landmarked Gorham Building.  Who will even notice the windows of the upper floors when the base of the Fifth Avenue façade and the corner continue in the sad condition that they are now in?  A masterplan is sorely needed for this Stanford White masterpiece to return it to its former elegance and prominence.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 109241
Manhattan, Block: 228, Lot: 1
357 Canal Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A store and loft building designed by W.T. Beers and built in 1855. Application is to install storefront infill.

HDC Testimony
This proposal will do much to improve 357 Canal Street, and in general HDC applauds the application.  We do though have a few small comments we would like the Commission consider.  In order to match that of the sister building 359, the storefront munton bar should be lowered slightly.  The transom over the door on the Canal Street façade’s far left bay is out of proportion and a second transom bar like those on the neighboring buildings should be considered.
On the Wooster Street façade, brick might be better than existing roll down gates, but this area was never intended to be just a plain wall.  The gates rolled up to reveal open stores during business hours.  Bricking the openings in makes the solid façade even more permanent, not to mention the loss of depth and voids once provided by the stores.  HDC asks that another design be considered, possibly with storefronts or display boxes, to enliven this piece of the street front.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 105632
Manhattan, Block: 550, Lot: 77
Washington Mews – Greenwich Village Historic District
A private street. Application is to reconstruct the street bed and sidewalks.

HDC Testimony
The Washington Mews are a charming slice of Greenwich Village history where the buildings are complimented by the cobbled street.  HDC is wary of seeing wholesale alteration of the entire streetbed.  No matter how carefully planned and executed, or possibly because of such carefulness, the patina and nonconformity of the existing will at best be diminished, at worst it will be lost and resemble a Hollywood set.  Would it be possible to alter certain problem areas and retain the rest of historic street as is?  Is it possible that only the sidewalks need to be ADA accessible?  Or even just part of the sidewalk as #7 is to be the only ADA entrance?  Certainly every roadbed in the city does not need to meet ADA standards.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 108591
Manhattan, Block: 1416, Lot: 7
211 East 61 Street – Treadwell Farm Historic District
A rowhouse built in 1875, and altered in the English Regency style by Harold Sterner, between 1940 and 1966. Application is to alter the primary façade.

HDC Testimony
Unlike a proposal last week in this district which took an out-of-character 1960’s brick face façade and returned it to its tax photo appearance that matched others in its row, this proposal just seems to pick pieces off buildings on the block to combine to make a pleasant façade, but not one with any real history on this house.

What is historic here is the charming façade design by Harold Sterner, a New York City artist and architect whose most famous work is, or was, Amster Yard.  Although this façade came along a few decades after most of the district’s other alterations, it is very much in keeping with their quirky design and spirit that give these two blocks their special sense of place.  HDC encourages the retention of the existing details, large and small, that add up to create a lovely, contextual rowhouse in the Treadwell Farm Historic District.

LPC Determination: Denied

        

LPC Docket Number: 110051
Manhattan, Block: 512, Lot: 7502
599 Broadway – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A commercial building designed by J. Odell Whitenach and built in 1917. Application is to install storefront infill and signage.

HDC Testimony
The proposed storefont infill is an improvement over the existing conditions at 599 Broadway, but there are a few details HDC feels could be changed to make it even better.  The proposed bulkhead is rather low, and we find the height of the existing which matches that of the base of the flanking pilasters a better fit.  While the existing storefront and doors are aluminum, this project is a chance to improve the character of the base of this building, and we recommend the use of wood instead.  Finally, the paint color should be darker or match the stone of the lower two floors better.  The light color proposed calls out the enframement too much rather than letting the new storefront blend in with its surrounding base.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 106648
Manhattan, Block: 644, Lot: 60
55 Gansevoort Street – Gansevoort Market Historic District
A vernacular style store and loft building designed by Joseph M. Dunn and built in 1887. Application is to construct rooftop bulkheads, raise parapets and install railings.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds that the various items proposed to be added to 55 Gansevoort Street are highly visible and would change the massing of this cake-slice-shaped building, particularly from the plaza on 9th Avenue.  It all is too large and too tall, more than seems necessary and should be scaled back.  If it can not be made less visible, then maybe this is just not the right spot for the project.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 104220
Manhattan, Block: 319, Lot: 27
17 West 17th Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style store and loft building designed by George Frederick Pelhman and built in 1907. Application is to install doors and a canopy.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds it odd that the proposed residential entrance is modeled after the non-historic frieght entrance.  The result of the project would be too transparent with a 14-foot tall entry nearly entirely of glass.  A new design featuring thicker framing needs to be found for this entrance.

Just two weeks ago the Commission agreed that glass canopies over entrances at 31-33 West 21st Street were not something apporpriate for an historic store and loft building in the Ladies’ Mile.  Similarly, this project’s canopy, which is proposed to be illuminated with LED’s, should not be approved.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 108656
Manhattan, Block: 849, Lot: 20
23 East 20th Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style store and loft building, designed by Ervin Gollner and built in 1899-1901. Application is to alter the parapet.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds that the proposed nicely finishes the building without competing with the original cornice two floors below.  The panel though introduces something diferent to the building, a rhthym of three rather than four or one as found elsewhere on 23 East 20th Street.  The 1920’s addition matched the design and rhthym of the original 1899-1901 building extremely well, and any new pieces should be also.  Some on the committee thought the top should further finished with a small, simple cornice reflecting the Edwardian neo-Renaissance style expressed in this building, while others felt that, without historic documentation to support the addition of a cornice, the existing notched parapet was appropriate.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 100791
Manhattan, Block: 1148, Lot: 52
150 West 77th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Renaissance Revival rowhouse designed by Gilbert A. Schellenger and built in 1891. Application is to construct a rear yard addition and alter the basement entrance.

HDC Testimony
The large double doors, pilasters and cornice proposed to be added are handsome, but feel very grand for a basement entrance and instead are far more fitting for an entrance at the top of a stoop.  If the 1891 appearance is desired, then reconstructing the stoop should be explored and modelled after the one still existing at 154 West 77th Street.  Otherwise, a simpler approach should be taken as seen at the basement entries on the other houses in the row, 152 and 156.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

        

LPC Docket Number: 107888
Manhattan, Block: 587, Lot: 55
39 Barrow Street aka 70-72 7th Avenue South – Greenwich Village Historic District
A rowhouse, originally built in 1828 altered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Application is to construct a stoop, modify masonry openings and the areaway, and install railings and a skylight.

HDC Testimony
HDC does not object to the return of a stoop here at 39 Barrow Street.  Seeing though that the existing is a charming early 20th century alteration, HDC asks that the basement doorway be kept in its current location, or if not possible, that the door be reinstalled in the new location.

The proposals for the rooftop are more troublesome.  While not a solid wall, the wire mesh and railings will be readily visible over both the front of the 1828 rowhouse and the rear, a façade exposed by the cutting of 7th Avenue South.  Such visibility is always objectionable over the primary façade and in the rear it is equally inappropriate as it will change the massing of the wonderfully distinctive, baroque façade.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106944
Manhattan, Block: 552, Lot: 13
80 Washington Place – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1839 and altered in the early 20th century. Application is to excavate the cellar.

HDC Testimony
While many excavations, too many in HDC’s opinion, have been approved by the Commission recently, we find that a total rear yard excavation – full width, full length – is far too much.  In the interest of preserving the integrity of the garden cores in this district, in October of 2009 the Commission would not approve an excavation at 67 Charles Street until it was pulled back five feet from the rear lot line.  Similarly in April of 2008, the Commission approved an excavation at 61 Bank Street only after it was reduced on all three sides.  HDC asks that you apply a similar standard in this case.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 108639
Manhattan, Block: 1504, Lot: 44
66 East 93rd Street – Carnegie Hill Extension Historic District
A Queen Anne style flats building designed by A.B. Ogden & Son and built in 1890-91. Application is to alter the front and rear facades.

HDC Testimony
The alterations proposed for the front façade would be appropriate for a Carnegie Hill building that had been drastically altered and stripped, something that would be called “no-style” in a designation report, and had no documentation of its earlier design.  However, that is not the case here at 66 East 93rd Street where a very cohesive, attractive design remains more or less intact since at least the time of the tax photo.

The use of limestone rather than brownstone and brick, a two-story base as opposed to one-story, and double wide windows are all significant departures from the existing, historic design.  While the designation report notes that the basement and 1st floor may have been redesigned, this observation does not extend up to the 2nd floor.  Taking this into consideration, HDC feels the existing façade design should be retained and, if anything, that the very clear tax photo be used as a guide towards a restoration of the 1st floor.

While this building is now to be used as a single family house, there is no need to try to make it look more like one, as has been repeatedly noted as a justification for the proposed alterations.  When houses are combined to create one residence or institution, the Commission requires their individual character be preserved, particularly on the front elevation.  When formerly industrial buildings become commerical or residential, the Commission again ensures that their industrial character and their history is retained.  The history here is that for 120 years this has been an apartment building.  Trying to erase the fact that multiple families rented apartments, like many New Yorkers have and continue to do, here is to remove a piece of Carnegie Hill’s history

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 107804
Brooklyn, Block: 1099, Lot: 26
500 12th Street – Park Slope Historic District
A neo-Italian Renaissance style rowhouse designed by William Calder and built in 1898. Application is to install a new stoop, areaway wall, and ironwork.

HDC Testimony
HDC applauds the return of the stoop on here at 500 12th Street.  We do though question the decision to use a straight stoop as opposed to the L-shaped one seen in the tax photo. 484-514 are a group of 16 rowhouses. 494-514 were constructed in 1898 with L-shaped stoops, and 484-492 were constructed the following year with straight stoops.  As 500 12th Street belongs to this first grouping, the original L-shaped stoop would be a more appropriate choice here.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 109567
Manhattan, Block: 1288, Lot: 33
360-376 Park Avenue aka 75-83 East 52nd Street – Racquet & Tennis Club, Individual Landmark
A neo-Italian Renaissance style club building designed by McKim, Mead and White and built in 1916-1918. Application is to replace ornamental terra cotta cornice elements.

HDC Testimony
Thank you for this opportunity to express our strong opposition the proposed replacement of a portion of the original terra cotta clad cornice of McKim, Mead and White’s masterful Racquet and Tennis Club Building of 1916-1918.

The photographs of the deteriorated steel supports confirm that a significant intervention is certainly required and we do not question in any way the competence of the repair design. Our objection is solely to the choice of a vastly inferior substitute material, Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete GFRC to replace the fine hand pressed terra cotta of the original design and construction. We suspect that this choice of a lighter thin-shelled material will represent a cost savings over the resetting and localized replacement of terra cotta in kind. We do not see this cost savings as an appropriate rationale for the loss of so much unique historic fabric from such a singularly important individually designated landmark – a sole surviving massive masonry building in a sea of glass facades.

Specifically our concerns are:
1.The GFRC will not age in a similar way to the remaining adjacent terra cotta.

2. The GFRC will get wet and dry differently from the surviving adjacent terra cotta I would urge the commissioners to look out the window of this hearing room on a wet day to see the sad pockmarked appearance of the Woolworth Building where the many stones made of various replacement materials seriously detract from the smooth glazed terra cotta skin.
3. The Racquet and Tennis Club Building is one of the finest in the city and deserves the very best material. Terra cotta when installed over corrosion resistant armatures has an excellent record of durability. It is a fired vitreous ceramic material hand pressed into molds with a wall thickness of typically one and a half to two inches. GFRC is a slurry of Portland cement and chopped fibers sprayed into a mold resulting in far thinner wall sections achieving its cure only through the hydration of the Portland cement. The technology is relatively new, and so no long term performance and durability data are not available.

4. One of the truly magnificent features of true terra cotta is the variety of color and texture effects possible. The units to be replaced are slip glazed to resemble stone with a unique striation pattern that is integral to the slip glaze and permanent. GFRC relies on far more fugitive, less permanent stains and or coatings to achieve visual effects. Plainly put it just cannot match the real thing.

Instead we would urge that as much of the original material be saved as is possible through careful disassembly. The units should be cleaned and reinstalled once the support armature is replaced, reinforced augmented and waterproofed. Some of the terra cotta will of course require replacement. Good matching replica terra cotta units are readily available from a number of manufacturers. We would point to the recent work at the Bayard Building where a significant portion of original material was retained or my own project at 210 Riverside Drive where approximately 70% of Schwartz and Gross designed original material was saved and reset.

We argue that our landmark structures are too important to receive less than the best appropriate materials and the Commission should insist on true replacement in kind.

Thank You.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 107784
Manhattan, Block: 822, Lot: 31
156 Fifth Avenue – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A neo-Romanesque style office building designed by Rowe and Baker and built in 1894-1895. Application is to install new storefront infill and create new masonry openings within the entrance portico.

HDC Testimony
The storefront proposed on the Fifth Avenue façade of the former Presbyterian Building is based on a storefront approved by the LPC in 1999, a design whose lack of detailing resulted in a chunky intrusion on the base of this elegant building.  Rather than repeat and reinforce this unfortunate alteration, the new storefront should take the finer details and thinner proportions of the original storefronts on the 20th Street façade.  Some of the basic original proportions on the Fifth Avenue side can also be gleaned from the 1911 photo.  We hope then that the 1999 storefront will eventually be appropriately altered too.

The reopening the doorways in the arched vestibule is appropriate, but rather than matching the stainless steel of the proposed storefronts, the new framing should match the finish of the existing doors here.  In the historic photo, the doors appear to match in finish and are of a lighter shade than what is proposed.  Matching the finishes would create a more cohesive entrance within this prominent arched portal.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 109777
Manhattan, Block: 823, Lot: 20
31-33 West 21st Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style store and loft building designed by William G. Pigueron and built in 1907. Application is to alter the façade and install canopies and light fixtures.

HDC Testimony
While the removal of the existing awnings is to be applauded, the proposed canopies are unlike anything found in the Ladies Mile on a store and loft building of this era.  The metal framing would intrude on views of the lovely details in these door surrounds, while the extra ornament and golden finish are rather showy and draw from no historic precedents here. The recesses of 31-33 West 21st Street are already very deep making the proposed canopies unnecessary, unsympathetic intrusions.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 104023
Manhattan, Block: 849, Lot: 7502
7 East 20th Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A neo-Renaissance/modern French style loft building designed by William C. Frohne and built in 1907. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
The large arched windows of 7 East 20th Street is a signature component of the building’s façade, and the proposed mullions need to match the thiness of the present ones.  The plan detail, although no measurements are included, shows it to be much bulkier than the existing.  HDC asks that they be reduced in size.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 108711
Manhattan, Block: 1385, Lot: 1
1 East 70th Street, Frick House – Individual Landmark,  Upper East Side Historic District
A French Louis XVI style mansion designed by Carrere & Hastings, built in 1913-14 and altered by John Russell Pope in 1931-35. Application is to enclose a loggia.

HDC Testimony
HDC congratulates the Frick Collection on its 75th anniversary as a museum.  In 1930 Trustees, fulfilling Henry Clay Frick’s will that his home and collections become a gallery, hired John Russell Pope to design additions to the original mansion.  As the designation report notes, Pope “faithfully maintained” the French Louis XVI character of the Carrere & Hastings designed mansion, a building that was barely 20-years-old at the time of the construction of the addition.  In the half century since, Pope’s additions and Carrere & Hastings’ mansion have harmoniously created one of the finest examples of French Louis XVI architecture, and arguably one of the most serene, elegant spots, in New York City.

We find that the proposed alterations to be too great a change to this design, to what the designation report describes as a “charming loggia.”  Beyond the effects of the glazing, the framing of the infill will be noticeable, particularly on the tall arches on the corner.  The addition of a fan light, thick transom bar, muntins, mullions, and a base drastically change the impression of the now airy spaces.  If the Commission deems that the loggia must be filled in, the glass should be set back and framing kept to an absolute minimum in order to maintain the appearance of openness.

In September of last year, the Commission found that it could not approve a proposed master plan for terrace enclosures at the Breevort, 11 Fifth Avenue in the Greenwich Village Historic District.   If enclosing open space is too great a change in design and not permissible on the upper floors of a 1956 apartment building in a district designated in 1969, then certainly it is a drastic change on the ground floor of a mansion that is not only within an historic district, but is also an individual landmark.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 093560
Manhattan, Block: 1167, Lot: 29
201 West 75th Street aka 318-330 Amsterdam Avenue, New York Cab Company Stable – Individual Landmark
A Romanesque Revival style commercial stable building designed by C. Abbott French and built in 1888-90. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
On a low-scale, individual landmark such as the New York Cab Company Stable, historic wood windows should be replaced with windows of the same material with matching details.  The muntin details of the proposed are lacking, and, with the number of other wood components to be used, wood sashes do not seem to be too much to ask for.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 104900
Brooklyn, Block: 8502, Lot: 20
1940 East 36th Street – Hendrick I. Lott House, Individual Landmark
A Dutch Colonial style wood-frame house built in 1800, incorporating a structure built in 1720. Application is to install fencing, alter circulation paths, construct outbuildings and a barrier-free access ramp.

HDC Testimony
HDC is thrilled to see this 18th-century farm house brought back to life and preparations under way to open it to the public.  We find most of the proposed work appropriate and welcomed, but ask that some rethinking go into the barrier-free access ramp.  Of course, it is not easy to outfit a small building of another century for the needs of numerous, modern-day visitors, but the proposed ramp interrupts about two-thirds of the north elevation.  Alternatives that would cover up less of the façade and take up less room on the porch, such as tucking a lift to the right of the porch or a switch back ramp on that side, should be considered.  Also, we think the sliding door shutter is an interesting way to retain this building detail, but would like to see the track hidden better with wood shingles.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 097832
Manhattan, Block: 21, Lot: 6
71 Broadway – Empire Building, Individual Landmark
A neo-Classical style office building designed by Kimball & Thompson and built in 1897-98. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
While the percentage of glazing does not differ much between existing and proposed, there is more to a window than just its glass, and there are some details in this application for the individually landmarked Empire Building that could be improved.  The sill height is noticeably taller in the proposed, while the munton has been moved up from the spring line of the arch.  Both details should be adjusted to match the original.  The extrusion should also follow the height and depth of the existing framing much closer, and a detailed photo of the existing condition is needed to gage the how well the proposed framing meets the stone.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 108384
Manhattan, Block: 572, Lot: 11
62 West 9th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1839, with a ground floor storefront. Application is to legalize the installation of lighting and a related housing, and artificial ivy secured to the façade without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
This application goes beyond the usual  attempts of hiding mistakes and problems with greenery by installing artificial greenery and hoping that real ivy will soon hide it.  The Commission stresses the need for real materials of quality, particularly in areas so close to the public view, and obviously this fake ivy does not make the cut.  HDC asks that this proposal for legalization be rejected and that whatever damage has been done by installation of the material be corrected.

LPC Determination: Denied

LPC Docket Number: 108714
Manhattan, Block: 506, Lot: 53
27 Vandam Street – Charlton-King-Vandam Historic District
A Federal style rowhouse built in 1823. Application is to remove lintel covers, construct rooftop and rear yard additions, and evcavate the rear yard.

HDC Testimony
HDC is happy to hear that this proposal has been scaled down, but we are concerned about the excavation that extends all the way out to the back lot line.  27 Vandam is one of a row of four rowhouses built in 1823 called out in the slim designation report as remaining “in close-to-original state.”  Such Federal style rowhouse typically stand on only fragile rubble foundations and, in this neighborhood, on rather sandy soil.  The less work done, the better.  The excavation is much like a too-large rooftop or rear yard addition that is tries to make a small house something more than it is, and HDC asks that this part of the proposal be greatly reduced or denied.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 108922
Manhattan, Block: 1257, Lot: 1
476 Fifth Avenue – New York Public Library, Individual Landmark and Interior Landmark
A Beaux-Arts style library designed by Carrere & Hastings and built in 1898-1911. Application is to install lighting.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this project as it does something that is not necessary, brightly illuminating the New York Public Library.  I have never walked by this grand structure and thought to myself, or even heard anyone else utter, “That needs more lighting.”  Rather, at night, I have been struck by its quiet elegance, the glow of the magnificent interiors against the darkened exterior walls and surroundings.  It is almost as if the library already has its own lighting plan that expresses and celebrates its very being.  We notice the incredible Carrere & Hastings structure during the day, while at night we have a different view that reminds us of the light of knowledge held within those Beaux-Arts walls.  While studies have been done for this project that claim the lit interiors will still be noticeable, it is hard to imagine that they will not be diminished and something special lost.

Flood lights and spotlights from all directions are not needed at this location to appreciate a building that is nothing if not already impressive.  The proposed is a case of electrically gilding the lily.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 108871
Manhattan, Block: 1144, Lot: 7501
105 West 72nd Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building with Churrigueresque style elements designed by George and Edward Blum and built in 1913. Application is to recreate a balcony that was removed without LPC permits

HDC Testimony
While the illegal removal of a balcony on this distinctive apartment building should certainly be rectified, HDC feels it should not be done in fiberglass but rather in the original materials, terra cotta and brick.  If weight is an issue, lighter castings can now be produced than were nearly a century ago, and if the projection is being reduced in depth, the weight will similarly decrease. Using any other material would set a bad precedent for the other details here.  At the very least, material and color samples need to be presented before a final decision is made.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 105027
Manhattan, Block: 181, Lot: 16
179 Franklin Street – TriBeCa West Historic District
A late 19th-Century Commercial style store and loft building designed by Havilah H. Smith & Son and Hugo Kafka and built in 1888. Application is to legalize the installation of storefront infill without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
HDC is troubled by the illegal removal of the vault-glass stairs from this 1888 store and loft building.  Vault glass is an important piece of TriBeCa’s historic blocks and has been regularly restored and reinstalled throughout the neighborhood and other historic districts.  It is unlikely the Commission would have approved its removal from this location had it been applied for.  As the far left bay from which the steps were removed is not used an ADA accessible entrance like that in the next bay (and in fact is not used at all), we ask the commission to require the reinstallation of this important feature.

In addition, while the infill appears to be appropriate in its material, proportions and details, HDC recommends that it be painted rather than stained.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 108522
Manhattan, Block: 619, Lot: 52
341 Bleecker Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A vernacular frame house with brick façade built in 1820, and later altered. Application is to construct a rear yard addition, alter the rear façade, and excavate the cellar.

HDC Testimony
While HDC does not object to the proposed rear yard addition and rear façade alterations, we do caution against excavating the cellar.

An application to demolish this 1820s building was rejected just a few months ago.  It seems though to be too great a leap to say the building is in good enough shape to withstand excavation of the cellar.  A rear yard addition is already proposed, so is it really necessary to go through a significant ammount of work, intervention, and risk to the foundation of the structure?

The Commission has often not approved pieces of projects that ask too much of small houses such as this one.  HDC does not wish to use the word “undermine”as there is no reason to believe there is any malicious intention to destroy this house, so instead let us just state that the excavation of the cellar seems to be asking too much, and we urge the Commission to not allow it.

Finally, we did not have an opportunity to review alterations to the front façade, work that was not noted in the calendar.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 108380
Manhattan, Block: 607, Lot: 27
122-132 West 12th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
An apartment house designed by H. I. Feldman and built in 1940-1941. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
The proposal HDC saw at Friday’s Public Review included door and window plans with aluminum windows that are far too clunky to replace the original metal casement windows of this building.  This simple design of this 1940’s building owes much to the windows.  Rolled steel windows are much more available than they have been in the past and should be considered, at the very least for the lower floors, while the possiblity of fiberglass windows could be investigated for the upper floors.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 107031
Manhattan, Block: 583, Lot: 42
55-57 Leroy Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
Two Romanesque Revival style apartment house in 1887. Application is to remove the cornice and raise the parapet.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to stripping the cornice off of this Romanesque Revival style apartment house as it would drastically change the building’s character.  New cornices of sheet metal and even fiberglass are regularly approved for landmarked buildings (sometimes where cornices have been long gone), but removing a cornice and not replacing it never is.  We urge the Commission to reject this proposal.

LPC Determination: Denied

LPC Docket Number: 106407
Manhattan, Block: 1141, Lot: 26
115 West 69th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style rowhouse with Romanesque Revival style elements designed by Thom & Wilson and built in 1891. Application is to construct a rear yard addition

HDC Testimony
HDC has no objection to the size of the proposed rear yard addition, but there are design details that we feel need adjusting.  While changing the right hand window to a door on the top floor is fine, the lintel should be kept intact and the height of the door aligned with the other openings.  The façade of the addition is made up of far too much glass, and we ask that more masonry be incorporated into the design.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106726
Manhattan, Block: 1390, Lot: 132
57 East 75th Street – Upper East Side Historic District
A Brutalist style apartment building designed by William B. Gleckman and built in 1973-1979. Application is to modify window openings.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this application that would change the character of this very clearly designed Brutalist style apartment building.  While Brutalism may not be everyone’s cup of tea, it is a major architectural movement, one worthy of preservation.  The small windows in the center of the front façade are important design features in this 1970s structure and should not be altered.  If an application proposed changing the size and configuration of the windows on one of the adjacent buildings, the Commission would undoubtedly not approve it.  HDC urges the Commission to do the same in this case.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 104721
Manhattan, Block: 1906, Lot: 32
229 Lenox Avenue – Mount Morris Park Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style house designed by Clarence True and built in 1899. Application is to construct a rear addition and reconstruct the rear façade.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds the proposed rear addition and alterations to be rather featureless with its large, blank windows, expanses of brick and lack of details. This would not be such an issue but for the fact that the work will be completely visible.  While the Commission neither regulates nor considers use, it should be noted that many museums and galleries throughout the city have windows and use temporary walls on the interior as needed for exhibits.  We feel the previously approved rear addition and alterations are more appropriate for this Beaux-Arts style house by Clarence True, and we recommend that this earlier plan be followed instead.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 107055
Brooklyn, Block: 195, Lot: 39
150 Bond Street – Boerum Hill Historic District
An Italianate style residence built in 1866-67. Application is to install mechanical equipment at the roof, repaint the façades of the house, and reconstruct the façade of the garage.

HDC Testimony
HDC would like to thank the architect for contacting us and discussing the project at 150 Bond Street prior to its presentation here.

While there is a precedent for a lighter color scheme, we found the proposed to be rather drab.  In a district of primarily of exposed or red-painted brick, we feel the existing color is a better fit.

The applicant has tried to keep the mechanical equipment minimal, and it is particularly good that it is not seen over the primary façade.  However, on a small corner building, it is difficult to meet the usual standards of minimal visibility, and  the equipment would be seen from a good portion of Bergen Street.  HDC suggests that placement on top of the garage behind the parapet be considered.

As for the garage, rebuilding the structure lends an opportunity to create a façade that is more in keeping with the historic district.  The existing and proposed have a very solid, top heavy appearance with the large, blank expanse of brick over the doors.  Does the parapet have to be so tall? If the height needs to be kept, is there a more harmonious way to top off the structure?  If the size and massing of the garage is to be retained for historic reasons, then we recommend retaining the lintel from the original carriage door and considering more details inspired by the tax photo such as a transom window and doors that appear more like carriage doors but still function as those of a modern garage.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 106585
Manhattan, Block: 1211, Lot: 29
101 West 80th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style apartment building designed by Henry F. Cook and built in 1898. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
The Warwick Arms is a very striking Beaux-Arts style apartment building on the corner of West 80th Street and Columbus Avenue.  The proposed windows would cap over existing details, and HDC asks that a brick to brick installation be required.  Better yet, seeing that the wood frames are in good enough condition to support new metal windows, the existing windows themselves may be in good enough shape to be candidates for restoration.

LPC Determination: Approved

        

LPC Docket Number: 103866
Brooklyn, Block: 301, Lot: 29
274 Clinton Street – Cobble Hill Historic District
An Italianate style row house constructed in 1864-67. Application is to construct a rear deck, modify window openings and alter the areaway.

HDC Testimony
While we approve of alterations to the areaway, HDC finds the proposed deck to be lacking in details and, overall, a missed oportunity. The existing rear of 274 Clinton Street is not notable, but it would not be improved by this proposal.  This would not be too much of an issue if not for the fact that this façade is visible from the public way (or at least we assume so, based on the map and the fact that the application is not being handled at staff level; there were no site lines or photos presented.) Further details are needed on the deck to ensure that this does not just become clutter.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 105701
Brooklyn, Block: 1206, Lot: 50
1185 Dean Street – Crown Heights North Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by Jeremiah D. McAuliffe, and built c. 1892. Application is to legalize façade work, areaway alterations, and window replacement completed without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
As this is only the second application for a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Crown Heights North Historic District and the first legalization, its outcome will set the tone for future applications here and in further phases of the district not yet landmarked.

While pieces of this application may be found appropriate with some tweaking, there are a number of seemingly small alterations that when taken together have caused a major change to this rowhouse.  Overall, there is a sense of gilding the lilly – quite literally when considering painting details gold, something the Commission rejected this past November when it was proposed for a town house in the Chelsea Historic District.   Similarly, the large gold ornament on the front gate is not a harmonious addition to the rowhouse or the block.  Adding wood infill panels to the windows and doors has changed the proportions of these elements, and we understand from neighbors that important details such as stained glass windows may have been lost.

This is an unfortunate example of why applicants should call the LPC first before beginning alterations.  Working with staff could have saved much time, money and headaches.  Now is the time to belatedly work with staff to correct these problems.

LPC Determination: Denied

LPC Docket Number: 107889
Brooklyn, Block: 1117, Lot: 1
Maintenance Yard, Prospect Park West & 8th Street – Prospect Park, Scenic Landmark
A maintenance yard within a naturalistic park designed in 1865 by Frederick L. Olmsted and Calvert Vaux. Application is to construct two one-story maintenance buildings.

HDC Testimony
Seeing as these are purely utilitarian structures whose material and design do not begin to be compatible with other features of Prospect Park, HDC asks that more consideration go into the treatment of the fence.  Rather than rely only on a chainlink fence with a fabric screen, which as the photo of an existing example shows can become tattered and faded, HDC recommends planting ivy or other evergreens in front to ensure year-round camouflage.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 107515
Manhattan, Block: 483, Lot: 1
488-490 Broadway – Houghwout Building, Individual Landmark, SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
An Anglo-Italianate style store and loft building, designed by J.P. Gaynor and built in 1857. Application is to install signage.

HDC Testimony
While HDC appreciates the idea of drawing attention to the name of this individual landmark and important piece of the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District, there does not seem to be any historic precedent for such a sign in this spot.  Traditionally, signage does not stand on the ballustrade of mid-19th century buildings, but rather, as the historic photos show, on the facia.

Installation of the sign letters would require fastening or afixing them to the cast iron, and this brings up issues of upkeep of the historic material.  Back lighting is not appropriate for signage on this structure, and the introduction of shiny satin brass to a painted cast-iron façade feels incongrous.

As the commission does not regulate content of signage, consider for a moment that this was signage for the shop.  In its material and setting, it seems a rather modern intrusion that, if necessary, should be placed somewhere else.  The E.V. Houghwout Building would be better served by allowing its ballustrade and second floor to be free of excess signage and instead, if one is not already there, let a plaque recall the building’s name and its signifcant history to all who passes by.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 107188
Manhattan, Block: 875, Lot: 58
23 Gramercy Park South – Gramercy Park Historic District
A late Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1847. Application is to excavate the cellar and rear yard, construct a rear yard addition, alter the front façade and to install a chimney flue.

HDC Testimony
HDC finds most of the alterations to the front façade to be sympathetic, but we urge that the existing double doors be retained.

We also approve of the rear yard addition as it as not as long as others on the block and does not extend too deep into the garden.  The design, with its nice balance of brick to glazing and traditional design details, is harmonious with this Greek Revival style rowhouse.

Our main concern, as in similar cases, is the ammount of excavation proposed for this 1847 structure.  Nearly eight feet is to be excavated beneath the existing basement.  With all the other room in this building, it seems like an unecessary risk, and we ask that it not be taken.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 107623
Manhattan, Block: 1021, Lot: 19
1619 Broadway – Brill Building, Individual Landmark
An Art Deco style office building designed by Victor A. Bark, Jr., and built in 1930-31. Application is to install signage.

HDC Testimony
While HDC understands the history and nature of the Times Square area, adding such extensive signage that would obliterate much of the second and third floors of this exquisite Art Deco landmark, not to mention the intrusions created by the necessary framing and support system, feels like nothing short of vandalism.

We could see the appropriateness of installing larger billboards atop the structure, and it is perfectly reasonable to want to illuminate this important, recently desginated, building on Broadway.   HDC advises though to look into ways of doing so that will highlight, not obstruct, the details for which the Brill Building was landmarked.  Otherwise, there was little reason for designation.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 107276
Manhattan, Block: 1302, Lot: 64
12 East 78th Street – Metropolitan Museum Historic District
A neo-Italian Renaissance style rowhouse built in 1886-87. Application is to construct a rooftop addition and a rear yeard addition.

HDC Testimony
HDC feels a recollection of the basic form of this 1880’s rowhouse should be retained.  To do so, the rearyard addition should not stretch full height, and the rooftop addition should be set back from edge of the rear façade, both common modifications the commission regularly asks for.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 105379
Manhattan, Block: 1141, Lot: 44
130-132 West 70th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
Two neo-Grec/Queen Anne style rowhouses designed by Charles H. Lindsley and built in 1881-83. Application is to construct a roftop and rear yard addtions, reconstruct a stoop and alter the front areaways.

HDC Testimony
HDC supports the proposed alterations for the front areaways and the reconstruction of the stoop at 132 West 70th Street, but we do have concerns about other pieces of this application.

Rather than stretching across the two rowhouses in a continuous manner, the rooftop addition should be designed to recall the separate nature of the two structures.

We are also concerned about the massive interventions into fragile historic fabric needed to basically insert a new building within an 1880s rowhouse.  While interiors are not necessarily LPC’s purview, the safety and well-being of a landmarked building as well as its neighbors in an historic district are.  In this case, as in similar ones, HDC recommends forgoing any uneccessary alterations.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

        

LPC Docket Number: 091749
Queens, Block: 8017, Lot: 46
343 Knollwood Avenue – Douglaston Historic District
A cottage style house designed by G.A. Mezger and built in 1929. Application is to replace the windows.

HDC Testimony
The removal of four façades worth of original steel casement windows (including ones readily visible from the street) would set an unfortunate precedent here in the Douglaston Historic District.  The simple, but very charming cottage-style home relies on these windows for much of its design.  HDC recommends exploring the possibility of repairing them, and if not, then replicating them with the same number of lights and a recollection of a transom particularly those which are visible from the street.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106165
Queens, Block: 1475, Lot: 65
37-25 87th Street – Jackson Heights Historic District
An Anglo-American Garden Home style house designed by C. F. McAvoy and built in 1924. Application is to legalize alterations to the areaway and installation of a security gate without LPC permits.

HDC Testimony
The concrete parking pad is at odds with the famous garden style of Jackson Heights, and HDC asks that this application to legalize it not be approved.  We have seen this block a number of times over the past few years, and the sought-after legalizations have been repeatedly denied by the Commission.  While a master plan per se is not possible, we hope that something akin to that is used when rectifying the illegal work so that this group of 20 houses can regain its cohesivesness.

LPC Determination: Denied

LPC Docket Number: 107358
Brooklyn, Block: 267, Lot: 10
47 Sidney Place – Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1846. Application is to replace windows.

HDC Testimony
We would like to note for the record that just two weeks ago, applicants for a LEED-certified project in the Clinton Hill Historic District were told by the commissioners that the proposed photovoltaic panels on the roof were too visible, changing the building’s character.  Here we have another item that will change the character of a quintissential Brooklyn Heights Rowhouse.  It is not a leap to assume that thse windows will be opened in nice weather – what’s “greener” than an operable window after all? – and their manner of operation will create a rather alien look in this old house. There are plenty of better alternatives which will not be as jarring. Like in so many other instances, here is a case where a balance between new ideas in environmentalism and often inherently environmental historic design needs to be found.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 106446
Brooklyn, Block: 149, Lot: 75
9  Dekalb Avenue – Dime Saving Bank, Individual & Interior Landmark
A neo-Classical style bank building and banking hall built in 1906-1908 and enlarged and altered in 1931-1932. Application is to install a barrier-free access lift in the designated interior.

HDC Testimony
This proposal is a nice solution to the challenge of making a landmarked interior accessible to all.  (It is also refreshing to see an historic banking hall used as a banking hall.)  HDC would like to ask though that anything that can be done to minimize drilling into the marble floor, be done, and that a different color rail that would blend in more be considered.

LPC Determination: Approved

LPC Docket Number: 099318
Manhattan, Block: 136, Lot: 19
126 Chambers Street – Tribeca South Historic District Extension Historic District
An Italianate Style store and loft building built c. 1857. Application is to install new storefront infill and signage.

HDC Testimony
In general, this is a nice proposal that will be quite an improvement for 126 Chambers Street.  HDC does have a few concerns though.  As the commission has required of other applicants in the past, the storefront should be painted, not stained.  Corinthian capitals are seen in the historic photo, and we recommend recreating and reinstalling them for a more finished look.  As for the signage, we do not feel a back-lit sign is appropriate at this location and the sign should not be attached by drilling into the cornice.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 104619
Manhattan, Block: 497, Lot: 15
558 Broadway – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A commercial building built in 1860 and altered in 1920. Application is to alter the façade.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this application as it would obliterate a charming piece of SoHo from the 1920’s.  The proposed is no trade-off for the intricate brick work and very considered, symmetrical design that would be lost.  The existing, with its large display windows, performs the duty of a storefront very well, and there is absolutely no reason to destroy it.  We recommend denial of this application.

LPC Determination: Denied

LPC Docket Number: 107604
Manhattan, Block: 529, Lot: 29
41-43 Bond Street – NoHo Historic District Extension
A vacant lot with a building under construction. Application is to amend C of A 09-6382 (LPC 09-3588) for the construction of a new building.

HDC Testimony
To begin with, HDC would like to thank the applicant for taking the time early in the process to meet with our executive director and explain the project.

HDC was not a particular fan of the prior approval, which was deemed by one commissioner as too residential, but we find this proposal to be even less appropriate for the NoHo Historic District Extension.  While the removal of the shutters, which resembled fire shutters that are found on secondary, not primary, façades in the district, is welcomed, the removal of divided lights in the windows is not.  The divisions would give some detail to the large, otherwise fairly blank façade.   The removal of canopy is also good as it was not characteristic of this district, but now the weakness of the plain base is revealed.  A more clearly defined and delineated base is needed here. We do not see how the proposed bears any relation, other than as opposition, to the examples of other buildings in the district with rich terra cotta, brick, and stone detailings.

HDC does not find bluestone to be an appropriate wall finish.  When one thinks bluestone in New York City, one thinks of sidewalks, not walls, horizontal, not vertical surfaces.  In March, the commission asked that an application for a rooftop addition on a contemporary building in SoHo be modified to exclude the proposed bluestone.  If it is not appropriate for a rooftop addition, bluestone is certainly not appropriate for an entire façade of a 7-story building.  It is important to point out that the example of a building using the material is on a smaller building.  Seven stories is a great deal of space to cover, and at that scale, this proposal, with the lack of details already noted, ends up feeling like a plain apartment building, not a contextual addition to the NoHo Historic District Extension.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 105459
Manhattan, Block: 615, Lot: 83
239 West 12th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1843. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.

HDC Testimony
There is not much to say about this proposal that isn’t already expressed in the photos of the mock up and the renderings.  The addition is too visible on this small Greek Revival house, and HDC asks that it be reduced.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106064
Manhattan, Block: 615, Lot: 81
103 Greenwich Avenue – Greenwich Village Historic District
A neo-Georgian style apartment house with stores on the ground floor, designed by Bernstein & Berstien in 1906-07. Application is to replace storefront infill.

HDC Testimony
HDC is strongly opposed to the removal of this  high-quality, Art Moderne storefront that has changed little since its appearance in the 1930’s tax photo.  Had the designation report for the Greenwich Village Historic District been written today and not 40 years ago, the storefront would no doubt be called out as a significant historic alteration, one that very thoughtfully took into consideration the building’s proportions and curved corner.  Like the earlier proposal in SoHo, the proposed destruction of this storefront is not needed.  The plans show that the space will still have just a single tenant and there are no changes in the location of doorways.  HDC recommends that another look be taken at and more consideration given to this distinctive 1930’s storefront.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106732
Manhattan, Block: 720, Lot: 82
470West 23rd Street – Chelsea Historic District Extension

An Italianate style rowhouse built in 1857 and altered in 1885 and 1927. Application is to modify existing sidewalk cafe and install signage.

HDC Testimony
HDC is opposed to this proposal as its design seems to have little to with the historic district.  We were not sure from where the inspiration was coming – it is neither industrial, nor rowhouse residential.  We are glad to hear that a dark finish is now being proposed for the double-hung aluminum windows, but they still bring to mind a trailer home.  The very horizontal proportions neither work on this floor nor have any resemblance to those above or around it.  We also question the use of corten steel which is certain to rust and stain.   HDC recommends keeping the existing storefront and reconsidering the proposed signage.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

LPC Docket Number: 106379
Manhattan, Block: 1497, Lot: 71
1048 Fifth Avenue – Metropolitan Museum Historic District
A French Classic style mansion designed by Carrere & Hastings and built in 1912-14. Application is to install a flagpole and banner.

HDC Testimony
HDC recommends looking into other forms of signage before approving this flagpole and banner, as in general, such additions are not welcomed ones to historic façades.

If a flagpole must be added here, more thought should be put into its placement.  Firstly, it should be secured into the mortar and not the brick as the presentation boards indicate.  The pole’s location should be lined up better with the two bands of string coursing, a prominent detail at the corner, placing it either in the center of the two or just above or below.  Finally, a material other than alumninum, or at the very least a dark color, should be used on this Fifth Avenue mansion.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications

LPC Docket Number: 107446
Manhattan, Block: 1897, Lot: 19
Riverside Park, West 102nd Street – Scenic Landmark
A comfort station and recreation building designed by Clinton Lloyd and built in 1937, w/in an English Romantic style park and parkway, built in 1873-1902 and designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, with modifications and additions built in 1934-37 and designed by Clifton Llyod and Gilmore Clarke. Application is to replace masonry infill and construct barrier free access ramps.

HDC Testimony
While the proposed is full of good intentions, there is much to be considered before any decisions can be made.

Reopening the façade of the park building is welcomed, but not if it will only be re-enclosed with what appears to be a generic storefront and roll down gates.  The clunky infill bears no apparent relation to the structure, no consideration is given to the building’s primary feature, the arches.   Terra cotta screens, both decorative and practical, are not to be reinstalled, but instead plain window grilles are proposed.  Light aluminum does not feel like a sympathetic material for this structure or Scenic Landmarks in general.  If no other solution is possible right now, HDC is tempted to say, just leave the façade be.

The barrier-free access ramp is a tight squeeze, both for the existing tree and the users of the ramp, and we question its practicality.  Last year there was a proposal for a ramp to the public restrooms of a concessions building in Fort Tryon Park.  In that case, the ramp was situated within the arcade, a discreet, practical, and appropriate solution.

Updating and adapting a seemingly simple public building is not necessarily a simple task.   Examples of successful projects, such as the one at Fort Tryon Park, should be looked to for inspiration.

LPC Determination: Approved with modificationss

LPC Docket Number: 107525
Manhattan, Block: 1897, Lot: 19
River Side Park, West 122nd Street  – Scenic Landmark
An English Romantic-style park and parkway, built in 1873-1902 and designed by Frederick L. Olmsted, with modifications and additions designed by Clifton Llyod and Gilmore Clarke. Application is to create a pathway.

HDC Testimony
The addition of an ADA accessible pathway is welcomed here at Riverside Park and creating one in this park’s steep terrain is no easy feat.  HDC would like to see something though with a more finished look, possibly with a curb and in a material other than asphalt, a design more in keeping with a landmarked park by Frderick L. Olmsted.

LPC Determination: Approved