December 2, 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: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042727
Manhattan, Block: 189, Lot: 7502
110 Hudson Street - TriBeCa West Historic District
A Beaux-Arts syle office building built in 1902-04 and designed by George Howard Chamberlin. Application is to install a metal canopy.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council applauds the applicant for removing the existing awning over the central doorway and revealing the glass in the doorway arch. However, we find the proposed metal canopy to be inappropriate for this building and the TriBeCa West Historic District. The canopy is unnecessary and only serves to inundate the district with excess signage. The canopy is merely advertising the bank’s 24-hour ATM machine, which is already advertised in the window sign. The applicant is running amuck with signage, and we urge the Commission to deny the application for the canopy.

LPC Determination: No action.

Hearing Date: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041579
Manhattan, Block: 828, Lot: 17
25 West 26th Street - Madison Square North Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style building designed by Charles G. Jones and constructed in 1886-87. Application is to install new storefront infill.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council is always pleased to see a splendid application like this one that understands how a landmarked building should be treated. We are even more pleased when it is an HDC adviser who is proposing such a wonderful restoration project. The proposal’s restoration of cast iron and the choice of paint color are especially commendable. The Historic Districts Council thanks Mr. Lombardi for his proposal and urges the LPC to approve the application.

LPC Determination: No action.

Hearing Date: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042597
Manhattan, Block: 1264, Lot: 1101
30 Rockefeller Plaza, 600 Fifth Avenue - Rockefeller Center/Manufacturers Hanover Trust Individual Landmark
An Art-Deco style commercial, office and entertainment complex designed by the Associated Architects and built in 1931-33, and a 28-story tower designed by Carson and Lundin and built in 1950-52. Application is to install new storefront infill and signage, and to modify railings and bulkheads and install glass panels at the terraces at the 67th, 69th and 70th floors.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council thinks it is fabulous that Rockefeller Center is re-opening the historic observation deck atop 30 Rockefeller Plaza. We commend the applicants for restoring this area back to its original use. That said, we take issue with certain aspects of the proposal and hope that the Commission will work with Rockefeller Center to lessen its impact this individual landmarks and its historic surrounding.

First, HDC supports the re-use of the railings on the observation deck. However, we fear that the proposed nine-feet high glass panels to be installed behind these railing will reflect sunlight in an odd manner, thus making them too visible from the street. We ask the Commission to ensure that this will not be in the case. In addition, although we are in the business of protecting buildings, we do occasionally have concerns about wildlife. HDC asks that the applicant minimize the risk of these tall glass panels to migratory birds.

Regarding the new storefront infill, HDC found the materials we reviewed to be confusing. The drawings we reviewed stated that the storefront and door will be glass and bronze to match existing. However, the computer rendering illustrated a storefront in a light gray color, as if it were constructed of aluminum or brushed steel. We assume that the rendering is ill-drawn and that the storefront will indeed be made of bronze.

HDC also questions the design of the new signage on the marquee. Overall, the addition of the “Observation Room” lettering on the marquee sides creates a marquee that is entirely too cluttered. The excess of lettering on the sides of the marquee results in the loss of the visibility of the marquee’s fins, which are a defining element of the Art Deco style. The marquee signage is covering up the architecture of this design element, which is unacceptable. In particular, we believe that the blue color of the proposed new signage clashes with the existing red signage and makes the marquee look too busy. On the sides of the marquee, we suggest that the signage be reduced in size so that it all fits on one line and that it be articulated in a color much more compatible with the existing red signs. We do not object to the sign on the front of the marquee, but do ask that it too be red.

Finally, HDC does not object to the design of the proposed sign kiosks, as they replicate the historic kiosks that were used to advertise the observation deck. However, we believe that 10 kiosks are excessive. Indeed there are six kiosks on Sixth Avenue alone. Moreover, the kiosk in front of the entrance to the channel gardens is completely inappropriate, as it blocks the grand view of the gardens down to the skating rink. We ask that these kiosks be removed. Lastly, HDC seeks assurance that advertising will not be placed in these kiosks.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 042534
Brooklyn, Block: 1102, Lot: 12
1402 8th Avenue - Fourteenth Regiment Armory Individual Landmark
A castellated style armory building built in 1891-95 designed by William A. Mundell. Application is to create two new entrances on the north and south elevations.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council objects to the two new entrances proposed for the north and south elevations of this late-nineteenth century armory. We question whether this is the only solution to provide adequate egress, and believe that the problem can be resolved without having to cut into the building’s historic fabric. It appears as if the armory currently has many existing door openings that are not in use and are not well-maintained. We question why the applicant could not use these doors instead of destroying the building’s wonderful brick.

New York City’s armory buildings like this one were designed to give the impression of a sturdy, impenetrable fortress. Indeed the choice of the Romanesque style for the Fourteenth Regiment Armory was intended to highlight the massiveness and strength of the building. By cutting into the building’s immense stone walls, the applicant is whittling away at the armory’s design intention. Moreover, the armory’s primary means of detailing is its wonderful and distinctive rounded bricks. Where the proposal plans to insert the new doorways, the bricks are stepped ever so slightly so as to create a slope, which further adds to the fortress-like character of the armory. The new door openings will cut into the rounded bricks, creating an unfortunate void.

If the Commission makes the unfortunate decision to approve the new openings, we ask that it work with the applicant in designing more elaborate doors for the armory. The design of the new doors is entirely too simple and basic for the building. Likewise, the door openings do not relate to the existing door openings and should be redesigned. Lastly, if any brick is removed in the alterations, we ask that it be salvaged and reused.

LPC Determination: No action.

Hearing Date: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041595
Brooklyn, Block: 1059, Lot: 24
210 St. John's Place - Park Slope Historic District
A neo-Grec style rowhouse built in 1882. Application is to legalize painting the façade without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.

HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to the legalization of inappropriate work done without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits. In this instance, the Landmarks Commission would have never permitted the applicant to paint the brownstone on 210 St. John’s Place had the applicant come sought permission before doing the work. As the Commission knows, painting stone, especially brownstone, promotes spalling and the general deterioration of the building material. Paint traps moisture into the stone, which can be disastrous for brownstone after several freeze-thaw cycles.

If the Commission were to legalize the painting of this brownstone rowhouse, it would be holding this applicant to a lower standard than is normally expected of owners of landmarked buildings. We therefore urge the Commission to deny this application for legalization and require the applicant to remove the paint and repair the brownstone.

LPC Determination: No action.

Hearing Date: 12/2/2003
LPC Docket Number: 041974
Staten Island, Block: 898, Lot: 1,4,180
285 Flagg Place - Individual Landmark Historic District
A stone clad cottage designed by Ernest Flagg and built in 1918-21. Application is to legalize the removal of the stone retaining wall and a stone arch, the garage doors, and trellis work without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits, and to install stone cladding on new concrete retaining walls and new garage doors, and to paint the concrete tile roof.

HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council objects to the legalization of inappropriate work done without permission from the Landmarks Preservation Commission. In this instance, the owners of this individual landmark flouted the Landmarks Law and now hope to be held to a lower standard of review. The Commission must uphold the integrity of the Landmarks Law and deny any application for legalization that would not have been approved if the applicant had come to the Commission before doing the work.

First, HDC regrets that the applicant removed the original stone retaining wall and is proposing to replace it with a concrete wall with stone facing. The original stone retaining wall had a depth and character that cannot be replicated with cultured stone finish. While HDC is pleased that the applicant is planning to rebuild the stone arch that formerly flanked the house’s eastern elevation, we ask that the arch and the stone wall be rebuilt with stone to replicate what was illegally removed. If the Commission does allow the wall to be concrete with stone facing, we ask that they monitor the wall carefully to ensure that the facing remains in good repair and does not become detached.

Moreover, HDC objects to the hedging surrounding the house, which is entirely too dense and too high. As designed, the hedges are being extended to hide the individual landmark. Ernest Flagg designed this Todt Hill Cottage to be open to the road, not obscured through large shrubbery. The original hedge gave a sense of privacy to the immediate house, but allowed a view of the entire lot from afar. As an individual landmark, this house deserves to be visible. We ask that the applicant plant a hedge that can be clipped and that has a lower growing habit so that open quality of the house can be retained.

Lastly, HDC does not object in theory to changing the garage entrance into an entryway to the house. However, we firmly believe that the design of the entryway must read as a former garage. The current design that is to be legalized in no way relates to Flagg’s garage door. We ask that the Commission deny the application for the legalization of the entryway and work with the applicant to develop a modified garage door design. In addition, we urge the Commission to require the applicant to restore the wooden lattice work that served as an overhang for the garage doors.

LPC Determination: No action

 

Return to Testimony Archives