February 10, 2004

Statement of the Historic Districts Council before the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Certificate of Appropriateness Hearing

The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed these applications that were before the Commission.

 

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 044073
Manhattan, Block: 210, Lot: 19
302 Canal Street - TriBeCa East Historic District
An Italianate style store and loft building, designed by Trench & Snook and built in 1851-52. Application is to legalize the removal of storefront infill, the replacement of windows on the third, fourth and fifth floors, and the installation of two roll-down security gates, tracks and housing without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits, and to install a new awning.

HDC Testimony
As always, the Historic Districts Council asks the Landmarks Preservation Commission to only legalize those changes to buildings that they would have approved had the applicant sought proper permits before commencing work. In this instance, the new windows are absolutely inappropriate for this 1851 Italianate style store and loft building in TriBeCa. The designation report for the TriBeCa East Historic District points out that the building’s façade “displays its Italianate character in the fenestration pattern…and some of the historic paired windows with two-over-two wood sash survive.” We ask the Commission to deny the legalization of the windows and require the applicant restore the historic window configuration and pattern as is called out in the designation report.

Regarding the storefronts, HDC believes that this application reinforces what is wrong with Canal Street and illustrates the need for more public outreach to building and business owners in historic districts. The designation report indicates that the building’s cast iron storefront was manufactured by Daniel D. Badger’s Architectural Iron Works. Although the report notes that the cast iron was obscured at the time of designation, we assume that at least portions of the cast iron survived until the recent illegal renovations. We deeply regret the loss of this extremely significant cast iron work. We hope that the applicant can work with the staff to improve the look of the current illegal storefront, hopefully by using historic photographs or by looking at the existing historic cast iron features remaining on the building’s twin at 300 Canal Street. Moreover, we hope that the applicant will consider installing an interior security gate and a retractable awning.

LPC Determination: Denied.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 042803
Manhattan, Block: 612, Lot: 7503
259 West 4th Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
An apartment building designed by Bernstein & Bernstein, and built in 1905. Application is to legalize the installation of storefront infill without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits, to amend the design of a previously approved areaway railing, and to install awnings.

HDC Testimony
As we have stated many times, the Historic Districts Council vehemently objects to work down without the permission of the Landmarks Preservation Commission. HDC believes that the storefront that was installed without permits is inappropriate for an early 20th century building in the Greenwich Village Historic District. We regret that the applicant did not provide a historic photograph with the presentation boards. Such a photograph would help inform a better design for the new storefront. In the current design, HDC objects to the solid transom, as a glass transom would be more historically accurate as well as provide for a more pleasant interior. In addition, we believe that the bulkhead is too large and that the proportions of the previous storefront were much preferable to those that exist on the illegal storefront today. Moreover, HDC objects to the varnished wood. We question whether the wood is to be painted, as the boards were unclear.

It is HDC’s understanding that under the regulations for sidewalk cafes, permanent fence structures are not permitted. We therefore object to the proposed areaway railing, as it will only serve to obstruct the sidewalk at the expense of the pedestrians in Greenwich Village.

LPC Determination: No Action.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043540
Manhattan, Block: 624, Lot: 55
55 Bank Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1842. Application is to demolish an existing rear addition and to construct a new five-story rear addition.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council urges the Commission to reject this proposal for a new five-story rear yard addition atop a three-and-a-half story Greek Revival rowhouse. We recognize that the new addition is not encroaching on the building’s rear yard any more than the existing addition and is not visible from Bank Street. Nonetheless, we question whether the new addition will be visible from the alley on West 4th Street, as the boards did not indicate sight lines from this locale. Moreover we express grave concern that the proposed addition is too large for such a modest building.

What the Historic Districts Council finds most objectionable about the project is that the new addition would completely obliterate the back slope of the building’s roof. Low-sloping, pitched roofs hidden behind the parapet are a signature feature of the Greek Revival rowhouse style. In fact, in his famous book, Bricks and Brownstone, Charles Lockwood writes, “Despite appearances to the contrary, the Greek Revival row house had a slightly pitched or backward sloping roof.” Lockwood indicates that the low-pitched roofs behind the parapet were seen as a more elegant and tasteful alternative to the Federal style’s high-pitch roofs with large dormer windows.

Over the years New York’s stock of Greek Revival rowhouses has been altered, so that many of the former attic spaces have been expanded and the sloping roof-lines have disappeared. 55 Bank Street is fortunate to still retain its sloping roofline, but this proposal, if approved, would entirely eradicate this significant feature of the 1842 building. In place of the formerly-sloping roof would be a large, awkward, boxy addition that would overwhelm this 162-year old building. HDC strongly maintains that the line that forms when the back slope of the roof meets the building wall is extremely important to the building’s character and must be preserved. Likewise, the two window openings on the top floor of the rear façade should also be preserved, as they appear to be the original openings. This rowhouse already has a quite large rear yard addition in relation to the building size, and we feel that any larger of an addition would denigrate the significance of the rowhouse.

LPC Determination: Approved with modifications.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 042457
Manhattan, Block: 1387, Lot: 36
760 Park Avenue - Upper East Side Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building built in 1923-24 designed by W.L. Rouse and L.A. Goldstone. Application is to replace windows on the ninth floor.

HDC Testimony
HDC is pleased that the applicant is proposing to replace in kind the multi-pane wooden windows on the primary façade of this neo-Renaissance style apartment building. However, we cannot support the proposed tilt-n-turn single-paned windows on the secondary façades. Although the building’s original architects did not articulate this building’s secondary façades, the western-facing façade, in particular, is nonetheless quite visible from the public thoroughfare. Moreover, the fenestration pattern of this western-facing façade is remarkably intact. The introduction of tilt-n-turn, single pane windows on this highly visible façade would completely disrupt the courtyard façade’s continuity. We therefore ask the Commission to deny the single-pane windows on the 9th floor of 760 Park Avenue.

LPC Determination: Denied.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 043489
Manhattan, Block: 1503, Lot: 31
1140-1144 Park Avenue - Carnegie Hill Historic District
A neo-Georgian style church designed by York and Sawyer and constructed in 1938-40. Application is to install a ramp and to modify railings at the East 91st Street entrance.

HDC Testimony
The presentation boards for this project explicated quite well the proposal for a handicap access ramp and were a pleasure to review. The Historic Districts Council commends the applicant for designing a very discrete, very elegant limestone handicap access ramp. We are pleased that the ramp will be built on 91st Street facade, not on the church’s primary façade on Park Avenue, and that the ramp will not disturb the church’s stair. The modifications to church railings are entirely appropriate, and overall, the proposal is a modest solution to a very daunting problem. Although not a part of the application, the presentation boards indicate that the applicant has found an original drawing for a light fixture designed by York and Sawyer and is planning to recreate this detail. We are quite pleased that the Church is going to such lengths to protect, and even enhance, the architectural integrity of this neo-Georgian church.

The one question that HDC had when reviewing these boards was how transition between the base of the pilaster and the top step will interface when the work is complete. Currently the steps form a visual foundation for the pilaster base, and we ask how the base will appear with the introduction of the ramp slope.

LPC Determination: Approved.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2004
LPC Docket Number: 042902
Queens, Block: 1475, Lot: 1
87-02 - 87-10 37th Avenue - Jackson Heights Historic District
A Moderne style apartment building built in 1952-53 designed by Julius Fishkin. Application is to legalize the installation of metal plates over the parapets and to modify a fence installed without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council believes that the proposed new fence is dramatic improvement over the existing fence, which was installed without permits. The proposed new fence is only 26 inches high, as compared with the 50 inch-high fence currently in place. We are pleased that the applicant has agreed to work with Jeffrey Saunders, an HDC adviser, a member of our Public Review Committee and a former member of our Board of Directors, in designing a new fence for this Moderne style apartment building.

That said, HDC cannot support the legalization of the metal plates installed on top of the building’s parapet. We note that the Landmarks Preservation Commission would have never allowed such an intrusion had the applicant come to the Commission before installing the plates. We therefore ask the Commission to deny the request for legalization and to work with the applicant to remove the plates and restore the parapet to its state at the time of designation.

LPC Determination: Approved the fence, Denied the legalization of the metal plates on the parapet wall.

 

 

Return to Testimony Archives