January 13, 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: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043530
Manhattan, Block: 122, Lot: 1
City Hall Park - Individual Landmark Historic District
A park designed in 1870 and 1935, surrounding a Federal style government building design by Mangin and McComb and built between 1802 and 1811. Application is to install a statue of Mayor Abraham de Peyster in the northeast corner of the park.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council does not object to the relocation of the Mayor Abraham de Peyster statue to City Hall Park, especially since the statue has only been in Hanover Square since 1976. However, we question why the Parks Department is not including the block of rough-cut stone with the rest of the base of the statue. This base appears to be original to the statue, and we ask for clarification.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 040224
Manhattan, Block: 232, Lot: 4
442 Broadway - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A store building designed by W.P. Anderson and built in 1876. Application is to modify alterations to storefront infill and to legalize the installation of a exterior security gate without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits and to install an awning.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council vehemently objects to the exterior roll down security gate. Exterior roll down gates are inappropriate for New York’s historic districts, as they conceal the storefront details and create an unfriendly environment. We ask the Commission to deny the exterior security gate and require that any security gate be an open mesh gate, installed inside the storefront. An interior gate would allow the proposed fixed awning to be retractable, which would also greatly improve the storefront design.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Numbers: 043407, 043408, 043409, 043163
Manhattan, Block: 642, Lot: 45, 46, 47, 48
82-88 Horatio Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
An apartment building designed by John H. Selzam and built in 1878. Application is to install a garbage can enclosure.

HDC Testimony
While we sympathize with the problems associated with garbage collection in Manhattan apartment buildings, we feel that the proposed trashcan enclosures are too dominant in the Horatio Street streetscape. These four apartment buildings are an intimate set, with small stoops. The introduction of such large garbage enclosures, extending from stoop to stoop, in front of these buildings overwhelms them and dominates the pedestrian’s view as he/she walks down Horatio Street. Moreover, the sidewalk in front of these buildings is already crowded with planters placed in between the trees, and the garbage can enclosures will only add more clutter to the street.

We ask the applicant to reduce the number of garbage can enclosures in order to mitigate their effect on the city sidewalk. In addition, we ask that the enclosures be reduced in depth. Currently, they are 40” deep. However, most garbage cans are 22” to 26” in diameter. We suggest that the enclosures should be a maximum of 32”, which should allow plenty of room for the garbage cans while restoring some sidewalk space to the pedestrian. Lastly, HDC’s Public Review Committee was unclear about the color proposed for the enclosures. We would prefer a darker color.

LPC Determination: Denied

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043001
Manhattan, Block: 1119, Lot: 50
50 West 67 Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building built in 1916-17 designed by Shape and Brady. Application is to replace the arch-headed windows.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council stands firm in its belief that historic wooden windows should only be replaced when they are deteriorated beyond repair. The existing multi-paned, wooden windows are an essential characteristic of this neo-Renaissance style apartment building. In this instance, the eight windows that are to be replaced appear to be in good condition and could be easily repaired if they present any problems. We object strongly to the introduction of aluminum windows in the building’s façade, as they are unnecessary and are incompatible with this historic district.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043290
Manhattan, Block: 1387, Lot: 1
910 Fifth Avenue - Upper East Side Historic District
An apartment building constructed in 1919 and altered in 1958-59. Application is to construct two greenhouses and to legalize the removal of sections of a wall on the 14th floor without Landmarks Preservation commission permits.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council strongly objects to this application. This design, if approved, would clearly become a model for other future changes to the many remaining unaltered terraces on this building and on other similar post-war buildings throughout New York City’s historic districts. We feel that these terraces should be kept open as they were built as part of an FAR package and were not meant to be residential space. They are thus integral to the original design of a building and should not be altered.

Moreover, the present proposal completely removes 50 feet of the original brick on a designated façade and introduces a sloped roof element with no correlation to the historic design type originally designated. We find the detailing for the glasshouses clumsy, and we believe that the new structure will become overly dominant on this historic façade, which is highly visible from both Central Park and East 72nd Street.

In sum and at its core, this proposal effectively advocates the removal of 50 feet of wall and replaces it in kind with ribbon windows on a primary façade. We find this unacceptable.

LPC Determination: Approved

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 035314
Manhattan, Block: 1445, Lot: 63
34-11 84th Street - Jackson Heights Historic District
An Anglo-American Garden Home style semi-detached house built in 1927 designed by Robert Tappan. Application is to legalize the installation of a garden wall, stair railing, door gate, and windows without Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.

HDC Testimony
The Historic Districts Council objects to this application to legalize the many changes the applicant has made without getting Landmarks Preservation Commission permits. We ask the LPC to consider whether they would have approved the new garden wall, stair railing, door gate, and windows had the applicant come to the Commission before making these changes. The LPC must hold all applicants to the same level of appropriateness as others, even if the work has already been done.

In this instance, the Commission would have never permitted a garden wall like the one that was constructed. The wall is composed of a pinkish brick with poor mortar-work that does not match the building’s dark brownish brick and elegant mortar-work. Moreover, walls and fences are inappropriate in a garden suburb such as Jackson Heights. Jackson Heights is a planned garden city in which front yards are meant to visually meet the sidewalk in such a way that the passerby has a sense of a public view of private space. In this location, the introduction of a garden wall has ruined the architect’s intent for an up-sloping lawn. This building’s upsweeping lawn, in combination with the other up-sweeping lawns on the block, was intended to visually mitigate the narrowness of the buildings. HDC asks the Commission to require the applicant to remove this wall, restore the slope of the lawn, and design an appropriate curb with no fence on top of it to line the driveway.

In addition, the white metal stair railings and door gate bear no relation in either color or detail to the designated façade. The door gate is particularly regrettable, as it conceals the wonderful original wooden doors. We ask that these elements be promptly removed. Lastly, we object to the legalization of the new windows and ask the applicant to restore the wooden windows the wooden windows that were removed.

LPC Determination: Mixed. Wall approved, windows and fence denied.

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 042557
Manhattan, Block: 1267, Lot: 22
75 Rockefeller Center – Rockefeller Center Individual Landmark
An Art-Deco style commercial office and entertainment complex designed by the Robert Carson and Earl Lundin and built in 1946. Application is to install new storefront infill and legalize signage installed with Landmarks Preservation Commission permits.

HDC Testimony
75 Rockefeller Plaza is an extremely prominent building as one looks north along Rockefeller Plaza, and this view allows the building’s carefully designed symmetry to be discerned from both near and afar. Any application for new storefront infill in this building must therefore protect the existing relationship the storefront has to the central building entrance and to the other storefront.

HDC thus strongly objects to the removal of the revolving doors in this proposed storefront. Revolving doors are an essential characteristic of Rockefeller Center’s entrances. Moreover, in this instance, the revolving doors of the bank contribute to the symmetry of the facade. Currently, there are five revolving doors on the ground floor, arranged symmetrically in a 1-3-1 pattern. By removing the bank’s revolving doors, this wonderful pattern is ruined.

We assume that the applicant wants hinged doors to allow off-hour access to the interior ATM with an ATM card and perhaps also for handicap access. We ask the Commission to work with the applicant to develop another solution for ATM and handicap access that allows the revolving doors to be retained. HDC notes that there are currently two entrances to the bank through the building lobby that appear to allow for handicap access. Although the lobby to the building is not open 24 hours, it is open from 7am to midnight, and thus allows for access 17 hours a day.

While the existing signage, installed without a permit, could be appropriate in another historic district, it is not appropriate for this designated building in Rockefeller Center. The photo of the building from Barbaralee Diamonstein’s The Landmarks of New York shows that at the time of designation, the signage for the storefront was located in the sign band above the storefront. (I am submitting the picture with the testimony.) Indeed, placing signage in a sign band is Rockefeller Center’s signature way of dealing with storefront signage.
We ask that the signage on the storefront glass be removed and inserted instead on the sign band. We would not object to discrete lettering placed on leaves of the revolving doors if the applicants felt that they required more signage.

LPC Determination: Incomplete

Hearing Date: 1/13/2004
LPC Docket Number: 042003
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 legalize the removal of a balcony on the 11th floor 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. The owners of 105 West 72nd Street did not have permission to remove the terra cotta balcony when they were doing façade restoration work in the early 1990’s. The Landmarks Preservation Commission did not permit them to remove the balcony then, and therefore should not legalize the work now. If the Commission were to legalize the stripping of the wonderful terra cotta balcony from this George and Edward Blum building, it would be rewarding these applicants who flouted the Landmarks Law with a lower standard of review. The Landmarks Law should be applied evenly to all applicants.

In this case, the terra cotta balcony with the wonderful small window openings was an integral part of this building. In their book on George and Edward Blum, Susan Tunick and Andrew Dolkart write, “Unlike other apartment house architects in New York, the Blums did not generally purchase stock terra-cotta designs in catalogues; rather, they commissioned pieces with a distinctive aesthetic.” Without a doubt, this balcony was a unique design that added a distinctive character to this 1913 building. We urge the Commission to deny the application for legalization and require the applicant to replicate the wonderful terra cotta balcony.

LPC Determination: Denied

 

Return to Testimony Archives