January 27, 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: 1/27/2004
LPC Docket Number: 042925
Manhattan, Block: 474, Lot: 12
453 Broome Street - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A store building designed by Griffith Thomas and built in 1872-73.
Application is to legalize the installation of flagpoles and bracket
signs without Landmark Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
HDC objects to work done without the permission of the Landmarks
Preservation Commission. When the Commission legalizes inappropriate
proposals like the one before us today, it in essence rewards
buildings owners who purposefully flout the Landmarks Law
We believe that the applicant’s request
to legalize the two flagpoles at the second-floor windows should
be denied. While we do not generally approve of the placement
of signage-bearing flagpoles in this historic district, we believe
that these two examples are especially inappropriate. Their projection
from the center of their respective window openings, rather than
from the jamb, sill, or pier, reduces the sense of the poles’
being supported by the building’s structural elements, as
is more typical of flagpoles approved by the Commission.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 1/27/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043838
Manhattan, Block: 634, Lot: 56
769 Greenwich Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1839. Application is to
rebuild the previously altered rear extension, and to install
a new recessed entrance on Greenwich Street.
HDC Testimony
HDC is extremely concerned that several elements of this proposal
will destroy the material integrity and historic character of
this early corner house – a house that retains striking
visual clues that inform us about rowhouse development and evolving
architectural taste in 19th-century Greenwich Village.
The proposal calls for the demolition of the entire
rear el and over half of the building’s historic masonry
walls. We believe that the rear extension is likely to be an original
or very early feature as it appears on an 1854 map in its current
configuration and retains areas of Flemish-bond brick similar
to the earliest masonry found on the main body of the house. While
some intervention at the door and window openings of the rear
structure may be appropriate, HDC believes that it is critical
that this portion of the house be retained in its entirety. We
are hesitant to comment on the proposed design for the new rear
addition, and do so only in case the Commission entertains the
demolition of the historic el. We believe the proposed design
is not only inappropriate to the 1839 rowhouse in question, but
also to the handsome modern infill house to its south. The design
and material palette would call undue attention to what is truly
a “back-of-house” addition. The tall, block elevator
bulkhead will be visible from the street and is totally out-of-keeping
with the low-rise, residential character of this part of the Village.
Additionally, its construction will lead to the demolition of
a large portion of the historic masonry at the rear façade.
The proposal also calls for the demolition of
over half of the Greenwich Street façade and 100% of the
building’s rear wall. It is claimed that the Greenwich Street
facade is structurally unstable and must therefore be rebuilt.
No such claim is even put forward for the rear wall – parts
of which are visible from the street. We agree that any dangerous
structural conditions must be addressed, but believe that this
can be done using any of a variety of engineering techniques that
can preserve and stabilize the historic masonry in situ. HDC is
extremely skeptical of this proposal’s no-doubt well-intended
claim that the wall will be rebuilt with salvaged historic brick.
Experience indicates that this time-consuming and expensive process
is rarely performed in the field; additionally, cleaning and reusing
bricks that are over 160 years old may prove to be especially
challenging. It would be a crime to demolish these walls unless
there is truly no other way to address any structural issues and
request that the Commission demand an engineer’s report
detailing the extent of the problem and alternative methods for
treating it. We are also concerned that the architect’s
renderings do not suggest that the transitions between the earlier
Flemish-bond and later common bond areas will be maintained. We
assume this is computer rendering issue rather than an intentional
decision. We agree that the stuccoed areas on the Greenwich Street
façade are an unfortunate alteration, and recommend that
these areas be removed and infilled with new brick that closely
matches the historic brick.
We fully support the restoration of the Bank Street
façade and the relocation of the window and door openings
to their original positions and believe these aspects of the proposal
will enhance the building’s historic character. We do not
oppose the restoration of the stoop at the front door, but believe
that its proposed proportions do not match those of the original
stoop, which may be a result of the narrower sidewalk that the
one seen in historic photos. We request that this aspect of the
design be modified, perhaps by a level change at the interior
near the doorway, to better reflect the proportions of historic
stoops on this row and in the neighborhood.
LPC Determination: No action
Hearing Date: 1/27/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043501
Manhattan, Block: 817, Lot: 44
100 Fifth Avenue - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style store, loft and office building designed by
Albert S. Gottlieb and built in 1905-07. Application is to install
new storefront infill and signage.
HDC Testimony
HDC believes that this application represents an opportunity to
bring the base of this building closer to its original appearance
and enhance the overall character of the Fifth Avenue streetscape.
We regret that the applicant did not obtain historic photographs
to help inform the design of this proposal - this readily available
documentation guides the following recommendations.
The historic photo shows that the display window
consisted of three large glass panels divided by two narrow mullions.
HDC believes that restoring the historic tripartite configuration
will enhance the character of the building while also providing
the applicant with a large, transparent display window. We also
recommend that heavier framing be added at the perimeter of the
opening, that the entire storefront assembly be set back more
deeply within the opening, and that the bulkhead be articulated
in some manner, perhaps incorporating design elements from the
historic bulkheads on the 16th Street façade. We believe
that the sandblasted band at the top of the storefront glass is
completely inappropriate, as it will produce a sense of horizontal
orientation at a storefront that historically read as a very tall,
square opening that had no horizontal element such as a transom.
We believe that the proportions of the new entry door and transom
are a great improvement over those of the existing doorway, and
believe this part of the proposal is appropriate.
LPC Determination: No action
Hearing Date: 1/27/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043247
Queens, Block: 1289, Lot: 64
37-27 78th Street - Jackson Heights Historic District
An Anglo-American Garden style semi-detached house built in 1926-27
designed by Benjamin Dreisler, Jr. Application is to legalize
the installation of a storm door and porch gate without Landmarks
Preservation Commission permits.
HDC Testimony
As always, HDC objects to work done without the permission of
the Landmarks Preservation Commission. When the Commission legalizes
inappropriate proposals like the one before us today, it in essence
rewards buildings owners who purposefully flout the Landmarks
Law.
We believe that the gate at the stoop should be
removed as it reduces the historic sense of openness associated
with this district. In addition, the gate is redundant due to
the presence of a second gate at the sidewalk line. The storm
door does not appear to be a seasonal, temporary installation,
but in actuality more of a security door. While HDC understands
applicants’ requests for enhanced security, we believe that
such work must be performed only with the Commission’s approval
to prevent inappropriate installations such as the door in question.
HDC urges the Commission to deny this request for legalization.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 1/27/2004
LPC Docket Number: 043436
Staten Island, Block: 32, Lot: 28
228 Hamilton Avenue - Saint George/New Brighton Historic District
A Queen Anne style free-standing house, designed by Daniel J.
Cahalane and built in 1908. Application is to legalize the replacement
of siding, roof shingles and windows and alterations to a dormer
window opening 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 Commission
to consider whether it would have approved the new vinyl siding
and replacement windows had the applicant come to the LPC before
making these changes. The Commission must hold all applicants
to the same level of appropriateness as others, even if the work
has already been done.
In this instance, we believe that the Commission
would have never permitted the replacement of the aluminum siding
in place at the time of designation with the current vinyl siding.
Nor would it have approved the removal of the “special”
multi-pane windows at the second floor, the alteration of the
half-round opening in the gable, and the building-wide installation
of vinyl windows. We urge the Commission to deny this application.
Moreover, HDC asks that the Commission work with the applicant
to restore the building’s historic materials, as this will
go a long way toward improving the appearance of the house.
LPC Determination: Denied
Return to Testimony Archives
