July 12, 2005
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 the following applications that were before the
Commission.
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 055971
Manhattan, Block: 475, Lot: 10
357 West Broadway - SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A Federal style brick dwelling built c. 1825. Application is to
construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
HDC feels that although the rear addition to this Federal-style
house may not be visible from West Broadway, the addition will
irreparably damage the visual and structural integrity of the
Federal-style row house. As shown, the rear façade has
already suffered damage from a first floor expansion into the
rear yard. Today’s proposed addition would not only destroy
the remaining portion of the building’s original rear facade,
but obliterate the distinctive Federal-style silhouette of the
building as a whole.
HDC asks that the commission deny this application and work with
the applicant to reconfigure their expansion plans and preserve
the rear wall and profile of this otherwise well preserved structure.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 035800
Manhattan, Block: 846, Lot: 1
97 Fifth Avenue - Ladies' Mile Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style store and loft building designed by Robert
Maynicke and built in 1897-98. Application is to replace windows.
HDC Testimony
HDC respectfully asks that the Commission deny this application.
These windows are a special and character-defining feature of
the this building and must be preserved in order to maintain the
integrity of this the building’s street façade. HDC
believes that these windows can and should be replaced in kind
with the type of windows found currently in the building. One
of our principal concerns with the current application is that
the profiles of the new window moldings are not at all replicating
the those of the window frames currently in place. HDC urges the
Commission to instruct the applicants to retain or replicated
the original window moldings.
Thank you for your consideration
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 055280
Manhattan, Block: 1119, Lot: 29
65 Central Park West - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building deisgned by Emery Roth
and built in 1927. Application is to replace windows.
HDC Testimony
Unfortunately, when HDC’s Public Review Committee reviewed
this application, there were no historic photographs included
to have a sense of what the original window configuration may
have been. Despite that, we do not believe that current condition
is a historic or even an appropriate one, and we greatly regret
that the windows installed in recent years have set an unfortunate
standard for continuing window work. However, these are terrible
windows being replaced with terrible windows.
In order to stop this cycle of inappropriate fenestration replacement,
HDC urges the applicants to establish a master plan for future
windows so that the building can slowly regain its historically
accurate appearance. As a first step, HDC asks that the Commission
request that the applicant to install 6 over 6 windows, or at
the very least, multi-pane windows that would be appropriate for
both this building and Central Park West. The unfortunate status
quo for windows on this building must be changed.
Thank you for your consideration.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 045272
Manhattan, Block: 1144, Lot: 134
104 West 73rd Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A Queen Anne style rowhouse designed by Thom & Wilson and
built in 1884-85. Application is to legalize signage installed
without Landmarks Preservation Commisison permits.
HDC Testimony
This storefront is located on a residential side street in a very
residential neighborhood. While there is some slight commercial
activity present on the side streets of the Upper West Side (as
well as in other of New York’s historic rowhouse neighborhoods),
the street presence of such commercial establishments must not
overshadow or overpower the architectural sense of place on these
blocks.
Specifically, HDC finds the materials, size, and color of the
proposed signage to be inappropriate to the character of the Central
Park West/Upper West Side Historic District in general and this
location in particular. We find the materials particularly troubling
– the sign itself is more than is necessary to announce
the tenant’s presence; the sign garishly detracts from the
restrained atmosphere of this residential street. If the applicants
desire a more conspicuous public persona, we advise the applicant
to rent space in a more prominent location. HDC requests that
the Commission deny this application.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 011315
Manhattan, Block: 1195, Lot: 18
15 West 81st Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building designed by Emery Roth
and built in 1929-30. Application is to legalize the construction
of a rooftop addition in noncompliance with Certificate of No
Effect 98-1929.
HDC Testimony
HDC strongly opposes the legalization of this egregiously inappropriate
addition. The structure itself is not only architecturally inappropriate
to its site, but is highly visible from the street as well as
from neighborhood buildings. Both this building and the neighboring
Beresford Apartments set a high design standard for the district
and a rare instance of continuity (both were built by Emery Roth
in a span of 2 years). This addition not only detracts from the
design unity of these buildings but actually obscures the lovely
Neo-classical detail of the roofline and tower of the building
in question.
Due to the high visibility of this addition, HDC speculates that
the plans for which a certificate of no effect was issued in 1997
were discarded entirely. We are concerned that a legalization
of this design would set a precedent of allowing owners to flagrantly
flaunt the oversight process of the Commission, instead executing
their own designs with impunity. Furthermore, how could the Commission
deny proposals for similarly inappropriate designs in the future
if this monstrosity is sanctioned?
It is a wonder that this addition was also apparently approved
by the co-op board of this building who would know that this construction
is well outside the range of acceptable construction in a historic
district on such a high-profile building. Ignorance of the law
and its repercussions are not a viable excuse. HDC requests that
the commission order this outrageous addition to be demolished,
due to its conspicuous and ahistorical appearance but, just as
importantly, due to the mockery that this design makes of LPC
mandate and regulations.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 055803
Manhattan, Block: 1202, Lot: 145
34 West 89th Street - Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic
District
A Northern Renaissance Revival style rowhouse builti n 1893 and
designed by Thom & Wilson. Application is to legalize the
installation of a door without Landmarks Preservation Commission
permits.
HDC Testimony
HDC respectfully requests that the Commission deny this legalization
as the existing door is inconsistent with the original appearance
of this late 19th-century house. We suggest that the applicant
work with the Commission to find a suitable replacement in keeping
with the historic character of this building and its neighbors.
Thank you for your consideration.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 7/12/2005
LPC Docket Number: 056624
Manhattan, Block: 1520, Lot: 45
160 East 92nd Street - Individual Landmark Historic District
A vernacular clapboard dwelling with Greek Revival and Italianate
style elements, attributed to Albro Howell and built circa 1852-53.
Application is to modify the rear yard addition constructed without
Landmarks Preservation Commission permists.
HDC Testimony
The proposed cinderblock addition would maim the understated materials
and silhouette of this residence, and destroy the remaining portions
of the building’s rear wall, irreparably disfiguring the
building’s shape. The addition also intrudes upon the garden
core in a manner that the current structure does not, ruining
this row house’s gentle impact on its surroundings.
The choices of windows are also inappropriate. At the rear, the
proposed sliding glass doors are wholly inappropriate to Greek
revival structure. Furthermore, historically, skylights would
only appear over an interior stairwell in residences of this period
– never over an interior room. Here, the skylight would
not be necessary if the addition did not block the flow of light
through the original window. HDC opposes all aspects of the proposed
addition and respectfully requests that the Commission deny this
application.
LPC Determination: Denied
Hearing Date: 6/28/2005
LPC Docket Number: 055558
Manhattan, Block: 1274, Lot: 25
768 Fifth Avenue - Individual Landmark Historic District
A French Renaissance style hotel designed by Henry J. Hardenberg
and constructed in 1905-07, with an addition designed by Warren
and Wetmore and constructed in 1921. Application is to request
that the Landmarks Preservation Commission issue a report to the
City Planning Commission relating to an application for a Modification
of Use pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.
HDC Testimony
see docket # 055548
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 4/26/2005
LPC Docket Number: 054604
Manhattan, Block: 544, Lot: 59,65,66,67,68
37 East 4th Street - Individual Landmark Historic District
A Greek Revival style townhouse built in 1844-45, a vacant lot
and parking lot. Application is to request that the Landmarks
Preservation Commission issue a report to the City Planning Commission
relating to an application for Modification of Use and Bulk Pursueant
to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution
HDC Testimony
HDC strongly urges the Commission to deny this application for
a 74-711. Considering the history of abuse surrounding the Skidmore
House, we do not believe that an application for a 74-711 should
even be considered prior to its stabilization. This application
requests approval for a 19-story building with an enormous footprint
in a low-scale neighborhood, in return for work on the Skidmore
house that is required by order of the court.
It is difficult to make the argument that this building, rising
19 stories, will not have a negative effect on the character of
this neighborhood. Towering over two individual landmarks, the
Skidmore House and the Merchant’s House, and obliterating
the view corridor from Cooper Square, the proposed tower will
by all means irreparably alter NoHo. Furthermore, we question
whether, after so many years of neglect, the Skidmore House could
handle the physical effects of the construction of such a massive
building right next door.
HDC has long been interested in an extension to the NoHo Historic
District. As you are aware, in 1999 the Commission proposed to
evaluate the area bounded approximately by Astor Place, Houston
Street, Mercer Street and the Bowery as a potential New York City
designated historic district. This proposal was welcomed by the
community, elected officials, and preservation groups. And while
the designation of part of this proposed area, and NoHo East has
certainly helped preserve a portion of this neighborhood, the
proposal in front of you today demonstrates that undesignated
NoHo is in danger. We respectfully urge the Commission to consider
another extension to the NoHo Historic District as soon as possible.
While we applaud any effort to stabilize and restore the Skidmore
House, we do not see a concrete plan of how this is to be accomplished.
Simply presenting a conditions analysis of materials is not enough.
The applicants should be required to return to the Commission
with a full proposal for this building’s stabilization,
one that includes a report from a structural engineer. After stabilization
of the Skidmore House is complete, if the Commission is to consider
granting a 74-711, a much more contextual, lower scale building
must be proposed.
LPC Determination: Approved
Return to Recent Testimony
