September 9, 2008
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: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 085940
Queens, Block: 8042, Lot: 10
14 Arleigh Road - Douglaston Historic District
An Arts and Crafts style house built in 1926. Application is to
construct an addition.
HDC Testimony
14 Arleigh Road is described in the Douglaston Historic District
Designation Report as an Arts and Crafts style house, one of the
styles for which the district is known. Unfortunately, the proposed
addition shows little understanding for the details of this style.
HDC understands that it is difficult here to design a proper roof
to an addition that will not block the second floor windows, but
the hipped roof with the flat top and railing is out of character
with the rest of the house. The long casement windows should be
sash windows with divided lights, and the proposed materials such
as the vinyl siding are inappropriate for the district.
This house is architecturally very cohesive, with the exception
of the existing grandfathered addition. The commission should
not now allow a different but still inappropriate addition to
replace it. HDC urges the applicant to work with staff to refine
this proposal and design an addition in the Arts and Crafts style
that would harmonize with the historic home.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 085655
Manhattan, Block: 856, Lot: 58
60 Madison Avenue - Madison Square North Historic District
A Beaux-Arts style office building designed by Maynicke and Fanke
and built in 1909-1910. Application is to install storefront infill
and to create a master plan for the future installation of signage
and awnings.
HDC Testimony
In general, HDC approves of the proposed storefront infill, but
we have one questions about a detail – are there any historic
door handles elsewhere on the building that could be used as models
for the new doors?
There are too many signage schemes provided by this proposed
master plan. HDC feels it is important that only one be used to
keep a cohesive feel to the design of the base of this Beaux-Arts
style office building, preferably the awning design.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 092533
Brooklyn, Block: 2696, Lot: 1
776 Lorimer Street – McCarren Play Center – Individual
Landmark
An Art Modern style pool complex designed by architect Aymar Embury
II, landscape architects Gilmore D. Clarke and Allyn R. Jennings,
and civil engineers W. Earle Andres and William H. Latham, and
built in 1936. Application is to modify the pool, construct pavilions,
and install barrier-free access.
HDC Testimony
HDC is pleased to see plans for the restoration of McCarren Play
Center and its return to as a vibrant part of this community.
HDC has long sought the preservation of this complex, and we were
extraordinarily pleased and grateful with the LPC designated it
as a landmark. The play center has long been significant for both
its architectural and social aspects, and it is high time McCarren
is truly treated like a landmark. HDC does though have a few concerns.
To begin with, it seems that an awful lot of programming is being
crammed into the main building resulting in an over flow that
must be contained in new construction with the landmarked area.
The construction of the changing pavilions to make space for the
gymnasium, multi-purpose rooms and offices in turn crowds the
border of the pool. While this may not specifically be an appropriateness
issue, the resultant walkways seem to be quite narrow, especially
when one considers that the changing rooms will be exiting onto
them. This would seem to be a very awkward circulation pattern,
especially once you consider that the proposed beach will be the
first thing one sees upon entering the complex.
HDC understands the need to reduce the width of the pool in the
center to comply with safety regulations, but questions the idea
of a “beach” here. McCarren, like the other landmarked
WPA play centers, was built for active recreation. The addition
of a beach introduces a new “passive” feel, as well
as a completely non-historic material, to the landmark. Will it
contain actual sand? In other proposals, it has been stated that
sand is unsanitary and must be removed from public spaces. We
then must question its use here, particularly when it is not part
of the original design. And while an ice rink would be welcomed
here, if only the “beach” area is used for this, it
will be rather small.
Moving on, HDC strongly objects to the addition of glass restaurant
pavilions on the North façade. These modern accretions
would greatly change the reading and rhythm of the powerfully
massive central entry, an important design feature called out
repeatedly in the designation report. They appear to be rhinestone
epaulettes on a somber composition. Furthermore, they only appear
in the elevation drawing, but not depicted in the computer renderings
– which is an unacceptable omission.
Finally, there are a number of pieces of the designated space
that were not addressed, or at least not fully explained, in the
boards available for public review on Friday. What, if anything,
is going on with the wading pool area which is not at all pictured
in any of the plans? Why is the ticket booth being replaced and
not restored? Bronze eagles are being returned and a new clock
installed, but will any of the lettering be recreated? What is
the design of the new railings? McCarren’s massiveness may
be its trademark, but the details must not be overlooked. We have
waited decades for this wonderful public structure to be reclaimed
and restored, but in our rush to encourage this reinvestment,
we must be careful of what and how it is done. Given its history,
this might be the only chance to reclaim McCarren Play Center,
and it must be done properly.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 090860
Brooklyn, Block: 2550, Lot: 1
160 Franklin Street - Greenpoint Historic District
A brick commercial building designed by Benjamin Cohn and built
in 1924. Application is to install new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
In general, HDC approves of this application to install new storefront
infill at 160 Franklin Street. We would just like to make sure
that the transom of the door lines up with those of the store
windows (it appeared a bit off in some of the renderings). Also,
we feel the amount down lighting proposed the corner entrance
of this charming 1920's commercial structure is too much and would
be too intense. We recommend the applicant work with staff to
find a more historically appropriate lighting scheme.
LPC Determination: Approved w/mods
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 092521
Manhattan, Block: 646, Lot: 1001
415 West 13th Street - Gansevoort Market Historic District
A building designed by Thompson Starret Co. and built in 1900-01,
altered by Steven Kratchman in 2002-2003. Application is to install
new storefront infill, alter the loading platform and install
barrier-free lifts.
HDC Testimony
This application is certainly an improvement over the last application
for new storefront infill at 415 West 13th Street, but the proposal
still does not take into account this building’s and this
district’s industrial character. The resulting feel is still
one of a mall.
Dividing the loading platform in half with two staircases and
two lifts gives an overly fussy appearance that breaks up the
continuous horizontal line of the base. A platform that stretched
across with one lift and one staircase would be more appropriate.
We also feel that the existing show windows recall the loading
dock feel better than they proposed storefronts, and we recommend
modifying them with added entrances to meet the building’s
new use.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 090273
Manhattan, Block: 625, Lot: 8
60 Jane Street - Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse constructed in 1848-1849. Application
is to alter the façade, construct a rooftop addition, demolish
a rear ell and modify the rear façade.
HDC Testimony
HDC has no objections to the proposed roof top addition or rear
façade alterations as they are rather minimal and not particularly
visible from the public way.
The proposal for alterations to the front façade is more
of an issue. It creates a uniformity in the three houses, 60,
62 and 64 Jane Streets, but not necessarily historically accurate
uniformity. It seems as if bits and pieces of design elements
of two neighboring buildings, including doors, window types, and
ornamental work, have been chosen without any background of the
development on this particular house. The existing front façade
of 60 Jane Street is the result of a simple, but elegant, early
twentieth century alteration with its basement entrance and casement
windows, and we ask the applicant to reconsider their desire to
change it further. It is rather nice to see a trio of rowhouses
that are cohesive and yet individual due to their well-executed
modifications reflecting various styles and eras in their lives.
LPC Determination: Approved
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 092147
Manhattan, Block: 697, Lot: 42
508 West 26th Street - West Chelsea Historic District
A neo-Classical style factory building designed by Parker and
Schaffer and built in 1926-1927. Application is to install storefront
infill and a barrier-free access ramp.
HDC Testimony
This application for the Wolff Bindery Annex is the first application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness in the new West Chelsea Historic
District, and it will set the tone for future projects in this
rapidly changing area. In general, HDC finds that the proposal
is too elegant, an attempt to upscale a very industrial building.
Parker & Shaffer, an architectural firm that specialized
in the use of reinforced concrete, designed the Wolff Bindery
Annex. The building’s primary design element is its tripartite
metal windows whose large expanses of glass were made possible
by the Turner system of construction which employed concrete slabs
supported by specially reinforced concrete columns. This project
proposes the addition of limestone panels and mahogany doors and
windows that would be completely at odds with these very practical,
typically industrial materials.
In addition, HDC finds the proposed new openings on the ground
floor to be too tidy. The historic openings, although filled in,
are still readable and show a ground floor whose openings are
not aligned with those on the floors above. Although we often
prefer to see the alignment of the bays of a base and the rest
of a building, here where it appears that this was not the case,
we recommend otherwise.
West Chelsea was designated for its industrial character, and
this should be kept even as the use of these buildings change.
HDC recommends that the applicant work with staff to create a
design more honest to the building’s history and its surroundings.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Hearing Date: 9/9/2008
LPC Docket Number: 086905
Brooklyn, Block: 258, Lot: 17
20-34 Joralemon Street - Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A group of eclectic style brick apartment houses with a central
courtyard designed by Alfred White and built in 1890. Application
is to construct a garage and park space within the courtyard.
HDC Testimony
This application is certainly better than the previous application
which commissioners, preservationists, residents and neighbors
found to be an affront on this important historic structure.
There are still a number of issues to consider with this latest
proposal. Commissioners at the last hearing remarked on the very
historic nature of this courtyard, and how it is an integral part
of the design and history of the Riverside Apartments, a “model
tenement” designed by philanthropist A.T. White in 1890
as an air- and light-filled alternative to crowded slums of the
era.
With over 60 parking spaces, the garage will turn part of the
courtyard into a busy path of traffic coming and going, hardly
a peaceful garden oasis. We question just how accessible and usable
the courtyard will be if this application was approved. Where
is the ventilation for the garage? How will it affect tenants
and garden users?
While the proposed shows trees in the courtyard, we must remember
that these are new trees. Mature trees, some original to the courtyard
will be killed to make way for the excavation and construction
of this underground parking lot.
In this proposal, the courtyard is merely an after thought, and
cars are the main consideration. This would be extremely unfortunate
as Commissioners in May noted the negative toll the automobile,
in the form of the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, has already taken
on this historic structure.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
Return to Recent Testimony
