DOB Stymies preservation of Christ Church

DOB Stymies preservation of Christ Church despite groundswell support of electeds, community

img_3307

In March 2015, HDC got a phone call from Brian Weber, a concerned resident. He informed HDC that Christ Church, located at 338 West 36th Street, was rapidly being demolished. The 1905 church was built by noted architects Parrish & Schroeder, but does not have landmark status. A quick Department of Buildings (DOB) search turned up a demolition permit, and not much hope. Usually, once an owner of a property has this permit, there is not much anyone can do to save a building.

 

Despite this, the Historic Districts Council and Mr. Weber teamed up with Community Board 4, representatives from Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, Senator Brad Hoylman, Councilmember Corey Johnson, and Assemblymember Richard Gottfried’s offices to meet with the owner to discuss possible adaptive reuse of the forlorn sacred structure. The owner is prolific Manhattan hotel developer Sam Chang. Chang met with the community, and was open to saving the church and incorporating his hotel tower behind the façade, despite no obligation to. This demolition was allowed as-of-right.

 

Collectively, the community brought forward renderings of how the tower and church could work together, and Mr. Chang was receptive, noticing that having a unique façade would make his hotel a more marketable destination. The proposal to save the church and construct the high-rise hotel moved forward to the Dept. of Buildings, who initially approved the application to incorporate the church’s façade into the tower, to the elation of the coalition.

 

At the last minute, the DOB rescinded their approval and rejected the plans to save the church, noting that the historic structure lacked a flush street wall, in violation of the current zoning. Usually, this would be a good thing, as this zoning promotes continuity in midtown street walls as opposed to set-back, open plazas which leave pock marks in the urban fabric. In the iteration to save Christ Church, the street wall’s break is only a matter of feet—there is no detrimental plaza. Despite this, the DOB has been inflexible in its ruling, and the church is at risk of being lost once again, despite an 18 month coalition between the community, Mr. Chang and the elected officials. This is a rare and inspiring story of the community and developer working on the same side, only to be obstructed by city bureaucracy. Now, not even a prayer can save this church from destruction.

 

Please write to the DOB to make an exception to save this historic building, so that it can have a new life as a beautiful hotel. This is our last chance. We got this far with an active demo permit, please help us to keep pushing the City!

WRITE TO DOB

0114re344w3602che

image1

approved-plans

Category: Alert · Tags:

HDC@LPC – Testimony for Public Hearing on November 1, 2016

HDC regularly reviews every public proposal affecting Individual Landmarks and buildings within Historic Districts in New York City, and when needed, we comment on them. Our testimony for the latest items to be presented at the Landmarks Preservation Commission is below.

Item 2

137 Hollywood Avenue – Douglaston Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #163663

An Arts and Crafts style house built in 1907 and designed by Dorman and Light. Application is to legalize the installation of walls, fencing, a pergola, an awning and security cameras and alterations to front steps without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

Stylistically, this house is considered Arts and Crafts, but the illegal accretions to this large house and its plot have created an unfortunate hodge-podge of varying stylistic choices. The stonework to the front porch, including to the bottom of the columns and used in the pergola area does not relate in color or genre to the Spanish tile roof. The seawave motif chosen for the fencing around the patio is equally perfunctory, and collectively all of these different elements working together draws much attention to this house, coming across as ostentatious. While it is unfortunate so much work has already been completed, much of it is cosmetic and we ask the Commission to require this property to tone down a bit.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 4

16 Manor Road – Douglaston Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192130

A Colonial Revival style house designed by Alfred Busselle and built in 1919. Application is to legalize the rebuilding and altering of the dormers, and the installation of railings at the front walkway and porch all without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

Regarding this from an appropriateness standpoint, HDC could not easily discern the original dormers from the ones constructed illegally. Fortunately, this work is not offensive, but if done incorrectly, could have marred the entire appearance of this house. The Committee found the railings at the front walkway to add visual clutter to the yard, but if there is a need for them there for safety purposes, we ask LPC to evaluate their design in the context of other railings in the Douglaston Historic District.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 6

296 Waverly Avenue – Clinton Hill Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #187616

An altered carriage house. Application is to reconstruct the façade and install window guards.

As a general rule, only in extreme circumstances should a building’s façade be completely dismantled and reconstructed. After review, HDC’s consensus was that this façade may be able to be saved with localized repairs using retrofitted brick ties and rebuilding the parapet, sparing the loss of any historic fabric during the proposed large intervention.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 7

70 Thomas Street – TriBeCa South Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #191166

An Italianate style store and loft building designed by John J. O’Neil and built in 1870. Application is to construct a rooftop bulkhead and rooftop addition.

While a one-story rooftop addition might be appropriate on top of a five-story loft building, the bulkhead’s placement here is very much detracting to the argument to allow it. The elevator bulkhead is slammed directly to the front of the building, breaking this row of buildings’ intact roofline. This bulk should be lowered and set back, and if this isn’t possible, maybe it isn’t appropriate in this location to allow for this type of bulk.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 9

71 Spring Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Extension Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #193191

A Queen Anne style store building designed by Schneider & Herter and built in 1889-90. Application is to establish a master plan governing the future installation of ground floor infill and signage.

While the proposed storefront configuration will regularize this hodge-podge ground floor, we ask the LPC to look closely at the rendering next to the existing conditions. In the existing conditions, there is a variety of planes which give dimension to the façade, and the proposed storefront appears flattened in comparison. HDC suggests pushing the glazing back within the openings for a more dramatic effect, and also choosing another material other then the bright aluminum doors within this dark, painted composition.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 10

14 St. Luke’s Place – Greenwich Village Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #184022

A rowhouse built in 1852-53. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.

This property came before LPC in 2012 for rear yard and rooftop additions. It is unclear why the rooftop component was never constructed, but LPC staff comments from that time acknowledged the obvious visibility of the then-proposed bulk from the park across the street. The same circumstances remain true in this current application.  The tall ceiling and overall height of this addition inform HDC that this proposal has not been configured in its current iteration to be minimally visibly impactful.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 13

62 Greene Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190354

A stylized Classical style store building designed by Henry Fernbach and built in 1881-82. 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 and Bulk pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.

While reviewing this application, HDC noted typical decay on cast-iron in areas that have been neglected because of the fire escape, which obstructed proper maintenance and subsequently led to water infiltration in these areas. We feel strongly that this deterioration should be holistically remedied as part of the 74-711, and also that the applicant consider investigating the presence and restoration of vault lights at the ground floor. Regarding the rear façade, retaining a few six-over-six original wooden windows is futile if the rest of the windows will be replaced with less-durable one-over-one aluminum, and we feel that these windows, while on a secondary façade, should match the originals in material and configuration. This solution is more in the scope of what constitutes a first-class restoration in exchange for the change of use.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 16

97-99 7th Avenue South – Greenwich Village Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192806

An Art Deco style garage building built in 1919. Application is to install storefront infill, awnings, lighting and signage.

HDC prefers that the original, decorative tile work that reads “GARAGE” be left exposed, as there is no need to conceal original features. Alternatively, the name of the business can be printed on the awning, instead of on the building itself.

LPC determination: Approved in part/Denied in part


Item 17

34 West 21st Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192876

A garage built c. 1950.  Application is to demolish the garage and construct a new building.

While HDC found the proposed design to blend into the background, we were disappointed about the lack of a ground floor storefront. First, having a storefront would help this building better conceal its unusual identity as a single-family mansion on a street and district characterized by store and loft buildings with ground floor storefronts.  HDC feels strongly about this, as single-family homes are unprecedented in Ladies’ Mile, and the presence of a ground-floor drive-in garage is inappropriate. Further, it seems that the purported commercial space will actually be private, as it is located in the rear of the building and has no street presence. We ask the LPC to explore what this space actually is, and to think about the storefront issue HDC has raised.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 20

840 West End Avenue – Riverside – West End Extension II Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #183214

A Renaissance Revival style apartment building, designed by George F. Pelham and built in 1904. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.

HDC found the proposed rooftop addition to actually be an additional entire story on this modest apartment house, and too visible. This building has an elegant termination, with a large balustrade delineating the roofline. It seems that every apartment building, especially in this area of town, has its original architectural termination obscured by bulk on top. The visible rooftop addition, in its proliferation, is a very New York City issue, but just because it is prolific, does that mean that it is good architecture?  Cumulatively, these additions erode the presence of crisp architectural lines, and instead begins to make the cityscape look cluttered. West End Avenue is a broad street, so additions on to the tops of buildings—even high ones—are very noticeable.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 21

172 East 73rd Street – Individual Landmark Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192378

A neo-Grec style carriage house designed by Frank Wennemer and built in 1889. Application is to construct a rooftop addition and excavate the rear yard.

Item 22

172 East 73rd Street – Individual Landmark Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192454

A neo-Grec style carriage house designed by Frank Wennemer and built in 1889. 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 Bulk pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.

The reason carriage houses are identifiable amidst other buildings along streets is because of their modest size—they aren’t as quite as big as a rowhouse. Keeping this in mind, we ask that the significant bulk that is being added to this building be minimally visible from the street, and over the neighboring carriage houses, to preserve the integrity of this row as a unit. Regarding the preservation proposed in exchange for this bulk, HDC felt that most of it was basic maintenance level work, as opposed to a first class restoration. We urge LPC to examine the proposed restoration program to ensure the longevity and preservation of this modest building for years to come.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 23

332 East 88th Street – Individual Landmark

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #193698

A French Renaissance style Parsonage building in an ecclesiastical complex designed by Barney & Chapman and built in 1897. 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 and Bulk pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.

This is a case where the 74-711 tilts more in favor of the landmarked building, as opposed to being self-serving for a change of bulk or use. The proposed bulk to the non-landmarked building is negligible, yet the proposed restoration will ensure that this building will continue to survive for decades to come. We are all familiar with the detriments of water infiltration to buildings, and this rectory’s current drainage system has water running inside and outside of the building, which has caused significant damage. Over the years, these areas of infiltration have been dealt with in a piecemeal manner, but what is before the Commission today will care for this building’s drainage in a holistic way, which will ensure preservation in the long term. HDC considers this application to be a model of how a 74-711 should work, and we hope that the Commission will remember this property while reviewing future applications.

LPC determination: Approved

Category: HDC@LPC · Tags:

HDC@LPC – Testimony for Public Hearing on October 25, 2016

HDC regularly reviews every public proposal affecting Individual Landmarks and buildings within Historic Districts in New York City, and when needed, we comment on them. Our testimony for the latest items to be presented at the Landmarks Preservation Commission is below.

 

Item 1

39-88 44th Street – Sunnyside Gardens Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #186607

A rowhouse designed by Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and Frederick Ackerman and built in 1927. Application is to install a fence.

Although fencing has appeared over nearly the past century, originally there were not any fences in this planned community. Sunnyside has evolved to having a proliferation of low-rise, chain link fences, however, HDC found the proposed wooden fence too opaque, high, and reminiscent of a suburban apartment complex rear privacy fence, contrary to the spirit of Sunnyside Gardens, designed by master urban planner and architect Clarence Stein. It was unclear if the examples of other wooden fences were approved by the LPC or were pre-designations, or possible violations.

LPC determination: No Action


Item 2

37-46 & 37-50 82nd Street – Jackson Heights Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #183951

Two commercial buildings, with 37-46 designed by Murray Klein and built in 1929 and 37-50 designed by M. A. Cantor and built in 1929, altered in 1986 with modern facades. Application is to alter the front facades.

Some of the world’s premier retail destinations are in NYC historic districts, such as Soho, Madison Avenue, and the Ladies’ Mile. In these districts, the quality of architectural appearance is paramount, with leading designers choosing historic buildings to house their flagship stores. HDC feels that the same standard should be upheld in Queens, and the proposed design is neither here nor there. The applicant decided to work from a historic configuration, but the proposed design is a corporate shortcut to rectifying this altered facade. GFRC is a substandard material, especially on a facade that is pedestrian level. Many details, such as pilasters, capitals and an arched doorway have been eliminated, creating a flattened version of a historic facade. These details should be refined, since it seems like an historic facade is desired here on some level.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 6

25 Jay Street – DUMBO Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #191519

A Renaissance Revival style factory building designed by Flemer & Koehler and built in 1892. Application is to modify entry infill installed without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

HDC found this presentation unclear in what the original and present conditions are. That said, every bay in the ground floor of this large building is different and it is difficult to understand why only one bay was altered to appear like another. If and when all of these bays are changed to reflect a more coherent appearance, we ask that a historic condition be consulted.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 7

203 DeKalb Avenue – Fort Greene Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #180489

An Italianate style rowhouse built c. 1864. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions.

Unfortunately, because of this house’s situation in a low-scale neighborhood, this bulkhead will be visible from everywhere and HDC suggests making it as small as possible to eliminate this problem. Regarding the rear, it is interesting that the deign reincorporates an historic bay, but we were unable to discern what the proposed materials are for this addition.

**No photo available**


Item 8

109 Halsey Street – Bedford Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #186854

A neo-Grec style rowhouse designed by Isaac D. Reynolds and built c. 1880-82. Application is to legalize the construction of a rooftop addition, expansion of the rear parapet, and modifications to the rear faзade without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

This is a bad case of bureaucratic failure. Why DOB issued construction permits prior to LPC approval is seriously unfortunate, and some of the work is inappropriate because of this mistake, which is not the applicant’s fault. We ask the Commission if the high parapet and flat roof bulkhead can be rectified in any way to comply more with LPC standards. The Committee did find the rear facade design sensitive, despite the lack of permits.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 9

436 Macon Street – Bedford Stuyvesant/Expanded Stuyvesant Heights Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190876

A neo-Grec/Queen Anne style rowhouse designed by Amzi Hill and built c. 1884. Application is to legalize the installation of windows without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

HDC has a responsibility and obligation to comment on illegal interventions, because without regulation, historic districts don’t work. This situation includes a mere five windows on the facade, and we feel strongly that an historic appearance be achieved here. The neighbor’s windows, which are used as a comparison, are different windows altogether and also appear pre-designation.

LPC determination: Approved

**No photo available**


Item 11

288 Carroll Street – Carroll Gardens Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #184312

A rowhouse built in 1872-73. Application is to amend Certificate of Appropriateness 17-0036 for the construction of a rooftop addition.

HDC initially commented on this application in 2014, and we stated then that because of the large rear yard addition, the rooftop bulk was superfluous and also quite visible. The roof was approved, and now it is back because this applicant is copying the next door neighbor, whose rooftop addition is larger than theirs. This is a perfect example of how precedent works, which we have witnessed many times throughout the decades. HDC cannot support this application, as it has been segmented in a piecemeal fashion to obtain more and more bulk. It is difficult to understand why the already approved iteration isn’t satisfactory, and we ask LPC to uphold their initial decision, or better yet, reduce it to be appropriate to the historic building.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications

**No photo available**


Item 14

566 10th Street – Park Slope Extension Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #191062

A neo-Grec style rowhouse designed by L. Bouard and built in 1887. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions and replace windows.

This project is adding a lot of bulk to an otherwise pristine row. The rooftop addition is so large that it reads as an entire story, and the only visibility studies provided were from directly across the street. Where are the other views from within low-scale Park Slope? Regarding the rear, the glazing and materials are non-contextual with the historic district, and no examples were provided of some type of precedent for non-traditional rear yard treatments.

LPC determination: Approved w/ modifications


Item 15

8 Perry Street – Greenwich Village Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #186439

A rowhouse built in 1849. Application is to construct a stoop, rooftop and rear yard additions.

HDC found the proposed bulk in the rear appropriate, but believes the applicant could achieve the same amount of light by recreating the large windows on the original façade, and this tripartite configuration would be more a harmonious composition.

LPC determination: Approved


Item 16

23 Commerce Street – Greenwich Village Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #183292

An apartment house designed by Somerfield & Steckler and built in 1908-09. Application is to legalize the installation of storefront infill, awnings and a bracket sign and modifications to steps without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

HDC found it unacceptable to alter this storefront in Greenwich Village and wonders how the applicant was unaware of this property being in the historic district, a location which likely factored into selecting this property to conduct business. It is deplorable that the divided lights have been lost. Unusual and irregular features like these are what makes the Village, the Village. The awning is inappropriate, as it covers the transom, which is one remaining interesting features of this storefront. The light fixture should also be removed, it in no way relates to the façade but rather is being used to illuminate the blade sign it sits atop of.

LPC determination: Denied


Item 17

327 West 4th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #185249

A late Federal style rowhouse built in 1827-28. Application is to construct a rooftop addition, excavate the rear yard, alter the rear faзade, replace the front entrance, and paint faзade elements.

It is unfortunate that this drawing set commenced with lauding the late Federal style and highlighted original elements on a neighboring building only to ignore this documentation and move as far away from preservation as possible. As the LPC is aware, this building typology is the rarest and oldest surviving in New York City. These buildings characterize what was the first wave of residential development, and their modest scale is built into this significance.  It is an almost existential question – when a Federal house is proposed to rise five stories to become as tall as its tenement neighbor, is it considered a Federal anymore? This bulk, coupled with excavation, is excessive and perhaps the applicant should have bought a tenement building on West 4th Street and spared this house. For the amount of work proposed to dig out and build on top of this house, HDC was disappointed with the insulting treatment of the door surround. The applicant used 41 Bank Street’s door surround as an example of an intact late Federal entry, yet has chosen to install a hotel room type door and not reconstruct the signature Ionic colonettes. While renovating nearly a two century old building requires compromise in how modern residences function, this simply renders the artifact severely compromised.

LPC determination: No Action


Item 19

46 Carmine Street – Greenwich Village Extension II Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190092

A Federal style rowhouse built in 1827-28. Application is to alter the roof.

HDC does not support this application, as it will further compromise a Federal roofline. While a shed dormer already exists, this shouldn’t set a precedent for more interventions. Further, the drawings were devoid of an axonometric or rending of what this will actually look like, making our Committee err on the side of caution.

LPC determination: No Action


Item 23

900 Broadway – Ladies’ Mile Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192920

A commercial building designed by McKim, Mead and White and built in 1886; and altered by Maynicke & Franke in 1905. Application is to replace windows.

HDC supports the applicant’s choice of an historic configuration, including curved glass on this pivotal Ladies’ Mile landmark. It would be even better if these windows could be made out of wood.

LPC determination: Approved

Category: HDC@LPC · Tags:

HDC@LPC – Testimony for Public Hearing on October 11, 2016

Posted by on Friday, October 7, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

HDC regularly reviews every public proposal affecting Individual Landmarks and buildings within Historic Districts in New York City, and when needed, we comment on them. Our testimony for the latest items to be presented at the Landmarks Preservation Commission is below.

Item 2

157 East 78th Street – Individual Landmark

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #184054

A vernacular house with Italianate style influences built in 1861. Application is to install rooftop mechanical equipment.

Project architect: WJE Engineers & Architects, PC

HDC wishes to make a suggestion for an alternative approach to the proposed chimney flue. The proposed flue rises up at an angle – the minimum angle required – and appears to hang awkwardly in mid-air. However, if a mechanical fan operation were to be employed at the end of the flue, the flue could be flattened completely. Such an approach is not unheard of in New York City, and would enable the flue to be invisible to the rear neighbors. Our committee also feels that if the suggested fan operation is not desired, incorporating the flue along the wall of the adjacent building would be preferable.

LPC determination: Approved

157-e-78th

 

Item 4

211 West 138th Street – St. Nicholas Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #176626

A neo-Georgian style rowhouse designed by Bruce Price and Clarence S. Luce and built in 1891. Application is to legalize and alter a rear yard garage building, constructed without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

Project architect: Zoltan M. Saro PLLC

HDC finds the illegal garage to be too much of a departure from the others in the district, specifically in its color and use of stucco. Considering that there is little uniformity in the massing of these rear garages, we would not be opposed to altering this garage to make it more functional. However, we would suggest that it be built of yellow brick to match its neighbors and to be more consistent with the fabric of the garages found here.

LPC determination: Approved with modifications

211-w-138th

211-w-138th-existing-proposed

 

Item 8

120 West 74th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190421

A Queen Anne/Romanesque Revival style rowhouse with Moorish elements designed by Thom & Wilson and built in 1886-1887. Application is to construct a new stoop and a rear yard addition.

Project architect: Pachano & Vollert Architecture

Concerning the stoop, HDC is pleased to see that a stoop will be brought back, but wishes to make a plea for better details. The stoop two doors down from this one, at number 124, provides a perfect intact example to survey and copy at number 120. Specifically, we would suggest that the details articulated on the garden level of the stoop at 124 be replicated here. In the rear, we find the full-width arrangement of the addition to be acceptable, but since this block’s rear dog-legs benefit from a uniform height, HDC feels that this roofline should be maintained by bringing down the height of the proposed addition and preserving the top two floors. We would also suggest that an iron roof rail be installed on top of the addition, rather than a solid parapet, in order to avoid cutting off the bottoms of the windows on the floor above, and that the proportion of the window openings be studied further, perhaps incorporating five narrower windows to maintain the odd number of windows found on the original rear façade. Lastly, our committee wondered whether the corbelled brick cornice at the top of the rear façade is being eliminated, and if so, would advocate for its retention.

LPC determination: Approved with modifications

120-w-74th-front

120-w-74th-back

 

Item 9

127 West 88th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #181047

A Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by Alonzo Kight and built in 1898. Application is to legalize the installation of an areaway fence without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

Project architect: Umberto Squarcia Designs Inc.

HDC finds this fence to be too tall. While the height seems unnecessary, if it is still desired and deemed appropriate by the Commission, we find that a more substantial fence with refined details would be necessary.

LPC determination: Approved with modifications

127-w-88th-st

 

Item 11

200 Central Park West – Individual Landmark

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192740

A complex of museum exhibition and support buildings, designed by Vaux and Mould; Cady, Berg and See; Trowbridge and Livingston; John Russell Pope; Charles Volz; and others, located within a park, and built between 1874 and 1935. Application is to demolish three buildings and construct an addition.

Project architect: Studio Gang Architects / Davis Brody Bond Architects & Planners

HDC is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion of the American Museum of Natural History, a venerable institution with a fascinating design evolution. Our committee neither opposes the demolition of the three buildings, nor the concept of an expansion. We do, however, feel that some fine tuning could help the new building fit in even better with its complex context.

In its massing and scale, the proposed expansion along Columbus Avenue defers sensitively to the existing, historic building, not rising higher than the roofline surrounding it and setting back ever so slightly to allow the landmark to stand out. Its contemporary approach is also deferential, and appropriate as an expression of its date of construction. Our concern has to do with the relationship of the exterior to the interior program. The exterior façade makes a very literal gesture about what is found on the interior – an interior which itself is quite exciting. The idea of the exterior expressing the interior is a concept introduced during the Modern movement. The problem with its application here is that the historic museum stands as a fortress, not giving anything away about what is going on inside. In this way, the introduction of such a literal gesture seems incongruous. In some ways, the rear façade of the expansion is more successful in hinting at what is to come and at the same time mediating between the old and the new.

We also wish to comment on the material choice for the Columbus Avenue façade. The way the stone is proposed to be applied produces a faux-strata appearance that is, again, quite overtly referencing the interior design. While the approach takes inspiration from natural forms, those forms have an inherent plasticity that is impossible to produce with small-scale granite blocks. The texture produced by those blocks breaks up the intended fluid motion, thus diluting the geological-inspired, sweeping effect.

While there are commendable elements of this proposal, HDC asks that further study be undertaken to investigate and determine a design that expresses its ambitious program through a strong aesthetic that works in concert with the protected historic complex, not simply in contrast to it.

LPC determination: Approved

The Commissioners loved nearly every aspect of this project and approved it with no modifications. In addition to HDC’s comments, other preservation advocates had some interesting suggestions, as well, but the Commissioners barely referenced any of them in their comments. For what it’s worth, though, the design team was very attentive to the testimony (taking notes, even), which is not always the case.

amnh-existing

amnh-proposed-front

amnh-existing-rear

amnh-proposed-rear

amnh-interior

 

Category: HDC@LPC · Tags: ,

New Research From HDC!

Posted by on Friday, September 30, 2016 · 3 Comments 

Our brand new report examines affordable housing and historic districting for the first time. (Read More)

EMBLEM

Affordable housing dominates New York City’s public policy discourse. And for years, it’s been used as a tool to attack historic preservation efforts.

Until now.

The Historic Districts Council engaged an independent housing and planning consultant to analyze the data and get the facts.

Funded by the New York Community Trust, the result is the first-ever quantitative and peer-reviewed study of the interplay between affordable housing and historic district designation in our city.

Here’s what we discovered:

STABLE AND AFFORDABLE

Historic districts mean stable housing. Rent burden increases at a slower rate in historic districts than in the rest of the city, and tenants are almost always likelier to retain their rent subsidies.

NOT RISING RENTS

Historic districts don’t make the rent too damn high. Incomes tend to rise with rents in historic districts, and subsidized housing is built even after historic districts are designated.

Read more and spread the word:

 

Executive Summary

 

Full Report

 

Video

 

Stand by our research. Make a contribution to HDC today!

Category: Affordable Housing, Featured · Tags:

Explore the Waldorf Astoria Before It’s Too Late- Self-guided tour

Posted by on Thursday, September 29, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

HDC and the Art Deco Society of New York invite you to explore the Art Deco splendor of the Waldorf

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

301 Park Avenue (Meet at the Lexington Avenue entrance)

View the self-guided tour 

HDC and the Art Deco Society of New York are inviting you to tour around the Waldorf Astoria Hotel with us. Meghan Weatherby of ADSNY will lead us around the publicly accessible areas of the hotel including the Park Avenue Lobby, Grand Ballroom, the Jade Room, the John Jacob Astor Salon, the Basildon Room, the Silver Corridor, the Palm Room, and the Starlight Roof. After the tour we will retire to the beautiful piano bar for libations and lively conversation.

The Waldorf was recently purchased and will be closing in March for a condo renovation. HDC and many others have been petitioning the Landmarks Preservation Commission to landmark these beautifully intact Art Deco interiors before they are forever altered. As part of our social media petition, we will also ask that everyone takes a lot of pictures and uses every medium possible to get the de Blasio administration’s attention in the hopes of preserving this New York City treasure.

To read our letter to the LPC and to send your own click here.

Category: Program & Events · Tags: , ,

Six to Celebrate 2017

Posted by on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

Be one of HDC’s 2017 Six to Celebrate ! Applications are now being accepted, they are due Dec. 2nd
STC logo copy-high res 

Preserve Your Neighborhood!

Apply at www.6tocelebrate.org by December 2, 2016

2017-application-flyer

Apply at www.6tocelebrate.org by December 2, 2016


Support is provided in part by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council and by the New York State Council on the Arts and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature. Additional support is provided by City Council Members Ben Kallos, Rosie Mendez, Mark Levine, Inez Dickens, Vincent Gentile, Corey Johnson, Stephen Levin, Margaret Chin, Dan Garodnick, and Rafael Salamanca and New York State Assembly Members Deborah Glick, Richard Gottfried, and Daniel O’Donnell.Funded in part by a grant from the NYC & Company Foundation in partnership with the Office of Manhattan Borough President Gale

Brewer.

all-logos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category: Featured, Six to Celebrate · Tags:

HDC@LPC – Testimony for LPC Hearing on Sept. 20, 2016

Posted by on Monday, September 19, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

HDC regularly reviews every public proposal affecting Individual Landmarks and buildings within Historic Districts in New York City, and when needed, we comment on them. Our testimony for the latest items to be presented at the Landmarks Preservation Commission is below.

 

Item 1

1093 Lorimer Street – Greenpoint Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #184971

Project architect: Set Architecture

A neo-Grec style rowhouse designed by George Gerard and built in 1884. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions.

This row of modest two-story rowhouses are completely intact in footprint, and the houses in each pair were designed to be mirror images of each other. The amount of bulk proposed for this little house negates its modest quality, and the Greenpoint historic district is also a small area, so we believe this bulk will be negatively impactful. The rear yard addition is puzzling, as there is already an existing, three-story “dog leg.” Shifting this mass parallel to the building doesn’t appear to gain much square footage, or air and light for that matter. In short, it seems to be an unnecessary intervention which hinges on trend, not logic. In terms of the rooftop, its visibility is greater given the shortness of these buildings and thus, should be invisible.

1093-lorimer-elevation
1093-lorimer-axo
LPC determination: Approved with modifications
The applicant explained that no additional square footage was being added in the rear, but rather reorganizing it to accommodate this family’s needs. Fred Bland mentioned how floor plans from the 1880s aren’t as functional as modern floor plans, and the rear was ok’ed. The rooftop addition will be pushed back so that it is not visible.
Item 4

476 Washington Avenue – Clinton Hill Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190161

Project architect: NV Design Architecture

An altered wood framed house built prior to 1882. Application is to demolish the existing building and construct a new building.

In 2008, the LPC and DOB commenced a demolition by neglect action against this property, at which time protective shoring was installed to preserve the structural integrity of the building. Eight years later, the building is more deplorable than ever because of continued neglect. Instead of a fair forfeit and proposed reconstruction that would be suitable for the district, the owner has proposed to construct a yuppie magnet on this forlorn lot.
 
The LPC has recently reviewed two proposals in Chelsea and Greenpoint for two extremely altered properties, both of which will restore the buildings to be in character with their respective districts and based on historic documentation. In this case, the documentation has been done, but the applicant has turned the other way. Leaving a property to languish until it is no longer salvageable and then proposing a discordant new and much larger building is unacceptable. Property owners outside of historic districts are free to build as they please but in this case, it is paramount that the LPC does not reward a premeditated demolition and the subsequent marring of our city’s protected historic fabric.

476-washington-historic
476-washington-proposed
 LPC determination: No Action
Luckily, neighbors showed up to enlighten the Commission about how this building has been left to rot and continuously flipped over the years by neglectful owners. People also were not thrilled about this lackluster design which offers nothing to the district or the building. One man wanted it saved, and especially liked that the cornice was still attached despite the hell it’s been through. The Commissioners were troubled with the design, too, and in the end, Chair Srinivasan called the proposal “half-baked” and asked the applicant to explore a new design that fits better with the context and has a street wall.

 Item 5

112 Vanderbilt Avenue – Wallabout Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #181535

Project architect: Michael Scaduto

An altered Greek Revival style semi-attached house built c. 1851-52. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.

HDC found the rear extension appropriate in terms of visibility and massing, and we hope the revenue from the new square footage can eventually go towards fixing the facade of this house. While we are aware that the facade is not before us for comments, we nonetheless would like to acknowledge to the Commission that it is a rare prize to own a Greek Revival detached house, and that the applicant consider in the future to ameliorate some of the scars on this facade.

112-vanderbilt-facade
112-vanderbilt-massing
LPC determination: Approved

Item 7

143 Franklin Street – TriBeCa West Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #181448

Project architect: Jeffrey Cole Architects

A Renaissance Revival style warehouse designed by Henry Anderson and built in 1897-98. Application is to construct a rooftop addition, alter the rear facade and loading dock, and replace windows.

In the case that the Commissioners’ drawing sets differ from what HDC’s committee viewed on Friday, we would like to point out some issues which made this application indecipherable to us. Notably, there are no visibility studies for the rooftop addition; no floor plans; and no explanation for the proposed cut out on the rear facade. The lack of these basic elements from the presentation made us ere on caution, and we ask that LPC require these drawings so that a complete proposal is before Commissioners.

143-franklin-existing
143-franklin-proposed
LPC determination: Approved

 Item 8

165 Mercer Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #190170

A cast iron building designed by Henry Fernbach and built 1870-71.

Application is to remove the fire escape, construct a rooftop addition, and install storefront infill and signage.

Project architect: Flank Architecture

HDC found the rooftop addition appropriate for this district and in terms of visibility. The storefronts also seem to be a safe design–however, only minimal research was conducted. This included only the NYC tax photographs, which are reliably vague for capturing details like storefronts. It’s not that the storefronts that are proposed are inappropriate, but a more compelling case for what was there should be made by finding more evidence.

165-mercer-existing
165-mercer-proposed
LPC determination: Approved
Several decades-long tenants came out to mourn their loss of air and light due to this proposed rooftop addition, and Commissioner’s discussion focused mostly on whether or not to memorialize the existence of this building’s life as a garage in its storefronts. Executive Director Sarah Carroll said that this district’s “period of significance” ends around 1910, and that the garage is much “newer” than that period, thus deflating the topic. The proposal was approved as presented.

 

Item 9

187-193 Lafayette Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Extension Historic District
 
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #191329
 
A Renaissance Revival style warehouse designed by Buchman & Fox and built in 1903-05. Application is to legalize the installation of HVAC equipment without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).
 
Project architect: Eyeball

While certainly not in your purview, the visceral reaction of our Committee to this application was: life safety issue. Based on this, it is clear that this is not a solution to HVAC placement, but rather the textbook definition of a jerry-rigged eyesore. Many a building in NYC has figured out how to place equipment in appropriate places other than the fire escape.

187-193-lafayette-st
LPC determination: Approved with modifications

Item 11

307 West 103rd Street – Riverside – West End Extension II Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #186225

Project architect: Peter Brotherton

A Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by George F. Pelham and built in 1895-96. Application is to replace windows, construct a rear yard addition and alter the rear facade.

It is pleasant to see that this application proposes to preserve the building’s original footprint, which is rare on Upper West Side blocks. HDC wonders about the proposed material of EIFS, though, which has a reputation of being easily dented, say, from a stray ball or a kick. Wrapping the rear of this building in essentially styrofoam and its proposed color will create an alien situation on this block, and we ask that some other higher quality insulation be conferred, if possible.

307-w-103-existing
307-w-103-proposed
LPC determination: No Action
Commissioners struggled with the EIFS material and asked that the applicant furnish evidence of its use this extensively within the district. Some great quotes about EIFS from the Commission’s discussion:
“It often failed whenever anyone who got near it. Most people avoid that by not getting near it.” – Fred Bland
“EIFS is frowned upon, the Commission in the past has said that new work should be commensurate with materials in the district, in other words, don’t use crap.” -Michael Goldblum

Item 15

210 East 62nd Street – Treadwell Farm Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #181027

Project architect: Arctangent Architecture & Design

A rowhouse designed by F. S. Barns and built in 1870, and altered in the 20th century. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions, replace windows, and alter the facade and areaway.

The Treadwell Farm Historic District was one of the first districts to be designated under the then-new Landmarks Law for their continued uniform existence over a century depsite their proximity to midtown Manhattan’s development. Upon the prospect of designation, a neighbor proclaimed, “We have no fear of what the [Landmarks] Commission may do, as far as restricting us in the future. What we do fear is the possible effect in the future of unrestrained economic forces on the neighborhood which has been a pleasant, attractive, charming residential oasis in this city for approximately 100 years.”

It is with this knowledge and sentiment that we ask the Commission to review this proposal, which while provocative and creative, is not in the spirit of this small historic district. The rears of these houses have been maintained in near uniformity, massing, and height. The proposed application will eliminate the rear wall entirely, and build up higher than its neighbors. Its bulk is also substantial, as it will extend to the maximum zoning allotment and leave only the required 30 feet from the lot line. While the decorative screens could create some opacity in their closed position, all glass rears are not a characteristic of this district, either. It is refreshing to see a departure from the typical rear yard addition design, but this iteration needs a bit more compromise with the existing fabric.

 

210-e-62-st-existing

210-e-62-st-proposed

LPC determination: No Action

Many neighbors inside and outside of the historic district came to testify against this. While the Chair mentioned that this proposal “swallowed” the whole house, Commissioner Goldblum was very concerned that this iteration was even before the Commission, stating that heeded staff recommendations would have never allowed this proposal to “make it this far” and that the applicant had wasted the time of both the staff and the Commission. There was a general consensus that this design was not harmonious with the district.

Item 18

605 Park Avenue – Upper East Side Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #192420

Project architect: WJE Engineers & Architects

An apartment building designed by Sylvan Bien and built in 1953-54. Application is to establish a Master Plan governing the future installation of replacement windows, balcony enclosures, and through-wall HVAC units.

This application is a conundrum. For one, the corner balconies, which read as notches in this massive building, are significant architectural features, which arguably should be preserved. The reading of this building is completely different on areas where they have already been filled in, and this haphazard state has a detrimental effect on the entire mass of this skyscraper. Further, it is odd that this master plan proposes to move the building in a direction to enclose all of these porches when the DOB has recently created a mandate to prevent exactly this. Regardless of these opposing views, the proposed simplifications of railing and window treatments on balcony areas is unacceptable, and these areas should proceed as previously approved by the LPC.
 

605-park-existing
605-park-proposed
605-park-details
LPC determination: Approved
Unaware by the Committee when being reviewed, this building is actually a “no style,” giving the green light to the proposal as is.

Item 21

35-16 87th Street – Jackson Heights Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #174843

Project architect: No name on drawings

An Anglo-American Garden Home style house designed by C. F. & D. E. McAvoy and built in 1926. Application is to legalize the installation of windows and replace asphalt shingles, without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).

HDC is happy to see that another legalization will be rectified in a Queens historic district, as these alterations happen disproportionately here and uniformity is critical to the experience of the district. While the proposed shingles are appropriate, we ask Commissioners to compare the window treatment to other examples provided in the packet, where the difference in quality is palpable. We ask that better windows be applied at this property to get back on track.

35-16-87th-st-existing
35-16-87th-st-proposed
LPC determination: Approved with modifications

 Item 22

339 West 29th Street – Lamartine Place Historic District

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, Docket #164417

Project architect: C3D Architecture

A Greek Revival style rowhouse with Renaissance Revival style elements originally built in 1846-47, altered in 1951 by Harry Gerson. Application is to modify rooftop and rear additions constructed prior to designation and to alter the facade.

HDC thanks Friends of LaMartine Place, our elected officials and our partner organizations for their consistent and steadfast support and collaborative work for all of these years to preserve the Hopper-Gibbons house’s legacy. Our collective cause has brought us together once again in what is the latest attempt to legitimize the marring of history.
The persisting presence of the illegal fifth floor addition is an affront to our history, our culture, and the law. From start to finish, this catastrophe has been self-inflicted by the owner and has come at the expense of the community, and all of New York.

Although it may be correct under the broadest interpretation of the law, HDC is appalled by the audacity of this application and urges to the Commissioners to consider deeply the standards by which it should be judged. What the owner has defined as appropriate in the renderings submitted has been defined as illegal by the NYC Department of Buildings and the New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Even more concerning, another city agency, the DOB, has failed to take action to correct this situation by court order for over a year, resulting in the proposal now before the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Let the record show that if the NYC DOB enforced its own “Order to Correct” and removed this illegal addition, this proposal would be fundamentally different.  As it is, the LPC is being asked to manage the Building Department’s business. It would be sound and sensible policy for the two agencies to coordinate on this matter and insist on the removal of this illegal construction.
 
Putting aside the paramount facts of this addition’s construction, this proposal is breath-takingly inappropriate by the Commission’s own standards. The applicant has stated that the “back story” of this building is “not relevant” to this current application to the LPC. We could not disagree more, because at no. 339, its history, and back story, is everything. This is one of the few sites in New York City that was designated by the Landmarks Preservation Commission for its cultural significance, as opposed to aesthetics. This row of houses survived the Draft Riots of 1863 which specifically targeted this house because of its undeniable role in the Abolitionist movement. No. 339 West 29TH Street is the only known, extant Underground Railroad stop in Manhattan, and as such, is a physical monument to the greatest human rights movement in American history; the battle for which almost ended us as a nation.

hg-historic
hg-existing
hg-proposed-elevation
hg-section
LPC determination: No Action
After ten years of an illegal rooftop addition at 339 West 29th Street, yesterday the Landmarks Preservation Commission did not approve the rooftop’s proposed legalization. This administration, under Chair Meenakshi Srinivasan, has taken an interest in the concept of cultural landmarks and taken steps to protect them, such as the individual landmark designation of the Stonewall Inn in 2015.Although no action was officially taken on the proposal yesterday, LPC’s discussion explored how the Commission might regulate historic districts like LaMartine Place, which implies not relying solely on aesthetics, but rather cultural appropriateness. In this case, this historic district’s cultural prestige derives from its roofline, which served as an escape path during the Draft Riots of 1863 during the Civil War, for which these buildings are designated. To advocates’ delight, the Chair explained that in regulating this cultural landmark, the physicality of its additions cannot be divorced from its cultural significance, and the addition was therefore inappropriate.  Commissioner Goldblum added, “If the cultural manifestation is in the [roof] element, we have a responsibility to protect it.” It was further clarified by LPC Counsel Mark Silberman that it was in Commissioners’ power to demand that the entire 5th floor be taken down. Toward the end of the discussion, all Commissioners reached a consensus that the illegal addition should be removed.

This victory couldn’t have been achieved without the staunch advocacy of the Friends of Hopper-Gibbons/LaMartine Place; our elected officials (notably Assembly Member Dick Gottfried’s office); and you, friends of the Historic Districts Council who took the time to show up at LPC yesterday and have written to the agency over the past months and years. The Historic Districts Council also thanks the Landmarks Preservation Commission for its thoughtful and just determination of this building’s future, where history will finally be restored. As HDC’s Executive Director, Simeon Bankoff said: “The fight to protect this building has been going on longer than the Civil War.”

Since the LPC took a “No Action,” this means this property will return to the LPC at a Public Meeting (date tbd). There are other aspects of the application which need to be fleshed out and were not dealt with yesterday, such as the proposed “restoration” of the facade and rear yard additions. The rooftop, however, was discussed and its recommendation by the Commission to be removed is on the public record.

Category: HDC@LPC · Tags:

HDC opposition to deed restriction lifting at One Chase Manhattan Plaza

Posted by on Friday, September 16, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

The Historic Districts Council is writing in opposition to the proposed removal of the deed restriction at 28 Liberty Street, a.k.a. One Chase Manhattan Plaza. Where the Landmarks Preservation Commission has failed to exercise its powers and save this Modernist masterpiece, this safe guard of a deed restriction–if upheld–will preserve the architectural experience as it was intended to be. In fact, the sheer existence of such a restriction reveals the great foresight and care which went into the planning of this architecture to prevent it from being marred from future, insensitive fads, most relevantly the corporate “Apple Cube.” More broadly, the proliferation of recent deed changes which disadvantage the public to serve private entities is deplorable. Any changes should be weighed in the context of the long term: is it wise to permanently alter an individual landmark for the current owner? Do these proposed spaces hold any longitudinal, classical value?

As HDC testified at the LPC public hearing and wrote a follow-up letter for the subsequent public meeting, we are gravely disappointed in the LPC’s failure to regulate this property’s aesthetic qualities competently, and the deed retriction is further evidence that this building has been failed. Even more disappointing is the proposal for two large glass cubes at the northwest corner and at the Nassau Street and Pine Street entrance. The Nassau Street cube, though smaller than the one at the northwest corner, is particularly egregious due to its interruption of the plaza’s flow and the view corridor toward the plaza and of Jean Dubuffet’s famed sculpture, “Group of Four Trees”. Similarly, the Pine Street cube is a detriment to experiencing Noguchi’s “Sunken Garden.” The glass cubes, whose function is to simply display signage, would add unnecessary square footage that would disrupt the design intent of this space, cluttering up a masterpiece. The deed restriction was conceived to assure this icon of the International Style would remain open and free from any built structures in perpetuity: please do not lift it.

PDF version

Category: The Politics of Preservation · Tags:

Preservation School 2016

Posted by on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 · Leave a Comment 

pres school

Head back to school with HDC!

The Historic Districts Council is pleased to present a series of classes that will illuminate the essentials of historic preservation. Whether you live in a historic district, serve on your local community board or just want to learn about the built environment of your city, these classes will provide you with knowledge and vocabulary about historic preservation practice in New York City. The classes are designed to cover the basics over four sessions to give participants an overall understanding of such topics as land use planning and building types in New York City, and instruct hands-on skills, including how to read architectural drawings and how to best research and photograph buildings.

 

Thursday, October 6, 6 pm:

Preservation 101 & Basics of Land Use Planning in NYC

This introductory course will begin with an overview of the various regulations and funding mechanisms used to preserve historic buildings in New York City. The second part of the session will familiarize participants with the broader umbrella under which preservation falls: land use planning. This section will cover New York City’s governing structure, how zoning works and New York City’s Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP).

Instructor: Tara Kelly


Thursday, October 13, 6 pm:

Architectural Photography & Social Media for Preservation Campaigns

Historic Preservation is first and foremost a visual field. This session will cover two important topics pertaining to marketing and messaging. The first part will provide tips and tricks to improve your photos of buildings and streetscapes in order to maximize their impact. The second part will teach participants how to harness the power of social media to enhance preservation campaigns, build a constituency and sound a call-to-action. Participants will leave with practical strategies to better manage their organizational “brand” and drive traffic to social media profiles and websites.  Instructors: Lynn Massimo & Cristiana Peña

Instructors: Lynn Massimo & Cristiana Peña


Thursday, October 20, 6 pm:   Reading Architectural Drawings & Overview of Common NYC Building Materials

Architectural drawings and renderings illustrate the often complicated design and construction plans for proposed building projects. The first part of this session will teach participants how to evaluate such documents in order to understand and analyze an upcoming construction project. The second part of the session will provide an overview of common building materials used in New York City, including terra-cotta, brick, brownstone, concrete and much more. The session will explain how these materials are employed, how to identify them, and “scratch the surface” on their maintenance and conservation.

Instructors: Dan Allen & Brendan Coburn


Thursday, October 27, 6 pm:   NYC Architectural Styles & How to Research Buildings

The first part of this session will focus on common architectural styles and building types found in New York City’s historic built environment, and instruct participants on how to identify them by their distinguishing features. The second part of the session will guide participants on tools and strategies for researching buildings in New York City, including various repositories and document types. Learn the basics of how to investigate the origins and stories behind historic properties.

Instructor: Gregory Dietrich

REGISTER



Classes:

$15 each or $50 for all 4 classes

Scholarships available

please contact Barbara Zay at bzay@hdc.org

 

Classes will take place at:

Neighborhood Preservation Center

232 East 11 Street

New York, NY 10003

6:00PM


Support is provided in part by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs in partnership with the City Council and by the New York State Council on the Arts and the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation with the support of Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature. Additional support is provided by City Council Members Ben Kallos, Rosie Mendez, Mark Levine, Inez Dickens, Vincent Gentile, Corey Johnson, Stephen Levin, Margaret Chin, Dan Garodnick, and Rafael Salamanca and New York State Assembly Members Deborah Glick, Richard Gottfried, and Daniel O’Donnell.nysca-black

NYCulture_logo_CMYK

Category: Program & Events · Tags:

About Us

The Historic Districts Council (HDC) is the advocate for all of New York City's historic neighborhoods. HDC is the only organization in New York that works directly with people who care about our city's historic neighborhoods and buildings. We represent a constituency of over 500 local community organizations.

Contact Us

Historic Districts Council
232 East 11th Street
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 614-9107
Fax: (212) 614-9127
E-mail: hdc@hdc.org

Donate Now

Become a Friend of HDC! Your donation helps preserve, improve, and celebrate the places that make New York great.

Join Our Mailing List

Receive updates on programs, events, action alerts, and our Landmarks Preservation Commission testimony.