January 24, 2012
Item 5
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
126503- Block 214, lot 15-
12 Middagh Street – Brooklyn Heights Historic District
A 19th century carriage house. Application is to alter the ground floor.
HDC is opposed to this application to alter the ground floor as it would greatly affect the building and turn a 19th-century carriage house into a two-car garage. The loss of the pedestrian doorways and the addition of a large expanse of garage door are more fitting in an industrial or commercial area, not a residential neighborhood. This charming carriage house is in beautiful condition and removing half of its façade, its historic fabric and fenestration, would be inappropriate for the building and the historic district.
LPC determination: no action
Item 9
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
127481- Block 605, lot 8-
487 Hudson Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A school building designed by Thomas M. Bell and built in the early 1950’s with an adjacent playground. Application is to construct an addition on a portion of the playground.
In general HDC finds that this proposed addition appropriate as it draws from surrounding buildings in materials and design while remaining subservient in its size to those same buildings. We do though question the use of ½ inch brick on plywood. It seems like a less than quality material and form of construction for the Greenwich Village Historic District, one that might not stand the test of time as well as its neighbors.
LPC determination: approved
Item 11
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
126750- Block 617, lot 47-
208 West 13th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
An Italianate style school building built between 1869 and 1899. Application is to replace doors.
While the existing doors look from the photos to need just some basic upkeep, HDC does understand the center’s desire to open up the entrances more. We would prefer though to see retention of the doors’ configurations by replacing the panels with glass rather than removing so many rails and muntins, particularly in the central entrance. HDC also questions the change in the transom configurations, which we feel should either remain as they are (in a pattern which does have some rhythm and symmetry to it) or be changed to just one type.
LPC determination: no action
Item 13
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
126381- Block 572, lot 66-
47 West 8th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1845 and altered in the early 20th century to accommodate stores at the first two floors. Application is to legalize façade alterations without LPC permits and install new storefront infill.
Commissioners were doubtful about the material applied to the façade of 47 West 8th Street back in October 2010 when a proposal was heard to legalize this alteration. While Mediterranean inspired commercial bump outs are fitting to Greenwich Village, a stucco coating would be more appropriate. Details of the infill should also be studied to ensure a quality interpretation of the style.
LPC determination: denied
Item 14
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
118252- Block 622, lot 17-
396 Bleecker Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A townhouse built in 1852-53. Application is to install storefronts.
The existing ground floor infill dates to the early 20th century when these two townhouses were combined, an interesting, historic alteration that deserves preservation. HDC feels this proposal for storefront infill is not an appropriate one. First, the loss of matching windows and the addition of two more doors take away from the unity of the base and resembles two separate buildings instead. Secondly, other than the residential entrance door, this proposal would remove much of the design and character of the existing, including angled, not squared, bays and a firstt floor cornice which follows those lines. Finally, although the existing is not perfectly symmetrical, it does have an order, nothing feels out of place or cramped. The same cannot be said for the proposed where shop X’s store window and door seemed determined to fit into the space of just one store window. Creating two storefronts out of this base is a challenge, but by retaining or recalling more of the existing details and restudying the configuration a more appropriate solution could be found.
LPC determination: approved
Item 17
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
122910- Block 719, lot 20-
433 West 21st Street – Chelsea Historic District
An apartment house designed by Springsteen & Goldhammer and built in 1930. Application is to establish a master plan governing the future installation of through-the-wall window AC units.
HDC is happy to see an application for an air conditioning master plan that retains and restores in places the steel casement windows which are so essential to the design of 1930’s apartment houses like this one by Springsteen & Goldhammer. The proposed is an improvement over existing conditions as it is more reversible and allows retention of more of the original window configuration. We have one small issue, but since it is something that will be replicated a number of times over the façade, one that we feel becomes a larger issue. The proposed single, central supports look rather clunky, and we would just ask that two smaller side supports, like the existing ones, be used instead if possible.
LPC determination: approved
Item 18
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
126334- Block 856, lot 9-
11 East 26th Street – Madison Square North Historic District
A neo-Gothic style store and loft building designed by Rouse & Goldstone and built in 1912-13. Application is to replace storefront infill.
26th Street between Fifth and Madison Avenues is an important black as the northern frame of Madison Square and one of those rather rare spots in Manhattan where a tall building can be viewed and admired in full. HDC finds that without the graphics the proposed storefront infill is basically a blank piece of glass with no relation to the rest of neo-Gothic style store and loft building. Using existing material on the 27th Street façade and a blow up of a 1937 photo of the block as guides, a more interesting and historically appropriate storefront could be devised.
In the photo, to the left of the woman walking down the middle of 26th Street, is number 11. Its storefront is divided in three relating to the bays of the floors above and features a short bulkhead, a transom of divided lights (possibly like the one which exists on the 27th Street façade) and a sign band. All of these features could be incorporated into a design that would still meet the museum’s needs, and HDC asks that the proposal be restudied in order to do so.
LPC determination: approved
Item 22
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
127519- Block 1459, lot 22-
419 East 64th St. aka 430 65th St. – Individual Landmark
A two-story apartment building designed by Phillip H. Ohm, built as part of the model tenement complex City and Suburban Homes First Avenue Estate in 1914-15, and altered in 2006. Application is to demolish the buildings, pursuant to RCNY-25-309 on the grounds that they generate an insufficient economic return.
It has been a long road to landmarking for the City and Suburban Homes, Company, First Avenue Estate. In 1990 the Landmarks Preservation Commission designated the entire block, from First to York Avenue, East 64th to East 65th Streets, a designation that was decreased by the Board of Estimate’s removal of the two easternmost buildings in the complex. At the LPC hearing of November 14, 2006, elected officials, Community Board 8, preservationists, residents and neighbors spoke up in favor of reinstating the designation of 429 East 64th Street and 430 East 65th Street as part of the landmarked site. A week later, the commission voted to make the landmark whole again. Now, five years later, the owners seek to tear apart the site once again with an application to demolish these two structures on grounds that they generate an insufficient economic return.
Given the important history and landmark status of the buildings, this hardship claim should be carefully scrutinized. The report provided by the applicant, who has every reason to make sure the numbers fit the plan, has a number of issues that would make not just real estate experts but almost any New Yorker scratch their head in wonderment: including bizarrely low “market rate” rent and inconsistencies such as the shrinking average unit size from one year to the next. HDC does not find this is a stable foundation for a hardship ruling and demolition. Approval of this application would not only the loss of these two landmarked buildings, it would mean lowering the bar of what counts as a hardship and opening the floodgates to other supposed hardships and further demolitions.
LPC determination: no action