July 20, 2010
LPC Docket Number: 107888
Manhattan, Block: 587, Lot: 55
39 Barrow Street aka 70-72 7th Avenue South – Greenwich Village Historic District
A rowhouse, originally built in 1828 altered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Application is to construct a stoop, modify masonry openings and the areaway, and install railings and a skylight.
HDC Testimony
HDC does not object to the return of a stoop here at 39 Barrow Street. Seeing though that the existing is a charming early 20th century alteration, HDC asks that the basement doorway be kept in its current location, or if not possible, that the door be reinstalled in the new location.
The proposals for the rooftop are more troublesome. While not a solid wall, the wire mesh and railings will be readily visible over both the front of the 1828 rowhouse and the rear, a façade exposed by the cutting of 7th Avenue South. Such visibility is always objectionable over the primary façade and in the rear it is equally inappropriate as it will change the massing of the wonderfully distinctive, baroque façade.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 106944
Manhattan, Block: 552, Lot: 13
80 Washington Place – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Greek Revival style rowhouse built in 1839 and altered in the early 20th century. Application is to excavate the cellar.
HDC Testimony
While many excavations, too many in HDC’s opinion, have been approved by the Commission recently, we find that a total rear yard excavation – full width, full length – is far too much. In the interest of preserving the integrity of the garden cores in this district, in October of 2009 the Commission would not approve an excavation at 67 Charles Street until it was pulled back five feet from the rear lot line. Similarly in April of 2008, the Commission approved an excavation at 61 Bank Street only after it was reduced on all three sides. HDC asks that you apply a similar standard in this case.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 108639
Manhattan, Block: 1504, Lot: 44
66 East 93rd Street – Carnegie Hill Extension Historic District
A Queen Anne style flats building designed by A.B. Ogden & Son and built in 1890-91. Application is to alter the front and rear facades.
HDC Testimony
The alterations proposed for the front façade would be appropriate for a Carnegie Hill building that had been drastically altered and stripped, something that would be called “no-style” in a designation report, and had no documentation of its earlier design. However, that is not the case here at 66 East 93rd Street where a very cohesive, attractive design remains more or less intact since at least the time of the tax photo.
The use of limestone rather than brownstone and brick, a two-story base as opposed to one-story, and double wide windows are all significant departures from the existing, historic design. While the designation report notes that the basement and 1st floor may have been redesigned, this observation does not extend up to the 2nd floor. Taking this into consideration, HDC feels the existing façade design should be retained and, if anything, that the very clear tax photo be used as a guide towards a restoration of the 1st floor.
While this building is now to be used as a single family house, there is no need to try to make it look more like one, as has been repeatedly noted as a justification for the proposed alterations. When houses are combined to create one residence or institution, the Commission requires their individual character be preserved, particularly on the front elevation. When formerly industrial buildings become commercial or residential, the Commission again ensures that their industrial character and their history is retained. The history here is that for 120 years this has been an apartment building. Trying to erase the fact that multiple families rented apartments, like many New Yorkers have and continue to do, here is to remove a piece of Carnegie Hill’s history
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 107804
Brooklyn, Block: 1099, Lot: 26
500 12th Street – Park Slope Historic District
A neo-Italian Renaissance style rowhouse designed by William Calder and built in 1898. Application is to install a new stoop, areaway wall, and ironwork.
HDC Testimony
HDC applauds the return of the stoop on here at 500 12th Street. We do though question the decision to use a straight stoop as opposed to the L-shaped one seen in the tax photo. 484-514 are a group of 16 rowhouses. 494-514 were constructed in 1898 with L-shaped stoops, and 484-492 were constructed the following year with straight stoops. As 500 12th Street belongs to this first grouping, the original L-shaped stoop would be a more appropriate choice here.
LPC Determination: Approved
LPC Docket Number: 109567
Manhattan, Block: 1288, Lot: 33
360-376 Park Avenue aka 75-83 East 52nd Street – Racket & Tennis Club, Individual Landmark
A neo-Italian Renaissance style club building designed by McKim, Mead and White and built in 1916-1918. Application is to replace ornamental terra cotta cornice elements.
HDC Testimony
Thank you for this opportunity to express our strong opposition the proposed replacement of a portion of the original terra cotta clad cornice of McKim, Mead and White’s masterful Racquet and Tennis Club Building of 1916-1918.
The photographs of the deteriorated steel supports confirm that a significant intervention is certainly required and we do not question in any way the competence of the repair design. Our objection is solely to the choice of a vastly inferior substitute material, Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete GFRC to replace the fine hand pressed terra cotta of the original design and construction. We suspect that this choice of a lighter thin-shelled material will represent a cost savings over the resetting and localized replacement of terra cotta in kind. We do not see this cost savings as an appropriate rationale for the loss of so much unique historic fabric from such a singularly important individually designated landmark – a sole surviving massive masonry building in a sea of glass facades.
Specifically our concerns are:
1.The GFRC will not age in a similar way to the remaining adjacent terra cotta.
2. The GFRC will get wet and dry differently from the surviving adjacent terra cotta I would urge the commissioners to look out the window of this hearing room on a wet day to see the sad pockmarked appearance of the Woolworth Building where the many stones made of various replacement materials seriously detract from the smooth glazed terra cotta skin.
3. The Racquet and Tennis Club Building is one of the finest in the city and deserves the very best material. Terra cotta when installed over corrosion resistant armatures has an excellent record of durability. It is a fired vitreous ceramic material hand pressed into molds with a wall thickness of typically one and a half to two inches. GFRC is a slurry of Portland cement and chopped fibers sprayed into a mold resulting in far thinner wall sections achieving its cure only through the hydration of the Portland cement. The technology is relatively new, and so no long term performance and durability data are not available.
4. One of the truly magnificent features of true terra cotta is the variety of color and texture effects possible. The units to be replaced are slip glazed to resemble stone with a unique striation pattern that is integral to the slip glaze and permanent. GFRC relies on far more fugitive, less permanent stains and or coatings to achieve visual effects. Plainly put it just cannot match the real thing.
Instead we would urge that as much of the original material be saved as is possible through careful disassembly. The units should be cleaned and reinstalled once the support armature is replaced, reinforced augmented and waterproofed. Some of the terra cotta will of course require replacement. Good matching replica terra cotta units are readily available from a number of manufacturers. We would point to the recent work at the Bayard Building where a significant portion of original material was retained or my own project at 210 Riverside Drive where approximately 70% of Schwartz and Gross designed original material was saved and reset.
We argue that our landmark structures are too important to receive less than the best appropriate materials and the Commission should insist on true replacement in kind.
Thank You.
LPC Determination: Approved