Item 9
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
122116- Block 1063, lot 37-
52 8th Avenue aka 242-253 Berkeley Place – Park Slope Historic District
A mansion designed by F. Carlos Merry and built in 1886. Application is to alter openings on the Berkeley Place façade.
HDC finds the proposed opening alteration appropriate, but asks that the new door include a transom whose line follows that of the transoms on the other door and windows of the Berkeley Place façade.
Item 17
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
124153- Block 475, lot 7501-
60 Grand Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A neo-Classical style building designed by Cleverdon and Putzel and constructed in 1895-96. Application is to install new storefront infill.
HDC finds that while the existing could use a little cleaning up (and we are happy to see the removal of the roll down gate and track), the proposed alterations would leave the storefront looking a little dull. Details such as the transom and basement ventilation windows should be retained.
Item 21
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
124152- Block 497, lot 15-
558 Broadway – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
A commercial building built in 1920. Application is to install a flagpole.
558 Broadway with its large, glassy storefront does not need a flag, and there is no reason to start a precedent for such flags here on this block. If extra signage perpendicular to the street is desired, the rules allowing for staff-level permitted blade signs should be considered instead.
Item 22
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
105277- Block 529, lot 26-
33 Bond Street – NoHo Historic District
A Italianate store and loft building built in 1830-31 and later altered in 1911 by Cleverdon & Putzel. Application is to construct a rooftop and rear yard additions.
HDC is opposed to these plans to construct rooftop and rear yard additions as they would overwhelm the historic structure. While other buildings in the area have had mansard roofs and artist garrets added to them, 33 Bond Street has its own history already, and that history does not include such additions, particularly of the scale proposed. Three stories in the front and what is in effect five on the rear is excessive and would greatly change how the building is read. So much of Bond Street has already been lost making the integrity of 33 all the more crucial to this historic district. HDC urges the commission to scale down these additions so that they are reasonably sized and in keeping with the existing building.
Item 23
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIA
TENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
124007- Block 628, lot 1-
2-8 9th Avenue – Gansevoort Market Historic District
A neo-Grec style store and loft building designed by Peter J. Zabriskie and built in 1887. Application is to install storefront infill and signage and modify the existing metal canopy.
While we find the clean lines and minimalist approach to the storefront infill more appropriate than the existing, HDC does not find the alterations to the canopy to be as sympathetic. The canopy should be all metal, not wood planking which has no precedent here or elsewhere in the district. Also samples of colors and materials should be presented to ensure the simple approach does not come off looking merely generic.
Item 24
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
120780- Block 573, lot 75-
61 West 9th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
A Tudor Gothic style apartment house designed by Sugarman & Berger and built in 1925. Application is to establish a Master Plan governing the future installation of windows and through-window air conditioner units.
A master plan should aim over time to create harmony and move a building closer to its historic appearance. The proposed would still result in a hodgepodge of windows, some of them not particularly well detailed. Divided light, wood double hung windows should be consider for the lower three floors which create the well-defined base, not just the first floor. On the other floors, the aluminum casements proposed are much chunkier than the existing steel ones. For example, the jamb detail would expand nearly two inches from 1 ¼ inches to 2 7/8 inches. Repair of the existing windows and replication in rolled steel should be considered instead. The Windsor Arms is an impressive Tudor Gothic style apartment house, and its windows are a key element in its design. Seeing as this is a master plan, not a project to replace all the windows at once, there is a chance to think further into the future about the materials and details most appropriate for this building.
Item 25
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
123482- Block 618, lot 62-
245 West 13th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
An Italianate style town house built in 1854. Application is to legalize a stoop gat
e installed without LPC permits.
Item 26
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
123173- Block 618, lot 63-
247 West 13th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
An Italianate style town house built in 1854. Application is to legalize a stoop gate installed without LPC permits.
In general, HDC finds the addition of stoop gates to be unwelcome intrusions to residential blocks. Stoops designed to curve open at the bottom step, like open arms welcoming residents and guests home, are particularly altered by such barriers. HDC recommends that these gates at 245 and 247 West 13th Street not be legalized and alternatives, like a simple chain at the base as has often been used, be explored.
Item 32
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
123517- Block 568, lot 9-
12 East 11th Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
An Italianate style rowhouse built in 1852. Application is to construct a rear yard addition and install lot line windows.
The proposed addition is a substantial increase over the existing additions of this 1852 rowhouse and its sister building next door, both in height and in width. The large glass opening adds to the monolithic feel of this addition, and HDC asks that this be broken up some to create more of a domestic scale and feel. The top floor fenestration matches that of its neighbor, and while the dropping of one sill to create a door may be permissable, the other two windows and their stone sills should be retained. A more sympathetic addition though would remain three stories tall, extending only the width, and allowing the upper floor fenestration to remain completely intact.
Item 37
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
123797- Block 1284, lot 2-
597 Fifth Avenue – Charles Scribner’s Sons Building, Individual and Interior Landmark
A Beaux-Arts style building designed by Ernest Flagg and built in 1912-13. Application is to create new openings in the interior walls at the upper and lower mezzanine.
HDC finds the overall idea of creating prominent openings from an individual and interior landmark into a space in a neighboring, nonlandmarked structure a rather drastic, possibly problematic one. Everything that goes on in the adjoining space will affect the character of the Charles Scribner’s Sons Building without LPC oversight. A solid wall is a solid wall for a reason – it visually and physically delineates a space. Six large openings on two floors changes the size of the interior and the overall experience of the landmark.
If the openings are to be created, HDC has a few comments on the execution. While the framing that recreates the historic bookcase is a fine idea, the large blank openings into a non-landmarked, non-regulated space will have a very different effect than the original bookcase did. Could glass doors with wood mullions and muntins recalling the bookshelves be added to better reflect the history of this interior and divide it more from the neighboring room? Also the historic staircase is a very key piece of the landmarked interior, and in order to maintain its prominence the opening on the lower mezzanine should be no wider than the staircase itself.
Item 46
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
124140- Block 1389, lot 21-
933-943 Madison Avenue, 31-33 E 74th St – Upper East Side Historic District
A row of five neo-Grec style rowhouses and one altered rowhouse designed by S. M. Styles and built in 1876, a rowhouse built in 1876 and redesigned in the neo-Renaissance style by Alexander M. Welch, and a neo-Georgian style residence designed by Grosvenor Atterbury and built in 1901. Application is to demolish the altered rowhouse on Madison Avenue and the rear extension of another rowhouse, and to construct additions.
HDC would like to thank the applicant for reaching out to our Public Review Committee and providing us with a very thorough presentation.
HDC is happy to see a project that is more thoughtful and sensitive to this historic district than prior proposals and even approvals, and we applaud the restoration work planned for the long neglected landmarks. We find two main problems though – the additions above the fifth floor level take away from the good work below, and the new infill buildings are too quiet, doing little to keep ones eye on from straying to the rooftop additions.
The first floor additions atop the Madison Avenue rowhouses is minimally visible, but the second floor is more problematic. Rarely are two floor additions approved by the commission, especially on a rowhouse of just five stories. The boxy configuration compounds the problem. The additions should be designed to create a sense of separate additions on separate rowhouses as is often required by the commission even when two buildings have been combined into one on the interior. A sloping roof on the second floor could help diminish its impact and resemble something more like the bulkheads typically found on roofscapes around the neighborhood.
The additional floors above 31 East 74th Street that stretch across to the new infill building shares a similar issue of engulfing originally individual structures into one large box. The additional floors loom over the side-street rowhouse as well as those on Madison Avenue from a number of vantage points.
Finally while we appreciate the toned down approach to the new infill buildings, they should be something more than just infill. This unique spot allows for more creativity, particularly when the new buildings keep to a smaller scale. The surrounding buildings are fine examples of the 19th century, turn of the century, and 20th century architecture, and, while the proposed buildings rightly do not try to copy them, a little more could be done to ensure the 21st century isn’t pushed to the background.