LPC Docket Number: 102420
Queens, Block: 8041, Lot: 55
103 Arleigh Road – Douglaston Historic District
A freestanding Colonial Revival style house designed by Robert Gilbert and built in 1924. Application is to legalize the replacement of windows, a balustrade, and driveway post, and the construction of a retaining wall without LPC permits.
HDC Testimony
As this presentation did not include drawings or photos of this property before the illegal work was performed, we at HDC turned to the 1997 Douglaston Historic District Designation Report. Under “notable building features” the report points out “windows with original multi-pane sash.” It is unfortunate that this historic fabric has been done away with without LPC guidance or permits. Whatever goes in their place must match in design details, scale and material. Similarly the balustrade or roof railing, also listed under “notable building features”, must be replaced with a rail of matching materials, scale and design. The designation report also mentions under “notable site features” stucco-covered posts with globes flanking the cobblestone-framed driveway. These features would have been retained had this project been brought forward as a regular proposal, and should now be replicated and reinstalled.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 098955
Queens, Block: 77, Lot: 52
21-16 45th Street – Hunters Point Historic District
An Italianate style townhouse designed by Root and Rust and built circa 1871-72. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
While this proposed rear yard addition is smaller than what is often asked for, this garden core in Hunters Point is virtually pristine. Only three other additions (not counting porches) are found here, two of which are only 1-story high each, and one other which is 2-stories tall. The rear elevations here also maintain a high level of historic fabric and design, as simple as it may be. With this rather rare condition in mind, HDC asks that design elements of this proposal be changed in order to be a little less modern and more in keeping with the 1870’s feel of the garden core. Rather than a steel guard rail with glass panel, a more traditionally styled metal railing would be more appropriate. We would also rather see the windows on the top remain one-over-one like others in the row and their surround details be retained.
LPC Determination: Approved
LPC Docket Number: 101662
Manhattan, Block: 584, Lot: 7501
456 Hudson – Greenwich Village Historic District
A neo-Federal style apartment building designed by Charles B. Meyer and built in 1925. Application is to install new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
HDC applauds the removal of the roll down gate, and in general we find this proposal for new storefront infill appropriate. Our only suggestion would be that the door needs more framing and a transom rather than simply a large plate glass door. Otherwise, the proposed door treatment takes the design from plain to featureless.
LPC Determination: Approved
LPC Docket Number: 101976
Manhattan, Block: 822, Lot: 1
49 West 20th Street – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A Gothic Revival style church designed by Richard Upjohn, and built in 1844-46; the Gothic Revival style Sisters House built in 1850; the Gothic Revival style Chapel built in 1879; and the Rectory built in 1844. Application is for the installation of signage, landscape alteration at the yard, and the legalization of the installation of asphalt roofing.
HDC Testimony
HDC is happy to see that the Church of the Holy Communion has found a new use, and in general we find this proposal appropriate, with a few exceptions.
The signage has come a long way since first proposed to the community board, but it is still excessive and obscures the individual landmark. In particular, we find the angled freestanding banners inappropriate. Proposals for hanging banners and flags are regularly rejected by this Commission, and similar banners standing in front of a designated building should not be treated differently
In general the landscaping looks like a good idea, but more information on the existing and historic conditions is needed. We would ask that the blue stone paving be used rather than travertine. In a recent similar proposal the Commission required that pavers of material and layout similar to the original be installed at St. Bartholemew’s, and HDC asks that you require a similar level of sensitivity to history and design here. Also, more information is needed on the proposed fountain. What exactly are its design details, size and materials and from what historic precedents or examples is it drawing its inspiration? If there is no historic precedent for the fountain, we would recommend not installing one.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 092511
Manhattan, Block: 698, Lot: 18
515-521 West 26th Street – West Chelsea Historic District
A vernacular brick factory building designed by Abraham Ratner and built in 1921; a daylight factory building designed by Rouse & Goldstone and built in 1911.; a brick daylight factory building with Arts and Crafts style elements designed by Harris H. Uris and built in 1913-1914. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.
HDC Testimony
The proposed rooftop additions are readily visible from both the street and the High Line. Besides the inappropriate size, the all glass design too sleek and not in keeping with the industrial character of these early 20th -century factory buildings. Unifying three separate factory buildings with identical roof top additions is not necessarily a good idea. Much like the Commission regularly requires distinctions between additions to townhouses or rowhouses that are now used as one, these additions should recall the individual buildings. HDC recommends that the applicant work with staff to design additions that are less visible and more contextual.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 102211
Manhattan, Block: 1124, Lot: 5
59 West 71 Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style apartment building built in 1924. Application is to enlarge a penthouse.
HDC Testimony
As the presentation shows, this proposed addition to a penthouse is far too visible and should be reduced. HDC also finds the proposed materials (and those of the existing penthouse) to be inappropriate for such a building.
LPC Determination: Approved
LPC Docket Number: 101312
Manhattan, Block: 1389, Lot: 1
930 Fifth Avenue – Upper East Side Historic District
A Classicizing Modern style apartment building designed by Emery Roth & Sons and built in 1940. Application is to amend CofA 85-0080 for a master plan governing the future replacement of windows.
HDC Testimony
This applications sounds like a legalization of windows installed in noncompliance with the Master Plan. Just because the original Master Plan has not been carried out correctly, this does not mean it cannot be. The plan apparently simply needs clarification and more details
The 1985 Master Plan was extraordinarily unfortunate, removing too much important detail from this Emery Roth & Sons apartment building, and this proposed plan would only make this bad decision worse. The plan further takes away design detail by removing the horizontal elements of the window. In recent years, the Commission has been careful to approve Master Plans that respect the important design role windows play in large, 20th-century apartment buildings, and HDC urges you to continue along this line. We would also like to note that since 1985 (nearly a quarter of a century ago now) rolled steel windows have become more readily available and should be considered here.
LPC Determination: Denied
LPC Docket Number: 072674
Brooklyn, Block: 1073, Lot: 39
31 Prospect Park – Park Slope Historic District
A neo-Federal style brick house designed by W.J. McCarthy and built in 1919. Application is to enclose the entry porch.
HDC Testimony
HDC does not find this application appropriate as it would hide one of the most important features of this neo-Federal style brick house, its charming entrance door and surround. While enclosing porches is often appropriate on the side or rear of a home, such an obscuring addition is not typically permitted front and center at the main entrance, and should not be allowed in this case.
LPC Determination: Approved