HDC Weighs in on 980 Madison Debate
This proposal was a difficult one for HDC’s Public Review Committee. The applicant has taken time and considerable thought to create an addition that better relates to the Park Bernet Building and the Upper East Side Historic District, something the prior application completely lacked. If this were a new building proposed for a vacant lot, it could be very acceptable. If it were an addition to a non-landmarked building, it could be an exciting project. Whether it belongs atop a fully designed and constructed building of some acclaim and history in a landmarked district was a matter of much discussion. Some on the committee felt the addition with the accompanying restorative work was appropriate. Others believed that the addition overwhelmed the building, damaging its design and its relationship to the neighboring structures. Still others found the project interesting, but feared that it set a dangerous precedent for every low-scale building in an historic district to be considered a base for something more.
When considering the design of the proposal, there were some details we agreed upon.
Many of the committee members believe, as is often stated here by Commissioners, that an addition should be subservient to the original, historic structure. Knowing that zoning prohibits a set back of this addition, we would recommend taking it down a floor or two. Doing so would decrease what some felt was a heavy design suffocating the Park Bernet Building
The committee appreciates the nod to other buildings in the districts with limestone bases and brick upper floors, but we feel the examples do not quite fit here. In such buildings the upper brick portions are all taller than the limestone bases, none are split through the middle. With this in mind, and, again, in an attempt to make the addition less heavy, the committee thought a lighter color would be more appropriate.
As much has been made about keeping the street wall level, the committee feels the louvers that tilt out a number of feet from the façade break this line and the attempted unity of the two buildings. The existing structure is purposely very flat. The one exception is William Wheeler’s sculpture of Venus giving the arts to Manhattan over the entrance, a defining feature of the Park Bernet Building. In order to maintain the prominence of the existing building and its design, the louvers should fold inward.
Finally, while we all were happy to see the proposed removal of later additions and alterations, some feared it was a “Faustian bargain”. The restoration of the solid wall on the third floor would allow Wheeler’s sculpture to once again stand prominent against the more pristine façade. We also particularly appreciated the proposed restoration of the storefronts – an element that is all too often sacrificed on the alter of “modern” retail needs. The removal of the added upper floor would, indeed, restore the Park Bernet’s proportions. Yet, the addition proposed would, without question, considerably change how one sees this building, and in the minds of some, would lessen the impact of the restoration.
In the end, we are faced with a conundrum – ideologically, what is an appropriate addition to this building, if any? Does this proposal irretrievably alter what the Landmarks Preservation Commission is mandated to preserve in the Upper East Side Historic District? What does this proposal mean in terms of the ever-evolving standards of appropriateness with regard to other buildings – perhaps even less-distinguished but still protected by the Landmarks Law? HDC does not have the final answers to these questions, perhaps there are no final answers; but these questions must be addressed before this proposal is decided upon.