REPORT: Eye on the LPC; November & December 2006
In November and December the Public Review committee met three times to review 39 applications for Certificates of Appropriateness. Testimony was written and given on 29 proposals. HDC also testified on eight individual landmarkings, one amendment to a landmark site, and one rescission of a landmark. There was another case to replace original windows with one of different materials on the Upper West Side. If it’s an application in Queens, it must be Douglaston (not surprising as the borough only has six districts, and this is the largest.) It’s not just that there have been a number of applications, but that they have been for large-scale additions, changes to historic fabric, and new construction that threaten the nature of the district. When it comes to the additions (and some outlandish ones in other districts), Commissioners Roberta Brandes Gratz and Libby Ryan continue to comment on “small buildings being asked to do more” – amen.
November 14, 2006
Public Meeting
Three sites in the West Village (Edwin L.B. Brooks House, 159 Charles Street House, and the Keller Hotel), as well as 63 Nassau Street and the Laboratory Administration Building at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, were heard for possible landmarking. No discussion or vote took place on any of these proposals.
A hearing for an amendment to the Landmark City and Suburban Homes Company to include the First Avenue Estates also took place. A few days before the hearing, scaffolding went up and work began (shadows of the Mason Stable?). Numerous supporters (more than thirty) spoke for the “relandmarking” of the apartments that had been originally included in the 1990 designation. A representative of the Real Estate Board of New York and the owners spoke in opposition. When questioned by the Commission on the nature of the work in process, the owners’ representative stated they had permits authorizing the enlargement and replacement of windows, application of stucco, and cornice removal and were beginning with that work. Chairman Tierney stated the Commission would vote “without delay” in a week, and left the public record open until that Friday at 5:00 PM.
A public meeting was held for the commissioners to discuss and vote on the Mason Stable and the New-York Cab Company Stable, both on the Upper West Side. Over the past five or so months, when the stables were talked about the Mason Stable were always mentioned first. In this meeting, the New-York Cab Company Stable came first. So good news first, the New-York Cab Company Stable was designated. Everyone thought it was “beautiful,” “exquisite,” and in “remarkably good condition.” It was considered special not only for its architecture, but also for its building type and historic importance.
In September, the day after the Mason Stable was calendared, the wood windows were removed. Four days before its October 17th public hearing, demolition of the cornice began. Chair Robert Tierney began this discussion by stating that the owner would proceed with his alterations as he legally could with his permits. As what will be left will be so altered and unrecognizable, Research and Counsel advised the commissioners not to landmark a stucco box. The stable would be eventually demolished and the land become part of a larger development site. Chair Tierney stated that Robert A.M. Stern will be the architect on that project, and he hoped that a “great, creative architect” like Stern could incorporate the stable’s envelope and features in the new design.
Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz read prepared remarks that urged landmarking. She felt that this was another test of the LPC, and that designation would send the message that defacing a building to impede landmarking does not work. Every week the commissioners hear and make decisions on restorations, and this building too could be restored. Addressing the argument that if the building were important it would have been included in the historic district, Commissioner Gratz commented “we all know that many important buildings are left out of historic districts” for reasons of big development. Both stables together tell their history stronger, and the Commission shouldn’t designate just one. Preservation has moved beyond preserving the last, the best, or the only. She ended stating that the Commission should join preservationists who spoke in the last hearing in their concerns about the undermining of the landmarks law, not worry about what LPC counsel wrote in a memo.
Commissioner Stephen Byrns agreed with many of those points, but believed even before the damage that the building did not have enough architectural merit to be an individual landmark.
Commissioner Joan Gerner said she always feels bad when something was lost, but the Mason Stable was the less distinctive of the two stables anyway. Designating a stucco box would be “wasting our resources.”
Commissioner Richard Olcott was “appalled” with the developers’ “shameful” actions. The building was worthy of designation, but now it is not. While it was all completely legal, he blamed the Department of Buildings for not consulting with LPC when permits to strip are pulled.
Commissioner Christopher Moore was also bothered by the permit process that “circumvents the landmarks law.” He felt it was time to “draw a line in the sand” and designate the building anyway. “The Developer did what he had to do. We do too – we have to preserve this building.”
Commissioner Pablo Vengoechea noted that Chair Tierney’s hopes about the design of the new building are nothing more than hopes. The LPC has no say over anything that is not landmarked. He felt it is time to revisit the process. The Mason Stable will be “sacrificed” but maybe that’s what is needed “to get us to that point.” He recommended removing the stables from the calendar, but “this should be the last time we get in this position.” (Cynical laughs and murmurs from the audience followed.)
Chair Tierney interjected that they were working on a policy, but that it was very complicated. They were trying hard to avoid unintended consequences.
Commissioner Margery Perlmutter agreed that it was an unfortunate situation and the stables should be removed from the calendar.
Commissioner Libby Ryan also agreed, and commented that the developers “ought to be ashamed of themselves.” She said the cooperation of the administration and other city agencies was necessary to deal with the permit problem.
Commissioner Jan Pokorny is often difficult to hear, but seemed to reiterate those sentiments.
Commissioner Gratz asked if a moratorium on such permits could be imposed while the process is figured out. Chair Tierney answered the process was being thought out now.
So while everyone found the situation terrible, most considered the Mason Stable beyond the point of saving. The commission voted to remove the stables from the calendar; Commissioners Moore and Gratz opposed.
November 21, 2006
Public Hearing
The commissioners in attendance voted unanimously to include the First Avenue Estate in the City and Suburban Homes Company landmark (although Margery Perlmutter, who was present in the morning and later in the afternoon, was not for this item.) All agreed the buildings were landmark worthy the first time they were designated in 1990, not merely for their architecture but also their social and cultural historic value. Commissioner Pablo Vengoechea noted that the architectural value of a building is derived not just from its façade but also from other components such as the plan and the assemblage.
06-8994
2 West 67th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
The commissio
ners seem more worried lately about replacing steel windows than wood ones (another case of this recently was 05-7200.) As we have in the past, HDC objected to replacing a building’s historic fabric with alternative materials. This application proposed to replace a very large steel casement studio window with one of fiberglass. LPC staff informed the commissioners that they had approved fiberglass in place of steel windows in two other cases on the Upper West Side. The profiles are very similar and look even better than new steel windows (says staff.) The window maker insisted that the windows were indeed more exact replicas than new steel, as well as being easier to upkeep and more energy efficiency. While new to the United States, they have been used in Europe for a while and have held up well. Commissioner Vengoechea protested that windows they approved in the past were not of the same scale. Commissioner Gratz wanted photos of these projects – even ¼ of an inch would make a difference (especially since this is an individual co-op application, not a master plan where some day all the windows would match.) Commissioner Pike said the steel casement windows were very important to the character of the building and wanted more information. More detailed information and updates on the previously approved projects will be provided to the commissioners.
07-2469
447-449 Clinton Avenue, Clinton Hill Historic District
A tree might continue to grow in Brooklyn… This proposal was for a rather nice addition to a c.1850 Italianate style carriage house, but there was concern for a large oak tree slated to be torn down (it was not in the actual footprint of the building, but its roots may be in excavation areas). According to the Parks Department, the tree may well be the oldest and largest oak in downtown Brooklyn, if not in the whole borough. HDC joined the Clinton Hill Association in urging the LPC to save the tree as part of the historic fabric of the site. As Chairman Tierney noted, it’s not LPC’s “usual domain”, but all the commissioners felt efforts should be made to save the tree. The application was approved with the reduction of the bulkhead and directions to work with Parks to save the tree.
06-3571
173 St. James Place, Clinton Hill Historic District
This application was to demolish a c.1852 wood frame house, one of the oldest in the district, and construct a drab, bulky three-story building in its place. The building suffered a fire two years ago, but from the looks of the photos (and testimony of neighbors) the home is restorable. The homeowner had hired a structural engineer who reported that it was unsalvageable. Chairman Tierney requested a Department of Buildings report, and stated that no decision would be made without it (why such a proposal was even brought to a public hearing without this report was not commented upon.) While sympathetic to the homeowners, the commissioners stressed they were the Landmarks Preservation Commission and every effort must be made to preserve, restore or reconstruct a building, especially one of this importance. The application was rejected and the LPC will work with the owner to support, assist and find resources for this restoration.
06-8774
473 Clinton Hill, Clinton Hill Historic District
And our favorite Clinton Hill Historic District application of the day – the “more than a mock up.” The proposal was to modify a rooftop addition, front façade alterations and an areaway excavation all done without LPC permits. A previous architect built a rooftop “mock up” out of cinder blocks, and a new architect was working with the owners to fix the very misguided original application. That the original work was heavy-handed was agreed upon as was the inappropriateness of the present proposal, and the application was rejected.
December 5, 2006
Public Hearing/Public Meeting
05-5394
139 Lincoln Place – Park Slope Historic District
HDC opposed this application to build rooftop and rear yard additions. The project would have destroyed all existing historic fabric on the rear façade and replaced it with an addition too modern in its design, materials, massing, and color. The intact garden core also would have been compromised. Commissioner Ryan called it another case of asking a building to be more that it is capable of, and Commissioner Gratz summed the project up as trying to turn a building into something it isn’t. Everyone agreed the proposed additions were far too large and would destroy historic fabric. The applicant was sent back to the drawing board.
07-2875
25-04 West Drive – Douglaston Historic District
HDC had no problems with the application to demolish a c.1950 ranch, but did not approve of the new house proposed to replace it. The proposal did not feel like a complete design – from its tacked on decorative elements, to its awkward proportions, to the faux materials proposed, it was little more than a “knock-off” of a Douglaston home. The commissioners agreed, and the applicant was told to work more with staff.
07-1789
249 Ridge Road – Douglaston Historic District
HDC was opposed to the legalization of a security gate installed without LPC permits. The gate obscures the existing, original design of this English Cottage-style house. The historic pointed-arch batten door has wrought-iron-strap hinges that look quite formidable and secure in their own right. A number of existing, grandfathered security gates in the neighborhood were presented in the proposal. While not wanting to set a precedent, the commission approved the legalization.
December 12, 2006
Public Hearing/Public Meeting
It was a sad end to the New Brighton Village Hall in Staten Island. The building, landmarked in 1965, was one of three remaining village halls in the city and in its heyday an elegant example of the Second Empire style. Having suffered significant damage due to a fire in 1969, the building remained unoccupied and deteriorated. Various plans to restore the building never materialized. After numerous, unsuccessful efforts to have responsible parties make repairs to the building, on June 18, 2001 the Commission initiated a lawsuit against Retrovest Associates and other responsible parties for the failure to maintain the building in a condition of good repair as is required by the Landmarks Law. While the lawsuit was pending, several severe winter storms caused partial collapses of what remained of the roof. The Department of Buildings determined that the building was unsafe, and what remained of the New Brighton Village Hall was demolished in February 2004. In May 2005 the “demolition by neglect” action was settled with the owner giving the land to the City of New York, paying a financial penalty and paying the demolition costs and various other expenses. The site will be used for the construction of subsidized low income housing for the elderly.
HDC chose to neither oppose nor support the rescission, but to only comment, praising the LPC’s work to prosecute the negligent owners and pointing out the need for new legislation to further support and protect New York City’s landmarks. Seeing no alternative, the commissioners voted to rescind landmark status. Commissioner Vengoechea stated “I’m at a loss” and called again for more tools and resources to prevent such cases. Counsel responded that they have been reacting quicker and working harder to prosecute demolition by neglect cases and was confident that the commission would not see many more reaching this point. Responding to testimony that mentioned the Bedell House entering its third winter without windows or a roof, Commissioner Gratz asked what is being done for that landmark. Chairman Tierney responded that that was a different situation and is being handled.
Staten Island lost a landmark, but mi
ght the borough gain another soon? Tottenville’s Rutan Journeay Building, a charming c.1850 cottage in the vernacular Greek Revival style, was also heard.
Horn & Hardart Automat-Cafeteria Building at 2710-2714 Broadway had a second public hearing (after the owners claimed they were not notified and did not have a chance to testify at the first on June 27th.) Chairman Tierney began by explaining that there would be no discussion or vote on the matter, it was just a hearing. The owner, her lawyer, and two friends spoke against designation questioning the landmark worthiness of the building and advising the commission to “Save your noble efforts for more distinctive and important projects.” Neighbors, tenants, architectural historian Andrew Dolkart, Susan Tunick for the Friends of Terra Cotta, and a representative of Councilmember Melissa Mark Viverito spoke in favor, in addition to a performance of “Automat-ic Pie” by Mark Foley.
Swift action was taken on 70 Lefferts Place that had been calendared only on October 31st . Neighbors, preservationists, politicians, and former members of Father Divine’s International Peace Mission Movement all spoke in favor. A representative for the owner noted that residents had been moved, utilities had been cut, and a demolition permit issued (Counsel quickly corrected that while applied for, no such permit had been issued). There was no budget for keeping the building up and threatened that it would become a blight to the neighborhood (threats of another West Brighton Village Hall?). The Commissioners all heartedly endorsed the landmark for being an “exquisite piece of architecture” and its significant cultural history. The Commissioners all also commented on how wonderful it was to hear the owner say he was willing to preserve the building and that he was such a good person for doing so – if only all owners could be like him. That’s not quite what he said. In his testimony, the owner said that he did not want to hurt the community that obviously cared for the site, but could not afford to keep it up without tenants. He offered to keep the shell, but build both in the rear and on top. I’m not sure if the commissioners didn’t hear him correctly or were just trying to soothe his ego.
06-8355
18 Grove Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
This 1840 Greek Revival rowhouse was renovated into artists studios in the 1920’s. Its stoop was replaced with a dropped stoop, windows enlarged, and Mediterranean style details like stucco and a cornice of red tiles added. The applicant wished to reconstruct the stoop, but a side, iron stoop, not a straight, masonry one like those on the neighboring homes constructed at the same time by the same builder. The proposal also called for new window openings, shutters and window boxes.
The Public Review Committee disagreed on the project, so the HDC’s only comment was in objection to the proposed shutters and window boxes feeling that they were not appropriate to either era of the building’s history. Community Board 2 approved of most of the application, but objected to the stoop as it “neither matches nor enhances” the building or the block. Christabel Gough spoke against the proposal for the Society for the Architecture of the City. Michael Gotkin read a letter from Andrew Dolkart (who is finishing up a book on the redesign of town houses in the early decades of the 20th century) as well as his own statement also in opposition.
I assumed the proposal would pass without much comment, but there were surprises. Whether they liked the stoop or not, the commissioners were all unsure about the details, the consistency. While Commissioner Stephen Byrns felt the building was not a particularly good example of artists’ housing and was in favor of a stoop, he felt the details could be improved. Commissioner Ryan thought the stoop was rather generic and not special enough, and Commissioner Moore pointed out that it came direct from a catalog. Commissioner Gratz found the proposal that threatened to undo an important layer of the building and the neighborhood’s history “troubling.” The final interesting comment was from Chair Tierney who stated “I’m not sure I’ll be approving any stoop at all” for reasons outlined in the testimony and Commissioner Gratz’s comments.
07-1489
240 Ridge Road – Douglaston Historic District
Two additions and an enlarged entrance vestibule were proposed for this Tudor Revival 1930 home. HDC commented on the lack of detailing in the additions and the rather awkward roofline. HDC also asked whether the windows will be steel and pointed out that the original steel windows being removed to make room for the addition could easily be reused. The commissioners agreed that the details were not right, but the window question was never addressed. The applicant was told to work further with staff in refining the plan.
06-7514
340 Grosvenor Street – Douglaston Historic District
This application was to construct an addition and replace roofing, siding, and windows on an English Cottage style home from 1935. The slate, wood, and 6 over 1 windows proposed to replace the present, non-historic materials were perfect, and HDC made a favorable comment on that point (we do say nice things sometimes.) The addition wasn’t horrific, but rather bulky. The commissioners also felt there should be some distinction between the roofline of the addition and that of the main house, possibly by making the proposed lower. The application was approved with this modification.