Summer Fun at the Landmarks Preservation Commission
Here’s a look at what the LPC has been up to in July and August…
July 10th
Public Hearing
07-4488
175 9th Avenue – Chelsea Historic District
As you have probably heard, the General Theological Seminary applied to demolish an existing 1960 building and construct two new buildings on its campus. HDC approved of the demolition of the present building and of the idea of new construction, but we objected to details in massing, material and style of the two proposed structures. The design of the residential building on 9th Avenue was particularly at issue, with far too much glass and little detail that would tie it in with the Seminary’s other structures. The new building on 20th Street was better in massing and details, but we objected to the odd schist sidewall that looked as if it just was leaned up against the brick building. We were especially concerned about the new entrance to the close, a three-story glass atrium that would connect the new building to the West Building, the oldest in the complex and one of the earliest Gothic Revival structures in the nation. The Community Board, elected officials and neighbors, as well as preservation groups including Muncipal Art Society, Society for the Architecture of the City and Landmark West! expressed similar views. New York Landmarks Conservancy supported the proposal calling the plan “entirely appropriate.” Commissioner Roberta Brandes Gratz had questions for the presenters raised by testimony, but Chair Bob Tierney decided it was too late in the day and to continue at a Public Meeting the following week.
July 17th
Public Meeting
07-4488
175 9th Avenue – Chelsea Historic District
The applicant responded to the testimony given the week before. They tried to make a historic case for the glass atrium saying that the entrance to the close was originally on 20th Street. They failed to mention that the original was centered on the block and wasn’t squooshed between two other buildings. In general, the commissioners felt the proposed was fine, just the details similar to the public’s testimony (mainly that there needs to be more masonry and detailing on the 9th Avenue building.) Most commissioners supported the new 20th Street building, but a few did not like the glass connector and felt the West Building should be left alone. (Commissioner Stephen Byrnes said he wished the glass link would “go away.”) No action was taken.
July 24th
Public Hearing/Meeting
In the morning the Research Department was busy with item hearings (federal rowhouses at 511 and 513 Grand Street as well as the proposed Eberhard Faber Pencil Company Historic District), designations (McCarren Play Center, Sunset Play Center and Bath House, Thomas Jefferson Play Center, federal rowhouses at 486 and 488 Greenwich Streeet and the Henry Seligman and Frederick C. & Birdsall Otis Edey Residences on West 56th Street) and calendarings (11th Street Public Bath House, Elizabeth Home for Girls nearby on 12th Street, Webster Hall, Voelker Orth House in Flushing and the DUMBO Historic District).
07-7987
1182 Broadway – Madison Square North Historic District
Lately we’ve been worried that there have been too many 74-711 modifications of use or bulk granted with very little preservation in return. This was a surprising example of the Commissioners wanting even more than we thought we could ask for. Like so many other buildings in the city it seems, the 1908-1910 William L. Rouse Beaux Arts style store and office building is going residential. The application included the installation of new ground floor infill, restoration of windows on the second floor and replacing the limestone rooftop balustrade with a fiberglass reproduction. The storefront was rather generic (especially considering there were a number of historic photos included in the proposal) and HDC worried about the extent of the use of fiberglass on the balustrade. HDC requested that the storefront restoration go further to recreate the 1920s storefront, but the Commissioners did us one better. They felt that there was not enough restoration work to warrant a 74-711 and wanted the storefronts to return to their 1910 appearance which would include two center, 2-story columns that had been removed in the 1920s.
07-6650
35 East 76th Street – Upper East Side Historic District
HDC, along with SAC, Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts and Defenders of the Historic Upper East Side, opposed a Master Plan for the future installation of single pane windows on the Art Deco 1929-1930 Hotel Carlyle. The building originally had 6 over 6 windows, but had primarily 1 over 1’s by the time of designation. 24% of the building now has single panes and the applicant tried to explain that those owners wouldn’t want to “downgrade” to 1 over 1’s, leaving the building forever with a mixture of window types. (Deputy Counsel John Weiss pointed out that they will need to get new windows eventually.) All the commissioners agreed that the windows contributed to the building’s character and the single panes were not appropriate. (RBG labeled it “aesthetically desecrating” while SB said it “looks like Donald Trump got a hold of it.”)
August 7th
Public Hearing
Issues of demolition and new construction stood out at this public hearing.
07-8732
11-13, 15 Leonard Street – Tribeca West Historic District
This proposal was to demolish two one-story, early 20th century commercial style industrial workshops and to construct a new 7-story structure. 11-13 was designed by Edward Schneider and built in 1921, while 15 was designed by Charles Goldman and built in 1924. HDC testified that these two buildings, purposefully built, small-scale industrial workshops, were an important part of the district known for its manufacturing history. Ironically, we actually liked the design of the new building, feeling that it was well articulated with a level of appropriate detail, massing and materials we would like to see in other new construction and alterations in historic districts. We only wished that it could be built somewhere else.
A few Commissioners regretted the loss of 11-13 Leonard. Tears for 15 were only shed by Commissioner Libby Ryan who felt they should not be demolished and instead be respected as a layer of history. Commissioners felt the design of the new building should be less formal and that the mechanicals and penthouse should be reduced (or at least made to blend in with the rest of the structure as this is an entirely new building not an RTA.) Due to an old easement, one bay cannot fully go up the height of the building and just a front wall was designed with nothing behind it. Commissioners felt the gap in the street wall would be preferable to a fake façade. No action was taken.
07-8721
402-404 West 13th Street – Gansevoort Market Historic District
The building proposed for demolition was built as two row houses in 1846-1847. Like many other structures in the area, a century later they were combined and altered for use in the market, reflecting the development of the area from a residential neighborhood to a commercial one. Strangely, it was deemed “no style” in the historic designation report while other similar buildings like the nearby 426-430 West 13th Street are called “moderne” or “utilitarian”. To top it off the proposed new building is pretty banal, less style than the “no style” building. It is primarily large windows, with really no feeling of the district. SAC also spoke against the demolition. MAS and GVSHP only had comments on the details of the new building’s design like the large windows.
The Commissioners didn’t seem to get that these buildings were designed for a very specific purpose and reflect the history
for the which the district was designated. There was no objection to their demolition, but they had some comments on the design of the new building. It seems once labeled “no style” or “non contributing” a building is forever doomed (well, at least until it is demolished.) What was particularly creepy about the whole situation was that the head of the project, Sherida Paulsen, as Chair of the Commission back in the day helped decide what would be deemed “no style.”
There were also some troubling alterations proposed:
07-8046
55 Grove Street – Greenwich Village Historic District
1839 brick house is known to many as Rose’s Turn. The applicant seeks to remove a quirky arrangement of tiny, mid-20th century windows, symbolic of the building’s use as a piano bar and a time in gay history when the community felt the need to be secretive. In its place would be one giant show window. SAC and GVSHP joined HDC opposing the proposal. Commissioners agreed that the proposed was not in keeping with the district, but I didn’t get a sense that they were calling out for the retention of the old windows. We will have to wait and see.
07-9144
143 Spring Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District
Even more disturbing than losing specific details of a landmark is the possibility of losing a landmark. The proposed alterations that would connect a Federal style 1818 dwelling to a two-story new structure next door called for the removal of at least 1 story of the rear wall. The big problem was that the Commissioners didn’t know it. HDC and SAC pointed out in testimony that the first floor plan shows the first floor of the building open through to the new structure, removing a wall that is presently there (an existing plan was not included in the proposal). When Commissioner Margery Pearlmutter asked if the wall was being removed, the architect answered a different question. Instead he rambled on that the piece of the 2nd floor wall now exposed on the exterior would be retained in the new interior. There was no mention of the ground floor wall. The Commissioners seemed happy enough with that answer.
August 14th
Public Hearing
Continuing the new construction theme…
07-5209
73 Pineapple Street – Brooklyn Heights Historic District
The new building proposed for an empty lot was appropriate as far as height and materials, but was terribly bland. In a district full of architectural details, this had nothing. It looked rather like a plain tenement (and not in the good, historic way) on a block of distinguished homes. The Commissioners all hated the plan and sent it back to the drawing board.
Bland architecture gets a thumbs down, but out-of-context modern architecture is exciting…
08-0312
34 East 62nd Street – Upper East Side Historic District
Remember the doctor who blew up his Upper East Side town house rather than let his ex-wife have it? Well, the plans to build a new house on the site are even more tragic. Unlike proposals where a new structure is designed for an empty lot, until the events of last summer, there stood on this site a landmarked building, the oldest on its block, a contributing part of the district. In our testimony, HDC reminded BT that he was quoted last July commenting on possible new construction, “We would look at what was there before and ask what would be appropriate for a historic district and it would probably be something like what was there.”
Other than the height, nothing in this proposal is “like what was there.” The design is too asymmetrical and sculptural, making no gesture to the scale and rhythm of details of other structures on the block. Two details that are particularly jarring are the projecting cement slab, that looms over the rest of the building like a high-dive platform, and the blank, recessed entryway with a door on the sidewall giving it a cold, empty appearance.
It was late in the day, no quorum, only about 5 commissioners left. So not everyone voting next time will have heard the extensive public testimony against the project which included FUESHD, NYLC, Carnegie Hill Neighbors Association, East 62nd Block Association, neighboring Links Club and letters from Ann Walker and Francis Morrone. Those Commissioners who were there, including MP, LR and Diana Chapin, loved it. SB thought it was striking but should be toned down to be less jarring. All were very excited about green aspect of the plans. Despite his comment last summer BT felt that a contemporary approach would be fine and the project would be revisited after “having a chance to digest the diverse opinions.”
07-7949
242 East 49th Street – Turtle Bay Gardens Historic District
The district is so perfect that no one could remember a C of A application in its four decades as a designated historic district. The proposed sought to make changes to the rear façade, usually a blank canvas in the eyes of the Commission. The situation is slightly different in Turtle Bay Gardens where both street and garden facades were carefully designed in the early 1920’s to compliment one another. A few of the Commissioners took issue with losing the first floor arches and the extension of the ironwork on the top floor. BT asked the applicants to work with staff on those parts of the proposal. The issue of rear facades in a large garden will also be an important one in the new Sunnyside Gardens Historic District.