Designation Items
Item 1
LP – 2551
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
STEINWAY & SONS RECEPTION ROOM & HALLWAY, FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR, 109-113 West 57th Street
Steinway & Sons moved to their Warren & Wetmore designed headquarters in 1925. Joining other musical and artistic neighbors such as the American Fine Arts Society Building, the American Piano Company’s Chickering Hall, and Carnegie Hall, Steinway Hall functioned as the world-renowned company’s offices, showroom, and recital hall.
While the exterior, an individual landmark since 2001, is a rather restrained neo-Classical design, the interiors are some of the most decorative commercial spaces in the city. Murals, crystal chandeliers, marble columns and other opulent details abound in these rooms. The word “showroom” is an understatement. Seeing an elegant Steinway piano in such sumptuous surroundings is rather like seeing an animal in their natural habitat. Besides the undeniable architectural merits, the interiors are also culturally important. As The New Yorker once put it, “almost every twentieth-century virtuoso has passed through.”
HDC supports the designation of the first floor interior of Steinway Hall. While interior landmarks can raise new challenges, they are important proof that New York City is not just about façades. What’s on the inside counts.
Item 2
LP – 2260
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
CHURCH OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE, 8-10 Columbus Avenue
While HDC certainly feels the Church of St. Paul the Apostle is a worthy designation and applauds the commission’s actions after over 40 years from the first hearing, we are in favor of modifying the boundaries of the Landmark Site to exclude the mid-century convent, which possesses seemingly little architectural, cultural or historic interest. With all of the air rights already sold from this site, landmarking the convent would not contribute towards the preservation of the Church.
Certificate of Appropriateness Items
Item 7
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
137640- Block 1961, lot 51-
410-412 Waverly Avenue – Clinton Hill Historic District
A pair of neo-Grec style carriage houses designed by C. Cameron and built in 1879. Application is to construct a rooftop addition and alter the front and rear façades.
Carriage houses are a very import and distinctive building type in this area, in fact it has been noted that there are more surviving historic carriage houses in Clinton Hill than in any other historic district. Keeping the importance of this typology to the area in mind, HDC feels that too much glazing is proposed here at 410-412 Waverly Avenue drastically changing the character of this pair of neo-Grec style carriage houses. It would also disrupt the streetscape of the stretch of carriage houses along this block. There are many examples of how to adaptively reuse this typology throughout the Clinton Hill Historic District, and we recommend that they be studied for inspiration.
Although the two carriage houses will be used as one space, the buildings’ individualism should still be preserved much like the commission requires when two townhouses are combined into a single home. The rooftop addition looks too monolithic and should be redesigned to differentiate the two buildings. A redesign would also be a chance to reduce the visual impact of the addition.
LPC determination: no action
Item 11
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
138344- Block 152, lot 31-
319 Broadway – Individual Landmark
An Italianate style bank and office building designed by D. & J. Jardine and built in 1869-70. Application is to enlarge the existing elevator bulkhead, install a stair bulkhead, replace storefront infill and windows, and alter the fire escape.
The proposed elevator bulkhead at 23 feet is very tall for an individual landmark of just five stories. HDC asks that a hydraulic elevator be considered instead.
The new wooden doors are an improvement over the existing conditions, but a little more detailing on them would be nice.
Finally, HDC requests that wood windows matching the originals be used on this individual landmark. While we often just think of the metal components when we discuss cast iron buildings, it should be remembered that windows are a significant piece of this typology. It is usually the case, as it is here, that there is more glazing than cast iron, and the replacement of such a large part of the façade should be very carefully considered.
LPC determination: approved with modifications
Item 25
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
140608- Block 1141, lot 122-
125 West 69th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A neo-Grec style rowhouse designed by Thom and Wilson and built in 1882. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions.
While the rear yard addition is modest in size, its all glass façade, including the side wall, would have an impact on the garden core. HDC asks that the glazing in this proposal be reduced.
LPC determination: approved
Item 4
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
143159- Block 2112, lot 35-
98 Fort Greene Place – Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District
An Italianate style rowhouse built in 1857 and altered in 1919. Application is to alter the front façade.
While we are fine with lengthening the parlor floor window openings to their original size, HDC is concerned about the proposed changes to the windows of the top floor. The new arches would be a very tight fit just under the cornice. If the 1919 alteration is to be changed, it should be to the historic conditions that match others in the row.
LPC determination: approved
Item 1
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
143296- Block 2457, lot 28-
175 Broadway, aka 834-844 Driggs Avenue – former Williamsburg Savings Bank, Individual Landmark and Interior Landmark
A Classical Revival style bank designed by George B. Post and built in 1875, with a Renaissance and neo-Grec style domed banking hall designed by George B. Post, with a mural by Peter B. Wight. Application is to install light fixtures.
While the former Williamsburg Savings Bank is certainly a landmark worth illuminating, the lighting fixtures should be carefully considered to ensure that they do not do more harm than good. Photos from the street of mock-ups are needed to be able to make that decision, and HDC asks that no action be taken until such photos are provided.
LPC determination: approved with modifications
Item 28
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
144161- Block 1150, lot 29-
101 West 78th Street, aka 380-384 Columbus Avenue – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style flats building designed by Emil Gruwe and built in 1882-86, with an addition built in 1893. Application is to construct a rooftop addition and to install a barrier-free access lift.
HDC asks that this proposed rooftop addition not be approved. Multi-story rooftop additions, even ones not visible from the public way, are very rarely approved by the commission. In fact, commissioners have quibbled over smaller, far less visible rooftop additions. The mockup for the proposed addition is visible from across the street as well as literally a dozen blocks away. If constructed, its jarring fenestration and zinc cladding would only enhance its visibility. The addition would overwhelm the Evelyn, taking away from its cornice and other details and changing the way one reads this distinctive flats building.
LPC determination: no action
Item 9
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN
144256- Block 436, lot 68-
305A President Street – Carroll Gardens Historic District
A neo-Grec style rowhouse built in 1876. Application is to alter the areaway and the front and rear facades, construct a rooftop bulkhead, and excavate the rear yard.
Replacing the existing conditions at 305A President Street with a mansard roof that recalls one once on a neighboring rowhouse is a nice idea, and HDC applauds the return of the wood cornice. We ask though that the details and proportions of the top floor be worked out more so that charm of the addition seen in the historic photo may come through more fully. For example, the dormer width could be reduced a bit to minimize the blank space between the two windows and to show more of the mansard. We also feel a slate roof would be more appropriate than the standing seam metal one proposed.
The new mansard roof will certainly draw attention to the top of this rowhouse. HDC questions the visibility of the proposed bulkhead and suggest dropping it a bit or raising the parapet some to block any notice of it.
Finally, on the rear façade, HDC does not approve of introducing new window openings on the third floor as doing so would take away the continuous fenestration that this group of rowhouses still retains.
LPC determination: no action