|
LPC-25-07989 and LPC-25-07912 318 Murray Avenue and 332 Theater Road – Fort Totten Historic District Architect: bld architecture The Historic Districts Council commends the investment being made in these important civic buildings and supports efforts to ensure their long-term use and accessibility. While we recognize that synthetic slate can offer cost savings and may be easier to source than natural slate, HDC advocates for the use of authentic, historically appropriate materials wherever feasible. Rather than wholesale replacement, we encourage the applicant to selectively repair and replace only damaged slates, preserving as much of the existing historic roofing material as possible. Should the Commission determine that synthetic slate is appropriate, we urge careful attention to installation details–particularly the continued use of copper flashing, which is essential to both the appearance and long-term performance of a slate roof. In addition, we recommend reconsidering the proposed fiberglass windows in favor of aluminum-clad wood windows. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-25-12719 48 Manor Court – The Crimson Beech – Individual Landmark Architect: Urban Cartographics The Historic Districts Council finds the proposal largely appropriate. Our only objection is to the extent of paving proposed as part of the driveway legalization. The large expanse of hardscape diminishes the carefully composed landscape setting that is integral to the landmark’s design. We encourage the applicant to reduce paved surfaces wherever possible. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-26-11567 80 Horatio Street – Greenwich Village Historic District Architect: Allen & Killcoyne Architects The Historic Districts Council finds this proposal inappropriate. The redesign of the front façade erases the building’s historic mixed-use character in favor of an unconvincing single-family townhouse appearance, removing the visual presence of the historic storefront and diminishing the building’s contribution to the streetscape. The proposal also entails an extensive rebuilding of the façade that appears unlikely to preserve the integrity of the historic masonry. At the rear, oversized glazed openings and awkward proportions lack the refinement and hierarchy of the historic building, while the rooftop addition appears bulkier than necessary. We encourage the applicant to rethink the project with a design that better respects the building’s historic use and form. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-26-12659 257 Canal Street – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District Extension Architect: BKSK The Historic Districts Council supports this proposal. We find the height and bulk of this building to be appropriate given its context. Located on a major thoroughfare at the edge of the historic district and immediately adjacent to a substantially taller building, the proposed massing is compatible with its surroundings and does not raise the same concerns that a similarly scaled building would elsewhere within the district. Furthermore, while we recognize that housing policy falls outside the Commission’s jurisdiction, HDC has long supported the thoughtful creation and preservation of housing. In this instance, we believe the project’s height and bulk are also justified by the meaningful delivery of 100 percent permanently low-income affordable housing. Aside from height, we feel the overall architectural design is appropriately restrained, allowing the building to complement rather than compete with the district’s historic cast-iron architecture. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-27-00094 112–114 Second Avenue & 50 East 7th Street – East Village/Lower East Side Historic District Architect: CTA The Historic Districts Council found the proposal difficult to evaluate because the posted presentation materials did not clearly convey the overall intent of the project. Even if this proposal is intended as an interim activation of the site, and recognizing that resources may be limited, we encourage the applicant to make modest improvements that would create a more welcoming public space. For example, the proposed fencing at the Second Avenue entrance appears unnecessarily tall and imposing, while additional landscaping could help soften the overall site. In addition, because interim projects often remain in place far longer than originally anticipated, we urge the Commission to establish a clear timeframe for this approval. Doing so would reinforce the temporary nature of these interventions and help keep the site’s long-term redevelopment on track. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-26-11935 53 West 68th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District Architect: Chandler Pierce The Historic Districts Council encourages the applicant to explore alternatives that incorporate the proposed elevator within the building envelope rather than as a prominent exterior element. As proposed, the exterior elevator shaft disrupts the historic rear façade and introduces an unnecessarily intrusive vertical element into the center of the block. |
![]() |
|
|
|
LPC-26-10605 673 Madison Avenue – Upper East Side Historic District Architect: Bodnar Architecture The Historic Districts Council objects to this proposal. Architectural lighting of this nature is inappropriate within a historic district and establishes an undesirable precedent for the illumination of historic façades. Permanent accent lighting risks introducing a commercial character that is incompatible with the district. The proposal also raises broader concerns about cumulative impacts should similar lighting become commonplace. |
![]() |










