|
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY LPC-24-10008 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A neo-Classical style theater building with a classically-inspired interior designed by George Keister and built in 1913-14. Application is to use substitute materials at historic signage and alter portions of the designated interior. HDC commends and supports this lovely and appropriate interior restoration. We ask that the applicants consider possible use of historic neon for signage before deferring to LED. Action: no action. |
 |
 |
|
LPC-24-08512 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A French Second Empire style semi-detached house built in 1864. Application is to legalize the replacement of windows and painting the facade without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s). HDC is unable to comment on the project because the docket describes this as a legalization, but the proposal shows existing and proposed elements. It is unclear to us what it being legalized here. Further, HDC is also broadly troubled by the ever increasing number of legalizations coming before the Commission – we wonder if there is some way to more effectively communicate to people that they need to be aware of their responsibilities within historic districts. Action: approved. |
 |
| LPC-24-08276 177 Water Street – DUMBO Historic District CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS An American Round Arch style factory building designed by George L. Morse and built in 1880. Application is to alter the rear façade to create a top floor setback, and relocate fire shutters. HDC finds this setback inappropriate as proposed. We wonder whether a setback could be achieved while also maintaining the shutters. We ask that the applicant explore retaining the rear wall and situating the setback behind it, thereby leaving the historic shutters in place, if not the window openings themselves. Action: approved with modifications. |
 |
|
LPC-24-05576 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Two Anglo-Italianate style rowhouses built in 1856. Application is to construct rooftop and rear yard additions, install a cornice and balcony, replace entry infill and fencing, and remove portions of floors and the party wall. Architect: k-da HDC supports Community Board 4 and Save Chelsea in their opposition to this proposal. We find the rooftop too visible and we oppose it outright. Further, we believe the rear yard addition is too tall by one story. The curved window heads at the proposed rear facade are also inappropriate, because they bear no stylistic relationship to these historic buildings. At minimum, we would ask the Commission to require that the building’s party wall be maintained so these read as the two separate properties they were originally constructed as. However, this proposal points to the larger policy issue of combining buildings, which sacrifices historic material to facadism, and eliminates many units of existing housing. HDC has noticed this happening both within and outside of historic districts, and we are working on policy proposals which we hope will lead to legislation discouraging these combination and demolitions. This Commission, rightly, does not control use, but we agree with our colleagues at CB4 and Save Chelsea that LPC need not meet these proposals with resignation. CB4 points out that though Chelsea’s row houses were built as single family homes, they were converted to multi-family dwellings in the early 20th century, and here, as in Greenwich Village, such conversions are a historic condition unto themselves. We ask that the commission do its duty to stand up for that historic condition. The LPC needn’t encourage proposals such as these by rubber stamping them. Action: no action. |
 |