Certificate of Appropriateness Testimony
LPC-23-02669
150 Calyer Street – Greenpoint Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A flats building designed by B. E. Lowe and built c. 1893-1894. Application is to alter the façade.
Architect: IMC Architecture
HDC finds the proposed restoration of the facade to be generally appropriate, however, the proposed synthetic materials for the siding and trim are not appropriate and should be replaced with real wood everywhere except the cornice.
Action: Unanimously approved with modification that applicant work with staff on refinements
.jpg)
LPC-23-09185
422 7th Avenue – Park Slope Historic District Extension
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A neo-Grec style store and flats building designed by Francis Ryan and built c. 1885. Application is to install ductwork on the façade.Without more information about how this works in the plan, it is difficult for HDC to comment on this proposal. That said, we find the proposed siting for the duct, in the middle of this facade, to be inappropriate, and we are not convinced that a duct at this location is the only solution here.
Action: Approved with the stipulation that the installation doesn’t happen until after there’s a signed lease, and that the applicants continue to work with staff on the treatment at the bend, and continue to exhaust all siting possibilities with the DOB.
LPC-23-03010
120 Kingston Avenue – Crown Heights North Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A Renaissance Revival style flats building designed by Axel Hedman and built c. 1900-1902, with a Streamlined style storefront added in the mid-20th century. Application is to replace ground floor infill, modify and create masonry openings, and install signage.
Architect: Kushner Studios
HDC supports the Crown Heights North Association’s position that 120 Kingston Avenue’s Streamline-style storefront and signage should be restored and maintained.
In its 2007 designation report for the Crown Heights North Historic District, the LPC described 120 Kingston’s Streamline-style storefront, and specifically noted the building’s “corner entrance with its historic aluminum door, aluminum ribbon windows, colored-glass banding, and historic neon signs with cutout lettering.” The report went on to state that “The main entrance to No. 120, located at the center of the Bergen Street façade, has a historic ribbed aluminum surround.” The LPC itself maintained in the report that “Although some of the storefront’s features have been damaged, removed, or painted, it remains this group’s standout feature.”
HDC not only believes that these standout historic features should be restored and maintained, but also, we believe that the cultural history of the Kingston Lounge, a popular jazz club once managed by Cain Young, one of Crown Heights’ earliest and most prominent Black real-estate brokers, should be preserved and celebrated.
Action: No Action
LPC-23-04530
21-26 45th Avenue – Hunters Point Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A neo-Grec style rowhouse built in 1887. Application is to legalize the replacement of windows in non-compliance with Certificate of Appropriateness 19-31915.
Architect: T+ Associates
HDC can support the legalization of this window modification because replacing these units with the correct units would waste far more energy than the proposed passive house windows would save in energy consumption. Given that this legalization is necessary because the applicant was out of compliance with their own drawings, we hope that this sort of error can be avoided in the future.
Action: Unanimously approved with modification that they paint the windows a black or dark grey
|
LPC-23-03684 and LPC-23-06783
290 Henry Street, aka 286-292 Henry Street and 333-343 Madison Street – St. Augustine’s Chapel, the (former) All Saints’ Free Church – Individual Landmark
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A late Federal style church with Georgian Gothic detailing, attributed to John Heath, built in 1827-1829 and later altered, and an attached parish house designed by Adams & Woodbridge Architects and built in 1961-63. Application is to demolish the parish house and construct an attached mixed-use tower, alter the areaway, install a rooftop balustrade, install lighting, replace windows and request that the Landmarks Preservation Commission issue a report to the City Planning Commission relating to an application for a Modification of Use and Bulk pursuant to Section 74-711 of the Zoning Resolution.
Architect: Li-Saltzman Architects
HDC generally supports the goals of this project, including the new affordable housing and community facilities, as well as the proposed restoration of the church that would happen with the approval of a 74-711. However, we find the bulk and scale of the proposed residential building to be profoundly out of context for this site; the massing simply overwhelms the church. We believe that a larger floorplate could allow for a shorter, more dense building. We also do not see any relationship between the design of the new building and the existing church’s architecture and materiality.
We would note that on page 6 of this application, the applicant has cited laudable examples of appropriately scaled residential architecture on church property, but the siting of those is different than the application for 290 Henry Street and those structures do not rise to the height of this one.
Action: Unanimously approved with the condition that applicants submit for review and approval samples of the color in the field, and work with the staff on the windows.
 |
LPC-23-05599
155 Underhill Avenue – Prospect Heights Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A Renaissance Revival/Romanesque Revival style rowhouse designed by William H. Reynolds and built c. 1897. Application is to alter the rear façade and install a rooftop deck and mechanical equipment.
Architect: Batliboi Studio
HDC finds the proposed removal of the bay window on this rear facade to be inappropriate, as it is clearly a common architectural feature of this entire row. That said, we believe the bay window could be reinterpreted, and that there may be precedent for adding a replicated bay window to the proposed rear extension, but the basic massing and bulk of the bay should be retained.
Action: No action
