| CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY
LPC-24-05386 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A modified Italianate style rowhouse built in 1852. Application is to construct a rear yard addition. Architect: STUDIO DB ARCHITECTURE HDC finds the scale and bulk of this addition appropriate, but we find the proposed glazing inappropriate. We ask that the applicant reexamine the proportions of glass to masonry, which may also help the applicant refine the proportions of the proposed muntins. Action: approved with modifications. |
 |
| LPC-24-06747 375 West Broadway – SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A neo-Grec style store building designed by J.B. Snook and built in 1875-1876. Application is to construct an elevator bulkhead. Architect: SRAA+E Architecture and Engineering Given that this building is situated in a historically industrial district, HDC feels that mechanical accretions such as an elevator bulkhead are consistent with the history and architecture of the district. We are therefore not opposed to the fact that this elevator bulkhead is visible, but we do note that this elevator shaft is close to the roofline, which makes this bulkhead highly visible from the street. If it is possible to reduce the height of the bulkhead somewhat, we feel that would be most appropriate. Action: no action. |
 |
|
LPC-24-06015 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A modified Romanesque style warehouse designed by Henry M. Congdon and built in 1879, with a later extension built in 1894. Application is to install signage and privacy film. Architect: SSUPERETTE HDC supports the bracket, digital and vinyl signage proposed for this location, but we find the proposed pin mounted signage over this building’s arched windows to be inappropriate. Not only does the pin mounted signage interrupt this building’s detailed arched brickwork, but also it obscures the arches themselves, which are integral to this building’s legibility as a beautiful example of Romanesque Revival Style architecture. As such, the pin mounted signage is inappropriate because it compromises the stylistic integrity of the building. Action: no action. |
|
LPC-24-07381 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A neo-Grec style rowhouse (#15) designed by John G. Prague and built in 1878, and altered by Robert W. Gibson in 1895; and a neo-Grec style rowhouse (#17) designed by John G. Prague and built in 1878, and altered in 1952. Application is to modify the front areaways and install fencing, replace windows, construct rooftop and rear yard additions, and excavate the basements and rear yards. Architect: Steven Harris Architecture HDC finds this proposal sensitive. We typically prefer to see the top two floors of the rear wall preserved, but given the overall assemblage and context of this site, we find the proposed rear bulk to be appropriate. Because the applicant is already doing such lovely restorative work, we ask that they also consider recreating the building’s original scalloped acroteria. Action: approved with modifications. |
 |
|
LPC-24-07367 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A French Louis XVI style mansion designed by Carrère & Hastings and built in 1913-14, and altered by John Russell Pope in 1931-35; an Italian Renaissance Revival style art reference library designed by John Russell Pope and built in 1931-35; a Beaux-Arts style reception hall addition designed by Bayley, Van Dyke, and Poehler and built in 1977; and a viewing garden designed by Russell Page and built in 1977. Application is to install signage and lighting. Architect: Pentagram HDC is happy to support this elegant signage and lighting proposal. Action: approved with modifications. |
 |
| LPC-24-00499 429 West 162nd Street – Jumel Terrace Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A Romanesque Revival style rowhouse designed by Henry Fouchaux and built in 1896. Application is to construct a rear yard addition, combine masonry openings, and alter the rear parapet .Architect: Gregory C. Gresham HDC could potentially find this project appropriate, but the application itself is a hindrance to forming any opinion, because it is incomplete and does not show a block plan. Without one, we can’t judge this project’s impact on the donut, and cannot determine its appropriateness. Action: approved. |
 |