CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY
LPC-25-07606
Pier A (aka 22 Battery Place) – Individual Landmark Manhattan
ADVISORY REPORT
A pier building designed by George Sears Greene, Jr., and built in 1884-86, with an addition built in 1900. Application is to replace windows.
Architect: Battery Park City Authority
HDC finds the proposed aluminum clad wooden windows to be inappropriate given Pier A’s status as an individual landmark.
We recognize that aluminum clad wood is proposed due to the building’s exposure to constant moisture and coastal weather conditions, however, just as painted wood would require maintenance and upkeep, so too, will aluminum clad windows.
Therefore, we ask the commission to require the applicant to use wood windows.
Action: Unanimously approved.
LPC-25-06032
Verdi Square – Scenic Landmark Manhattan
ADVISORY REPORT
A triangular public park built in 1887. Application is to modify curbing and construct a path.
Architect: NYC Parks
HDC supports efforts to improve accessibility at Verdi Square and we acknowledge and appreciate that Parks offered a clearer and more detailed presentation for review.
The proposal makes no provision for restoring the planting that will be extensively disturbed by this construction. Will that be left to the volunteer Friends of Verdi Square, which installed and maintains the planting?
Finally, we note that there are two existing hose bibs on the exterior of the new IRT control house. HDC questions whether those could be used for the purpose of providing water for the plaza and gardens rather than installing a new water source.
Action: Unanimously approved.
LPC-25-07704
157 East 78th Street – 157 East 78th Street House – Individual Landmark Manhattan
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A vernacular rowhouse with Italianate style influences built in 1861 and later altered. Application is to replace windows, alter the front facade, and construct a rear yard addition.
Architect: MODEL PRACTICE
HDC finds the proposed rear yard addition to be inappropriate. We find the proposed bulk, particularly at the second and third floors, to be oversized. We also believe the upper two floors of the rear wall, which appear to be original and in decent condition, should be retained.
Further, we find the proposed steel gate on the front door to be overly simple for this building and for its function. We would love to see the decorative ironwork be somewhat more detailed.
Additionally, HDC finds the proposed rear yard addition to be inappropriate due to its fenestration and massing. On the front facade, we disagree with the removal of the ironwork and its replacement with a new metal guard. Finally, if a security gate is absolutely necessary, we recommend it be placed on the interior instead.
Action: No action.
