CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS TESTIMONY LPC-24-02141 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS A Romanesque Revival style rowhouse designed by Benjamin Wright and built in 1890. Application is to construct a rear yard addition and alter the rear façade. Architect: James Carse HDC finds this application appropriate. This applicant’s sensitive approach is a particularly good example of how an architect can work with the existing form of a building to offer clients additional space while maintaining the mass and reading of the building’s original forms. Action: Unanimously approved |
LPC-23-11929 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS An Anglo-Italianate style rowhouse built c. 1867, and a vacant lot. Application is to construct a side addition, install side and rear decks, and merge the lots. Architect: Lea Architecture HDC finds the bulk of this side yard addition appropriate, but we find the detailing of the bay window to be unrelated to either the Anglo-Italianate detailing of the front porch, or to the more modern approach to the rear facade. We ask the applicant to work with LPC staff to develop the detailing of the bay window to relate more directly to either the front of the house or the back. Action: Unanimously approved with the condition that they work with staff on the detailing |
LPC-23-08693 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: Urban Pioneering Architecture HDC finds this proposal to be inappropriate. The proportions of the steel window system are awkward and unrelated to the two-over-two windows on the top floor. Further, HDC finds the applicant’s proposal for an industrial roll-down gate on top of their proposed two story rear windows to be completely inappropriate. The applicant’s own precedent images show the gate in use at a strip mall; it is not appropriate for, or meant for, residential use. Action: Unanimously approved with the modification that the rear roll down security gate be removed. |
LPC-24-00056 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: Architecture + Construction, PLLC HDC believes that 2-over-2 windows are the appropriate configuration for this building. We ask LPC to require the applicant to use the correct configuration. Action: Unanimously approved |
LPC-23-08497 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HDC finds the proposed elimination of vault lights to be inappropriate. The sidewalk can and should be replaced and new vault lights installed to match the original condition. Action: Unanimously approved |
LPC-24-01927 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HDC supports signage here, but not at this size and placement. Because this sign is proposed at the ground floor level, HDC believes that a series of smaller signs would be more appropriate than one large sign. Action: No action |
LPC-24-02043 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Architect: WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER ASSOCIATES Given the importance of this building, and the prominence of this facade, we find the proposed position of these louvered units to be awkward and inappropriate. HDC notes that the applicant has shown louvered units arranged across a single horizontal band elsewhere on the facade, which we find to be a better solution. Action: Unanimously approved |
LPC-24-01774 BINDING REPORT Architect: Beyer, Blinder, Belle HDC has no specific objection to these signs, but we note that there is an accumulation of seemingly disparate signage in the Great Hall. We encourage LPC and the Met to investigate a more coherent approach to signage in the near future. Action: Unanimously approved |