Item 11
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
121781- Block 1, lot 10-
Buildings 96, 146, 147, 148, 309, 400, a garage, and a pool – Governor’s Island Historic District
A wood frame garage constructed mid-20th century; a shop building built in 1986; two one-story brick transformer buildings built in 1934; a ferry waiting room with Colonial style details built in 1917; a vernacular style church built c. 1942 and later altered in the 1970s; an open air swimming pool built in the mid-20th century; and a neo-Georgian style barracks administration and training building designed by McKim, Mead and White, and built in 1929-30 with additions built in the 1950s and 1967-68. Application is to demolish six buildings, additions and a pool and install landscaping.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the application now before the Commission.
HDC feels that much of the proposed demolition is not appropriate for the Governors Island Historic District. While they are from the later period of the army’s time on the island, the buildings are part of the history and appreciation of them will only grow as time passes. The contrast of the older 19th-century structures with these of the 20th century serves as a reminder of how long and strong the military presence was here in New York Harbor.
Moreover, there seems to be no reason for their demolition. A These buildings’ presence does not disrupt the new program of the district, and they are not especially large or intrude upon the open space. They appear to be of a manageable size, style and location that would easily allow for re-purposing for offices, storage, concessions, gallery space, classrooms and other visitor services. Although plans for this might not exist now, it would be better to allow for the opportunity in the future. Reusing existing historic buildings that were active parts of the military base is far more preferable than in the future to having to construct new buildings with no ties to the other landmarks.
LPC determination: approved
Item 19
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
121018- Block 617, lot 55-
20 7th Avenue – Greenwich Village Historic District
A contemporary institutional building designed by Arthur A. Schiller and Albert Ledner and built in 1962-63. Application is to alter the ground floor, install canopies and rooftop mechanical equipment, and remove tiles from the façade.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the application now before the Commission.
HDC is pleased to see the O’Toole Building has found a new purpose and that the overall plans for adaptive reuse are generally sensitive to the landmark. As with other projects for alterations to landmarked buildings, particularly those with as many components as this one does, close attention needs to be paid to the retention and restoration of materials, form and design details as much as possible.
HDC is pleased to see the removal of tile is proposed and restoration of the concrete panels, but the matter of the horizontal joints needs to be considered closely. The proposed renderings seem to have stronger horizontal joints, more in keeping with the building plans, than what seems to have been built and seen in historic photos. While necessary joints seem to have been placed in less noticeable spots hidden by the overhangs, the very visible one above the lower set of arches in the proposal seems jarring, breaking up the space uncomfortably.
As far as form, an important part of the design of this large, but relatively plain building, HDC is glad that the distinctive curved walls of the base are preserved at the corners and would like to see more of it retained. The relatively small amount of space gained by straightening at the north side does not seem to balance the effort needed and degree of modification that would result. A neighborhood health center with a free-standing emergency department would seem to have more flexibility in its arrangement than a trauma center with a full-service hospital, and we question the need to alter the curves of the base.
The ambulance entrance on the south façade cuts a large chunk out of the overhang disrupting the otherwise very strong line. HDC asks that the paving level be investigated to reduce, if not eliminate that cut.
The proposed rooftop mechanicals are overwhelming at certain views, changing the very carefully planned original form. Can more be done to decrease their impact by dropping them down or placing them elsewhere? HDC is also concerned whether the metal louvers will appear as a solid mass or as a more transparent scrim effect. The latter technique may be the better choice in order to maintain the stepped relationship from the main roof terrace to the executive floor. Details such as size and spacing of the louvers and the overall height of the screen should all be clarified.
Besides its shape and materials, there are relatively few details on the building and those that are added will have a big impact. We are happy to see the existing fences removed. Although there was not a railing here originally, one was added a few years after the opening. That rail, visible in historic photos, appears to have been a streamlined, horizontal, brushed aluminum fence with three horizontal bars and verticals spaced far apart. HDC asks that this design be followed in the new installation.
Finally, HDC finds the pylon signage at the southeast corner of the building disruptive the distinctive floating quality of the building. Something more along the thoughtful horizontal, transparent signage proposed at the 7th avenue entrance would be more appropriate and just as practical.
This is an opportunity to restore a building that has been abused over the years. HDC is pleased with the much of the proposed work and urges the applicant to go a little further in restoration and retention of historic fabric and the original form as well as the installation of appropriate details.
LPC determination: no action
Item 39
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN
117475- Block 1388, lot 48-
32 East 74th Street – Upper East Side Historic District
An International style residence designed by William Lescaze and built in 1934-35. Application is to relocate the entrance infill and construct rooftop and rear yard additions.
The Historic Districts Council is the advocate for New York City’s designated historic districts and neighborhoods meriting preservation. Its Public Review Committee monitors proposed changes within historic districts and changes to individual landmarks and has reviewed the application now before the Commission.
The William Lescaze designed house at 32 East 74th Street is an unusual and striking piece of the Upper East Side Historic District. At the time of its construction in 1934-1935, the residence’s International style was, and still is, in marked contrast to the ornate neighbors. Rather than forms and decorative details inspired by designs of centuries’ past, the new house depended on its lines and its contrast between solids and voids for its distinctive appearance.
HDC is opposed to moving the main entrance door forward over five and a half feet, as the elimination of space would have a great impact on the base. The deeply recessed entry is an important element in the design creating a marked contrast between the shadowy base and the expanses of glass and light stucco of the floors above. Decreasing this space would also lessen the impact of the canopy. Unlike many canopies that seem to be applied as an afterthought, Lescaze’s canopy is the ceiling of the recessed entrance, extending out past the building’s walls and adding to the momentary blur between outside and inside, the private home and the public sidewalk. If the deep recess somehow causes an issue at times, the existing door to the left can still be used, and added lighting should, of course, be considered.
While we are not opposed to the rooftop addition as long as it is sufficiently pulled back, HDC is troubled by the rear yard addition and alterations to the special, remarkably intact rear façade. The full length addition would raise the garden level and eliminate existing details such as the rail, planter and stair. Doing so would change the house to yard transition and relationship, a key element in Lescaze’s design. We are very happy to see the original steel windows of the upper floors will be restored, and we urge the same for the doors and windows of the ground floor as well as maintaining the existing opening. It simply does not make much sense to mess with the cohesive, distinctive design that exists.
HDC determination: no action