LPC Docket Number: 097625
Queens, Block: 8066, Lot: 7
220 Forest Road – Douglaston Historic District
A Contemporary Colonial Revival style house built in 1961. Application is to construct a rear addition and alter the facades.
HDC Testimony
While HDC appreciates an attempt to make a house built after Douglaston’s period of significance more in keeping with the earlier designs for the neighborhood, we do not feel this proposal actually improves the home’s design.
In a change from many proposals we see, there is too much brick, the windows spaced too far apart leaving much of the faзade blank and lending the structure a squat feeling. Design elements that attempt but do not fully carry out the Georgian revival style such as the pseudo-Palladian window on the second floor, the eyebrow dormers, equal size windows on both stories, and the columns that do not line up properly under the portico also create a feeling of faux historicism. The design feels forced onto a structure that might not be the best base for it.
Also we find the proposed addition to be too large, changing the massing of the original and with roofline barely a foot lower than the original, too tall to be the subservient addition the Commission typically looks for. Its curved projecting bays and variety of roofs bears little resemblance to what it going on in the rest of the house, seeming to be from a totally different design book.
In general, there’s a feeling of a building trying to be something it’s not. A simple Colonial Revival house that was a nice reflection of its time and place is being gussied up into a more formal, grander McMansion, Georgian-revival-revival on the front and some sort of French Chateau on the rear.
The Douglaston Historic District is full of fine examples of the Colonial Revival style, some of which are shown in this presentation. HDC urges the applicant work with staff to follow the lead of such houses, toning down the building in some areas and refining its details in others, so that it may be a more contextual neighbor.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 093008
Bronx, Block: Various, Lot: Various
– Fieldston Historic District
A romantically planned suburb developed by the Delafield Estate in 1914… Application is to establish a Master Plan to govern certain types of alterations to buildings, other improvements and landscape improvements within the Fieldston Historic District, authorizing the staff to approve such work if it meets the requirements of the Master Plan.
HDC Testimony
HDC thanks the LPC for creating a master plan specific to Fieldston that allows for staff-level permits. Rules for such neighborhoods that do not fit the typical New York City rowhouse format are crucial to help inform neighborhood property owners of basic guidelines and expectations for work on buildings within their historic district. Accessible, transparent rules for district-specific alterations can be a great relief to homeowners when contemplating work on their homes.
HDC feels that much of the rules as written are appropriate for implementation. We are not too concerned with issues such as materials which can and will be easily replaced again or things like HVAC or satellite dishes that will change with changing technology. What we are primarily concerned about is the size, design and placement of permitted additions that will certainly change the massing and appearance of the designated houses, most likely permanently.
The proposed rules allow for additions that are up to a quarter of the size of the buildings at the time of designation. While it is good that this provision is worded to not allow segmental increases above a certain amount at staff level, it does seem to be a significant amount of growth. How can additions a quarter the size of a structure not inherently change the building’s massing? Furthermore, looking to the future, it will certainly up the ante for what is sure to be requested at CofA hearings. Similarly, allowing outbuildings of up to 100 square feet and garages of up to 500 square feet seem excessive for a staff-level permit.
The proposed Master Plan also says that additions must be subordinate with the roofline of the existing, but we do not feel 18 inches is enough to be subordinate. From the street, the roofline difference of a foot and a half will hardly be visible on a two-story house. At least three feet would be a more appropriate difference, and more reflective of the Colonial Revival architecture so prevalent in the district. We feel similarly about the two foot setback on additions at the front faзade.
Allowing a second floor addition on an existing one-story addition and the addition of dormers to a roof are both new rules not found in similar master plans such as Douglaston. Again, these both seem to be alterations that could have a significant impact on the massing and design of a house and should be brought to the full Commission. Also new is the rule allowing an existing porch to be enclosed even on the front faзade. No matter how transparent a material is, the difference between an enclosed and an open space is very perceptible – and a glassy extrusion proposed to be attached to a Colonial Revival villa would seem to be a poster child for public dialogue about appropriateness of an alteration to a historic building.
Fencing, certainly something that also affects the view of a building, is allowed at much higher levels than they are in other districts.
We are not suggesting that any of this should be banned, only that such projects should not be approved at staff level and should instead come before the full Commission.
There is also some wording in the master plan that is rather flexible. The phrase “main entrance facade” is greatly used. Does this just mean the plane on which the entrance is? Does it also entail any other piece of the faзade that faces the same direction as the entrance? The revival style structures of the district have a romantic influence that is played out in multiple depths of their facades and focal points that are not necessarily the main entrance.
When determining the visibility of an addition, “staff may take into account…seasonal foliage.” Does this mean seasonal foliage renders an addition highly visible or less visible? Is the glass half empty or half full?
A porch is allowed to be added to the front faзade, but not a deck. What is the technical difference? Size? Materials? Neither is defined in the rules. And “the size of the deck shall be proportional to the size of the house.” What is the proportion that is being aimed for?
With so much happening at staff level, both here and in other districts, it is crucial that such permits be made public in much the same way as Certificates of Appropriateness are. Simply by posting the permits on the Internet, residents will have a greater understanding of the what, why, and how alterations are happening to their neighborhood.
HDC would also like to take this chance to request special, district-specific master plan for another unique district that does not readily conform to the general staff-level rules, Sunnyside Gardens. Many residents fought for landmarking with the belief that they would receive their own rules that would help preserve the special nature of the district as the special zoning had. Their dedication and efforts were crucial to designating the district that helped allow LPC to landmark more buildings in 2007 than in any other year and the Bloomberg administration to landmark more of buildings outside Manhattan than any other administration. Now, many have been left confused and frustrated by staff-level permits that while they may fit the general rules, the general rules don’t fit the district. Rules that the community helps shape, in much the same way your outreach and cooperation in Fieldston has, would go a long way to and preserving that special planned community in Queens.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 090740
Queens, Block: 1278, Lot: 38
78-27 37th Avenue – Jackson Heights Historic District
A neo-Georgian style commercial building designed by Andrew J. Thomas and built in 1947. Application is to legalize the installation of an areaway fence without LPC permits.
HDC Testimony
Applications to legalize work done without LPC permits should be reviewed as if it was a typical proposal. In this case, HDC does not feel the proposed is appropriate for the Jackson Heights Historic District. As the former headquarters of the Queensboro Corporation, the developers of neighborhood, this building is of special significance to the district and its history. While fences of a limited height have been approved by the Commission for larger apartment buildings, there is no precedent for such a fence on a commercial building, and now is not time to start one. Perhaps shrubbery could fulfill the need for the fence. Unless historic photos showing a fence in this location can be exhibited, HDC urges the Commission to deny this application for legalization.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 095039
Queens, Block: 1443, Lot: 33
82-15 35th Avenue – Jackson Heights Historic District
A neo-Georgian style apartment building, designed by Seelig & Finkelstine and built in 1937. Application is to construct a barrier-free access ramp and railing.
HDC Testimony
HDC applauds the applicant on this very well-thought-out solution to what is often a difficult problem, accessibility to a landmark building. Not only will the proposal provide accessibility, it will be an improvement, replacing the current chain link fence with a railing that takes its design from existing metal work on the building as well as installing a new paneled door. The work, though, will make the remaining chain link fence stand out as a poor, inappropriate element, and we urge the applicant to think about alternatives while the rest of this fine work is going on.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 099177
Manhattan, Block: 217, Lot: 1
250 West Street – TriBeCa North Historic District
A neo-Renaissance style warehouse designed by William H. Birkmire and built in 1903-1906. Application is to construct a rooftop addition, alter the faзade, and replace the windows.
HDC Testimony
At public review on Thursday, HDC found that this application was made up of many, many boards that in the end provided little information on the project.
The rooftop addition as shown in the boards is very tall and very visible from a number of locations. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it is set too close to the front of the building. We urge the applicant to consider other arrangements of mechanicals and this massive room to limit the visibility.
We applaud the reintroduction of a cornice on this structure, but are curious as to what the material is and question the color choice, as the cornice appears to be a darker shade in the historic photos.
The proposed windows look a bit too dainty for this solid warehouse. HDC urges the applicant to work with staff to make sure the framing of the windows is correct; the muntins should be solid and heavy enough to retain the industrial character.
This is a very large project on a significant building in the TriBeCa North Historic District. While it appears that a good amount of restoration will be taking place, it is important to ensure that details, large and small, be they iron work and muntins or a rooftop addition, contribute and not detract from this work.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 093179
Manhattan, Block: 828, Lot: 41
230 Fifth Avenue – Madison Square North Historic District
A Beaux Arts style office building designed by Schwartz & Gross, and built in 1912-1915. Application is to install a flagpole.
HDC Testimony
HDC does not approve of this application to install a flagpole. The proposed location is too high up (something along the spring line of the arch or in the location of the existing pole remnants could be more appropriate). In addition, the placement of just one flag on the second of four piers lends an asymmetry to a very orderly Beaux Arts style faзade.
While we are all familiar with Childe Hassam’s painting of flags on Fifth Avenue, the importance there were the flags, not the flagpoles. This application is the opposite – it is about the flagpole, not the flag. It is our understanding that after installation of a pole, any flag could be hung here changing a patriotic nod to a past era into a commercial sign.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 100043
Manhattan, Block: 847, Lot: 22
876 Broadway – Ladies’ Mile Historic District
A commercial palace style store and warehouse building designed by Henry Fernbach and built in 1883-1884. Application is to install new storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
While this application is certainly an improvement for 876 Broadway, HDC prefers the proposed drawings dated April 2000 as they follow more closely the original design. Details such as centering the show window’s mullion and installing a single pane transom rather than a divided one help create a more harmonious storefront
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 097422
Manhattan, Block: 1244, Lot: 33
80 Riverside Drive – Riverside Drive – West 80th-81st Street Historic District
A neo-Classical style apartment building, designed by Maurice Deutsch and built in 1926-1927. Application is to construct a rooftop addition.
HDC Testimony
If this is an application for the same addition as was approved in the past, is the building of a parapet and re-installation of urns still part of the proposal? If they are not, the rooftop addition should be reduced, pulled back some, and a darker finish be used to reduce its visibility.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 098789
Manhattan, Block: 1202, Lot: 11
53 West 88th Street – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Romanesque Revival style rowhouse, designed by Neville & Bagge, built in 1892-1894. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
While we have no objection to the size of the proposed addition, HDC finds its design and materials to be inappropriate. With a rather industrial look in stucco and steel, the addition bears little relationship to the late 19th-century rowhouse or the rest of the block. The Romanesque Revival style has many design elements that can be played with in contemporary ways to create a faзade that will work both for the building and the client, and we urge the applicant to explore alternatives.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 098710
Brooklyn, Block: 1930, Lot: 5
321 Clinton Ave – Clinton Hill Historic District
A transitional Italianate/neo-Grec style residence, designed by Ebenezer L. Roberts and built in 1875. Application is to construct a deck and railing.
HDC Testimony
Making a second story deck on top of a covered porch changes the very nature of the porch. Given the visibility of this porch and the precedent it would set, HDC asks that you not approve this application.
LPC Determination: Incomplete