LPC Docket Number: 091475
Brooklyn, Block: 2111, Lot: 111
321 Ashland Place – Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District
A Classically inspired institutional building designed by Vorrhees, Gmelin & Walker, and built in 1927. Application is to demolish a portion of the existing building and construct an addition.
HDC Testimony
HDC would like to thank the applicant for reaching out to us earlier in the process and presenting the project.
In general, there is much to like in this proposal including appropriate materials, attention to detail found in the brick work, and a happy minimal approach to signage, not to mention giving a new life to an historic structure and adding to the cultural vibrancy of this district. HDC’s one major concern is the proportions of the windows on the addition. There is no getting around that this is a very large addition, but the fenestration draws the eye up and reinforces the size. In an attempt to decrease as much as possible the overwhelming sense of this addition, we ask that other fenestration arrangements be studied.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 093123
Brooklyn, Block: 1222, Lot: 38
1298 Bergen Street – Crown Heights North Historic District
A Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by F.K. Taylor and built c.1898. Application is to construct a rear yard addition.
HDC Testimony
The proposed, including the two-story deck and stairs comes out about nearly 20 feet into the yard, a sizable addition into this rather open rear space. While that is four more feet that the present shed, the proposed also is full width as opposed to one bay wide and two stories as opposed to one. The details like the use of brick and segmental arches are laudable, but enlarging the openings into into double wide doorways and windows gives the faзade the look of a carriage house or garage. It is a nice design, but not appropriate for this faзade. As in other districts, the top floor fenestration of this rowhouse should be kept intact and thus the door should not be added. Finally we find the railing with its horizontal design to be inappropriate and urge that something more in keeping with the building and its style be designed instead.
LPC Determination: Approved with modifications
LPC Docket Number: 098310
Manhattan, Block: 1305, Lot: 1
109 East 50th Street – St. Bartholomew’s, Individual Landmark
A Byzantine style church designed by Bertram Goodhue and built in 1914-1919. Application is to install new paving at the terrace.
HDC Testimony
In this case, as with any landmarked property, HDC feels it is important to move closer to the original design rather than further. Board LPC 5 shows the original pattern for the terrace of smaller scaled tiles placed diagonally with a border. A better compliment to the Byzantine style church than the proposed overscaled, rather generically laid out granite blocks, the historic pattern should be reinstalled. If there are safety concerns about using terra cotta tiles, replacement materials could still be laid out using the same pattern and dimensions.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 099123
Manhattan, Block: 1009, Lot: 1
881-897 7th Ave (aka 161-169 West 56th street) – Carnegie Hall, Individual Landmark
An Italian Renaissance style music hall and tower, designed by William B. Tuthill and built in 1889-1891, with additions built in 1894 and 1897. Application is to install marquees, entrances and flags; remove skylights; construct an elevator tower, a bulkhead, and a rooftop canopy; replace HVAC equipment, alter and replace masonry and openings; and install signage and lighting.
HDC Testimony
This is a huge project and one that is extremely important to this internationally-known landmark and New York’s cultural life. While we approve of much of the restoration work and the general idea of other alterations, HDC feels strongly that alterations should recall the historic conditions of a landmark.
HDC recognizes the need to alter our city’s landmarks to enable them to continue to flourish and contribute to our city through their programming as well as architecturally. The notions of better lighting, a canopy to keep the rain off and a better elevator are entirely reasonable goals and ones we don’t object to. However, they do affect the overall cityscape and the public appreciation of this important historic structure. Therefore, HDC asks that these alterations be made with all due consideration to the historic design, that this institution’s functionality and physical presence can work together and support one another.
Although glass canopies have been approved by the commission (so many that they are starting to feel generic), HDC continues to find them inappropriate for most landmarks. Even completely glass canopies are noticeable additions to a building – they are never utterly invisible. In addition, as anyone with windows in New York City knows, they will get dirty fast and will be quite popular with birds. In this case we also find that the proposed feel too flimsy for such a significant structure. The best alternative would be nothing, but barring that, something that hearkens back to the 1908 photo with more framing, could be a welcomed addition. A middle ground between trying to deny the existence of canopies and the bulky incursions of recent decades can and should be found.
At the top of the building, HDC finds the addition of the glass elevator between the two towers to be too visibly jarring. If any of it is mechanicals or an over-run, we suggest that different types of elevator technology be investigated to reduce the visibility. The roof garden is a pleasant, and historically appropriate, idea, but the proposed design does not rise to the level of the examples shown in this well-researched proposal. We ask that it be rethought to be less corporate and blocky and more in tune with the style of the building and historic predecessors. Finally, where they are visible, we ask that the number of sky lights removed be reduced. Their presence is an important reference to the studios that were once here and are a significant part of the building’s history. Much like sky lights are retained on industrial landmarks, they should be retained here.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 099327
Manhattan, Block: 1229, Lot: 35
452 Amsterdam Ave – Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District
A Romanesque Revival style flats building designed by Gilbert A. Schellenger and built in 1891. Application is to legalize storefront alterations completed without Landmarks Preservation Commission permit(s).
HDC Testimony
In general this storefront is nice, but not something the commission would have approved immediately as a proposal. The entry door could use a bulkhead like those of the folding doors and more traditional door hardware should be used. The most disturbing part of this legaliztion though is the bracket sign mounted into the historic, cast iron framing. This should be removed and repaired lest anyone else think it is LPC approved and tries to do the same.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
LPC Docket Number: 098893
Queens, Block: 9273, Lot: 89
86-15 Lefferts Boulevard – Richmond Hill Republican Club, Individual Landmark
A Colonial Revival style civic building designed by Henry E. Haugaard and built in 1908. Application is to construct a rooftop addition, alter the balustrades, and install storefront infill.
HDC Testimony
Along with local activists, HDC has long been concerned about the fate of the Richmond Hill Republican Club. This is truly an example of a building whose cultural significance increased after designation –as the only designated landmark in Richmond Hill, this building is symbolic to neighborhood residents of the power, responsibility and effectiveness of the landmark process. Commissioners may remember that it was only through the fast action of the LPC that this building was saved from demolition in the first place. It is our understanding that despite years on designation wish lists, it was ultimately the application for a demolition permit which triggered the LPC’s review and consideration of this structure. The tangled history of the site’s ownership only further complicated this important building’s chances for survival and it was only through the persistence of the late civic activist and local historian Nancy Cataldi that awareness of the landmark’s status remained on the radar. Once the ownership of the building was resolved, the LPC’s enforcement division made great strides in attempting to correct damage from the years of neglect; the results of which are now before us.
The boards at public review on May 29th led to more questions than answers. More information is needed on the types of materials proposed for the balustrade alteration and the storefront infill. As befitting an individual landmark, they should be of materials that match the original. The replacement balustrade should be made of cast iron. New York City has an entire district of cast iron buildings, and they are surviving the weather just fine. We are opposed to changing the right storefront bay as the post office was an important part of the building, making it a center for the community in the heart of Richmond Hill. Retaining this historic fabric would not interfere with the building’s new use. The large kitchen, which we assume is the blue-tarped mass on top of the building in the photos presented, is far too visible and we question the ability of the roof to support such a structure and accompanying equipment. HDC would like to stress again the local importance of this landmark – it is an axiom in preservation practice in New York that community support is necessary for the successful preservation of a historic building. The community greatly supports the preservation of this building but it has to be done correctly. We urge the LPC to work with the applicants and the community to find the right solution, and to write a happy ending for at least one building in historic Richmond Hill.
LPC Determination: Incomplete
