LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side.

Similar documents
CHAPTER 3 DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CHARACTER AREA

FRUITVALE TRANSIT VILLAGE (Phase 2) Residential Project

Walnut Creek Transit Village Design Guidelines. Part Three III - 25

13. New Construction. Context & Character

Los Angeles Department of City Planning RECOMMENDATION REPORT

STOREFRONTS AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

GUIDELINES TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL LOCATION. INTRODUCTION Existing College Wing Buildings and Site Plan - Figure 1A and Figure 1B.

Long Branch Neighbourhood Character Guidelines Final Report

Bloor St. W. Rezoning - Preliminary Report

Baker Historic District

GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THIS CHAPTER

June 21, North. Spring Angeles. On behalf. other large. of new, high-rise. distinctive

shown on the following page.

MINUTES. Date: November 13, 2013 Location: 747 Market Street, Tacoma Municipal Building, Room 248

M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION

Official Plan Review: Draft Built Form Policies

New-Cast Mixed-use Development Proposal King Street West, Newcastle, Ontario

Conservation Area Designation, amendments and Review

Buildings may be set back to create small plazas provided that these setbacks do not substantially disrupt the street wall s continuity.

CITY HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION

PC RESOLUTION NO ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL (AC)

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

Historic Preservation Preserve, restore or adaptively re-use historic structures and landscapes.

Hendersonville Historic Preservation Commission Main Street Local Historic District Design Guidelines

DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD

Eastern Golf Course, Doncaster Road, Doncaster

Chapter 3: Office & Office Mixed-Use Project Types

PLANNING STAFF REVIEW

CITY HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION

4.0 Design Guidelines For The Village Centre. South fields Community Architectural Design Guidelines Town of Caledon

Hughes Downey Architects Tel.: Rideau Street. Kingston, ON K7K 3A4 Fax:

REQUEST Current Zoning: O-15(CD) (office) Proposed Zoning: TOD-M(CD) (transit oriented development mixed-use, conditional)

Concrete Flat Tile Roofs Large Exposed Overhangs Oversized Bracing Predominately Gable Roofs With Non-Plaster Gable End Treatments.

Community Design Plan

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

3.0 URBAN DESIGN. December 6, OVERVIEW

Urban Design Brief December 23, 2015 Southside Construction Group Official Plan & Zoning By-Law Amendment

Los Angeles Department of City Planning RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Ottawa Historic Resources Inventory: Commercial Historic District Building Information. Significance and Potential Eligibility

CITY OF GENEVA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 22 S. FIRST STREET GENEVA, ILLINOIS 60134

STIKEMAN ELLIOTT. Stikeman Elliott LLP Barristers & Solicitors

Memo. B R A Y H e r i t a g e

Town Center Design Guidelines

AN ORDINANCE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HEREBY ORDAINS:

BROADVIEW PLANNING STUDY Community Consultation Meeting 4. January 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION... 3

(DC1) Direct Development Control Provision DC1 Area 4

CITY CLERK. Consolidated Clause in North York Community Council Report 8, which was considered by City Council on October 26, 27 and 28, 2004.

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Urban Design Guidelines Townhouse and Apartment Built Form

REZONING POLICY FOR CHINATOWN SOUTH (HA-1A) Adopted by City Council on April 19, April 2011

Infill Residential Design Guidelines

CITY OF DES MOINES LANDMARK REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Tuesday, June 13, 2017

242 neighborhoods NEIGHBORHOOD 4: JORDAN AVENUE CORRIDOR

East Bayshore Road Neighbourhood

FAÇADE DESIGN GUIDE. A Placemaking Initiative of the City of Richmond Department of Planning & Development Review

1) Masterplan and design principles

expectations for new development W A T E R F R O N T D R I V E

Toronto and East York Community Council Item TE34.30, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on August 25, 26, 27 and 28, 2014 CITY OF TORONTO

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING JEFFERSON PARISH, LOUISIANA

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT NOVEMBER 15, 2012

Description. Summary. MCPB Item No. Date: 01/17/13. Bethesda Crescent, Limited Site Plan Amendment, A, A

OFFICIAL AGENDA OF THE

2 January 13, 2010 Public Hearing APPLICANT: AUTOBELL CAR WASH, INC

ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Resolution : Exhibit A. Downtown District Design Guidelines March 2003

Future Five. Design/ Development Guidelines. January 2008 Amended June 08 per City Council motion

Urban Design and Visual Resources

HISTORIC DOWNTOWN MONROE DESIGN GUIDELINES

ELK GROVE TOWN CENTER DESIGN GUIDELINES

Wellington Street West - Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

Morgan s Subdivision Historic District Character-defining Features

Historic Yonge Street HCD Study Public Meeting #2

SEAPINES STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH MARCH 2017

Duplex Design Guidelines

Design Review Checklist for Case No.

Yonge Street Zoning Amendment Application - Preliminary Report

Tips on Writing to the Planning Commission

Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce DSP Subcommittee s DSP EIR Scoping Comments and Preliminary Comments on the DSP Framework

MIDTOWN MIXED-USE VILLAGE. TECHNICAL DATA SHEET COMPONENT C-1 FOR PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION NUMBER Project No RZ1.1. Issued.

APPENDIX M. Correspondence with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. Continued

La Veranda Summary Notes from DRAC meeting 4/05/16

Principle 7. Architectural Style and Historic Preservation PRINCIPLE 7

Demolition of a Designated Heritage Property Roncesvalles Avenue

Urban Design & Placemaking

PROPOSED WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

Tyvola & Archdale Transit Station Area Plan. June 5, 2008

Residential Commons at Barry s Corner. Boston civic design commission February 5, 2013

MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES

WATERFRONT DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

Midtown Greenway Land Use and Development Plan Executive Summary

Heritage Property 70 Liberty Street (Central Prison Chapel)

May 11, Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for 6250 Sunset Project, ENV EIR. Dear Mr. Ibarra,

CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ELEMENTS. Commercial Facades

M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION

ORDINANCE NO. 14,767

7 November 12, 2014 Public Hearing

Commercial Development Permit Area

14 October 10, 2012 Public Hearing APPLICANT: MPB, INC

Transcription:

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST! Certificate of Appropriateness Committee Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission 155 West 76 th Street Tuesday, May 22, 2007 LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side. The Certificate of Appropriateness Committee wishes to comment on the application to alter the areaway of the Renaissance Revival style rowhouse designed by Clarence True and built in 1890-91. The proposal to alter the areaway at 155 West 76 th Street brings to mind Christopher Gray s assessment of New York s varied architectural aesthetic: New York s streetscapes are like beaches, washed by their own special tides the fads and fashions of building design all of which contribute to the flow of the blocks, which are ever-changing, almost living things. West 76 th Street between Columbus and Amsterdam embodies this tidal flow; with brownstone, brick, and a variety of painted hues forming a colorful palette along the street. Number 155 West 76 th Street is at home in this evolving milieu, with white paint slathered on its brownstone and brick facade, and a basement level entry where a stoop once stood, the building is testament to the changing dictates of New York City function and fashion. The proposal to redo the building s areaway, and construct a limestone kneewall where an iron rail now stands is yet an example of these changing dictates. While LW! applauds the owner for seeking much-needed improvements to the areaway, we have several concerns that we feel require serious consideration: 1. In order to harmonize with the neighborhood, the kneewall should be low and in keeping with the height of other similar walls along the street and throughout the historic district. Rather than being a tall barrier, then, the kneewall should sit low and provide union between the building and the street. The proposed wall seems to be composed of 1 6 stone and 1 6 railing. We suggest that the railing comprise the bulk of the wall, at least 2 feet, in order to remain open to the street. 2. Ultimately, the building should be restored to what it is, a brownstone that is BROWN rowhouse. In this proposal, we are concerned that the limestone indicated for the wall conflicts with the original color scheme of the building. We would ask the owners, the architect, and the Commission to give serious thought to the appropriateness of the light color palette. If the limestone is approved, we suggest a stipulation that any façade improvements in the future that restore the brownstone must be accompanied by a replacement of the limestone kneewall with brownstone.

Although, as Christopher Gray says, New York s historic streets exist in a tidal flow of evolving aesthetics, we urge the Commission to consider which aesthetics best represent the building s historic intent, and the language of the neighborhood as a whole.

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST! Certificate of Appropriateness Committee Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission 31 West 82nd Street May 22, 2007 LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side. The Certificate of Appropriateness Committee wishes to comment on the application to alter a window opening on this Romanesque Revival style rowhouse which was designed by Edward Chester Smith, built in 1886-87 and designated as part of the Upper West Side-Central Park West Historic District. We are not opposed to this alteration as it does not appear to be visible from the street.

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST! Certificate of Appropriateness Committee Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission The Belnord Apartments-201-225 West 86th Street, aka 200-248 West 87th Street, 540-558 Amsterdam Avenue, 2360-2376 Broadway May 22, 2007 LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side. The Certificate of Appropriateness Committee wishes to comment on the application to amend Certificate of Appropriateness 96-0084 for a Master Plan governing the installation of storefronts for this individually landmarked Italian Renaissance-style apartment building designed by Hiss and Weekes and built in 1908-1909. As Christopher Gray described in a 1987 column, the completion of the subway in 1904 made Broadway north of Columbus Circle a Champs-Elysees with major buildings like the Ansonia, Apthorp and Belnord giving cosmopolitan electricity to the Boulevard. Best known for its magnificent interior courtyard and solid Italian Renaissance façade, the Belnord is also notable as one of the first major apartment buildings on upper Broadway to incorporate ground-floor stores into its design. In recognition of the Belnord s significance to the city, it was designated an Individual Landmark in 1966, just a year into the Commission s tenure. 74-711 Through the 74-711 process in the 1990s, the Commission made tremendous concessions to the building owner by allowing additional commercial space for P.C. Richards. With respect to this and future applications, it is not unreasonable to set a high standard for preservation. It is our understanding that the applicant is proceeding to evaluate work that was and was not completed under the 74-711 agreement between the building owner, the City Planning Commission and the Landmarks Commission. Our committee requests a copy of the 74-711 evaluation to ensure that it is in keeping with the original agreement. Correcting Storefront Violations As the commercial space is a fundamental aspect of the Belnord s design and today sadly compromised by alterations made without the Landmarks Commission s approval and in noncompliance with the adopted storefront master plan we are glad that the applicant is moving forward with correcting the building s numerous violations. Also, for the sake of full disclosure, Page Ayres Cowley, the architect, is a long-time friend of LW! and has served on our C of A Committee.

That said, we are troubled by the applicant s assertion that at least one of the building s storefronts including CVS on Amsterdam Avenue was designed and constructed without Commission approval. This is evident in the problematic design of the storefront, most notably windows that are recessed too far into the building. If an applicant was able to secure building permits without approval from the Landmarks Commission, this represents a major failure in interagency communication with the Department of Buildings as well oversight of this major landmarked building by the building management. We trust that the Commission is making all efforts to correct this communication problem. Amended Storefront Masterplan As supportive as we are, in principle, of greater consistency in the Belnord s commercial spaces, we have the following recommendations for the approach as presented. Having evaluated this proposal, we also urge the Commission reinforce its commitment to appropriate authenticity. A photograph of the Belnord from around 1910, submitted by the applicant, shows that the building s original storefronts had four divided lights, spanning the entire storefront in the transom. This configuration should be used as the basis for what the Commission ultimately approves. Further, it is also important to acknowledge the complexity of this application, requiring close scrutiny by the Landmarks Commission of each storefront and each window. The architect has identified what appear to be two original windows and a delivery entrance on the 87 th Street façade of the building, what is now Club Monaco. As part of the approved masterplan, these windows should be called out as special windows that are original to the building and not be replaced. Only after these details have been addressed can we fully support this application.

Testimony of LANDMARK WEST! Certificate of Appropriateness Committee Before the Landmarks Preservation Commission Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School 36 West 93rd Street May 22, 2007 LANDMARK WEST! is a not-for-profit community organization committed to the preservation of the architectural heritage of the Upper West Side. The Certificate of Appropriateness Committee wishes to comment on the application to construct a rooftop addition on this building designed by Michael Wurmfield and constructed in 1995 in the Upper West Side- Central Park West Historic District. Landmark West s Certificate of Appropriateness committee would like to thank the designer for presenting Columbia Grammar and Preparatory School s proposal to enlarge the existing school building including building out of setbacks and addition of two floors to our committee in March 2007. We are pleased that the applicant has addressed some our concerns with respect to the material of the addition as well as the design and prominence of the clock. As we stated after the initial presentation, we are not opposed, in principle, to the expansion of the structure as its simple modern design can accommodate some additional bulk. That said, we believe that the applicant needs to revisit certain aspects of this proposal. Design and Bulk of the Addition: The committee is concerned that the design seeks to accomplish two different things at once: recede through its material and call attention to itself through its large windows. As we stated in our earlier comments, the adaptation of the mansard concept is awkward for the following reasons: 1) there is a lack of transition from brick to metal on the rooftop addition 2) the mansard steps up awkwardly from 2 stories in the front to 1 story along the sides With respect to the 93 rd Street and west elevation, the curve of the mansard roof is in the same plane as the existing building and lacks the spring line and shadow lines of traditional mansard roofs. The lack of transition from original to addition could be addressed through the use of a ribbon window. Another possibility would be to incorporate recessed setbacks for the added floors, instead of the curved roof as proposed.

In keeping with this idea, the addition s bulk could be de-emphasized through increased shadow lines, perhaps through a brise soleil. With respect to the low building on West 92 nd Street, the existing structure is dwarfed by the scale of the addition. Recessing the added floors would allow the original building to be dominant as the rounded corner makes the addition appear to be bulbous. In conclusion, we urge the applicant to revisit the design as proposed and create a greater transition from the original building to the rooftop addition.

This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com. The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.