Page 39 of 48 FirstFirst ... 29353637383940414243 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 585 of 713

Thread: The Landmarks Preservation Commission

  1. #571
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Don't worry about what's next door, just do what you want to do
    Wow!

    It looks kind of like a Kindle.
    And therefore totally ridiculous.

    The original house was lovely.


    Landmarks Wants 'Unexpected' Details On New UWS House



    It's rare that the Landmarks Preservation Commission tells architects to do something unexpected and make a design more modern, but such were the instructions for the designers of a new single-family, five-story limestone house at 110 West 88th Street. Currently vacant, the property sits among the charming brownstones of the Central Park West Historic District. The local community board rejected the plans for the site as being out of context with the neighborhood, but the commission actually asked architect Jordan Rogove of DXA Studio to make the 4,778 square-foot home more modern. "Don't worry about what's next door, just do what you want to do," said Commissioner Joan Gerner.



    DXA Studio attempted to negotiate between the features that make the area architecturally interesting (like bay windows and pediment ornaments) and a fresh approach to a spot that's been vacant since an 1886 house (above, left) fell into disrepair and got torn down. The commission actually approved a new house for the space in 2007, but the owners' attorney said developers ran out of time before starting the project.



    The current plan incorporates a new common green space in back for the new house and an adjoining one, as well as colorful fauna picked out by Patrick Cullina Horticultural Design+Consulting for a rooftop balcony and front windowsills. But the main window of the second floor, made to look like an alternate approach to the bay windows nearby, provoked criticism in testimony by Community Board 7 landmarks committee member Jay Adolph. "Frankly it's just like a big glazed rectangle," he said. "It looks kind of like a Kindle."


    The current state of the property

    Yet the commissioners encouraged Rogove to add more distinguishing features to the top lip of the front façade, something "interesting or unexpected," as Commissioner Roberta Washington put it. Commission Chairman Robert Tierney summed up the design's frustrating mix of old and new by paraphrasing a quote from an old Yankee great. "You got to a fork in the road, and, instead of taking it, as Yogi Berra said, you went both ways."

    —Tobias Salinger

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0..._uws_house.php

  2. #572

    Default

    502 Canal St

    New windows.




  3. #573
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Looks good. But it's kind of amazing that the restoration included the signage scaffolding up top. Clearly that is not from the period that the is was built. And it's doubtful (hopefully ) that new signage will go up there.

  4. #574
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Grrrrrrrrr .

    This is a marvelous example of 1930's Streamline architecture, damn it!


    Pope-Designed Hospital Threatened

    by Zoe Rosenberg


    [Courtesy of the Queens Preservation Council]

    JAMAICA—The historic "T" Building at the Queens Center Hospital is under threat of demolition, despite its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Mixed opinions over the building's fate have been swirling since it was proposed as a residence for people with low incomes or chronic illnesses. The Queens Preservation Council has launched a campaign to save the John Russell Pope-designed building.

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...threatened.php

  5. #575
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Magnificent building.

  6. #576
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Excellent.


    Jarmulowsky Bank Building's Signature Feature To Be Restored

    by Jeremiah Budin



    Great news for architecture lovers and the Lower East Side skyline: the iconic cupola atop the Jarmulowsky Bank Building is going to be restored after all. The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved plans over a year ago to restore the former bank so that it could be converted into a 105-room hotel, but architect Ron Castellano's proposal did not include bringing back the 50-foot cupola, removed during a 1990 renovation, as that was determined to be prohibitively expensive. But now developers DLJ Real Estate Partners have decided that—expenses be damned—the Jarmulowsky Building needs its cupola (alternately referred to as a tempietto or a dome) and the new plans will be brought back to Community Board and the LPC, both of whom will undoubtedly be elated to see them again. The hotel is scheduled to open in the second half of 2015.

    Jarmulowsky Owners Decide to Restore Large Dome Atop Hotel [The Lo-Down]

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...e_restored.php

  7. #577

    Default

    Regarding the queens hospital- is that the same architect who designed the hospital buildings on roosevelt island that are getting torn down for Cornell?

  8. #578
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Preservation Pays! REBNY’S Campaign Against Landmark Protection Is Misguided

    By opposing preservation, REBNY and its allies oppose the will of the people

    By Jeffrey A. Kroessler


    A view of Manhattan, in October 1966, from the Rockefeller Centre looking towards the East River.
    (Photo by Terry Chambers/Fox Photos/Getty Images)

    Imagine New York City without a landmarks law protecting historic neighborhoods and buildings. Actually, one does not have to imagine. There are examples aplenty across the five boroughs.

    From urban renewal sites to the apartment towers rising in Williamsburg and Long Island City, from “McMansions” replacing older homes in Forest Hills and Kew Gardens to new construction breaking up an intact block of row houses in Sunset Park, there is evidence anywhere you look.

    The Real Estate Board of New York has launched an aggressive media campaign against historic preservation. There are too many landmarks, they wail, and many of those are unworthy! They argue that historic districts impede growth and development. Their evidence on all fronts is slim to misleading. Here’s why.

    “Landmarking is bad for business.” That argument is so contrary to the facts on the ground that one must question the reasoning powers of anyone who advances it. How bad is business in SoHo? Prior to the designation of the SoHo Historic District in 1973, an empty loft building at the corner of Broome and Wooster Streets was offered for $90,000. How much is that property worth today? That astronomical rise is a direct result of designation. Granted, the property might fetch more as a development site, but at the cost of losing the very qualities that make those blocks so attractive, valuable and profitable.

    In the 1980s, as the city staggered out of the fiscal crisis of the previous decade, the Theater District was under siege. Many legitimate theaters were dark, and in 1982 five beloved theaters, most notably the Helen Hayes and the Morosco, were demolished to make way for the 50-story Portman Hotel, now the Marriott Marquis. In response, the theatre community, civic organizations and preservationists campaigned to designate the remaining Broadway theaters. By 1987, twenty-five theaters had been designated, and the two major theater organizations sued to overturn the designations.

    Can anyone imagine how impoverished the city would have been had that suit been successful? Absent landmarking, there would have been no Broadway revival because the theaters would have been gone. Today, every venue is alive, and when one show closes another is ready to take its place. The industry pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into the city and employs thousands in theatres and ancillary businesses, like the restaurants, hotels and retail stores in Times Square. Historic preservation clearly was the catalyst. And the theatre owners who fought designation … well, let’s just say their bottom line is rather healthy.

    Similarly, property owners fought the designation of the Ladies Mile Historic District in 1989, pleading that the old buildings were obsolete. Those old buildings between Broadway and Sixth Avenue below 23rd Street had been department stores and other retail establishments. Walk those streets today and we see big box retail and, yes, department stores.

    “Landmarking impedes development and growth.” If we define development as new construction only, then yes, landmarking does plead guilty. But historic districts are scarcely dead zones. On the contrary, the renovation, restoration, and reuse of older buildings employs thousands and supports many skilled craftspeople—plasterers, woodworkers, ironworkers, masons, not to mention architects and interior designers. Further, older buildings offer very desirable spaces for start-ups and small firms. And let us not omit the impact of tourism. It is New York’s historic districts visitors want to explore.

    REBNY often ridicules the fact that the Landmarks Commission has designated parking lots and a gas station. A gas station! That property is on the edge of SoHo, and the owner only recently applied for and received permits to erect a new 7-story retail and commercial building that will complement the historic district. In fact, the Landmarks Commission has never denied an application for new construction on a vacant site. What they have done is to insist upon a higher design standard.

    “Landmarking makes neighborhoods unaffordable.” Property values have risen all across the city in recent decades, and values have risen somewhat more in historic districts. Is that a bad thing for the city? For homeowners? Only, it seems, if the property is in a historic district. Otherwise, it is the free market at work. REBNY argues that landmarking is somehow discriminatory because it makes properties in historic districts less affordable and artificially limits residency. But if there were no controls, would Greenwich Village still be so desirable? There is no going back to the bohemian past, but if the row houses were demolished and replaced by luxury towers, the Village would essentially cease to be the Village. Homes in historic districts are desirable for their sense of place and uniqueness. Compromise there and we surely lose more than we would ever gain.

    By opposing preservation, REBNY and its allies oppose the will of the people. The Landmarks Commission has designated historic districts only when a sold majority of residents are in favor. Why do so many neighborhoods desire the protection of the landmarks law, with all its attendant regulations? The law certainly limits what homeowners can do with their own property, but it also limits what their neighbors can do. It is an insurance policy. If my neighbor uglifies his home (and no, it is not merely a matter of taste—some changes are ugly, others appropriate), or builds something out of scale with adjacent properties, then my quality of life has diminished. He may have cashed in, but in the process he has reduced the value of my home as a home, even if it retains value as a development site.

    It is that certainty that the landmarks law provides, and that is of value not only to the property owner, but also to the city as a whole. Landmarks are the geese that lay the golden eggs

    http://observer.com/2014/02/preserva...#axzz2t8jgTuCr

  9. #579
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Wow!

    http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...l=1#post233609

    http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...l=1#post233617



    Sullivan Street's Calvert Vaux Condo Conversion Shows Itself

    by Hana R. Alberts


    A penthouse rooftop terrace, with an outdoor kitchen, pool, and fireplace.

    BuzzBuzz Home is positively mooning over the launch of 215 Sullivan Street's full website. It's pretty easy to see why. The former Children's Aid Society building, a lovely Victorian Gothic specimen designed by Central Park co-architect Calvert Vaux, is heavy on the landscaping. The breakdown of the 25 one- to six-bedroom units is as follows: four townhouses, four penthouses, and 17 "lofts." The lofts have floor-to-ceiling windows. All residences share a lush interior courtyard with fountain, while some have their own outdoor space, with the spacious ones attached to the penthouses looking particularly enviable. The townhouses also have private underground garages "for the utmost privacy." Another gem from the marketing babble? "The indoor-outdoor lifestyle is seamless." When sales launch—the next step—asks are expected to range from $3 to $16 million. The newly launched site says availability, exact pricing, and floorplans are coming soon, though we did get a peek at the latter last month.


    The view from Sullivan Street.


    Each of the four townhouses comes with a private parking garage.


    The garden of a townhouse.


    The "Vaux Penthouse Living Room."


    A townhome dining room.


    A loft living room.


    A kitchen with Miele appliances, cabinetry made of light elm, and Calacatta gold marble everywhere.


    Marble floors and marble walls in the bathrooms.






    The lobby.


    The landscaped entry garden.



    The developer is Broad Street Development, with Ed Rawlings as the modern-day architect, Eric Cohler as the interior designer, and Edmund Hollander as the landscape architect.
    215 Sullivan [official]

    With Central Park design realness, 215 Sullivan will make you an outdoorsy believer [BBH]
    Greenwich Village Condo: A Nod to the Past [NYT]

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0...ows_itself.php

  10. #580

    Default

    Potential Historic District Supported by Elected Officials and Community Boards

    02/25/2014


    Map of proposed Park Ave. Historic District. Image credit: LPC.


    Representatives and members of the Park Avenue Christian Church petitioned Landmarks to ensure that designation would not impede planned development. On February 11, 2014, the Landmarks Preservation Commission held a hearing on the potential designation of the Park Avenue Historic District, comprising 68 buildings in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. The area is characterized by a predominance of early-20th century high-rise apartment buildings, as well as some low rise dwellings, individual mansions, institutional buildings, and later-period apartment buildings. The area was developed primarily for upscale housing, modeled after Fifth Avenue. If designated, the district would adjoin the Upper East Side Historic to the south, and share borders with the Carnegie Hill and Expanded Carnegie Hill Historic Districts. According to the Landmarks’ Research Department, the buildings in the district “retain a high degree of architectural integrity.”

    Representatives of Council Members Daniel Garodnick and Ben Kallos testified in support of the designation. A representative of Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney voiced her “full-throated support” of “this iconic area of our city,” and a representative of State Senator Liz Krueger testified that “threats to this section of Park Avenue are not merely theoretical.” Representatives of Manhattan Community Boards 8 and 11 also recommended designation.

    Tara Kelly, of the Friends of the Upper East Side, testified that five historic buildings in the area had been lost since 2010, when the request for evaluations was first submitted to Landmarks. Several area residents and representatives of local co-op boards and block associations testified that the architectural integrity of the neighborhood was being marred by inappropriate developments and alterations, and urged swift designation. Christabel Gough of the Society for the Architecture of the City stated that the proposed district represented an irreplaceable piece of New York history and “cosmopolitan elegance.” Historic Districts Council Executive Director Simeon Bankoff read a letter from former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who grew up in the area, in which he called the neighborhood “a beautiful part of Manhattan” and expressed strong support for designation.

    Numerous representatives and members of the Park Avenue Christian Church testified at the hearing. The church’s plans to develop a residential tower on the site of an existing 1960s annex, in partnership with Extell Development Co., has resulted in significant controversy within the community. Kramer Levin attorney Valerie Campbell stated that the church supported district designation, but was concerned about its impact on its plan to develop a portion of its property. Campbell argued that designation should not be used to delay or prevent the “thoughtful and well-considered plan” that would provide the church with a “solid financial foundation.” One congregant said the church struggled financially and the development would ensure its long term sustainability. Beyer Blinder Belle architects testified to the annex’s lack of architectural significance and historic material. The church’s plans were supported by the rabbi of the Temple for Universal Judaism, representatives of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, and the Reverend Calvin O. Butts of the Abyssinian Baptist Church.

    David Brown, Director of Real Estate for the Archdiocese of New York, asked that the Church of St. Ignatius Loyola be excluded from the proposed designation, saying that landmarking constituted an “unfair burden.” Paimaan Lodhi, of the Real Estate Board of New York recommended the excision of 21 buildings from the proposed map, and said “designating properties that do not contribute to the proposed district is unnecessary and will only devalue the worth of a historic district.”

    Chair Robert B. Tierney thanked those who testified, and closed the hearing without comments.

    By: Jesse Denno (Jesse is a full-time staff writer at the Center for NYC Law).

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School
    http://www.citylandnyc.org/potential...ds/#more-21727


    View north at E 79th St. Building at left is not in the proposed district.

  11. #581

    Default

    Proposal for Rooftop Addition Near Union Square Draws Opposition

    03/26/2014


    Rendering of proposed additions on 860 Broadway, Manhattan.
    Image credit: PKSB Architects.


    Commissioners generally determined that an addition to an 1884 building was appropriate, but the design required refinement. On March 18, 2014, the Landmarks Preservation Commission considered an application for a two-story addition to an 1884 building located at 860 Broadway in the Ladies’ Mile Historic District. The building faces the northwest corner of Union Square Park. The structure’s Neo-Grec exterior was heavily altered in the 1920s, and much of its original ornament has been removed. The applicants proposed to make alterations to the ground-floor storefront and build a two-story rooftop addition.

    Sherida Paulsen of PKSB Architects presented the planned addition and alterations. The addition would be visible over two facades and would be composed of brick and terra cotta. Paulsen noted that the building had undergone many alterations throughout its history, and that the terra cotta band course at the top of the structure was one of the few remaining original decorative elements of the building. Paulsen noted that the building’s original architect Detlef Linau, one of the first architects to bring the mansard roof to the United States, had drafted an alternative design for the building that included a visible roof. Paulsen argued that a contemporary “bauble” on top of the building was not appropriate for the site, and demanded something “demure” and “contextual.” She said that the brick and terra cotta would create “softness” in the addition and the design would constitute a “layering of materials.” The addition would be in the shape of a mansard roof, which would be contextual with the “Parisian” mansards of the district.

    The additions, which would raise the building to eight stories, would face the Union Square Park and East 17th Street. The additions would also be set back 100 feet from the 18th Street facade. The addition would be used as residential space, and visible from public thoroughfares on the south and west. The plan would also include bulkheads, stairs, elevator, and mechanical equipment. Paulsen noted that there were other taller buildings nearby, including the Barnes and Noble building at 33 East 17th Street, which possesses an added mansard roof, but stands outside the boundaries of the historic district. Paulsen also noted that the building served as the third location for Andy Warhol’s “Factory.”

    Jack Taylor of the Drive to Protect the Ladies’ Mile District opposed the application, stating that the proposal would “dramatically alter the historic skyline of the north side of Union Square.” The Historic District Council‘s Barbara Zay argued that the “bulky” addition would represent a 30 percent increase in the building’s height and be “an affront to the building and to the streetscapes on both East 17th and Broadway.” The Society for the Architecture of the City’s Christabel Gough testified that the proposal would “completely obliterate” what little remained of the building’s original design and would block views of the adjacent McIntyre Building.

    Commissioner Fred Bland said the extensive alterations to the existing building created “a license to be somewhat freer,” and that the buildings on Union Square were generally taller than elsewhere in the district. However, Bland thought the application needed further study, criticizing the proportions of the windows and dormers, and suggested that the applicants reconsider the use of terra cotta. Commissioner Michael Goldblum concurred that the site was appropriate for a rooftop addition, but found a mansard unsympathetic with the “austere, simple” existing building. Commissioner Michael Devonshire opposed the use of terra cotta and said the landmarked building should not be asked to host more than a minimally visible one-story addition. Commissioner Libby Ryan found the project to be conceptually appropriate, but agreed that there were problems with the mansard’s proportions. Commissioner Ryan suggested that the rooftop addition be set back from the 17th Street streetwall. The Landmarks Commissioners also asked for some small revisions to the storefront work, including the preservation of existing iron grilles.

    Chair Robert B. Tierney stated that the site was an appropriate one for an addition, but the proposal required refinement. He asked the applicants to revise the proposal and return to Landmarks at a later date.

    By: Jesse Denno

    © 1997-2010 New York Law School

  12. #582
    I admit I have a problem
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Koreatown
    Posts
    532

    Default

    Manhattan boro prez seeks more landmarks

    Gale Brewer plans to introduce a bill that would require the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission to review demolition permits of any building over 50 years old.

    By JOE ANUTA
    Published: April 4, 2014 - 1:56 pm

    Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer plans to introduce legislation that would require the city Landmarks Preservation Commission to consider any building older than 50 years for review, whenever a developer files permits to demolish it, she announced Friday.

    The proposed legislation would require the commission to take 30 days for public review before deciding whether or not to consider a building for landmark status. Separately, it would also codify a provision that prohibits owners of buildings under consideration for such protected status from gaining demolition permits.

    Ms. Brewer announced the legislation at a news conference along West 57 Street, where developers are currently building some of the city’s tallest towers, including Extell Development’s One57 and JDS Development’s super-thin tower nearby.

    ...

    In addition to announcing her proposed legislation, Ms. Brewer also called on the commission to study buildings along West 57th Street after the five-story Rizzoli building, built in the 1920s, and passed over twice by the commission for landmark status. According to the beep's office, that property is now slated for alterations.

    "We are here today to ask that the LPC immediately study those remaining buildings on West 57th Street to identify and landmark those that represent the best of their eras," Ms. Brewer said.

    ...

    http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...more-landmarks

  13. #583
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Is that, then, going to be 50 years before the current year, thus gradually decreasing the age of a building being considered for landmarking?

    A building 50 years old in 2014 would have been built in 1964. On that basis, perhaps 60-65 years would be more appropriate, since there aren't that many buildings (likely to be slated for demolition) built in the early 1960s that are worth preserving I would have thought.

    A building 50 years old in 2064 would have been built in 2014. What's being built now, particularly the high rises, aren't likely to be candidates and, based on the criteria for what's been preserved so far (buildings largely built prior to 1950-odd), there won't be anything worthy (except older buildings not already landmarked).

    I believe all buildings built prior to 1950 should be considered.

    Progress is one thing, but New York City is the place it is because of its marvelous architectural legacy. Getting more clever about adaptive reuse shouldn't be that difficult (or costly) with some thought and effort, surely?

    Yeah, I know, [insert the usual arguments here], but... I'm still trying to get over the proposed demolition of Chickering Hall, for example.

  14. #584
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Merchant's House-Neighboring Hotel Approved by Landmarks

    by Jeremiah Budin



    The third design proved to be the charm for architect Ed Carroll, whose plans for a hotel neighboring the 182-year-old Merchant's House Museum have finally been approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission a year and a half after they were first presented. Carroll first design was too big for the LPC, and the second one was too metallic and lacking depth, but the third one was, if not just right, minimally offensive and, basically, contextual enough. "Yeah, the building is boring, but it's appropriate," said Commissioner Michael Goldblum. The other Commissioners concurred, for the most part, that the new design featuring beige brick, glass, and metal spandrels, met the basic requirements they had set out for it. The only Commissioner to vote against the proposal, Margery Perlmutter, called it "drab on so many levels." "I feel like we've been exhausted into saying yes to this proposal, so I'm saying no," she said.

    The hotel proposal has been a subject of controversy not just because of its underwhelming design, but also because of the neighboring Merchant's House, which preservationists fear will be harmed by the construction. The developers have promised to take extensive measures to ensure that the almost-two-century-old structure will not be harmed, and the Commission had basically signed off on that aspect at the last hearing, so there was no further discussion of the museum. Its supporters, wearing stickers urging the LPC to say no to the hotel, left quietly and dejectedly.

    http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/0..._landmarks.php

  15. #585
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    A weak kneed bunch, minus one (but they probably worked out the feeble naysaying beforehand):

    "I feel like we've been exhausted into saying yes to this proposal, so I'm saying no"

Similar Threads

  1. Greenwich Village Preservation Watch - Be on the alert!
    By OKoranjes in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 24th, 2015, 03:17 AM
  2. Here, Preservation Meets Imagination - Corbin Building
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: August 30th, 2013, 12:39 AM
  3. A Preservation Dilemma
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 11th, 2005, 01:22 PM
  4. Preservation of Buildings Too New to Be Landmarked
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 21st, 2004, 02:26 PM
  5. Preservation Tax
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 9th, 2003, 06:43 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software