Image via Eric Safyan, Architect P.C.
By Mark Bollettieri
A controversial proposal for a four-story rear yard addition and rooftop renovation to the building at 44 West 95th Street was denied by the Community Board 7 Preservation Committee at their October 13th meeting, but the project is likely to be approved in the future if the architect slightly reworks the design.
Residents of the adjacent building at 46 West 95th Street expressed their opposition to the proposed additions, which would block the views from some of their windows. One resident, who came to the meeting with her disabled daughter, explained that their living room window would be obstructed. She said that her daughter, who is wheel-chair bound and spends most of her time in the living room, would suffer from the lack of natural light.
Residents were also concerned because the renovation would pave over existing green space in the rear yard. They claimed that the area, which has an unusually high-water table, might not be able to accommodate the loss of permeable ground.
A rendering of the rear yard addition from Eric Safyan, Architect P.C.
The Preservation Committee was sympathetic to the residents’ concerns, but most of the issues raised were outside its purview. The committee is specifically charged with considering the historical appropriateness of the design, and could not reject the design on the grounds the residents raised. The committee did however urge the residents to contact Councilmember Helen Rosenthal about concerns over prolonged construction times.
The Preservation Committee ultimately rejected the design 6-0-0-0, with the understanding that the architect would revise his plans according to the committee’s recommendations and re-present them. The committee recommended lowering the rear-yard addition by one story and lowering the proposed addition of a 15-foot penthouse by at least a foot. The penthouse will not be visible from the street-level. The committee also recommended that a straight staircase serving the rear yard be modified into a dog-leg or spiral staircase so that it will not protrude as far into the green space.
The façade restoration and new windows proposed by the architect were approved 6-0-0-0. The façade will include brownstone-colored stucco on the ground floor, limestone-colored stucco on the second, and brick on the third and fourth floors.
The committee also voted on unrelated issues.
The application to legalize an illegally modified storefront at 513 Columbus Avenue was disapproved 5-0-0-0. The storefront will have to be redesigned according to the recommendations of the committee.
The application to for a front façade renovation at 144 West 88th Street was approved 5-0-0-0.
The application to replace windows on the second floor of 221 West 79th Street was approved 5-0-0-0.
Correction: A previous version of this article misidentified Archetype Design Studios as the studio proposing this project. This project was proposed by Eric Safyan, Architect P.C.. Archetype Design Studios is in no way related to this project.
Looks historically incorrect to me, but I’m not on The Preservation Committee.
Yeah, I’m really curious why the front facade will have such a mishmash of materials. Maybe I’m missing something, but brownstone, limestone, and brick would seem to clash.
That is essentially what the facade already is – if you look at the pictures of the existing facade, it looks as though they are just painting it.
It looks like all the character and charm have been removed from the front of the building. If that was missing when this developer bought the building, it should be added to support the character of the neighborhood.
I understand not being allowed to further degrade existing character, but I don’t agree that people should be required to improve the character beyond what is there for the good of the neighborhood. I don’t think we all have an obligation to spend money to make things more historical than they are.
Preservation committee suggested other significant changes that need to be made to architects plans ,which article seemed to have missed. And there are more objections that the CB7 Full Board will hear on November 1st. BTW, regarding views…. Apparently, the architect did not show all the apartments who have windows that would face a wall instead of a beautiful view of the backyards.
2 comments.
The facade of this building has not changed since the early 1980’s, looking at the NYC municipal archive tax maps. The picture above is just replacement windows and new paint. Since the building was landmarked in 1990, the new owner simply has to reproduce the (ugly) appearance present in 1990, in fact ANY changes, even of the color of the paint would necessitate additional approvals.
Looking at google maps, there is a narrow alley separating much of the townhouse from the apartment next door…other than about 10 feet at the front. So there is ALREADY 40+ feet of nearly completely blocked windows, since the day the apt was built (1920’s). The addition seems to add ~ 10 additional feet. This is horrible for the few tenants, but any NYC occupant must always be aware of possible views/light disappearing. Not an issue for Landmarks Commission.
I know that when I have bought an apartment with lot line windows, I was warned that I had no right to prevent someone from completely blocking those windows. I bought, knowing that was possible. In one case, I bit my nails, waiting to see how high the new building next door was, and was disappointed to lose views and some sun, but having bought a lot line apartment, didn’t think it was appropriate to protest it. I’m always curious, when people object to losing lot line windows, whether they weren’t warned, or whether they just want to have their cake and eat it too. (Lot line apartments cost less than those that are not because of this very issue.)
In the rental context it is different, I realize – though, which way that cuts depends on your view of the extent to which renters should be able to exercise property-like rights.
“In the rental context it is different”
tenants still lose the light,air, view, breezes, moonlight…