[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6633529,"mediaKeyId","2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac","parentId",2664287,"title","Committee supports 17 East Ninth Street stoop restoration with design conditions and requests for revisions","audioSeconds",262,"startMs",2638000,"endMs",2900000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac&start=2638&end=2900","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac/thumbnail_2638000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6633529/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Committee-supports-17-East-Ninth-Street-stoop-restoration-with-design-conditions-and-requests-for-revisions","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633529-b01b7e7df801ba21172b6f720a842143/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213566&Signature=V0sSV2VrJVt6dy4dUu0ix4BL0Aw1LGoGIzsWy7QwW-lEiEZkQdG1Zr7cKexOXnJFd~wYmFwV9ou-3NgQmJbHXFy3PhulqCyUwr1f7EuPhzHg12HlOydKbVk-13CjjcYyBElD34O5dMBZtNGBnkQ2yNmcxJvohtgyM~CnTkvajNWJ1RiM3uDCcOPkNHHqPAbixMsS15JOyaUNWrIlNh~eKMkWewwtkPgtpJJOsj8~uJyamUO-~JZjMoxrXunDTEC6gpPj5DLVMwSXxMPHbkzOOVBPc2Y4xawbNKJbufydsjnGUSF1lKRqJsDODNZdeWFuHDwqEIiQ7OR7tQK8bUKGQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Manhattan, NY","date","2025-03-17T22:34:05.133Z","article","An application to restore the stoop, area way and entrance surround at 17 East Ninth Street drew detailed comment from Manhattan’s Landmarks Committee on historic precedent, sidewalk intrusion and design details.

The project team presented elevations and precedents and said the design follows a traditional brownstone stoop: a bluestone stair, powder‑coated steel railings, a cast brownstone surround (Veracast) and an ebony‑stained mahogany entry door. The applicant said they had obtained preliminary revocable consent from the Department of Transportation and the Parks Department (to protect a pagoda/pagoda‑style tree pit) and that the proposed area way complies with ADA and DOT minimums.

Committee members broadly supported returning a stoop to the property, but raised multiple concerns. The stoop as drawn projects about 7 feet 11 inches into the sidewalk — substantially more than many neighboring stoops shown in the presentation (most marked examples were around 6 feet to 6 feet 6 inches). Panelists pressed the applicant to justify the deep vestibule and the large recessed entry; several recommended a stronger, properly proportioned entablature above the door (cornice) rather than the streamlined band shown. Members objected to the proposed oversized wall sconces (noting the fixtures were roughly 37.8 inches tall in the submittal) and asked for revised lighting that focuses on the landing rather than casting broad upward illumination.

Commissioners also questioned the ironwork and railing design, noting a stylistic mismatch between a modern, geometric railing and more traditional block‑period elements; some asked that the railing reflect nearby examples or be returned to an historic precedent. Structural and code constraints were discussed: the applicants said riser and tread sizes were set to meet current building codes and DOT requirements and that moving the stair inboard would create headroom conflicts at the basement entrance.

The committee supported the concept of restoring the stoop and area way but asked the applicant to revise detailed design elements prior to final staff approval. Specific requests include adding a more appropriately proportioned cornice/entablature above the door, replacing proposed wall sconces with lower‑profile recessed or downward‑directed fixtures, resolving the design language of the railing to better match the block’s precedents, and refining the recessed vestibule/area way treatment where feasible. The committee noted DOT’s involvement and that a revocable consent agreement will be required for any public‑right‑of‑way encroachment; the committee also recommended that the applicant provide clearer, scaled precedent examples for the proposed enframement and ironwork when they return to staff review.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 April 22, 2020 - Landmarks Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","An application to restore the brownstone stoop, area way and entrance surround at 17 East Ninth Street was reviewed; the committee supported the restoration but requested revisions to vestibule depth, entry entablature, lighting and ironwork.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6633533,"Committee raises minor visibility questions but does not object to sixth cooling tower at 770 Broadway",186,1834000,2020000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac&start=1834&end=2020","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac/thumbnail_1834000.jpg","/articles/6633533/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Committee-raises-minor-visibility-questions-but-does-not-object-to-sixth-cooling-tower-at-770-Broadway","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633533-0666f0006aaa6dada9a558c70a5c5822/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213566&Signature=iN~v04HJJJFftuejqljzbhcHtMxWLaVO8~lZKstvgvUK2OqJFmZJa7kbcmLFkXIdfeBdWrDcMlzQgvSfIpDOzVhOCueuujzZdegI7A4x1xOM9H-z8F-7kZ93goGOMQrDCTzwrvUC7dEAdW28BTEnE5M01yvvkB9lSDv8pU83ulfEc8lGV34jwTBvG1vb6kT3221C2nqy6G130OUDUkTYyzpFdHqRggFBsgF4qJhkGjlJ~lO8W4vxI9xLOKtSxsuVH1XFbthYMBev8S2t6vsp1yPx8Uxvw~QeuvrnWKmKxizrj25opof6-tLvkpdd1pkbYQDCAsuNBxRuXl2a00ExKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representatives for Renato Realty Trust presented a proposal to install an additional rooftop cooling tower at 770 Broadway. The building currently has five cooling towers; the applicant’s team proposed placing a sixth unit adjacent to the existing array to increase the building’s cooling capacity for tenants.

Simon Young of Spector Group and engineer Kurt Groner of Goldman Colchman Associates explained that the sixth unit would match the existing units’ aesthetic but is slightly shorter (about one foot shorter) and would be supported by existing steel framing. The team provided photographs and photo‑montages showing visibility from several vantage points: it would be clearly visible in the sliver of view from Eleventh Street and Broadway but largely not visible from closer or westward block faces. The presenters said structural review confirmed adequate roof framing and weight capacity.

Committee members, including Doris, Brian and Anita, had no substantive objections. Some asked that the new unit remain set back from a historic masonry water tank on the roof so that the tank remains the more prominent rooftop feature; applicants confirmed the new tower is shown set back approximately one foot from that masonry element in the drawings. Several commissioners noted the installation could be handled at the staff level because the work is utilitarian and minimally visible from the public way.

The committee did not register opposition to the proposed cooling tower and did not require a return presentation; committee comments requested the team maintain the shown set‑back from the water tank and verify final dimensions in the staff review process.

The committee’s response allows the applicant to proceed to the staff‑level LPC review stream; any required DOB, DOT or building‑systems approvals remain separate.","Owner Renato Realty Trust proposed adding a sixth rooftop cooling tower at 770 Broadway; committee members generally found the unit minimally visible and appropriate for staff‑level review, with a recommendation to maintain a modest set‑back from a prominent masonry water tank.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6633537,"Landmarks committee approves reconstruction of side‑yard metal shed at 65 Horatio, rejects rooftop penthouse",150,0,150000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac&start=0&end=150","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2664287-c9e5c50001bc7d641257f61f0b009dac/thumbnail_0.jpg","/articles/6633537/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Landmarks-committee-approves-reconstruction-of-sideyard-metal-shed-at-65-Horatio-rejects-rooftop-penthouse","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6633537-7561500f13c554afef2941d0820d3a6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771213566&Signature=JZLqt8p4GQTfMTYrFe4kdu6Ly4MHQYU6dxN3G2kGZ~6k2bHVI34lBT6U3Sl4x2ShsEXecc7cQFXqZWu~iePPJqQB0HwMIzCFfrF1-~7P83x6V~FA6HV6DXjzOtqNRnUAkiZg5jQuxZYpLgXc90-wTRzgev6VBzwPVpkglOCyHlW5YKgxmcgsVZ8Idv8rC1we40aM~A2JOjCbnsGLp8THM9MrQAhG7L7OeOqsa5TDDAV53ASvXNM7VZVc8ODupbWnvPoNn~iRhyur0Abl52Q7yA6THgkD6690EtLVEUTaQUgPilDtI91kP4sE1UDxxeRGYdwIl4r-FMkgOdRSHqUh5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Manhattan Landmarks Committee on April 1 reviewed an application for alterations at 65 Horatio Street, including rebuilding a one‑story, metal‑clad side‑yard structure and adding a small rooftop studio/penthouse. Committee members approved the side‑yard reconstruction but rejected the proposed rooftop addition, citing its contemporary styling and visibility from nearby streets.

The application team presented historic photographs and maps showing a one‑story, sheet‑metal addition on the house’s side yard documented in the 1930s and 1940s. Architect John Woll of Stephen Harris Architects and a project historian described plans to reconstruct that metal‑clad volume “exactly as it was,” to lower its roof to the parlor level, provide access from the parlor via French doors and create occupiable cellar space below. The side‑yard feature is roughly anchored by a 10‑foot‑high street wall behind which a 4½–5‑foot‑thick side element provides access; a narrow slot of approximately 15 feet wide will have revised fenestration facing north toward Gansevoort.

The same team proposed raising the existing top‑floor roof slightly and adding a modest studio window and a small glazed rooftop addition at the rear corner. Presenters said the top floor currently has perimeter ceiling heights of about 5 feet and that the modest roof pitch would permit standing space in the center while keeping the new room at the least visible rear corner; a small stair bulkhead clad in a dark stucco material was also proposed.

Committee members praised the historical research and the side‑yard reconstruction but repeatedly criticized the rooftop proposal. Several commissioners called the rooftop element stylistically inconsistent with the house, describing it as “international” or “mid‑century” in expression and too visible from the corner of Greenwich and Horatio (and, at a distance, from Sullivan/Prince). Members recommended that any rooftop intervention follow more clearly the historic tradition of artist studio skylights with vertical mullions and reduced overhangs. One committee member recused themself from the Horatio item; one member recorded opposition to the committee’s final resolution addressing the application.

After discussion the committee resolved to approve the side‑yard metal shed reconstruction and other non‑street‑visible rear facade work, and to deny the proposed rooftop studio/penthouse in its presented form. The committee also recorded design requests and recommendations for follow‑up review, including retaining the existing painted wood fascia on the top floor, matching double‑hung multi‑light windows where feasible, and revisiting the rooftop fenestration to incorporate vertical divisions more closely aligned with historic studio windows.

The committee’s action preserves the applicant’s intent to restore a documented historical feature while blocking the modern glazed rooftop treatment as presented. Landmarks staff will draft the resolution for the full commission, recording the committee’s approval of the side‑yard reconstruction and its disapproval of the rooftop addition.","The Manhattan Landmarks Committee backed a proposal to reconstruct a historic one‑story metal side‑yard addition at 65 Horatio Street but voted to deny a contemporary rooftop studio/penthouse; commissioners raised concerns about the rooftop’s visibility and stylistic treatment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee supports 17 East Ninth Street stoop restoration with design conditions and requests for revisions

Committee raises minor visibility questions but does not object to sixth cooling tower at 770 Broadway

Landmarks committee approves reconstruction of side‑yard metal shed at 65 Horatio, rejects rooftop penthouse