No action on proposed storefront at 208 West Tenth Street; commissioners ask for clearer, preservation‑minded design

The Landmarks Preservation Commission took no action on Sept. 9 on an application to create a new storefront opening at 208 West Tenth Street in the Greenwich Village Historic District, after commissioners said the submission lacked clear, consistent drawings and should better preserve historic material or offer a more intentionally differentiated design. The applicant may return with revised drawings addressing the commissioners’ comments. Mary Dierks, the project’s preservation consultant, described a proposal to add a new wood storefront on the building’s left side, mirroring commercial changes that have occurred along West Tenth Street. Dierks said the plan would retain the stone cornice and lower stone band where possible and echo proportions of the existing storefront on the right. The applicant’s representative, Robert Chadda, and an architect were available remotely to answer questions. Speakers at the hearing urged restraint and preservation. John Graham of the Victorian Society said the proposal “would alter the original Ground Floor facade of the building and change the curb view from a historical apartment frontage to a commercial storefront,” and urged alternatives that would preserve more historic fabric — for example, lowering a single window sill to create a door and retaining the existing stone base. Kaylee Johnson of the Historic Districts Council said the concept is ‘‘conceptually appropriate’’ but criticized placing a storefront door directly adjacent to the residential entry and recommended a tripartite treatment to improve symmetry and clarity. Commissioners voiced similar concerns. Several commissioners said the documentation and elevations did not match the photographs and that proposed cuts into the stone band require additional justification or design refinement. Commissioner Michael Goldblum encouraged preserving more masonry when possible; Commissioner Chiu said the drawings lacked sufficient detail and proportions matter; Commissioner Goldstone and others suggested a range of acceptable solutions, from preserving more masonry to pursuing a distinct, well-resolved storefront that does not simply mimic the neighboring opening. Because commissioners indicated they did not have sufficient support to act, the panel took no action and invited the applicant to return with clearer, more preservation-minded options. Manhattan Community Board 2 recommended denial. The hearing was closed without a vote on the certificate of appropriateness; staff advised the applicant on possible pathways to return with revised proposals that either preserve additional historic material or present a more intentional new storefront design.