Commission backs brick recladding at 96 Bank Street after rejecting thin‑brick plan

The Landmarks Preservation Commission on Sept. 9 approved the applicant’s proposal to alter and reclad the rear yard elevation at 96 Bank Street in the Greenwich Village Historic District — but only after the commission rejected the applicant’s proposed thin‑brick overcladding and asked for a full brick veneer. The motion passed 7–1.

The property owner’s team sought to repair corroded steel lintels and to replace irregular mid‑century rear‑facade treatments with a more historically sympathetic brick face, tighter punched openings and multilite wood windows. The applicant proposed using a lightweight thin‑brick cladding system over new exterior partitions to preserve existing steel and avoid heavy infill masonry. Presenters said the existing rear wall is deteriorated, contains non‑compliant lot‑line windows and has suffered decades of patching and through‑wall AC installation.

During discussion commissioners and preservation groups questioned the thin‑brick system’s long‑term authenticity and durability. Several commissioners said the project is effectively a full new facade and that a thin, half‑inch veneer would risk revealing substrate irregularities and would not have the depth and texture of a traditional brick wall. The Historic Districts Council recommended stripping to studs and installing a full brick veneer; the Victorian Society and other commenters urged historic accuracy and cautioned against heavy-handed modernized details.

After extended debate the commission directed the applicant to pursue a full brick veneer cladding rather than the proposed thin‑brick system. The motion approving the rear‑facade renovation specified full brick cladding and multilite wood‑window assemblies that match the front‑facade window profiles; the motion recorded one dissenting vote. The applicant may return with final shop drawings and brick samples for staff review.

What happens next: applicant to pursue full brick veneer and submit samples and shop drawings for LPC staff review; one commissioner voted against the motion, citing a preference to retain the existing modernist rear facade.