Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storefront Signage 400 Madison topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LPC approves storefront re‑infill and signage at 400 Madison Avenue landmark
Summary
The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved replacement storefront infill and dimensional signage at the individual landmark 400 Madison Avenue, retaining historic bronze surrounds and salvaging granite bulkheads; signage will use opaque metal letters with halo illumination.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission on Feb. 25 approved a proposal to replace a storefront bay and install new dimensional signage at the 400 Madison Avenue individual landmark, retaining and integrating existing historic bronze elements and salvaging granite bulkheads.
Project consultants presented a plan to create a recessed ADA‑compliant central entrance flanked by two display windows within an extant bronze frame, to reinstall salvaged granite bulkheads and to mount 15‑inch‑tall letters on the upper fascia. The letters will be opaque metal at the front face with translucent acrylic at the back edge to produce an indirect “halo” glow; conduit will be fed through existing nonhistoric cladding to avoid penetrations into historic bronze. A small bracket sign will also be attached to masonry just below the bed mold and designed to clear the cornice projection.
The nut graf: commissioners found the proposed infill appropriate in material, scale and configuration, noting that the bay retains historic bronze fabric and that the new configuration will be sympathetic to the building’s base. The commission also concluded the halo‑lit letters and small projecting bracket are acceptable in the context of this landmark’s varied base conditions; staff will require adhesive attachment and limit penetrations to nonhistoric panels only.
Public testimony: Lucy Levine of the Historic Districts Council urged a smaller sign that does not cross the divided transom and recommended a storefront master plan for the building; Manhattan Community Board 5 recommended approval and also suggested a master plan. The applicant said a building‑wide master plan would be useful but was not part of the current tenant work.
Action: the motion to approve passed unanimously (8–0 in the roll call recorded in the hearing). The commission required that final finishes, details and conduit routing be reviewed at staff level and that the applicant work with staff on precise materials and attachment methods.
Votes at a glance: Motion to approve with conditions passed unanimously (8–0).
