Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Elevator Bulkhead topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves rooftop elevator bulkhead and double‑height glazed rear opening at 5 East 10th Street subject to staff review of bulkhead height and header‑

5495289 · April 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Commission approved front window restorations, a copper‑clad elevator bulkhead and a two‑story glazed rear opening at a Greenwich Village townhouse, asking staff to explore lower bulkhead alternatives and to work on the rear opening header detail; vote 9–0.

The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved an application on April 8 to replace an altered top‑floor window assembly, add a new rooftop elevator bulkhead, and create a two‑story glazed opening to the rear garden at 5 East Tenth Street (George E. Harney townhouse, 1890) in the Greenwich Village Historic District. Commissioners asked the applicant to work with staff to assess whether a machine‑room‑less elevator would allow a lower bulkhead and to refine the structural/header detail for the new rear opening to avoid a mismatched brick header.

The project team described three principal elements: replacement of non‑historic aluminum windows on the top floor with thermally broken steel casements intended to recall historic subdivisions; installation of a roped elevator that requires a machine room and a substantial override (presented as a copper‑clad bulkhead visible in oblique long views); and removal of an interior non‑original window box and storm shed at the rear to create a full‑height, four‑panel sliding glazed opening that reaches down toward the sunken garden.

Commissioners generally supported replacing the upper‑floor windows with steel casements and found the rear glazed opening acceptable because it is largely below grade and would not overwhelm the rear facades in the narrow “donut” context. Several members urged the applicant to explore machine‑room‑less elevator options that could reduce the bulkhead height; staff was asked to work with the applicant on feasibility and to approve a solution that minimizes skyline impact. The recommendation also asked staff to assist on the header detail and to consider a stone header if matching brick proves difficult during construction.

The motion to approve, with the staff‑coordination conditions, passed 9–0.