Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic District Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LPC allows ground-floor signage and rooftop pergola at 11 Bond Street but denies upper-floor illuminated letters
Summary
After extensive public opposition, the commission approved ground-floor halo-lit and blade signage plus a rooftop pergola and mechanical equipment but rejected illuminated full-window letters and mesh lighting on the upper floor.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission approved parts of a broad proposal May 6 for 11 Bond Street in NoHo while rejecting elements the commission and public called visually intrusive.
The application included multiple storefront signs, 32 linear interior light surrounds on upper-floor windows, eight large transparent "ticker" screens (each to show a single letter), rooftop mechanical equipment and an unenclosed pergola-like rooftop structure. The commission approved the ground-floor halo-lit and blade signs, the rooftop mechanicals and the rooftop structure, but the commissioners found the upper-floor lighting and the eight window-sized illuminated letters inappropriate and denied that portion of the application. The motion passed with eight votes in favor and one opposed.
The proposal drew sustained public comment from neighborhood groups. Manhattan Community Board 2 recommended denial of the roof structure and the interior window lighting and screens, but supported the ground-floor signage and the mechanical equipment. "The proposed bright digital illumination completely alienates that character," Valerie De La Rosa, chair of Manhattan Community Board 2, said, calling the upper-floor lighting "neon-like" and precedent-setting for NoHo. Village Preservation, the Historic Districts Council, the Victorian Society and other neighborhood residents urged the commission to reject the window surrounds and ticker screens.
Applicants described the 1913 building as having been substantially altered over time and said the proposed rooftop structure was intended primarily as an aesthetic frame for rooftop occupancy tied to the tenant's interior design. "We're calling them ticker screens. They're really meant to be static portrait letters within the window," Eric Barrazo of Studio Superette said. The applicant said the screens were meant to be static letters (the tenant's mark) with high transparency, not animated video, but representatives acknowledged the technology could display other content and that enforcement of content would be an enforcement issue rather than something the commission could fully control.
Commissioners repeatedly returned to the difficulty of controlling future content on screen-based signage. Commissioner Goldblum said approving the screen technology risked allowing dynamic displays or unexpected content in the future, noting past cases where tenants used similar fixtures for moving imagery. Several commissioners described the district as a relatively quiet, masonry-based neighborhood where extensive neon-like window outlines and large illuminated letters would be out of character.
The commission's approval allowed the ground-floor program (halo-lit signage, blade signs, vinyl and threshold inlays) and rooftop mechanicals and pergola structure with the condition that the upper-floor illuminated mesh/ticker letter elements not be installed. The decision language notes the rooftop structure will be minimally visible against taller buildings in views where it appears and that the ground-floor signage is appropriately scaled. Commissioners asked staff and applicants to continue refining details and, where sign fixtures are concealed inside, staff will review lighting levels as part of standard review procedures.
Docket number: LPC-25-07909. The commission advised that content control of interior display technology is an enforcement matter and not fully controllable through this approval.
