LPC closes hearing on 157 East 70th Street landmark alterations; commissioners split on rear addition and front security gate

The Landmarks Preservation Commission on May 20, 2025 closed the public hearing for an application to alter the individual landmark at 157 East 70th Street and took no action, directing the applicant to revise elements of the proposal after public testimony and a lengthy commission discussion.

Christopher Lee, representing the project team, presented plans for modest front-facade restorative work — replacing a basement service door with a window, widening and rearticulating the front entrance surround, and replacing windows to match historic profiles — alongside a larger rear-yard horizontal enlargement that would push back the lower floors to align with neighboring additions and introduce a contemporary three-bay rear elevation.

Why it matters: 157 East 70th Street is one of a small group of individually designated townhouses that together form a recognizable row of mid-19th-century vernacular buildings. Because the building is an individual landmark, the commission treated the application as requiring careful review of both front and rear alterations. Public commenters and several commissioners expressed particular concern about a proposed exposed exterior security gate at the primary entrance and about demolition or replacement of what several speakers said are original upper rear walls.

Public testimony: John Graham of the Victorian Society in New York supported restorative front-facade elements such as replacing the service door with a window and returning to two-over-two sash in the upper dormers, but he and other preservation groups called for more detailed material and dimension notes and argued that all new French doors, casements and double-hung sash should be painted wood. Graham said he found the proposed steel gate “inappropriate” and advised interior security measures instead. Zeynep Turan, speaking for Friends of the Upper East Side, said that while she largely supported front-facade restorative work, alternative security solutions should be pursued and the exterior gate would “detract from the entryway’s prominence.” Lucy Levine of the Historic Districts Council told the commission the rear addition’s “bulk” at the second and third floors is oversized and that the upper two floors of the rear wall, which she said appear original and in decent condition, should be retained.

Applicant response and commission discussion: Christopher Lee said the rear-yard horizontal enlargement follows the volumetric pattern of neighboring individual landmarks and that the design purposely uses brick consistent with the front façade while applying a more contemporary expression. The project team said they are open to revisiting the security gate at the owner’s request and to exploring technology-based alternatives; commissioners repeatedly urged the applicant to consider interior gates or alarm systems rather than a new exterior iron gate.

Commissioners were divided on the rear-yard volume. Several commissioners, citing comparable rear-yard work previously approved for adjoining properties, were open to the full-width horizontal enlargement but asked for a revised treatment of upper-floor fenestration to better retain a domestic scale. Others argued the existing top-floor mansard and the early 20th-century rear elevation should be treated as historic fabric to be retained.

Action and next steps: The commission voted to close the hearing; there was no approval or denial. Commissioners unanimously asked the applicant to withdraw the proposed exterior security gate or study alternatives, to provide additional material and dimension information for proposed windows and doors, and to revise the rear-yard fenestration and elevation treatment with an eye toward retaining more domestic-scale character on upper floors. The application will return to the commission when the applicant has revised the proposal and coordinated with LPC staff.