Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cast Iron Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SoHo cast‑iron building: hearing closed after debate on full disassembly, restoration and visible rooftop addition
Summary
The commission closed a public hearing June 17 on a proposal to disassemble and restore the cast‑iron front of 142 Green Street, reconstruct the rear wall, excavate the cellar and add a two‑story rooftop addition, following detailed technical questioning and neighborhood concerns about underpinning.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission heard a complex application June 17 for 142 Green Street in the SoHo–Cast Iron Historic District that would disassemble the building’s cast‑iron front, restore it offsite, reassemble it, replace the rear facade, build a two‑story rooftop addition set well back from Green Street and excavate the cellar to create a larger subsurface space.
The applicant described the structure as a vacant, five‑story cast‑iron-front building (designed by Henry Fernbach, circa 1871) that shows cracking, displaced columns and moisture damage, in part from an historic fire and from penetrations created by a previously installed fire‑escape and later fiberglass repairs. The project team, which includes cast‑iron restoration and geotechnical specialists, argued off‑site restoration is necessary to repair columns, remove penetrating straps and replace damaged components; the team cited precedents where similar work was undertaken in SoHo.
Designers proposed a two‑story glazed and bronze rooftop addition set back about 23 feet from the primary facade; the addition would be visible in limited oblique and long-distance views from the north and through gaps in surrounding building masses. The applicant also proposed excavation for a deeper cellar and structural underpinning; engineers described conservative underpinning and piling strategies and said soils here are relatively favorable compared with other parts of SoHo. Neighbors asked for strong assurances around underpinning and construction monitoring.
Multiple preservation groups were split: the Victorian Society supported some restoration but urged retaining historic cornice details and questioned full disassembly; the Victorian Society and Historic Districts Council also asked how much original material could be salvaged. Commissioners raised questions about durability, the shop restoration process and whether the proposed rooftop addition could be made less visible. Staff said it would require enhanced engineering review with DOB and that the LPC would require detailed mock-ups and likely escrow/monitoring arrangements tied to the off‑site work.
After extensive technical discussion, commissioners closed the hearing without taking a vote and asked the applicant to return with reduced rooftop visibility, more specific information on how much original cast‑iron fabric can be retained or repaired, and a detailed schedule and financial/contractual assurances for the off‑site restoration and reassembly process. The commission also signaled it will require close structural and DOB review of underpinning and excavation plans if the applicant proceeds.
