Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streetscape topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission takes no action on flagpole proposal at 116 Mercer Street; seeks additional streetscape context
Summary
The Landmarks Preservation Commission declined to act on a proposed flagpole and banner at 116 Mercer Street in SoHo and asked the applicant to provide additional streetscape context and consider mounting on existing armature to avoid new masonry penetrations.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 24 took no action on an application to install a flagpole and banner at 116 Mercer Street in the SoHo Cast Iron Historic District, asking the applicant to return with additional streetscape context and to consider using existing mounting armature to avoid new penetrations of historic stone.
Preservation consultant Mary Dirichs presented the application, describing the building as a six‑bay, five‑story store-and-warehouse originally designed by Julius Bockel in 1872. The applicant proposed a 6-foot-10 by 4-foot-10 fabric banner on a dark brown pole mounted near the center pier; the presentation noted other nearby buildings with flags and bracket signs and the tenant (BOGI) as a new international flagship store.
Public commenters opposed and supported the banner. Jeremy Woodoff of the Victorian Society argued there is already a “sea of flagpoles and banners” on certain blocks of SoHo that “altogether obscur[e] the rhythms and architectural details of the buildings,” and objected to a new hole in a masonry pier. Kaylee Johnson of the Historic Districts Council recommended approval only if the sign were mounted on an existing armature, noting concern about new holes in freeze-thaw‑vulnerable stone. Manhattan Community Board 2 recommended approval.
Commissioners expressed mixed views: some were comfortable with a flag and blade sign combination on a larger building, while others preferred a blade sign or asked the applicant to relocate the banner so it does not create a new masonry penetration. Commission staff asked for elevation views showing both sides of the block so commissioners could better assess cumulative banner saturation and streetscape context.
The commission requested additional streetscape elevations and context studies and did not vote on the application. Applicants were advised to consider using existing armature or relocating the banner to an opening that avoids new masonry holes.
