Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adaptive Reuse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners propose converting 160 West 10 Street garage to housing with set‑back addition; neighbors raise quality‑of‑life concerns
Summary
A family‑owned garage operator proposed converting the 160 West 10 Street garage to residential use with a two‑story addition. Presenters said the plan includes restoring the painted masonry, retaining a cellar parking entrance and extensive facade restoration; neighbors voiced concerns about view loss, construction duration and loss of parking.
Representatives for the owner of 160 West 10 Street presented plans to convert an existing garage building to residential use, add a two‑story set‑back rooftop addition and restore the painted masonry facade. The applicant said the scheme would include limited cellar parking and retain a vehicular entrance on the building’s west side.
“We are a family owned and operated parking and real estate company that started in the 19 twenties,” said Patrick Milner, who identified himself as a member of the family that owns the garage. He told the committee the proposal is intended to use adaptive reuse as a preservation tool and to contribute housing while restoring the building’s masonry and brownstone features.
Proposal highlights and preservation work: Presenters described a program that keeps one garage bay for cellar accessory parking while infilling three other bays as residential entries, stripping paint from brick and brownstone at the base, installing multilite windows on the second floor, and constructing a terracotta‑clad addition set back in two stages (approximately 10–25 feet above the existing cornice) with terracotta to match the masonry palette. They said the rooftop will contain stair/elevator bulkheads and screened mechanicals and that a sidewalk‑level restoration will include new recessed residential entries.
Public concerns: Multiple neighbors spoke at the meeting. Long‑term residents expressed anxiety about losing views, increased enclosure in rear yards and the disruption of long construction periods. One neighbor asked whether scaffolding/mock‑up already installed on the roof represented the proposed height; the applicant confirmed the mock‑up shows the proposed massing and said it will remain through the LPC review period. Neighbors also asked about the number of parking spaces that would be lost; the applicant’s team said the existing garage contains roughly 200 spaces and that some parking would remain in the cellar.
Committee review and technical details: Committee members praised the proposed facade restoration but raised specific design questions about cornice detailing, light fixtures, and the expression of lintels and openings. They asked the applicant to confirm retention or reconstruction of historic entrance bumpers and to select lighting fixtures more consistent with the landmark context. The applicant said excavation would be limited to elevator pits and localized footing work and that perimeter facades would remain in place.
Ending and next steps: The committee recommended refinements to lighting, the expression of lintels and the rooftop bulkhead treatment and advised the applicant to provide clearer elevations and material/mortar samples to staff and LPC. The applicant offered a contact email for neighbors seeking construction information; the application will move forward to Landmarks staff review and a public LPC hearing.
