SoHo proposal: restore 142 Green Street cast-iron front, add set‑back rooftop addition

A design team representing the owners of 142 Green Street presented plans to the Community Board 2 Landmarks Committee to restore the building’s cast‑iron front, reconstruct the rear elevation, carry out excavation, and build a set‑back rooftop addition.

The project team said the proposal focuses on preservation of the cast‑iron facade and a rooftop addition that is set back 23 feet from the Green Street frontage. “So, thank you all for, for the opportunity to share this project with you this evening,” said Cas Stackelberg, one of the presenters. The team described a two‑step conservation approach: disassemble the cast‑iron elements, remove lead paint and restore the pieces off‑site, and then reassemble the facade on site.

Why it matters: The building is in the SoHo Historic District and is paired historically with 165 Mercer Street, a nearby cast‑iron building that the presenters described as matching in original detail. The applicants said parts of 142 Green Street were likely rebuilt after a 1928 fire and that surviving detailing at 165 Mercer provides a model to recreate missing elements such as a metal cornice. Restoring the cornice and removing nonhistoric elements, the applicants argued, would return the building to a closer historic appearance.

Key points of the proposal: the team described a multi‑part scope that includes disassembling and off‑site restoration of cast‑iron units, reinstalling two‑over‑two wood double‑hung windows on the front, removing a nonhistoric fire escape that the team says has damaged the facade, reconstructing a missing metal cornice using surviving material from 165 Mercer, repairing rear masonry that has been parged, and constructing a patinated bronze‑and‑glass rooftop addition set back from the street so it will be minimally visible at pedestrian level. The team said the addition echoes the six‑bay rhythm of the facade without copying historic details.

Technical and preservation rationale: presenters said the fire escape had been bolted through horizontal cornices and allowed water infiltration that had displaced and cracked cast‑iron units. Walter Melvin Architects — the restoration consultant on the project — recommended dismantling individual cast‑iron pieces for off‑site restoration to permit controlled lead‑paint removal and accurate repair. The team showed precedents of off‑site restoration used in the district and noted past Landmarks approvals where fire escapes were removed to restore historic facades.

Visibility and mock‑ups: the applicants said they built an on‑site mock‑up to test rooftop visibility. They presented street‑level and aerial views showing limited visibility from most vantage points and acknowledged some visibility from northwest views hundreds of feet away. Committee members pressed the team on proportions, daylighting and sightlines; one member asked about the depth of proposed sub‑cellar excavation and the presenter confirmed the deeper zones for elevator pits and parts of the new cellar would include roughly 9 feet of excavation in some areas.

Public comment and next steps: committee members and staff asked detailed design questions about window proportions, cornice details and mock‑up accuracy. A public commenter asked about lot‑line windows and the plan for them if neighboring owners build up; the team said the applicant would record deed restrictions obligating filling those windows if the neighbor builds. The application will proceed to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for staff review and then a public hearing; the committee requested refinements to the rooftop proportions and detailed historic material samples prior to a final LPC hearing.

Ending: The committee agreed the facade restoration merits careful review and recommended the applicant continue to work with staff on detailed samples and visibility studies; the matter will advance to the LPC public hearing for final determination.