Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storefront Recladding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ferrari retail proposal in SoHo draws committee concern over modern metal recladding and banner signage
Summary
Design representatives seeking approval for a Ferrari branded retail store at 92 Prince Street presented plans to reclad the 1998 building in two‑tone metals and curved glass and to install banners and signage, prompting committee concern over scale and streetscape impact in the SoHo Cast‑Iron Historic District.
Design representatives seeking approval for a Ferrari branded retail store at 92 Prince Street presented plans to replace the building’s painted‑metal cladding and storefront infill with a two‑tone metal system, curved glass recesses and modest signage, including vertical banners. The applicants described the design as a refinement of the non‑historic 1998 building’s existing two‑plane metal concept.
Why it matters: The property sits in the SoHo Cast‑Iron Historic District and abuts landmarked masonry buildings; committee members said the proposed visual aggression of the reworked façades and the prominent banners risked undermining the neighborhood’s character. The application prompted a lengthy public discussion about precedent for banners and the cumulative effect of signage in the district.
Jonathan Taylor and colleagues from Higgins Quasbarth & Partners and Rosanna Capuerto Atelier presented the history of the lot and showed renderings of matte patinated steel piers, lighter aluminum infill and curved glass detailing at the recessed Prince Street entrance. The applicants said metal textures and a subdued palette would “lighten” the building while retaining its overall modular organization.
Residents and committee members, including board members Beau (last name not recorded) and Board member Brian, voiced objections. Beau said the building was “aggressive” and “out of place” next to the neighboring Scholastic building and urged removal of banner signage. Board member Brian asked for clarification on curved glass construction and the visual impact of banners; online commenters noted inconsistencies in presentation materials and questioned banner length. One public commenter requested stronger committee opposition to the proposal.
Next steps: The applicants said they would include additional documentation and detailed mockups (including banner dimensions) in subsequent submissions to LPC. Committee members asked staff to include their comments in the full board packet for further review.
