Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Storefront Alteration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Storefront changes at 98 Thompson: diamond‑plate accessibility work accepted; committee questions permanence of decorative garlands
Summary
Applicant sought retroactive sign‑off for diamond‑plate work to create an accessible entry and to make decorative floral garlands — currently on a temporary six‑month permit — permanent; Landmarks staff wanted Community Board 2 feedback and members and public raised concerns about permanence and streetscape impact.
An applicant seeking sign‑off for work at 98 Thompson Street told Community Board 2’s Landmarks Committee that two elements were changed during construction and required the committee’s comment before LPC sign‑off: expanded diamond‑plate surfacing at the storefront entrances to provide a safer accessible approach, and decorative floral garlands attached around the storefront that had been installed under a temporary permit.
Why it matters: The Landmarks Preservation Commission issued a six‑month temporary permit for the decorative treatment to avoid a warning letter, but LPC staff requested that the board review the work and provide comments before sign‑off. Neighbors and committee members raised objections to making festooned floral garlands permanent in the Soho/NoHo historic area, saying such decorations can proliferate and alter the streetscape.
Hal Dorfman, representing the applicant, said crews encountered unstable bluestone at the vault edge during construction and expanded the diamond plate to meet existing materials for safety and accessibility. He said the metal diamond plate strategy matched patterns used historically on nearby storefronts and that the decorative garlands were stapled into existing wood trim and were removable.
Committee members pressed for documentation on whether the garlands covered replicated moldings that had been reconstructed. Dorfman said the project had measured and restored vertical moldings, replaced brackets and recreated missing elements; he told the committee the garlands were attached to non‑historic wood and were removable. Chenault Spence, a committee member, said she had not found precedents for permanent garlands in the district and worried that approval would set a precedent leading to a proliferation of artificial flower displays on historic façades.
Board member Brian (last name not provided) and other committee members also expressed concern about the appearance and condition of the adhesive non‑slip patches placed over some diamond‑plate panels and suggested the tenant replace worn adhesive strips to improve the finished look. LPC staff said the temporary permit was issued last month and that applicants would need Community Board 2 comments before LPC would finalize sign‑off.
Next steps: Applicants were asked to return comments to LPC and the committee said it would draft a resolution for the full board meeting packet. The committee signaled it would not support making the floral garlands permanent without further justification and precedents.
