357 Bleecker Street: architect proposes to replace modern rear addition, add a modest rooftop structure and rooftop generator; committee flags large undivideda

Stephanie Goto, the project architect, presented a proposal to Community Board 2's Landmarks Committee for 357 Bleecker Street that would remove an existing modern rear extension, construct a new rear-yard extension, and add a small rooftop structure. Goto said the building is "a single family with retail on the Ground Floor" and that the goal of the design is to improve the rear elevation's condition and to make the interior spaces more usable.

Why it matters: the proposal affects the block's rear-yard "donut" where many buildings have had later additions; the committee focused on the scale of new openings, rooftop equipment visibility and engineering for a below-grade terrace and new basement area.

What the application includes

- Rear-yard extension and demolition: Goto said the existing trapezoidal modern extension would be removed and replaced. The applicant described a modest increase in depth for the new extension: "4 feet 9 inches" (presented as the additional extension into the garden edge). The work involves excavation to create a lower level beneath the terrace; the architect said excavation depths are on the order of 4 feet and that test pits and geotechnical work have been done.

- Rooftop structure and rooftop equipment: The application includes a small rooftop addition (an occupiable headhouse and a separate screened enclosure for a generator and HVAC condensing units). Goto described the principal headhouse as roughly 11 feet 2 inches in interior height (steel-framed to achieve a 9-foot finished ceiling) and said mechanical screening would be cedar to weather gray. The architect said the mockup initially erected to test visibility included a taller element that the team plans to remove; the portion remaining in the presentation (a low safety railing and screened equipment group) will be the visible element, if any.

- Windows and openings: The architect proposed large, largely undivided glazed openings in the new rear elevation (two full floors of glazing in one bay). Committee members pushed back. "If it's a solid sheet of glass, that means there's no ventilation," a member said; multiple members said large floor-to-ceiling undivided sheets were not appropriate in the district and asked applicants to subdivide the openings, make them operable where needed and provide true divided-light details for other windows.

- Generator and HVAC: Goto said the owner requested a generator; committee members asked about size and visibility. The architect said the generator and several condensing units would be grouped on the roof behind a low safety railing; she acknowledged the generator is substantial and that she would explore options to reduce size and visibility.

Committee response and guidance

Committee members expressed consistent reservations about the very large, undivided two-story glazed opening proposed for the rear elevation and asked that the applicant redesign that portion to show operation and ventilation and to provide a divided-light rhythm that respects the block context. Members also urged the applicant to reduce rooftop equipment visibility (relocate, recess or screen more carefully) and to provide additional engineering detail for underpinning and excavation.

Next steps

The committee did not record a vote in open session. The applicant was advised to revise the rear façade glazing to include operable elements and a clearer floor-by-floor expression, to provide detailed window sections and controls for rooftop mechanical visibility, and to submit underpinning and excavation documentation for staff review and committee follow-up.