Ray‑Ban House proposal draws strong committee concern over glazed pavilion, bright sculpture and lighting

Representatives for the proposed Ray‑Ban House at 62 Prince Street presented an extensive exterior renovation and interior fit-out that combines retail and restaurant uses. The proposal included a continuous, large-format glazed storefront on the east façade (a curtain-wall-like treatment), new divided-light windows on a two‑story gable volume, a glazed low-slope patio enclosure with foldable street-facing glass, a matte-black porcelain-clad masonry recess that would host a polished-metal sculptural installation, and a modest program of signage and exterior illumination including a concealed linear wall-wash over the recess and halo-lit signage.

The team said the building has an automotive/garage history and later infill additions; they propose a high-transparency storefront and a sculptural, metallic interior volume visible behind the glazing. The applicant also said the storefront glazing would be ballistic/riot-resistant laminated glass to protect high-value display items and that the proposed illuminated blade sign’s light source would be concealed within the bracket (not an internally illuminated sign in the traditional sense). The plan also calls for downlighting within the patio, linear wallwash for the sculpture, and soft window illumination on the second-floor openings.

Committee members and public commenters expressed repeated concern that the design — a highly glazed pavilion with a bright metallic sculpture, multiple illumination sources and bold signage — is discordant with the modest, industrial character of the neighborhood and the Cast Iron Historic Extension District. Committee members described the proposal as overly aggressive for a small, humble building and compared the effect to a “spaceship” or “beacon” that would draw undue attention. Several committee members challenged the contextual examples cited by the applicant and asked for more precedent demonstrating glazed curtain-wall treatments at this scale within the district. A public commenter also emphasized the residential character of nearby streets and warned that extensive nighttime illumination could be objectionable to neighbors.

The applicant said the sculpture would be a permanent branded installation rather than a rotating art display; they acknowledged the design is individual and one‑of‑a‑kind. The team said the ballistic glazing would not appear different from standard glazing and provided a laminated sample image.

No formal committee vote is recorded in the transcript excerpt. Committee members repeatedly questioned the overall appropriateness of the concept and indicated they would address the many design questions in the business session.