Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Masonry Restoration Face Brick Replacement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Architect seeking full face-brick replacement at 57 Christopher after cleaning revealed severe deterioration

3378568 · May 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During an ongoing restoration campaign, contractors reported the face brick at 57 Christopher Street was unsalvageable after light power washing. The applicant proposed full face-brick replacement using the same brick approved for nearby 55 Christopher to maintain continuity.

Kevin (project representative) told the committee that work at 57 Christopher Street had progressed as part of a multi-building restoration campaign along the block. After light power washing, the contractor found mortar was missing and the face brick had lost its outer face, causing water infiltration and leaks. What was initially conceived as spot repairs grew into a recommendation for 100% face-brick replacement because the facing brick and mortar were deemed unsalvageable.

The applicant proposed to install new face brick matching the sample previously approved by Landmarks for 55 Christopher Street and to repair the backup masonry, apply a waterproofing layer, and then reinstall a new face brick veneer to match the approved sample. Committee members asked about waterproofing the backup and whether sealing would create long-term moisture retention issues; the applicant said a concealed liquid waterproofing layer would be applied before face brick return and that the backup would be repaired first.

Committee members asked whether the proposed face brick color would be uniform; the applicant said replacement bricks would be reasonably uniform and that the existing façade’s worn condition obscured any original uniformity. No public commenters spoke during the presentation. The committee’s questions focused on detailing for backup repairs, the waterproofing approach, and color matching for new brick.

No vote was recorded in the meeting excerpt; committee members requested clarifying details about the waterproofing and repair sequence.