Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Window Opening topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architect proposes sixth-floor window at 95 Horatio; committee questions facade rhythm
Summary
An application to add a sixth-floor window on the Gansevoort Street façade of 95 Horatio was presented to the Community Board 2 Landmarks Committee. The applicant said the new opening would match existing paired windows; committee members questioned whether a vertical interruption would harm the façade’s rhythm and asked for justification.
An application to create a new sixth-floor window opening on the Gansevoort Street façade of 95 Horatio Street was presented to the Community Board 2 Landmarks Committee.
The application, presented by architect Steve Kilcoyne of Alan and Kilcoyne Architects on behalf of TF Cornerstone, would cut a new window in a brick infill on the sixth floor and match it to existing paired double-hung windows to the west. Kilcoyne said the building is a large combined structure with multiple, inconsistent façades and that prior alterations over many years have left irregular fenestration. He said the proposal is intended to improve interior daylight for an apartment and to repeat an existing paired-window motif on the block.
Committee members asked whether there had ever been a window at that vertical location and whether adding one would interrupt the façade’s cadence. Committee member Susan asked for an architectural justification for placing a window where none currently exists. Kilcoyne responded that he could not confirm a prior window at that exact spot and that the block already displays a mix of window arrangements; he said the insertion would match the horizontal alignment of the nearest window pair and is located between two friezes, which he argued helps the composition.
Several committee members voiced concern about the vertical irregularity and the effect on the historic street rhythm, noting that the new opening would not align vertically with other windows. No public commenters raised objections during the presentation. The applicant did not present supporting documentation proving a historic window at that location.
No formal vote or written decision was recorded in the transcript excerpt; the discussion closed with questions and a request for any public comments, of which none were sustained.
What’s next: The committee questioned the architectural justification and historic precedent for the insertion. The record shows the applicant presented elevations and historic photographs; follow-up materials or staff recommendations were not recorded in the excerpt.
