Corner storefront proposal at 817 Washington/Gansevoort draws concern for removal of historic masonry
Loading...
Summary
Applicant proposed replacing non‑historic infill with new storefronts and enlarging masonry openings at 817 Washington Street (corner of Gansevoort). Committee members and public commenters said the plan removes too much historic brick and recommended preserving masonry character and limiting sign dimensions.
Robert Bianco of PKSB Architects presented a proposal to alter the ground‑floor storefront at 817 Washington Street (cornering to Gansevoort) in the Gansevoort Market Historic District. Bianco described the building’s history, said the corner tenant wrap is the focus of the application, and proposed continuing the building’s existing storefront configuration around the corner while combining three masonry openings into a larger display window on the Gansevoort elevation.
Why it matters: the Gansevoort Market Historic District, designated in 02/2003, has experienced substantial retail changes and now has many large metal-and-glass display windows along Gansevoort. The applicants argued the corner work would strengthen the retail presence and better anchor the busy pedestrian corridor near the High Line.
Committee and public comments focused on two main issues: (1) removal of original masonry and historic corbel brick details on the Gansevoort elevation, and (2) the scale and type of proposed signage. Multiple public commenters urged the committee to push back against what they called aggressive demolition of intact original brickwork and the replacement of masonry with large, uninterrupted expanses of plate glass.
Key technical details raised during discussion: the presenters said the transom above the paired entry doors would be approximately 30 inches high and the paired entries about 6 feet 6 inches wide; placeholder signage shown in the drawings used 18‑inch high cut letters on rails; blade/hanging signs proposed at roughly 2 feet by 4 feet. Committee members pressed for exact sign dimensions and asked the applicant to confirm that signage typology and size match existing neighboring signs and that any illuminated elements meet Landmarks guidance.
Committee direction and next steps: members asked the applicants to (a) justify and minimize removal of historic masonry details on the Gansevoort façade, (b) provide exact dimensions and typology for proposed signage and confirm they match existing approved signs along Washington, and (c) investigate whether the proposed combined opening can retain more of the historic corbel detail or be revised to preserve the building’s secondary façade character. The committee flagged the application for more detailed discussion in its business session.
Ending: The presentation closed without a formal committee vote; the committee said it would consider a resolution asking for revisions that preserve more masonry character and limit signage size and typology to those already present on the block.
