Owners propose rooftop bulkhead at 74–76 McDougall; Landmarks committee asks for setback and visibility details

Mark Birak, principal at DTLS Architecture, told the Manhattan Community Board 2 Landmarks Committee that the owners of 74 McDougall Street are proposing a rooftop bulkhead to serve as a stair enclosure, solarium and access to terraces, and related rear-yard and parapet changes. The project team said they worked with Landmarks staff to limit views of the addition from within the McDougall–Sullivan Gardens Historic District and that the bulkhead would be clad to match the building’s brick and stone details.

The committee’s review focused on visibility and the potential effect on the district’s character. “When you are within the historic district, you don't see any of the proposed interventions,” Birak said, summarizing the team’s sight‑line diagrams. But several committee members and commenters noted the bulkhead is visible from outside the district, particularly from the south and from Sixth Avenue roughly 300 feet west, and asked the applicants to reduce the perceived massing.

Why it matters: committee members said the block’s small rowhouses and shared garden make rooftop visibility particularly sensitive. Several members recommended that the bulkhead be stepped back from the parapet or otherwise set down so it reads as a rooftop stair bulkhead rather than a sheer wall above the parapet. Anita (committee member) and others suggested a setback would reduce the addition’s visual impact when seen from outside the district.

The project team said they had prepared a full-size mock-up before asbestos remediation prevented permanent attachment; they also reported that Landmarks staff recommended adding windows on the south face and a cleaner parapet line to reduce massing. The presenters said mechanical equipment would be relocated to the north side of the roof and that guardrails would be set back from the rear façade.

Neighbors and public commenters raised questions about how visible the mock-up was from the South Village extension and from Houston Street. The architects said view studies and photographs showed the addition would not be visible from most locations inside the historic district but would be seen from some points outside it; they agreed to provide the committee with the mock-up photographs taken from the South Village extension.

Committee direction and next steps: members said they were generally receptive to the applicants’ materials but asked for a resolution that (a) acknowledges the addition’s visibility from public thoroughfares outside the district, (b) requests that the bulkhead be set back or otherwise composed to reduce a continuous wall condition above the parapet, and (c) asks the applicant to document final materials and sight-line photos. The committee also requested that the applicants confirm coordination with Landmarks staff on final details and provide the mock-up photos from the South Village extension for the record.

Proponents and project team members emphasized that the design team tried to match the building’s brick, lintels and mullion sizes so the bulkhead would read as an integrated element rather than a contrasting modern structure.

Ending: The committee did not record a formal vote during the presentation. Members said they would take the matter up in their business session and likely frame a recommendation that asks the applicant to refine the bulkhead setback/relationship to the parapet and provide additional photographic evidence of visibility and final materials.