Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landmarks Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pushes back on proposed rear addition and visible penthouse at individually‑landmarked 83–85 Sullivan Street
Summary
The design team proposed extensive reconstruction of deteriorated 85 Sullivan and new rear additions and a copper‑clad rooftop penthouse; committee members said the rear addition is inappropriate as drawn for individually designated landmarks and urged historically accurate window restoration and major redesign of the rooftop/penthouse.
Preservation consultant Sarah Sherr and architect Jonathan Tabes presented a multi‑part proposal for individually‑landmarked 83 and 85 Sullivan Street: rebuild a structurally compromised north side and rear of 85 (engineers found the façade structurally unsound), restore and repair front façades, add operable double‑hung wood windows at the front, and construct a sequence of lightweight rear additions clad in copper and glass with court‑forming courtyards and a rooftop penthouse. The project also includes targeted excavation under the new addition (applicants described going about five feet down under the addition to create below‑grade space) and engineering coordination for selective underpinning at limited locations.
Sherr and Tabes emphasized that 85 has been unoccupied since 2009 due to structural failures and that reconstruction is necessary to stabilize and re‑use the building. They proposed a material strategy that preserves and restores the primary historic masonry and brick while making the additions legible and structurally independent from the old fabric. Presenters acknowledged a rooftop mockup is in place and that they reduced mechanicals from three to two and moved some ventilation equipment into the basement where possible.
Committee members expressed strong reservations. Several commissioners argued that the rear addition’s scale, material palette and large glazed expanses are out of character in the Sullivan‑Thompson Historic District and that the site’s status as two individual landmarks requires stricter preservation of original window forms and the historic sequence of massing. One commissioner said the proposed rooftop addition is “wildly visible” from Spring Street and urged that any penthouse be lowered, stepped back, or reworked to read as two discrete rooftop elements rather than one broad expanse. Multiple members suggested reconstructing the rear masonry wall with historically appropriate two‑over‑two double‑hung windows where they will be outward‑facing, rather than leaving large single‑light casements visible in the courtyard.
After extended debate the committee signaled it would recommend denial of the rear addition as submitted and asked the applicants for substantial redesign that preserves the historic window forms in reconstructed masonry and reduces apparent massing and visibility of the rooftop work. Presenters were asked to return with refined details, material samples (including copper seam patterns and weathering expectations), and a clear engineering plan for excavation and localized underpinning.
