Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Renovation Excavation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large Horatio Street renovation prompts engineering questions and calls to limit excavation to preserve rear yard
Summary
A plan for major façade restoration, a three-story glazed rear opening, excavation to the lot line and a rooftop bulkhead at 80 Horatio Street prompted intense committee scrutiny about massing, three-story glazing, bulkhead height and underpinning; the project's engineer said cellar excavation is roughly 8 feet under the house footprint and nearly 11 feet in the garden.
Jackie Pudu Valon of JPD Preservation Consulting presented a broad restoration and alteration proposal for 80 Horatio Street in the Greenwich Village Historic District that includes restoring the front façade, rebuilding a deteriorated rear brick wall, enlarging rear openings into a multi-story glazed assembly, constructing a rooftop elevator/stair bulkhead set back about 15 feet, and excavating the cellar and rear yard to the rear lot line.
Valon and the architects said the existing storefront and rear brick have been heavily altered and that the rear façade currently shows damage from an applied waterproofing coat. In presentation materials they showed precedents for large glazed openings elsewhere in the district and described a program that would create larger, industrial-style fenestration at the lower floors.
Engineer John Hinchcliffe of GMS answered questions about the excavation and underpinning program. Hinchcliffe said the proposed excavation increases cellar depth by roughly 8 feet under the house footprint and by nearly 11 feet in the garden area, and that the project team expects to underpin the full-depth party wall to the east and replace the independent lot-line wall to the west to create seismic joint separation. He said test pits of adjoining properties are ongoing and that enhanced engineering review by the landmarks commission’s retained engineer is expected before a public hearing.
Committee members voiced multiple concerns. Several said the proposed three-story glazed opening at the rear is overly dominant and lacks visual structural expression; they suggested introducing more wall plane, columns or horizontal divisions to clarify how the opening is carried structurally. Members also urged lowering bulkhead massing where possible (for example, reducing stair bulkhead height), and strongly recommended stopping excavation short of the rear lot line so that a 5-foot band of soil remains for plantings and tree health. One member summarized a common technical request: ensure the project undergoes LPC’s enhanced engineering review and produce underpinning test pits and calculations before advancing to a public hearing.
No formal vote was recorded. The committee requested more detailed underpinning and neighbor-impact information, alternatives that reduce visible bulk (bulkhead and glazing), and a revised approach to the rear yard that preserves meaningful soil depth for trees and plantings. The applicant team said they will continue geotechnical testing and engineering coordination and will return with additional engineering substantiation and design alternatives.
