Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Façade Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
44 McDougall renovation aims to harmonize with 46 McDougall; committee urges preserving distinguishing historic features
Summary
Architects proposed restoring and harmonizing 44 McDougall’s façade with neighboring 46 McDougall, adding a setback penthouse and reconfiguring the first-floor garage; committee members and Village Preservation asked the team to retain historic distinctions rather than create identical façades.
Christopher Chu of JG No Architecture presented a renovation plan for 44 McDougall that would remove later storefront alterations, restore brick and window profiles, reconfigure two ground-floor entrances into a single enlarged garage entrance and add a setback penthouse set about 15 feet back from the front façade. Chu said the intent is to harmonize materials and proportions with a nearby renovation at 46 McDougall while updating the building’s interior layout.
A representative speaking for Village Preservation told the committee that the house likely evolved over time and observed that the third-floor rear elevation probably dates to a late-19th-century (circa 1875) enlargement; the representative said Village Preservation had not yet taken a formal position but urged that the committee consider whether returning both façades to match one another would erase historically distinct alterations.
Committee members generally praised the quality of the presentation but urged restraint in making the two properties read as a single, replicated façade. Several members suggested modest design moves — preserving the top historic plane, varying paint or ground-floor material, or adding a separating course between the first floor and upper floors — to preserve visual distinction while allowing restoration work to proceed.
The applicant provided sectional drawings showing a penthouse set back 15 feet and noted the garage-level reconfiguration is driven by internal program and a desire for a single-family plan. The committee suggested testing alternatives such as a lighter ground-floor color or slight reproportioning of the first-floor openings to maintain a read as two adjacent houses rather than a single combined façade.
No formal vote was taken; the committee asked the applicant to return with minor revisions incorporating the committee’s guidance, particularly clarifying the top-floor historic condition and options that maintain some differentiation between 44 and 46 McDougall.
