CB2 hearing: 01/17/2019
LPC hearing: 02/05/2019 – no action
LPC meeting: 04/16/2019
Greenwich Village Historic District
Between Fifth Avenue and Sixth Avenue
Image courtesy of Google Street View
—- APPLICATION INFORMATION —-
1) From the CB2 agenda: Application is to demolish the existing buildings and construct a new building.
3) View CB2 Resolution: Available in PDF.
4) View the video: A curated list of LPC videos of these presentations from March 2014 onward can be found on our YouTube page. For the video from 02/05/2019, click HERE. Click HERE to see the video from 4/16/2019. Please note that the LPC posts these videos about a week after the presentation. Videos include the applicant’s presentation, public testimony (for hearings only), and deliberation by the LPC commissioners.
5) View LPC Decision: Available in PDF.
6) LPC designation report: Read this property’s architectural/historical description.
7) Receive updates by email: Please click here if you would like GVSHP to email you when there are updates to the status of this application.
—- STATUS OF THIS APPLICATION —-
This section provides updates if there are changes to the hearing dates listed above, which includes instances when an application has been laid over (aka postponed). If applicable, LPC public meeting dates for this application will also be tracked here. Please note that public testimony is taken at public hearings, but not at public meetings.
Please note: All LPC public hearings and public meetings are held at the Municipal Building, 1 Centre Street, 9th floor north, public hearing room (unless otherwise noted).
STAY UPDATED! Click here for our e-alerts to be updated on this application as soon as we find out more.
04/16/2019: At today’s public meeting, this application was approved.
02/05/2019: At today’s LPC public hearing, the Commission took no action and the applicant was instructed to make revisions to the proposal and re-present it at a future public meeting. The following are the notes from the Commissioners discussion of the application:
- Demolition of 36-38 West 8th Street: Michael Goldblum stated that this taxpayer has significant architectural qualities that merit the commission’s consideration before it approves demolition. Fred Bland supported this consideration, while Anne Holford-Smith and Diana Chapin argued that the taxpayer was a defining building that should definitely be incorporated into the proposal. Michael Devonshire and Kim Vauss stated that they did not mind if the taxpayer was demolished.
- Height of proposed building at 38 West 8th Street: Michael Goldblum stated that the proposed building is appropriate in a historic sense, but questioned if one story too tall for West 8th Street. John Gustafsson agreed. Fred Bland argued that the windows of the two facades line up too much, and that the architect should work to differentiate them. He was not certain whether the building was too tall. Adi Shamir-Baron, Diana Chapin, and Kim Vauss did not think that the building was too tall. Jeanne Lufty stated that the building would be too squat if it was shorter, and that there is more height on West 8th Street than acknowledged by the Commission (For example. The Sheridan on 9th Street has an entrance on 8th Street). She agreed with Bland that the windows of the two facades should not line up.
- Storefronts of 177 MacDougal Street and 38 West 8th Street: Fred Bland stated that the storefronts for all buildings in the proposal were too bland, too similar to one another, and not appropriate. John Gustafsson, Kim Vauss, Sarah Caroll, and Diana Chapin agreed. Jeanne Lufty emphasized that the storefront on 177 MacDougal Street should be different from the storefront of the new building at 38 West 8th Street, though it didn’t need to incorporate the present ironwork. Michael Goldblum stated that the ironwork on 177 MacDougal Street was significant and should be incorporated into the proposed design somehow. John Gustafsson disagreed, and said the ironwork did not hold significance.
- Façade of 38 West 8th Street: Adi Shamir-Baron thought that the apartment façade was not appropriate for West 8th Street, and that the architects should reconsider using an L-shaped building at this corner, which could also address the bland storefront issue. Sarah Carroll stated that she approved of the apartment building reference in the design. Michael Devonshire commented that the architects have creatively incorporated different materials and details in their designs before, and that this proposal fails to do so.