APPROVED – 02/14/2017

CB2 hearing: 05/16/2016
LPC hearing: 06/21/2016 – continued at future public meeting
Click here for GVSHP testimony
LPC meeting: 07/26/2016 – no action, see below
LPC meeting: 01/17/2017
Click here for GVSHP Letter
LPC meeting: 02/14/2017
Click here for GVSHP Letter

Greenwich Village Historic District
Between West 4th Street and Greenwich Avenue


1) From the CB2 agenda: Application is to demolish the existing building and construct new building

2) View the application: 02/14/2017 Available in PDF; 01/17/2017 Available in PDF; 06/21/2016 Available in PDF.

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. Click HERE for the public hearing on 6/21/2016, HERE for the public meeting on 7/26/2016, HERE for the public meeting on 1/24/2017, and HERE for the public meeting on 2/14/2017.  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) LPC Permit: Available in PDF.

6) View LPC Decision: Available in PDF.

7) LPC designation report: Read this property’s architectural/historical description.

8) 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.


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.

02/14/2017: At today’s public meeting, the commissioners unanimously approved the current proposal.

01/17/2017: At today’s LPC public meeting, the commissioners took no action.  The applicant was asked to modify the design based on the Commissioners comments and re-present at a future public meeting.  The following is a summary of the commissioners’ comments:

  • Windows.  Nearly all of the commissioners took issue with the proposed slider windows, one of the commissioners referring to slider windows as having pejorative connotations.
  • Ground Floor facade.  Applicant was asked to make refinements to the ground floor design to better articulate the building as residential.
  • Penthouse.  Applicant asked to explore reducing the height of the penthouse.

07/26/2016: At today’s LPC public meeting, the commissioners responded to the application.  Three commissioners were absent and one was recused from this application.  No action was taken on this application.  The applicant was asked to modify the design based on the Commissioners comments and re-present at a future public meeting.  The following is the summary of the commissioners’ comments:

  • Allowance of demolition of existing building.  While two Commissioners disagreed, the majority of the Commission indicated they would accept demolition of the existing building. There was a vigorous discussion of the issue, and we were heartened that there was at least a serious debate. Commissioners who accepted demolition pointed to the 1969 designation report which clearly spoke of the building as non-contributing to the district, and that even from a present-day perspective, the building was not of any particular significance in terms of its architecture, typology for the location, or history.
  • Height of the proposed building.  Most Commissioners who spoke indicated some uncomfortability with the height of the building; however, they were not specific about what degree of reduction or changes in the height they would require of the applicant.  The Chair disagreed with the applicant’s contention that the setback stories simply faded into the background and could be viewed as contextual to the larger buildings behind on Horatio Street.  Another Commissioner suggested that lowering the height of the streetwall by one story would be helpful.  Another pointed to the additional two feet of height of the ground floor as compared to the other floors as a way to address this issue. Other commissioners urged the applicant to reconfigure the mechanicals on top (which currently reach 95 feet in height) to reduce their height and visibility from the street.  We do not know what type of change in height the applicant might propose, or what the Commission might ultimately accept.
  • Design of the façade and choice of materials.  There was considerable uncomfortability expressed by some commissioners with the choice of materials and the design of the façade. Several urged the use of brick rather than cast stone, and a punched window façade rather than the currently planned very smooth façade. All expressed comfort with a contemporary design, but most expressed a need for it to have more in common visually with the existing residential architecture of the street. There was some critique of the windows and the lack of depth and volume to the façade.

06/21/2016: There was a hearing today at LPC for this application.  The Chair tabled the hearing due to the late hour as a result of the overwhelming amount of public testimony, nearly all against the application.  The applicant will return at a future public meeting and the Chair asked that the applicant respond to a number of issues that were raised by the testimony including: scale of the overall height and floor to ceiling heights, the size of the windows and the amount of transparency, glass vs. masonry ratio and how it relates to the district and the applicant’s choice of materials.  At the future public meeting, no public testimony will be accepted.