Application did not return for review by LPC
CB2 hearing: unknown
LPC hearing: 12/15/09 – no action
LPC meeting: TBD
Greenwich Village Historic District
Between Barrow & Grove Streets
A house and stable built in 1831 and altered in the 20th century. Application is to reconstruct and raise the height of the rear portion of the building.
Receive updates by email
Please click here if you would like GVSHP to email you when there are updates to the status of this particular application.
Status as of December 15, 2009: LATEST NEWS
A public hearing on this application was held at the Landmarks Preservation Commission on December 15, 2009. The Commission took no action on the application, but rather opted to postpone a decision until the architect has worked with Commission’s staff to fix some of the concerns raised at the hearing. No further action has been taken on the application.
This is the rear building of Chumley’s. The applicant proposed to demolish and rebuild the structure exactly as is, except that it would be two feet taller. The added height was apparently needed because the current height of the top floor was only seven feet, and was thus uninhabitable. The exterior walls would be masonry (concrete block covered with white stucco). The joists would be steel.
When asked why the building needed to be demolished, the architect replied: “The building at the rear was originally a separate stable. Subsequent additions added the center section which was built without a foundation. Then a second floor was added which further stressed the structure. Decades of minimal maintenance resulted in water infiltrating the building furthering the decay process. When we began the interior demolition the severe nature of structural deterioration became more evident. The deterioration necessitated demolition and reconstruction. It has no relation to the problems with the front portion of the building.”
In response, the Commission raised several concerns. Some Commissioners questioned whether or not Chumley’s should be reconstructed as it was or if it should be redesigned in a twenty-first century context while still recalling its historic elements. Some Commissioners questioned the height of the proposed building (which would add 2 feet to the original design), and the architect replied that the building as it was did not comply with current codes. All Commissioners felt that it is important to be faithful to the original intent/character of the building, and that the studio windows and skylight should be included in the forthcoming design.