A few weeks back we reported that plywood arrived outside 4 St. Mark's Place, where workers are presumably going to renovate the empty storefront here between Second Avenue and Third Avenue.
An Eastern Consolidated listing shows that two retail spaces will be available following the renovation.
Being a landmarked building, the new owners of the building (Liberty Place Property Management) will need the proper OKs before any work can take place.
Tonight, reps for the applicant will appear before CB3's Landmarks Committee. The flyer on the plywood says that the applicant is seeking approval to renovate the "existing street and rear facade, interior alterations, modifications to existing windows, and roof and rear yard addition."
A look at the proposed plans at the CB3 website (PDF here) reveals that the 4-floor building would increase its residential units from three to eight... with the help of a fifth-floor addition and expansion in the rear ... (the proposed renderings are on the left)
[Click for more detail]
...and the profile section...
To date, there aren't any new work permits on file for the address — outside the construction of the plywood fence.
...also, you can ignore the post-modern rendering on the plywood...
According to the CB3 website, the meeting is tonight at the JASA/Green Residence, 200 E. Fifth St. at the Bowery. (The posted flyer at No. 4 gives the wrong address of the meeting.)
Until this past February, the retail space at 4 St. Mark's Place was home to Trash & Vaudeville for 41 years. (The store is now at 96 E. Seventh St.)
That's going to suck for the people on the 5th floor, looking north, with those dormers in the way. I guess you can't remove them though, cuz that would suck even more for the people on the 4th floor.
ReplyDeleteI guess the word "landmarked" doesn't mean what it used to, at least, not in NYC where we have that joke of a "Preservation" Committee.
ReplyDeletelet's just tear it all down and get it over with.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a bad alteration per se however I could do without the hump behind the dormers. The architects should consider the facade of The Merchant House just a few blocks away for period details. I would approve this but they should keep the peaked roof or no deal.
ReplyDeleteI agree w/ @933, loss of the peak is a deal breaker. Otherwise it's not that bad.
ReplyDeleteThis is the future. This is how developers will beat land marking. Build in back and recess the roofline on the addition. Cleaver. Pathetic but reality.
ReplyDelete