Plans to add a two-level extension to the long-empty townhouse at 104 E. 10th St. between Third Avenue and Second Avenue are moving forward.
Tonight, CB3's Landmarks Committee is hearing a proposal on the partial rooftop addition, which is "set back 14 feet at the first level and 18 feet at the second level," per the paperwork...
Here's a look at a rendering ...
... and some detailed plans (find more here)...
As previously reported, the townhouse, built in 1879, will be converted into a single-family home. The address, once the property of reclusive real-estate baron William Gottleib, sold in 2013 for $3.5 million to an entity going by North Sydney LLC.
No. 104 is within the St. Mark's Historic District and needs the proper approvals before moving forward with any vertical extensions. (The work permits were last disapproved in November.)
The building has been vacant for years. The last (and lone) tenant was playwright, poet and performance artist Edgar Oliver.
This article from 1998 in The New York Times suggests that the place could possibly be haunted. But as Oliver said at the time, "The house I do believe is haunted. Alas, it is only with memories."
Previously on EV Grieve:
Plans to convert the haunted beauty 104 E. 10th St. into a single-family home with 2 extra floors
The charmingly shabby interiors of 104 E. 10th St
19 comments:
Oh man, what a fabulous interior shot. I can only imagine what the rest of this gorgeous survivor looks like, and I can barely imagine what it will look like once it's been "improved" by being gutted down to the brick and filled with all sorts of "upscale" nonsense.
And of course, there's no question but that the LPC will ultimately approve this outsize and totally inappropriate extension; they seem utterly incapable of comprehending the concept or purpose of, or need for, a Historic District.
did any else notice the giant speakers on the proposed rooftop? Woo in the making. I agree with Gojira I hate it when people buy a historical house only to gut every inch of history from it. As long as the current Mayor is in office this building new owners will get what they want.
WHY do people buy a gorgeous small building like this - one which is very much in context with its area - and then want to screw around with it until its proportions are distorted and it looks like it belongs somewhere else? As the Old House Journal used to call it, this looks like a "re-muddling" in the making.
And it would be nice if Landmarks *ever* found the time to do the job they are supposed to do, esp. since this beautiful house IS in a landmark district.
Streeteasy has other shots of the interior. Small rooms, tall windows, fireplaces, kind of a spooky bathroom. They could shoot a movie there.
I think I made the same comment the last time this came up, but I really wish I could buy this place and restore it as it is. That big window and fireplace are so beautiful. I can only imagine the rest of the architectural details of the interior. What an opportunity to preserve some gorgeous historical architecture.
Of course none of the posters here know the true condition of the building: floors, electricity, pipes, drainage, etc. So anything the new owner(s) do is a crime against their vision of preservation / restoration. I know there will now be learned postings on the value of the original moldings, etc. etc. If such things concern you why didn't you buy the building which has been on the market for some time? I don't know anything about the person(s) who bought this property, but I applaud their right to redesign it and make it an acceptable home within the guidelines of the historic district. It would appear that in order to be a true EV resident you have to oppose any change in the neighborhood (except perhaps a new bagel and coffee shop that meets your exacting standards). I view real estate news such as this as a sign of the vibrancy of the East Village--the willingness of a family to invest a significant amount of money to make a permanent home in the EV. We are no longer in the world of $65 a month apartments along Tompkins Square Park with a bathtub in the kitchen (my first apt via an E. Turk ad).
@anon-7:49am Those are AC Unit condensers. They're drawn how they would look from the top.
The extension is out of context with the neighborhood. It should be denied. I also wonder whether the structure can support 2 additional floors and an elevator ? Maybe there's a sinister aspect to this plan. If they get permission to add the floors they find out the building isn't safe and tear it down.
That rendering look like something out of the "Architectural Onion" as if it was a parody of an actual concept, not the concept itself. That rendering made me laugh so hard out loud. Absolutely hysterical.
The only thing sinister happening here is that amount of thought that goes into trying to suss out supposed sinister plans. Sheesh. The only way to get permission is to prove that the additional floors are safe and that requires you know, real thought.
I'm fine with additions, but, why they always gotta be white?
" I view real estate news such as this as a sign of the vibrancy of the East Village"
Gentrification is always sold as new "vibrancy" but it really means removing the old or poor vibrancy with sameness, blandness and safe for the wealthy. I always use the demise of foodie haven "WD-50" as how lame gentrifiers really are. Clinton Street needed some new vibrancy so the building and adjacent one which WD-50 leased were bought and demolished so a new condo could be built instead, the irony of course is the very people who will live in that new building will move here because of hip places like WD 50. Once everything which makes this neighborhood cool has been built over then the LES will be exactly like the UES.
12:49
There is a history in the City of buildings that have collapsed while being renovated. Approvals are guesstimates.
The Land Use Committee of CB 3 denied there request for a zoning variance at the meeting last week. Several concerned residents spoke in opposition as this will be owned by an investment group who will rent it out for about 40k per month as a single family home supposedly. So it will not be owner occupied. There were numerous other good objections by CB 3 and residents. Next step is CB 3 Landmarks Committee which my bet will also deny. That doesn't mean LPC won't ultimately approve, but for all those who bash CB 3 they did the right thing here. It's always good when residents speak up at CB meetings.
@11:46am: "We are no longer in the world of $65 a month apartments along Tompkins Square Park with a bathtub in the kitchen"
Ah, but you're wrong about that. A friend of mine lives in an apartment with tub-in-kitchen & the current rent for that apartment is $150/month (on a better block than along TSP!).
it's perfect the way it is. stay haunted, my friend!!<3
Wow it throws me back to my walk up by ave C in the early 80's
Geez, what a ratty-looking place.
This extension will set more precedent for such additions all over the area by greedy developers looking to squeeze every last penny out of a purchase. Destruction of the neighborhood is irrelevant... Any character which makes E Village unique soon gone.
Post a Comment