FRIENDS' Testimony:

Very few Upper East Side Historic District structures were built specifically for commercial uses, and the majority of those were bank buildings. The designation report calls out their architectural significance, noting they were “designed in styles that reflect those of contemporary residential architecture” and that “their scale is consciously related to that of residential architecture in the area.” The Colonial-inspired style was carefully chosen for several bank buildings on and adjacent to Madison Avenue.

The pre-designation alteration of 1002 Madison Avenue was done in a highly sensitive manner, and it is clear that the intent was to move the entrance while maintaining the integrity of Cross & Cross’ design. The newly proposed design shows absolutely no respect for this neo-Federal bank; the removal of the fanlight and the excessive transparency of the new door will significantly detract from the character of the building. FRIENDS is sympathetic to the new tenant’s needs for a larger entryway and more visibility; however, we believe there are ways to achieve that without installing stainless steel glass doors.

The applicant’s attempt to justify their proposal by citing the contemporary design of Madison Avenue’s storefronts is irrelevant. The examples shown are former residential buildings that were later converted for commercial use or new buildings. This neo-Federal bank building is not a storefront, and it shouldn’t be regulated as such. Additionally, the need for increased visibility is contradicted by the proposal to screen the existing wood windows.

We ask the Commission to deny this proposal, and the applicant to come back with a design that maintains the integrity of this neo-Federal building, with a detailed fanlight and multi-light wooden doors.

LPC Hearing:

FRIENDS' Testimony:

FRIENDS Preservation Committee takes issue with the lack of details on the updated presentation of this proposal. While the design is slightly improved from the previously proposed, there is no mention of materials, finishes, and colors of the new doors. We commend the applicant for listening to the public and Commissioners’ comments, but we believe the proposal to still be inappropriate.

As we previously stated, very few Upper East Side Historic District structures were built specifically for commercial uses, and the majority of those were bank buildings. The Colonial-inspired style was carefully chosen of several of those buildings on and adjacent to Madison Avenue.

The pre-designation alteration of 1002 Madison Avenue was done in a highly sensitive manner, and it is clear that the intent was to move the entrance while maintaining the integrity of Cross & Cross’ design. The updated design still shows no respect for this neo-Federal bank, and while a simplified fanlight has been added, the excessive transparency of the new door will significantly detract from the character of the building.

We ask the Commission to deny this proposal, and the applicant to come back with a design that maintains the integrity of this neo-Federal building, with a slightly more detailed fanlight and multi-light wooden doors.