BY SEAN EGAN | The saga of, and controversy surrounding, 404 W. 20th St. (btw. Ninth & 10th Aves.) promises to continue after a Tues., June 14 hearing of the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) sent the applicant back to the drawing board to alter their plans for the site’s renovation once again.
Considered to be the oldest dwelling within the Chelsea Historic District, 404 is therefore given protective status, making alterations to the 1830 structure subject to LPC approval. Recently, contention has arisen over plans the new owner — British banker Ajoy Kapoor — has for the structure, with tension increasing steadily since the project’s first public hearing before the LPC in mid-April. The revised plan, changed after incorporating feedback from an earlier appearance before the LPC, represents a significant scale back from the original proposal. However, it still failed to garner a Certificate of Appropriateness, which would give Kapoor and his associates the green light on the renovations.
Meanwhile, an opposition effort headed by local group Save Chelsea and supported by several elected officials asserts that the proposed changes represent an unwarranted demolition of all but the house’s façade — and exemplifies the LPC’s inability, or unwillingness, to execute its namesake mandate of preservation. Further controversy has surrounded the alleged disrepair of the building, which the owner believes makes such an extensive remodel necessary — as Kapoor’s reps claim extensive damage happened on the watch of former owners Nicholas Fritsch and his wife, Lesley Doyel (a current board member, and recently resigned president, of Save Chelsea). Fritsch and Doyel strongly refute that claim.
This narrative set the stage for June 14’s hearing. While Kapoor was present, it was the project’s architect, William Suk, who gave the presentation. Suk introduced the presentation with a series of historical photos illustrating the changes that the house had undergone over the course of its 186-year life — in order to position the structure as one of steady evolution.
Side-by-side comparisons of the house as it currently stands, the mid-April designs, and the revised plan were the crux of Suk’s presentation.
Specifically highlighted was the way the height of the building would change. In the updated plans, the roofline would only be increased slightly from how it currently stands, noted Suk, and would include hardware like an elevator bulkhead, and would slope back to maintain the house’s historic roof style. This is notably smaller from then when a penthouse was included in the previous plans.
With the general height reduction, the back extension of the house had been reduced as well, ditching the penthouse floor — though the contested basement level expansion was still present from the earlier plans. The designs still depicted a four-floor (including basement) extension stretching out to where the neighboring building (402 W. 20th St.) does, and a smaller three-story one stretching farther into the yard. Elsewhere, while the building would alter the freestanding left wall, and expand into the 30-inch side yard (a historically significant feature, according to preservationists), it would include wooden clapboard siding, as an homage to the material used on the original wall.
Once the architect was done with his statements, LPC Chair Meenakshi Srinivasan accounted for the project’s rocky history, announcing that the LPC had received a number of letters against it — including missives from Community Board 4, the Council of Chelsea Block Associations (CCBA), Save Chelsea, and from Assemblymember Richard Gottfried, Senator Brad Hoylman, Councilmember Corey Johnson, and Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer. Suk protested these letters, claiming, “They have not seen this design,” and were referencing the old plans, as the Kapoor camp had not yet released the updated ones. Srinivasan, however, informed Suk that the plans were indeed available in full on the LPC’s website days before the hearing (tinyurl.com/gq8l39g).
In a post-hearing interview, Bill Borock, President of CCBA (and author of their letter), confirmed that the groups had, in fact, seen the new plans prior to composing their letter, as did a representative from Assemblymember Gottfried’s office. The CCBA letter posits that the April hearing should have resulted in denial from the LPC, because of the “false information/testimony that influenced its initial decision” and that the owner’s plans would leave the house “essentially demolished.” The electeds echoed this sentiment, writing, “This inappropriate proposal would transform the house into a much larger building that would be almost unrecognizable in comparison to the original house.”
Moving forward, Srinivasan acknowledged that the house was an “interesting case” because there would be “a lot of rebuilding going on behind [the] façade,” which many consider a demolition, while also noting that some of the issues with the “overwhelming” initial proposal had been addressed. Nonetheless, she was still not wholly onboard with the project’s current iteration, where the changes still seem to be too drastic.
“I think it’s important to retain more of [the building’s] legibility,” Srinivasan asserted, saying she would “recommend [the architect] restudy this, and incorporate the wall and roofline.” She also noted that while the façade might retain its significant appearance, that the back extension still was too much for the house, and that its footprint would alter the character of the backyard space of the surrounding area. She concluded that she wished the project would reflect “an understanding and legibility of the rear a little more clearly,” as well, and urged Suk to “take a look at that again” in order to reflect more accurately the character of the house.
Having noted all of this, the LPC decided not to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to the applicant — meaning further revised plans and another hearing are on the horizon for 404 W. 20th St.
“It was gratifying to hear that the Commission was taking into account the opposition of the community and officials,” noted David Holowka, an architect and Save Chelsea member who attended the hearing. While still stressing the importance of keeping abreast with new plans and developments, he asserted, “I think it makes me feel hopeful that they’ll preserve something of substance for the house.”
