Landmarks has approved the pool for Hudson and Worth

The Landmarks Commission approved the application for a one-story building to house a swimming pool at 74 Hudson — the trapezoidal parking lot on the northeast corner with Worth. The building will have a maximum height of 18 feet due to easements purchased nearly four decades ago by the three neighboring buildings.

Ariston Development Group took a lease on the property; the designers, DXA Studio, said at a CB1 meeting last year that it would be used primarily for children’s swim lessons. (DXA restored 7 Harrison, the brick, terra cotta and cast iron building on the southwest corner of Staple, including a glass and steel addition on the roof.) The pool will be shallow. and there may be a mezzanine for watching the swimmers or for additional tenants. UPDATE: The developer’s reps said there will not be a mezzanine.

All renderings by DXA studio

The Landmarks Commission approved the proposal on March 3, finding that the construction of a new building at this vacant corner lot will not eliminate any significant historic features of the site and in fact will enhance the special architectural and historic character of the Tribeca West Historic District. This from the certificate of appropriateness:

  • the alignment of the building’s facades with those of the neighboring buildings will restore the continuity of the streetwalls, a significant and consistent feature of the historic district
  • the proposed building will be in keeping with the height and massing of other small-scale, early 20th century commercial buildings found throughout the historic district
  • the relationship of this one-story building to the surrounding taller neighbors will be harmonious with the varied streetscape context.
  • the distinctive masonry cladding and repeating pattern of the monumental bays will recall, in a contemporary way, the combination of ornamental design and functionalism of late 19th and early 20th century buildings within the historic district, and references the monumental arched bays found at the base and top of numerous buildings within the historic district
  • the sculptural forms and orange terra cotta color of the proposed concrete composite cladding will be evocative of the historic terra cotta found throughout the historic district
  • the metal framed glass infill will recall the openness of historic loading docks and the predominance of glazing at large monumental windows throughout the historic district
  • the proposed signage is simply designed, well scaled to the facades, limited in number, and typical in terms of placement, material and finishes.

I have heard through the grapevine that the building is coming soon! I will circle back on that when I know for sure.

Each building bordering the site — 90 Hudson, 1 Worth and 10 Leonard — has its own easement, and while each is a little different, it seems to me the upshot is they have to allow for “unrestricted light and air” above 18 feet with some exceptions such as parapet walls and a bulkhead for either a stair or elevator; in one interior corner of the easement, those elements have to be 30 feet away from other buildings. The roof cannot be developed, and new local laws require it to be sustainably developed with either solar panels or greenery, which would likely mean sedum panels.

The current design shows precast brick-colored arches, which the architects came to by scrolling through the tax photos from the 1940s, as well as other one-story historic buildings and buildings that Landmarks had approved recently to get some tips. their inspiration was in the arches and colonnades around the neighborhood, as well as the terracotta facades.

 

 
Tags: ,

8 Comments

  1. I’m always happy to see a parking lot go the way of the dodo.

    Still, it’s a funny little situation with the easements and the unfinished sides of the neighboring properties.

  2. There’s an old saying in NY real estate when people try to protest new buildings, “You own your apartment; you don’t own your view.”

    But these buildings facing the parking lot were smart enough to acquire their view! It’s the exception that proves the rule I guess.

    • I wonder if that’s why the parking lot at Broadway and Lispenard has never been developed. Maybe neighboring building (401 Broadway or other) has rights to the scenic view of the parking lot and counterfeit bazaar? Well, I guess at least they don’t want their windows blocked by a tall building.

  3. I do hope that adults will be able to use it also —

  4. This may rain on the parade (so to speak)…

    “How much pee is in our swimming pools? New urine test reveals the truth”

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/mar/01/how-much-pee-is-in-our-swimming-pools-new-urine-test-reveals-the-truth

    (Then again, swimming in lakes or the ocean may not be any cleaner.)

  5. It looks like you’re doing free advertising/marketing for the developer (all materials from the developer). Have you spoken with any of the residents before publishing this to get their perspective?

    • Seems to me most of the post (in particular the lede) comes from LPC with a little Pam editorializing. What’s the problem?

      If you have an issue with the center itself, what is it? I’m honestly really curious what would make one oppose a one-story building that provides a neighborhood amenity.

    • We are at the end of a city process that allowed for comments from neighbors. I wrote about those opportunities as well. This is in fact a news story. And yes, the only source for renderings of the proposal are from the developer.

Comment: