New H&M storefront retains more of building’s original fabric than previous proposal. On September 7, 2010, Landmarks approved a revised proposal to replace the storefront of an 1860s-era building owned by H&M at 558 Broadway in the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District. Landmarks had previously rejected a proposal to replace the two-story building’s entire brick facade with layered panels of fiberglass-reinforced concrete. 7 CityLand 76 (June 15, 2010). H&M’s new proposal would only impact the ground floor, leaving the building’s decorative work and a large second floor tripartite window untouched. TEK Architects’ David Lee proposed removing the ground floor facade, which had been repeatedly altered over the years, and building a glass storefront with grey steel framing and a sixteen-inch- high kick plate running along the bottom. An entrance to H&M’s second-floor showroom would be located on the left side of the facade and separated from the main storefront by a steel column.

Manhattan Community Board 2’s Jane McCarthy testified that CB2 supported the new plan. The Historic District Council’s Nadezhda Williams urged Landmarks to deny the proposal, conceding that it was “not nearly as offensive” as the initial plan but arguing it created a facade of two distinct and unrelated parts. (read more…)

Architect argued that retail building’s deteriorating facade did not reflect area’s historic fabric. On May 4, 2010, Landmarks denied a proposal to construct a new facade for an H&M clothing store at 558 Broadway in the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District. The site was originally occupied by a four-story building dating back to the 1860s, but the building’s height was reduced by two stories and the facade was reconstructed in 1920. H&M has been located in the building for ten years, but it only recently came into possession of the entire building. H&M proposed removing the existing brick facade in order to update the building with a more contemporary facade.

TEK Architects’ Andrew Ojamaa presented the plan, noting that H&M planned to renovate the building’s interior in addition to making the exterior alterations. The building’s first floor and cellar would continue to be used as a retail store, and H&M would use the second story as a private “editor’s showroom.” Ojamaa claimed the existing facade was in a state of disrepair and argued that the facade’s 1920s design did not reflect the neighborhood’s “designated historic fabric.” (read more…)