Submission For Burnt-Out 449 Convent Avenue Heads to LPC, Upper Manhattan

A proposal been submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission by PMA Architecture for 449 Convent Avenue, in Upper Manhattan. The site is currently occupied by the right-most unit of a group of six brownstones. This particular structure has been marred from fire damage and requires remediation. The proposed rehab of the structure would replace and update the lot with a 54-foot-tall, five-story building, rising 10 feet higher than its adjacent counterparts.

449 Convent Avenue as it stands now with fire damage.

The new structure would be broken up into two separate two-floor apartments, the lower of which will offer two bedrooms. The higher unit would be a one-bedroom penthouse with a private balcony space in place of a second bedroom. There will also be recreational outdoor space on the roof of the building for all residents.

Rendering of the whole block with the addition of 449 Convent Avenue.

In keeping with the look of the surrounding neighborhood where the property is situated, PMA Architecture has proposed to finish the structure with a facade containing multiple materials. The ground floor’s exterior will consist of precast tan-stone panels, followed by a tan brick veneer. The rooftop balcony will be surrounded by a multi-line railing system, and the final floor will be covered in a grey-zinc paneling, which will make it stand out from its neighbors.

449 Convent Avenue as it stood in 1940.

The 145th Street stop is four blocks south of the location, and offers service on the A, B, C, and D trains. Bus stops for the M101 and M3 bus lines are also situated one block west and east, respectively.

Follow the YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews

.

4 Comments on "Submission For Burnt-Out 449 Convent Avenue Heads to LPC, Upper Manhattan"

  1. Please pardon me for using your space: After fire feelings and after rendering showing, it makes a thing of difference.

  2. Lazy. Why can’t they just rehab the existing structure? And surprise surprise all the detail of the old is missing on the new…

  3. No no no. There’s no reason to make a bad copy. It should either be a an exact copy / restoration. Or radically different. This looks like a cheap substitute. I’m sure LPC will make the wrong choice and decide a cheaply done copy that doesn’t complete the row correctly is the right choice as it’s “historical”. They would be wrong.

  4. Marc Leslie Kagan | January 29, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Reply

    Blah, Boring, Pedestrian, Mediocre, Run-of-the-Mill, Dull,
    Middling, Second Rate, Humdrum, Inferior
    Just restore the original. The architects who designed the replacement should have their license revoked.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*