regarding the boxy rowhouses without rear period detail: that's what rowhouses are. the look of your house has nothing really to do with the rowhouses on either side. it stands alone as a rare pre-civil war frame house. extending it back affects the historic integrity of the house and thus the district. plus, if there was no extension, there'd be no subservience issue. the thing with poly prep (which i agree is ugly and possibly a mistake by the LPC in approval) is that it is clearly a different, modern building. it'll clearly distinguish what is historic and what is not. i think it's a distinction that the LPC is more likely to approve than an large extension that tries to be contextual but drastically alters the building. not that your house hasn't been altered before, but not to this extent.

Do you see the rear of the building from that photo? What historical integrity do you think is being affected, the integrity of rotting wood and a bland design? I don't think there is anything historically significant about the rear. You are the type of person that would rather have the building fall down on its own than get fixed up if it changes one old detail.

maybe i'm paranoid but do you ever get the feeling that the LPC is out to get you? i understand the desire to preserve and whatnot, but they gotta pick their battles. they've let so many far more egregious things happen around here, why would they hassle you so much over the back of the building? does the extension change the house all that much?

changes one old detail? we're not talking about a cornice or whether the windows are 6 over 6, it's like another half of a house being added! at least that's what the plans look like. perhaps there are no specific historic details on the back, but the SIZE of the back is part of the historic detail.
judging by a LPC meeting i watched today, they might be more willing to go for an addition that is a little smaller than the rest of the house, i.e. one floor lower. but even if it's not visible from the street, they don't like full-height, full-width extensions.

now, before everyone starts hatin' on me, i have to say it is certainly better that the house has been bought and will be renovated instead of left to deteriorate. i applaud shahn for what he's doing. however, perhaps it's better (and less headaches) to just let the house be the house (after renovation that is) and not try to make more of it.

You are an idiot Arsenal. Let the guy do what he wants to do. I dont see landmarks paying for his renovation. You said they don't like extensions that are full height or full width. Isn't there job to keep old buildings from being torn down. Won't this building be saved from being torn down whether there is an extension or not?

very perceptive. it is true, the LPC is not paying for his renovation. in fact, they don't pay for anyone's renovations. i guess then that everyone should do what they want. in fact, let's ditch the LPC altogether. who needs historic districts anyway right?
the LPC's job is not just the keep buildings from being torn down. they mostly are concerned with aesthetics and appropriateness.

from their FAQ:

"The Landmarks Commission assesses the effects of the proposed work on the significant features of the landmark and the compatibility of the proposed changes with the building's appearance and character. The Commission considers the building's architectural, historical, and cultural significance and its architectural style, as well as the proportions, materials, textures, and colors of the existing and proposed designs, among other factors. In a historic district, the Landmarks Commission also considers the effect of the proposed work on neighboring buildings and on the special character of the district."

it's certainly true that renovating a landmarked building means jumping through many hoops, but that's the responsibility you take on if you buy a landmarked property. i realize propery rights are sacred in america but zoning and landmarks laws have been upheld in SCOTUS multiple times. if you want property you can develop without oversight, don't buy in an historic district. or move to houston (no zoning law at all).

also, i'm not sure it would be true in this house's case, but you can get money from the feds if you spend enough on the renovation (20% tax credit if the renovations equal at least 100% of the property's value). that requires even more hoops (filing with the SHPO, monitoring by the SHPO, etc.) but it can be a decent chunk of change.

Having worked at LPC for several years, and having taken building owners through the commission/approval process before, i know that it can be an excruciating experience (you only go through it once but the workers have to deal with it hundreds of times). while the commissioners are obviously happy that this building is finally being renovated, it is their job to uphold the 'architectural and historical integrity' of the building. I like the revisions to the rear-yard extention, but it would not surprise me if they requested you to scale it back - not make it a full-width addition and therefore you preserve the original corner of the building. Since this side of the house is so visible from the street, they will look for minimal intrusion, no matter how sensitive the design is. At least that's my experience with the commission. I would have a heart-to-heart with your lpc staff member & see what they say. It sucks b/c it's your building and your money but they don't care (that much) - like i said, it's about maintaining the integrity of the original building.