Before and After: 55 Liberty Street

Take a look at 55 Liberty Street that was rehabbed by Bluestone Developers, the same developers that are working on the Liberty Street School. Click to enlarge some of the thumbnail images below to see the nasty condition that the building was previously in. The building has now been rehabbed and is a 2 family home with a one bedroom and a two bedroom apartment. Although the original historical integrity of the home was altered the change is a huge difference.



6 Comment

  • I don’t understand how the exterior “renovation” shown here was approved by the ARC.

    I know it isn’t always possibly to preserve all of the historic elements of a structure during a renovation, but this — this is just abhorrent. The brick has been covered with siding, the windows are ridiculously tiny and out-of-scale, the door is all wrong, and the porch is made from standard builder-issue lumber. It’s awful.

    As someone who has gone through the ARC approval process in Newburgh prior to exterior renovation, it boggles my mind to see something like this happen. Why was Bluestone not held to the same standards that I was?

    I truly hope the Liberty Street School does not suffer a similar fate.

  • One building at a time. It’s great to see things looking so nice. Let’s see Newburgh on the mend!!

  • Nice work, but yes, it’s a shame the historical integrity of the building was not saved. Dangerous precedent.

  • If this is what is permitted in the historic district, why is there an ARC? Is this what we should be expecting the Liberty Street School to look like too? Look at that siding, it’s all crooked.

  • Anna – First thing, A careful look at the the top picture is of a different building than the “after photo”. The top profile is different on the two buildings shown. It is easy to get the buildings mixed up since they are rarely numbered. Just from looking at the photo it appears to be that fake brick asphault siding, too.

    Vinyl siding is not approved fro use on hisotric buildings and only once, in my 5 yrs on the ARC has it been approved for use. It was on a new infill construction. Even Habitat doesn’t use it.

    While the ARC may have approved a different exterior siding application such as HardiBoard we are not the enforcers of the permit that belongs to Codes office. If ARC approved a different siding and the owner went and used vinyl then it is up to BUilding inspector to require them to correct it. (whole separate comments on that issue itself)

    As for the standard builder issued porch, well when there is no porch there for reference, the ARC has to do the best with what they come to us with. Originally, the porch was coming straight down from the door, out into the path of the sidewalk. The way you see it now is what the ARC thought was more in the style of a porch that would have been there. We try to encourage owners to do the best in the design but we cannot design it for them. I think the architect on this was A. Cappolla.

    Your project was one on a different level – you really care about restoring your property it back to what it was, as close to what it was with wwhat remaining elements you had.
    Bluestone not so much, more of the get it done and move on crowd. We do need more owners like you.

    As for Mike G. – As a former ARC member yourself, I think you’d know and understand the obsticles the commission faces. Nothing the ARC ever does is good enough for you.

  • I wondered if the two buildings were the same. However, the developer provided with me with these pictures. So I just assumed it to be a major change of the façade.