|
|
Present: Bill Barry, Eric Breitkreutz, Matthew Bronski, Jean Caroon, Michael DeLacey, Taya Dixon, Jeffrey Harris, David Hart, John Hecker, David Kelman, Michael Lynch, Bill Mack, Henry Moss, Zac Sargent, Susan Schur, Malcolm Smiley, Jean Van Orman, Eric Ward, and Sara Wermiel 1. BSA Historic Preservation Award: Now that the owners of the Boston Red Sox have committed to preserving and respectfully adapting Fenway Park, Eric Ward, of the HRC’s awards committee, recommended them for the HRC’s preservation award. The aim of the award is to recognize an owner or developer who has done the right thing with respect to preserving a historic resource. David Hart supports the proposal because he appreciates the owners’ urban orientation: their attempt to improve the park within the neighborhood and enhance the neighborhood. Michael DeLacey noted that that the Boston Preservation Alliance and Bostonian Society were giving awards to the Sox owners, so he suggested the HRC use its award to educate the public about preservation. Eric Ward suggested that the group Save Fenway Park! be recognized as well. Henry will ask Janet Marie Smith, Vice President of Planning and Development, about how the presentation of the award might be done to create the best overall effect. Jeffrey Harris said that the planned expansion of the park does not involve new upper decks, which would increase the scale of the ballpark. 2. Expansion Underground: Jack Glassman prepared a fine presentation, which Matthew Bronski delivered for Jack, who could not attend, on the topic of underground additions to existing buildings and sites. Jack began by listing the reasons for expanding under rather than above ground:
Jack collected images of some underground structures from the past and examples of old structures coexisting with new ones. His first modern “addition” was an addition to a site rather than to a building: a visitor center at Urquhardt Castle, Scotland, that was built into a hillside. He next showed underground additions to buildings classified by function: college libraries, museums, temples, and churches. College libraries frequently expand underground when they are in established quadrangles that are filled up. Examples of underground libraries are Beineke Library, Yale; Kroch Library, Cornell; Doe Library, U. C./Berkeley; Park University Library, Kansas City. Examples of underground museum additions include the Louvre, Sacher Gallery—National Museum of American Art, Philips-Exeter Gallery, and Darwin Martin House visitor center in Buffalo. The temple Jack illustrated was a Japanese temple where the addition was partly above ground; it involved a glass enclosure designed to suggest a pool of water. Church subterranean additions included Old North’s Columbarium and Trinity Church’s undercroft. Henry Moss noted that in England, space under churches was not creatively used; following health concerns in the 1980s, many churches removed bodies from their underground crypts, but then filled the space freed up with building services. Also, little attention was given to water infiltration into the former crypts. There was much discussion of Trinity’s undercroft. Jean Van Orman, a member of the parish, said the new space, because it is used for meetings, is bringing the church community together. On the question of how to join old and new space, Jean Caroon, of the firm Goody Clancy, architects for the renovation, said the church had a design statement that called for a traditional appearance at points of old/new intersection. The question of long-term maintenance of underground space was raised, in particular, how to keep water out. Susan Schur mentioned the example of a Smithsonian building where the level of the water table can be seen behind a glass wall; some staff there find the sight of fluctuating water levels disturbing. Underground solutions are not always the best. Michael DeLacey mentioned the Immaculate Conception church in the South End as an instance where outside regulation forced a lower ground floor solution with areaways that has not been successful, while rehabilitation in an upper level might have worked better. 3. Preservation for whom?: We discussed an article in the New York Times, March 31, 2005, “When Preservation Equals Demolition,” about the demolition of the neo-Classical style Century Building in St. Louis. The building came down in order to provide parking for another historic building, across the street, that is being rehabilitated. The National Trust for Historic Preservation supports the preservation of the other building and so acceded to the demolition. John Hecker stated that St. Louis has already lost a huge amount of its downtown fabric; once it had more cast iron-front buildings than any city outside New York, but most are gone. David Hart mentioned that the Trust’s Main Streets program seems to stress successful retail over saving buildings. Eric Breitkreutz said that this program is about economic development rather than preservation alone. Michael DeLacey believes that economic development is being overemphasized by preservation organizations: old buildings are seen as a source of economic development when the emphasis should be on development as a means to preserve old buildings. He and Michael Lynch contended that if a proposed use for an old building requires demolition, a new use should be found. Henry thought conflicts between a curatorial approach and an urbanism/smart growth approach will probably become more common with respect to buildings that are not of landmark quality. In the past, their demolition would have been less contested. 4. Announcements:
Philip Marshall, The Work of US/ICOMOS and Other International Heritage Preservation Organizations 8: 00 a.m., Thursday, May 12, 2005 The Architects' Building, 52 Broad Street, 5th floor, Boston
Henry Moss, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel co-leaders and scribes
|