|
|
Present: Nicole Benjamin-Ma, David Bliss, Susan Brauner, Matthew Bronski, Jack Glassman, David Hart, David Kelman, David King, Ellen Lipsey, Doug Manley, Pat Morrissey, Henry Moss, Susan Schur, Malcolm Smiley, Jonathan Smith, Steve Stowell, Natalie Wampler, Sara Wermiel, and Tim Withers 1. The Hancock-Clarke House, Hancock Street, Lexington: Jack Glassman and Henry Moss described Deane Rykerson's tour of the house. The visitors included Marilyn Fenollosa and Krista McFadden from our committee as well as several members of the Lexington Historical Commission. The tour provided a material reality that reinforced Deane's archaeological and constructional observations, presented at our May committee meeting. It also brought the architectural quality of the house, and its surfaces, vividly into focus. Some rooms had internal oak shutters that have never been painted; these caught and reflected sunlight in a way that could save us a trip to Japan. 2. American Institute of Architects Convention Activities:
3. Historic Districts in primarily non-residential urban neighborhoods: Ellen Lipsey and Steve Stowell graciously came to present and discuss their recent (and evolving) experiences with developing and implementing design guidelines in primarily non-residential historic districts in Boston and Lowell, respectively. Ellen discussed the Boston Landmarks Commission's progress with the Fort Point Channel Landmark District (FPCLD), where a long process involving meetings of a study group and public hearings is now drawing to a close and a draft set of design guidelines should be ready soon for approval by the BLC and the Mayor. The committee developing the guidelines includes Boston Landmarks Commissioners, building owners, long-established and new residents, property developers active in the area, local institutions and open space non-profits. The group has met regularly for months (totaling over 700 person-hours) for the purpose of articulating guidelines for future changes to the over 90 buildings in the proposed FPCLD. Ellen presented a history of the district, which had once been the largest wool distribution center in the United States. The purpose of the guidelines is to maintain the industrial/commercial look and feel of the buildings despite the changes needed to adapt them to new uses. The buildings have many similar features, because all were developed by one company, which owned the land and even the streets, and most were designed by only two architects, employees of the company. Some character-defining features include street walls in a single plane, a common group of materials (e.g., brick walls), and flat roofs. Many buildings had railroad sidings adjacent to one of their sides, and thus had raised floors and doorways designed to facilitate loading and unloading. The district today has a mix of uses: residential in buildings converted to condos and artist live/work space, office, retail, and institutional (Boston Children's Museum). Among the challenges for adapting the buildings for new uses are accommodating code requirements and energy conservation, maintaining the strong cornice lines, and minimizing visible additions to rooftops for mechanical equipment and residential gardens. Ellen mentioned some of the proposed guidelines, for example to preserve existing windows (particularly at grade) and metal fire escapes; and avoid hanging balconies in order to maintain the street plane. Signage will be allowed in the district. Guidelines for added height are still being discussed. [Ellen did not directly address the difficulties posed during the current period, when the BLC must deal with projects before the district is approved and design guidelines take effect. Clearly, the BLC has sought to avoid setting awkward precedents. But until specific guidelines are in effect, owners, developers and designers face uncertainty about various design questions, such as how to handle fire escapes, embedded pintles for fire shutters, replacement windows, overhead bridge cladding, and paving materials. The requirements recommended by residents are noticeably more conservative than those previously applied in the area, and the study group is still settling the details.] Boston's handling of Historic Landmark and Architectural Conservation Districts is remarkably attuned to the different characters of various neighborhoods and their primary use patterns. The clearest and strictest guidelines apply in Back Bay and Beacon Hill, where the properties are primarily residential buildings. The new Fort Point Channel Landmark District has a markedly different building stock and public presence. Ellen encouraged people to see the Fort Point Channel Landmark District Study Report prepared for the BLC by Sara Wermiel and Susan Ceccacci. It can be read or downloaded from the BLC website, Fort Point Channel Landmark District, click on "Draft Study Report" link at the bottom of the page. Steve Stowell is Administrator of the Lowell Historic Board (LHB), the city's preservation agency, which manages a Downtown Lowell Historic District as well as nine neighborhood districts, some of which overlap in dizzying patterns and with odd boundaries. The Downtown District has a remarkably varied collection of resources, with over 800 individual structures built between the 1820's and the 1990's. It is a highly sensitive historic district and subject to extensive design review. Unlike most other historic districts in Massachusetts, which were established through state enabling legislation (Boston also excepted), the Downtown District was formed by act of Massachusetts legislature. This special act was in response to a requirement in the Lowell National Historical Park legislation that the city strengthen its historic preservation and design controls in exchange for the establishment of the National Park in Lowell. The district's design standards come from this legislation - created by the feds for the former Lowell Historic Preservation Commission, predecessor to the LHB. So, in contrast to the FPC district, no study committee was required to develop guidelines (which saved a lot of hours of meetings!). Written in 1984, the guidelines run 13 pages. There has been little change to them over time. The LHB administers standards that cover demolition, minimum maintenance, alterations to existing buildings, new construction, signage, landscape, and issues of economic hardship that may require waivers and adjustments in public hearings. In practice these have been flexible, but have consistently guided design decisions in the urban core and its flanking mill complexes to reveal more authentic historic architecture while introducing new life into the city's buildings and streets. The LHB works closely with other city agencies and the National Park staff to evaluate special cases. [Lowell presents a remarkably coherent and well-integrated set of design and planning policies to developers and designers compared to other Massachusetts cities and towns. The combined influence of the LHB and the National Park seem to make historic preservation the basic framework for design review.] In the neighborhood districts, demolition and new construction are the only issues overseen by the LHB. Otherwise, their powers do not extend to existing buildings. In all districts, there are rules for enforcement and for handling violations. Lowell's building inspector works closely with the LHB staff and the National Park staff, as approval from the Historic Board is a pre-condition for issuance of any construction or demolition permit in the Downtown District. Steve observed that new residents are eager to protect the character of their parts of the city and call attention to violations that detract from the neighborhoods' appearance. He said that in 25 years only one or two minimum maintenance citations have actually gone to court, although one Downtown District project accumulated $300,000 in fines that were eventually waived after the owner, realizing that the LHB meant business, did what they asked. In Lowell, the minimum maintenance statue provides an extremely strong tool for the protection of historic properties - however this statute and tool are quite rare in the other 350 municipalities in Massachusetts. To require much needed maintenance to neglected historic buildings, most other cities and towns with only demolition delay bylaws need to argue that the neglect has reached the point of de facto demolition ("demolition by neglect" is easy to shout in an emotional hearing, but extremely difficult to prove and have hold-up in court or appeal.) The Lowell Historic Board (LHB) is composed of nine appointees representing various local, regional and national organizations, including the National Park, Lowell City Council, Boston Society of Architects, Mass. Dept Conservation and Recreation, etc. The current BSA representative on the Lowell Historic Board is Rachel Edlund, who works at Arrowstreet. Jeffrey Harris and Taya Dixon are also members on the LHB. Other current members of BSA-HRC are former ("alumni") members of the LHB. 4. Woburn Library Advocacy and Ideas Competition: Jessica Pineo Lohnes wrote to our committee asking if we would help a group affiliated with the Henry Hobson Richardson-designed library that the town plans to restore and expand. The building is the first HHR library and the only one that does not have an addition. The library group is contemplating a design competition for the addition and a lecture series to raise awareness and build appreciation of the library. Matthew Bronski has talked to Ms. Lohnes and we will arrange a meeting to learn more about how we might be helpful. If you have not visited this library, go immediately (the building is smack in the middle of Woburn Center) and don't leave until you have been everywhere. Richardson's furniture is still in the spaces.
8: 00 a.m., Thursday, 10 July 2008 Featuring Matt Formicola, Graham Gund Architects, with Andrea Gilmore, Building Conservation Associates "The Chestnut Hill Waterworks Project" The Architects' Building, 52 Broad Street, Boston Henry Moss, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel co-leaders and scribes
|