Present: Christina Applegate, Fred Atherton, Eric Breitkreutz, Matthew Bronski, Jean Carroon, Taya Dixon, Leslie Donovan, Alison Gould, Patrick Guthrie, Donna Harris, Jeffrey Harris, David M. Hart, John Hecker, Lyn Hovey, Carl Jay, David Kelman, Michael Lynch, Bill Mack, Doug Manley, Melissa McGrew, Henry Moss, Elizabeth Randall, Bill Remsen, Susan Schur, Caroline Schwirian, Malcolm Smiley, Bob Thomas, Eric Ward, and Sara Wermiel. 1. BSA Legislative Assists: The committee discussed pending or proposed legislation that should be added to the BSA’s list of items for advocacy. Members decided to think about the issue further during October, and if clear needs can be identified, report back to the BSA. The last round of the Massachusetts Preservation Project Fund (MPPF) will be in June 2005. Cara Metz, the Massaschusetts SHPO, wants to bring back the funding level to match 1998-1999. The MHC needs to fill two new positions. The Historic Tax Credit will be sent back seeking eligibility for historic houses in private ownership. An amendment to MGL 40C on easements and historic districts may somehow connect to a new environmental tax credit. Annie Harris is preparing an advocacy position for gaining new funding for city parks that is patterned on the environmental tax credit. 2. The Architecture of Additions: Henry Moss introduced the new year’s committee focus on design issues tied to historic preservation by touting Paul Byard’s book, The Architecture of Additions- Design and Regulation (W. W. Norton & Company, 1998) and encouraged the committee to think about and describe their own “combined works” with the rigor and clarity that Byard’s examples demonstrate. The range of the book’s examples allow for the author to compare lessons from Renaissance Masters to approaches that have evolved during the twentieth century. Byard examines strategies that are grouped under the headings of: extension, derivation, and transformation in detail. Included are chapters that develop the concept of the “protected identity” and its particular sources among a variety of building types. Imitative architecture and carefully calibrated stylistic contrasts provide examples that help evaluate the circumstances that allow for successful design as well as examples that are manifest failures. After this brief introduction, the digital image potluck event with illustrations and commentary from individual committee members organized by Matthew Bronski presented real examples from a broad range of committee members. Michael Lynch presented the Jewish Museum in NYC and a town hall building from New York State where extensions that doubled the size of the original were realized in similar materials. In the town hall, “separation zones” with extensive glazing were a key architectural strategy. Michael noted that addition designs seldom consider future expansion options, although the Massachusetts Library Program asks for concepts for future expansion to be part of every Schematic Design. David Hart showed some other architect’s pitiful addition to a 19th century civic building near Laconia, NH where arch motifs were clumsily echoed in a new single story addition. This raised questions about the degree of abstraction from adjacent forms that could stand comparison to their labor-intensive predecessors. David then applauded the succession of buildings at the Salem Courthouse that began with Ammi Young, proceed to an 1870’s Gothic Revival structure, then fifty years later grew again in a Classical Revival mode. He suggested that the Peabody Essex Museum now demonstrates a similarly winning, five part orchestration of different periods and stylistic juxtapositions- including the Yin Yu Tang house. Sara Wermiel showed a large addition to a larger brick brewery at 31 Heath Street in Roxbury. Designed by Paul Donnelly in 2000, this terra cotta tile, lead coated copper, and aluminum curtain wall structure did not diminish the stature of the original and helped make the older building usable as office space. Though unapologetically modern, far from imitative, and executed in different materials, the addition complemented the composition, color, and texture of the original. Michael Lynch pointed out that the work was an all too rare addition to an historic building that would actually be visually successful as a freestanding building. Matthew Bronski presented a converted natural stone shed in a rural Beaujolais village with contemporary glass/metal engineering structures set between its massive fieldstone walls. Bill Remsen pointed out that this was an example of a type of transformation that can often be seen in European settings where there is great continuity of natural material and a high tech “jewel” is inserted into an existing, massive shell. The small scale of the structure contributed to its success as well. Alison Gould brought images of Platt Byard Dovell Architects’ dance studios in Manhattan. She delighted in the building’s “conversation with Times Square” including a constantly changing colored light program on the exterior in the midst of new advertising signs. The building is not an obvious addition. Jean Carroon chose the Solomon Center, a fine urban design composition by John Clancy, a very large theater complex that was added to a brick Federal House on the Brown University campus, with the earlier building becoming a foyer for the new theater. Though the addition dwarfed the original, a long open, exterior colonnade and stepped walkways helped to integrate this massive brick box into the pedestrian scale of the 19th century campus with a naturalness and apparent ease that must have taken special pains to achieve. Eric Ward turned our attention to Gwathmey Siegel’s addition to Wright’s Guggenheim Museum, noting that Wright had designed a block in the same general location. A determinedly “background” building, the scale and visual grain of the addition seemed to our panel of critics to fail by being too bland and too light in color to contrast more distinctly with the original. Some criticized the addition’s interior connection that breaks the continuity of the spiral ramp on upper levels. Melissa McGrew showed the 1890’s Ames Kimball House and 1927 Capitol Theater in Concord, NH after a major set of alterations that connected the two buildings. The dark stone and glass Egyptian Revival theater contrasted sharply with the red brick Victorian House. Circulation allowed the house to serve as a gateway building providing an intimate scale for the pedestrian approach to a large glass bay at the theater entrance. Elizabeth Randall raised the relationship between new buildings and their sensitive contexts by showing CBT’s Back Bay building for Nike. The richly colored red stone and metal detailing of this vivid corner building do not imitate its 19th century neighbors. The Nike building was judged to be a fitting addition to its block on a prominent corner site. Elizabeth showed a large Shingle Style house by CBT and enthusiastically endorsed its generous window, porches, eaves and great roof, Modernist Imperatives be damned! These examples led her to cite the work of Bill Rawn’s office in general as successfully nuanced contextual buildings that are not imitative. Bill Barry (in absentia) provided images of Philip Johnson’s wing at the Boston Public Library as respectful and non-confrontational conversation with the original, a stance immediately disputed by Eric Ward and Matthew Bronski, who was particularly offended by the screen of upright granite blocks that shun pedestrians, “the antithesis of the McKim plinth.” Jean Carroon ventured that our critical response to the Johnson wing may be different after another twenty years. Jeffrey Harris brought slides of a recent office building in the Old Port district in Portland, Maine. David Lloyd was the architect in 2000. The building establishes strong continuity with its traditional, heavy masonry abutters while eschewing imitation. There are many façade alignments, but the construction is largely glass and red copper curtain wall above a heavier concrete street floor. This was a controversial new departure for Portland in an area along the harbor where the legacy of the 19th century has been well-proportioned streets and a variety of small and medium-sized commercial structures. Matthew thanked the contributors; most of who had missed the first call for entries and responded heroically by e-mailing images 24 hours before the meeting. The committee said that the discussion contained sufficient potential for another session the following month. For our November meeting and discussion, please e-mail more digital image contributions of good additions/neighbors to Matthew at mbbronski@sgh.com 3. BSA Preservation Award Candidates: Sara Wermiel repeated her suggestion that this year the committee might seek out examples of good additions to historic buildings that demonstrate a special achievement by owners, developers and their design teams. 4. APT Galveston: David Hart reminded everyone to meet him in Galveston for the November APT conference. He also made the first local announcement of APT’s Endowment Fund, restored in 2000 at $50,000; it is only $650,000 short of APT’s ultimate objective. The endowment will help to fund scholarships, training workshops, and publications. David promised to involve each of us the capital campaign that will come in 2005. *For our November meeting and discussion, please e-mail more digital image contributions of good additions/subtractions/neighbors to Matthew at mbbronski@sgh.com by noon on Wednesday 10 November
The Architecture of Additions (and Subtractions) continued 8: 00 a.m., Thursday, November 11 14, 2004 The Architects’ Building, 52 Broad Street, Boston – Fifth Floor
Henry Moss, Matthew Bronski, and Sara Wermiel co-leaders and scribes
|