The HPC Reviews the Senior Center

On Friday morning, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the schematic design drawings for the proposed senior center, which is being fast-tracked through the City's regulatory boards. At the informal Common Council meeting on Monday, HPC chair David Voorhees had said he didn't know if there would be a quorum for Friday's meeting. The commission is short one member since Nick Haddad's resignation, two members--Jack Alvarez and Rick Rector--had informed Voorhees that they would be unable to attend, and Scott Baldinger's presence was in question because he'd had an automobile accident. That left only three members--Voorhees, Phil Forman, and Tony Thompson.

As it turned out, Baldinger was present at the meeting, but he'd been advised by Cheryl Roberts, legal counsel to the HPC, to recuse himself from the discussion of the senior center because he had already publicly expressed an opinion about the design on his blog. Without Baldinger's participation, there was no quorum. The commission took up other matters first, and miraculously, about an hour into the meeting, Rector appeared, giving the commission the quorum needed to make a recommendation about the senior center.  

Although Jane Smith, the architect, had on Monday said that a model and realistic renderings of the building would be presented to the Historic Preservation Commission, haste required that the HPC make its recommendation based only on the schematic design drawings. Roberts informed the HPC that when the project was in its final design stage, it would not be coming back before them for a certificate of appropriateness because this was a City project and hence a certificate of appropriateness was not required.

The problem with demanding a judgment from the HPC at this point in design development is that it is their responsbility to determine whether or not the proposed building will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are several factors that contribute to compatibility, but among them, texture, color, and finish of the materials are critical considerations, and the schematic design drawings give no hint of any of this. Smith made the point that the detailing would make the building, but the details are precisely what was unavailable to the HPC. Smith told the HPC that she wanted to use cedar clapboard, which would be allowed to weather naturally, and metal with a dark bronze patina. She mentioned as an important detail the lattice on the clerestory windows, which filtered the light in the interior and enhanced the appearance of the exterior. But she explained that the design still needs to go through a step called "value engineering," during which it is determined if the building as designed can be built for the amount of money budgeted, and made the point that, although materials represent only about a third of the cost of new construction, people typically look at materials as a way to reduce cost and stay within a budget. In the final design, created after the value engineering, the clapboard may not be cedar, the metal may be different, the lattice may be eliminated, and there may be fewer clerestory windows.

Roberts suggested that the HPC's recommendation identify the materials that they would not find acceptable, and of the universe of unacceptable things, they came up with two: pine clapboard and chrome. Roberts made the point, however, that the City was under no obligation to abide by the HPC's recommendations in the matter of materials.

In the end, the four members of the HPC present and able to vote--Forman, Thompson, Voorhees, and Rector--voted unanimously to make the sought-after recommendation, with stipulations about the materials and a request that any major, significant changes to the design be submitted to the HPC for review. Rector summed up the opinion with the HPC when he described the proposed building as "handsome, new, but shows respect for the existing building."

More information relevant to the problems and delays with this project were revealed at this meeting--all going back to the fact that the City, in its original grant application, overlooked or chose to ignore the fact that the site is in a National Register-listed historic district and the adjoining building is a contributing structure in that historic district. Responding to a question from Voorhees, Roberts told the HPC that the design would be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office "for funding reasons."

At another point in the discussion, Smith pointed out the design for the building that was submitted with the grant application would not have been approved by SHPO because it was attached to the side of the existing building, putting too much stress on the historic structure, and it covered the lower part of the windows in the north wall. Of the proposed new design, Smith said, "From a SHPO point of view, this is an easy sell. It doesn't impact [structurally] the existing building at all." 

Another interesting detail was revealed at the meeting. Roberts said that, in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR), the action proposed is described as "taking away a blight"--the blight being the little cinder block building now appended to the former church that is the Youth Center.