HOH and HPC

The Hudson Opera House application for a certificate of appropriateness involved a number of things--re-pointing masonry, changing window glass for acoustic reasons, adding storm windows--but the item that the Historic Preservation Commission devoted the most time to, understandably, was the design for the elevator tower, to be attached at the southeast corner of the building, where Cherry Alley intersects City Hall Place. In June, the HPC requested changes to the original design for the elevator tower. Their goal was to make the tower appear more contemporary looking. On Friday morning, the HPC voted unanimously to grant a certificate of appropriateness to the revised design.

The changes to the design requested by the HPC eliminated the blind openings--areas of recessed brick defined by stone lintels and sills that reference the fenestration of the original building--on both the east and south elevations and replaced the four over four windows in the south elevation with double hung windows of solid glass, meant to create vertical "slot" to echo the glass curtain wall in the east elevation that differentiates the addition from the original building.

The basis for the HPC's criticism of the original design was the members' interpretation of this standard from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties--the ninth of ten:

New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The guidelines for interpreting this standard have this to say about additions to historic buildings:

Considering the design for an attached exterior addition in terms of its relationship to the historic building as well as the historic district or neighborhood. Design for the new work may be contemporary or may reference design motifs from the historic building. In either case, it should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color.

Among the examples of what is not recommended in the guidelines is the following:

Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and detailing of the historic building in a new addition so that the new work appears to be part of the historic building. Imitating a historic style of period of architecture in a new addition.

The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines recognize two approaches to designing an addition to a historic building: a contemporary design or one that references design motifs from the historic building. The HPC, however, possibly because there has been so much new construction in Hudson that imitates period design, rejected the latter approach and insisted on a design perceived as contemporary. 

After reading aloud the excerpts of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines quoted above, HPC member Phil Forman stressed that the goal was "to make absolutely clear that the new addition is a new addition." HPC member Tony Thompson recited the four things that the guidelines indicate should not be duplicated--form, material, style, detailing--and concluded, "They've got three out of four," implying that the addition duplicated the original building only in its material: brick. HPC member Scott Baldinger expressed his opinion that the design was "contemporary enough now."

When Forman suggested that the project, "because of its scale," merited a public hearing, HPC chair Rick Rector pointed out that there had already been two public hearings about the elevator tower: one held by the Zoning Board of Appeals, which no one attended; the other held by the Planning Commission, attended only by a Register-Star reporter, Gossips, and Rector himself. The motion to waive the public hearing passed, with only Forman dissenting. The motion to direct the city attorney to draft the document granting a certificate of appropriateness passed unanimously. 

The HPC members participating in the deliberations and the decision were Baldinger, Forman, Rector, Thompson, and David Voorhees. Jack Alvarez recused himself because of a current professional relationship with one of people presenting the project; Peggy Polenberg recused herself because she is on the board of the Hudson Opera House. 
COPYRIGHT 2013 CAROLE OSTERINK