It's such a shame, first, that the steeple was struck by lightning, and second...that the owner would spend a great deal of time and money and cared enough to try to restore it, would end up having someone design a replacement with no sense of proportion or reproduction. If this is a result of some modern day structural requirements or something... then it demonstrates why sometimes , with historic structures that become damaged ,it maybe best just to stabilize and let it be.
What's wrong with the picture? The short, fat, mis-proportioned, (ugly) steeple on the left is cock-eyed, as if plunked on the wounded church by a drunk in the dark.... and there are no street trees.
Your comments pretty much sum up this sad, misshapen disaster of a 'repair', but I'm the one who gets it framed in my kitchen window! The bright side? If I need to lose weight I just look at it and lose my appetite :*(
Does this mean you no longer have to have approval from the Historic Preservation Board? Good to know. Typical Hudson, follow the rules every once in a while... Disgusting!
I suspect what happened is this. A building permit was issued--probably by Peter Wurster--to repair the steeple. The assumption may have been that it would be rebuilt exactly as it had been, and Wurster therefore saw no need for a review of the plan by the Historic Preservation Commission. I think the HPC needs to revisit that "like for like" policy they seem to be following. We'll see what they have to say this morning.
Without looking at chapter 169, I believe code enforcement can--and should--authorize immediate, emergency repairs. That happened in this case, in which the brick masonry was relaid and the top covered temporarily with an EPDM membrane. The new steeple, even if espoused to be "in kind," should have gone before the HPC before a permit was issued. I worked with Peter quite a bit when he was CEO, and he required "like for like," or "in kind" work to go before the HPC before he'd authorize a permit. I would bet that the building owner didn't even secure a permit and just did it.
In the taller steeple, I am seeing a "high" set of vents or little windows not present in the current tall steeple. I wonder when and how they went away?
It's such a shame, first, that the steeple was struck by lightning, and second...that the owner would spend a great deal of time and money and cared enough to try to restore it, would end up having someone design a replacement with no sense of proportion or reproduction. If this is a result of some modern day structural requirements or something... then it demonstrates why sometimes , with historic structures that become damaged ,it maybe best just to stabilize and let it be.
ReplyDeleteYou have GOT to be kidding. It's not only short, but it's not on straight!!!
ReplyDeleteHilary Hillman shared this comment:
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with the picture?
The short, fat, mis-proportioned, (ugly) steeple on the left is cock-eyed, as if plunked on the wounded church by a drunk in the dark.... and there are no street trees.
Looks like a overgrown Dunce Cap and it leans to the right. Better left off then with this new replacement. Terrible!!!
ReplyDeleteYour comments pretty much sum up this sad, misshapen disaster of a 'repair', but I'm the one who gets it framed in my kitchen window! The bright side? If I need to lose weight I just look at it and lose my appetite :*(
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean you no longer have to have approval from the Historic Preservation Board? Good to know.
ReplyDeleteTypical Hudson, follow the rules every once in a while...
Disgusting!
I suspect what happened is this. A building permit was issued--probably by Peter Wurster--to repair the steeple. The assumption may have been that it would be rebuilt exactly as it had been, and Wurster therefore saw no need for a review of the plan by the Historic Preservation Commission. I think the HPC needs to revisit that "like for like" policy they seem to be following. We'll see what they have to say this morning.
DeleteWithout looking at chapter 169, I believe code enforcement can--and should--authorize immediate, emergency repairs. That happened in this case, in which the brick masonry was relaid and the top covered temporarily with an EPDM membrane. The new steeple, even if espoused to be "in kind," should have gone before the HPC before a permit was issued. I worked with Peter quite a bit when he was CEO, and he required "like for like," or "in kind" work to go before the HPC before he'd authorize a permit. I would bet that the building owner didn't even secure a permit and just did it.
ReplyDeleteIn the taller steeple, I am seeing a "high" set of vents or little windows not present in the current tall steeple. I wonder when and how they went away?
ReplyDelete"This is Spinal Tap" - the scene where a dwarf Stonehenge is solemnly lowered to the stage.
ReplyDelete