On Friday morning, the Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on the proposed "restoration" of the former Emanuel Lutheran Church, 18-20 South Sixth Street. The changes to the building for which a certificate of appropriateness was sought included removing the stained glass windows on the south and north sides of the building and replacing them with two over two double-hung windows. The plans also include painting the entire building, which was covered with vinyl siding in 2010, white, or alabaster.
 |
| Photo: Stone House Properties |
Before the public hearing began, Joseph La Piana, who is proposing the changes to the church, told the commission that his goal was "to do what's right for the community and the building" and said he was willing to make a compromise: he would retain the six stained glass windows on the south side of the building, which are clearly visible from Union Street, but would remove the stained glass windows on the north side of the building, which he maintained were only visible from an internal courtyard. He avowed, "I'm not here to be adversary," and assured the HPC that in his other restoration projects he has "always maintained the utmost architectural integrity."
First to speak in the public hearing was Christabel Gough, who read a statement she had prepared prior to learning of the proposed compromise. She prefaced her statement by contending the stained glass windows on the north side of the building were visible from the street and all the stained glass should be preserved. Gough's entire statement follows:
We are looking at an unusual if not unique building in a prominent place in the historic district, and unfortunately there is an application to strip it of a distinctive feature: a series of stained glass windows illustrating Biblical subjects running along both sides of the building, lighting the nave and decorating a major street, now that a parking lot has opened a side wall to the street. To strip the building of the vivid color, and the articulation the stained glass provides, is especially grievous since there is no restoration of the original wooden surfaces. The fake siding, which should never have been allowed, and reportedly did not receive the blessing of this commission, will be further disfigured by a futile attempt to paint it. The synthetic will not bond with paint as the original wood would do. It is regrettable that the project has been characterized as restoration, when the fake siding is to be left in place. Real restoration would begin with its removal. We see no evidence presented of decay, or failure of the stained glass. The proposal is entirely counterproductive from the standpoint of historic preservation. Observing the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is not required by law in this situation, but they still provide valuable guidance. The federal Standards state in part: "Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved." We hope that that will happen in this case, not least because the historic architecture of Hudson is an important factor in its prosperity, a tourist attraction, and an incentive for private investment. It is also a pleasure for many of us, remembering the warning words of the New York City landmarks law, that without landmark regulation "distinct areas may be . . . uprooted or may have their distinctiveness destroyed, although the preservation thereof may be both feasible and desirable."
In his comments, Ronald Kopnicki also took issue with calling what was proposed a "restoration." What was being proposed, said Kopnicki, "removes original material while retaining nonoriginal material," which made it not a restoration.
Matt McGhee, who shared photographs of his study of the building, maintained that the windows were in very good condition. He argued, "What really needs to be done is remove the vinyl siding . . . and restore the original look of the building."
 |
| Photo: Arthur Baker, Wooden Churches (2003) |
When this concession had been made, HPC chair Phil Forman asked, "Any thoughts on removing the vinyl siding?" La Piana said he was not in the position to do that, speculating, "All the siding could be rotted underneath." HPC member Miranda Barry pointed that the vinyl siding had been added "quite recently" (in 2010), motivated by the desire not to have to paint the building not by the poor condition of the wood clapboard and shingles. "You might discover the siding is in pretty good shape," she told La Piana. He conceded he would "rather paint the wood than paint the vinyl siding" and suggested he might be willing to remove some of the vinyl siding to check on the condition of the wood clapboard beneath.
In the end, the HPC agreed to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of the lower windows on the north and south sides of the church and windows in the parsonage with two over two double-hung Anderson wood windows.
In his presentations to the Historic Preservation Commission, La Piana repeatedly made reference to the Masonic Temple in Hillsdale as evidence of his sensitivity and integrity in restoring historic architecture. County records indicate La Piana purchased the building in September 2020 for $775,000. Now described as having been "restored to its former glory and reimagined as an artist's live/work space," the building is currently for sale for $2,875,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment