Signs of the Time

The Historic Preservation Commission regularly approves signs for businesses on Warren Street and elsewhere in the city's locally designated historic districts. Usually the process is pretty perfunctory. Not so this past Friday morning, when some very out-of-character and, in Gossips' opinion, garish and inappropriate signs were proposed.

The first was an internally illuminated 7 x 7 foot sign to be affixed to the side of this house at the corner of Third and Allen streets.

The house has been operated successfully as a B & B by different owners since 2002, and no previous owner has found it necessary to introduce this kind of garishly commercial signage into a residential neighborhood.  

HPC member Miranda Barry objected to the internal illumination, and the HPC encouraged the applicant to rethink the illumination and submit an amended application. It is Gossips' opinion that affixing signage of any kind, illuminated or not, to the side of a house on a residential block is incompatible with the historic character of the neighborhood and should be prohibited.

Another proposed sign that was something of a shocker was this one for 407 Warren Street, the former location of The Cascades. It is plastic and internally illuminated. 

Barry observed that the sign was out of place on the facade of a historic building, commenting, "It really clashes with the historic architecture." Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, told the applicant, "The font you chose is kind of aggressively modern and commercial," and asked, "Is there a tasteful way to pull back from the starkness and commercial quality?" HPC member Hugh Biber urged the applicant to look at other signage on Warren Street and to design a sign that would "become more part of that graphic landscape."

The mural being painted on 260 Warren Street was also a topic of discussion. The botanical flourishes that have already been painted on the historic building inspired a Gossips post back in July: "Adding Insult to Injury." But it seems they were just the beginning of what is to become a larger "mural," one that extends to the side of the building as well.

Code enforcement officer Craig Haigh issued a stop work order on the painting because, as he explained it to the HPC on Friday, the design included cannabis leaves, and cannabis leaves, representing the product for sale in the establishment, made the decoration a sign. Signs in historic districts require a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. Because the city's preservation ordinance gives the HPC no jurisdiction over what can be painted on surfaces that have already been painted, the remedy to the situation was simple. The artist agreed to remove or eliminate anything that resembled a cannabis leaf from the design. Problem solved.

When recognized for a comment, steadfast HPC observer and critic Matt McGhee pointed out that a mural, by the very origin of its name, is something that is painted on a wall. This painting was being done on doors, glass panes in the doors, framing, and marble support columns. He called it "damaging to the historic nature of the building and our city."

It's interesting to review how we got to this place with 260 Warren Street. The building was owned by the Galvan Foundation (or one or another previous iteration of Eric Galloway's involvement in Hudson) from the early 2000s until October 2021. In that time, various plans for its restoration came before the HPC. Each time, a certificate of appropriateness was granted and allowed to expire without the restoration being pursued. Finally, in early 2019, a plan for the building's restoration, informed by a photograph found by Gossips in the Evelyn & Robert Monthie Slide Collection at the Columbia County Historical Society, was approved by the HPC, and the work was actually carried out.

Photo courtesy CCHS, Evelyn & Robert Monthie Slide Collection

The plans presented to the HPC in 2019 included the proposal that the marble plinths, lintels, and sills, original to the building, would be "cleaned, protected, and sealed." Kate Johns, who at the time was the preservation architect member of the HPC, specifically requested that the marble not be sealed because of the damaging effect such action can have on marble. Nevertheless, some white substance was applied to the marble plinths and lintels.

When the "white coating" came to the attention of the HPC, Forman, who then as now chaired the HPC, reported that he had consulted with then city attorney Andy Howard (who is now once again city attorney) and with Craig Haigh. It was the opinion of both that, "despite back and forth [discussion recorded] in the minutes and what most believe to be best practice," there was no legal recourse to force the undoing of the action because the agreement not to seal the marble "never made it into the certificate of appropriateness." The only way for the "white gunk" to be removed and the marble restored to its original state would be if the owner--Galvan--did it voluntarily. Of course, that never happened. 

Instead the white gunk that was supposedly a sealant has served as justification for more paint to be applied to the marble, because the current law does not empower the HPC to opine on paint applied to an already painted surface.

At Friday's meeting, the HPC agreed they would, at their next meeting, take up the issue of murals and other ornamentation painted on buildings, the question of their jurisdiction over paint applied to already painted buildings, and possibly petitioning the Common Council to amend the preservation law. They came to the same conclusion two years ago, when the ornamental painting of 529 Warren Street was brought to their attention.

At that time, HPC legal counsel Victoria Polidoro recommended that the HPC form a working group to come up with a proposal regarding the use of paint in historic districts. It was decided they would look into how other communities with historic districts handled the issue of paint--both paint color and paint application patterns. To Gossips' knowledge, no working group was ever formed, no investigation was ever undertaken, and no request to amend the preservation ordinance was ever made to the Council. Maybe this time will be different.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK