Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-15-HDC-min Town of Lexington Historic Districts Commission Lynn Hopkins, Chair Tel: (781) 698-4524 Anne Eccles Britta McCarthy Paul Ross Fax: (781) 861-2780 Robert Warshawer MINUTES FOR TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 Cary Memorial Library Large Meeting Room 7:00 PM Commissioners present: Lynn Hopkins (Chair), Anne Eccles, (Minutes) Paul Ross, Britta McCarthy Associate Commissioners: Marilyn Fenollosa, Nancy Shepard, Robin Lovett The purpose of the special meeting was to give the Commissioners an opportunity to discuss the Center Streetscape project in detail, and thus prepare the Commission’s representatives for participation on the ad hoc Center Streetscape Committee. As part of this preparation, Mark Connor, a Highland Avenue resident, presented an overview of the history of Lexington Center. Mr. Connor is principal of Connor Architecture which is located in Lexington Center on Massachusetts Avenue. Historic Setting Mr. Connor began by stating his firm conviction that the renovation in Lexington Center need not be an either/or decision, not Preservation versus Accommodation. There are many historic buildings in town, but the fundamental design of Lexington Center is from 1966 and was thoughtfully executed then by Sasaki Associates, a local architecture, landscape architecture, urban planning firm (Watertown). Their original report is available. The 1966 vision was to be both progressive and reflective. The redesign of the streetscape then was in reaction to the construction of the Burlington Mall and designed to keep Lexington Center alive and in use. They worked hard to avoid making the town hokey. Originally, most of the buildings were one story and there was pull-in diagonal parking. The Mall was a car environment. The vision for Lexington Center was to contrast that automobile-oriented landscape by eliminating the diagonal parking, narrowing the street (thus effectively slowing traffic) and creating a wide, tree-lined, pedestrian space. It was a view of Lexington Center as the town’s living room, a comfortable, inviting space to meet and relax. The goal was to differentiate Lexington, to make it unique and not overly-designed. To that end, bricks were chosen, as were closely-spaced trees, and extra wide space on one side, benches facing away from the traffic, often in a U shape, and protective hedges between the pedestrian space and the street. A careful and simple selection of materials was made, not too many, to create a space with consistency. 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE • LEXINGTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02420 e-mail: historicdistrictscmsn@lexingtonma.gov That consistency was achieved with bricks, benches and trees. But the trees are the most critical, set in regular granite square planters. They create the roof of this outdoor public space. We won’t see trees of any size for another fifty years. Proposed Redesign The proposed plans from Beta Group Inc Engineering will strip the Center from façade to façade. Mr. Connor argues Beta’s plans are a program, NOT a vision, with faux historic elements added and replica junk. It has planting beds instead of seating and planting beds are much harder to maintain. Beta also always puts in granite pillars and this can be seen in the many similar designs they have implemented around New England. The brick sidewalks would becomes a patchwork of brick with long, wide runways of concrete, with the argument that concrete creates less vibration for wheelchairs. Sidewalk Materials There are two issues, maintenance and installation. Brick is consistent a material. It never fails. Concrete goes in bright white but quickly ages to muddy gray. It always cracks (thus the required seams to try to control the cracking and breaking up) and repairs involve removing an entire section of concrete and the new patch will inevitably be a different color. You cannot match concrete color. Normally, first cracks in concrete are patched with asphalt and Mr. Connor shared many examples from Lexington Center. Veterans Administration & University of Pittsburgh study on Accessibility Brick can and will perform well over time and can be designed and installed to eliminate vibration. The VA and U. Pitt study found that brick can be as compliant as concrete. The study was done three times with a scientific measurement of the surface: concrete, brick and modular. Tightly-laid brick was as good as concrete, when the lippage is 1/8” and it is wire cut. Herringbone or basketweave is better than running bond brick pattern. Public Discussion Attendees stood and commented that there was a need for a vision for the center, a ‘big picture’. Beta addressed the big things like traffic, but they failed on the aesthetics. Another resident spoke and said that Beta can’t provide the vision. They hope the Ad Hoc Committee is to provide that vision. Lynn Hopkins said it is the Ad Hoc’s job to answer the physical needs. The HDC doesn’t design, we review design. The Ad Hoc is a client representative and the client is the town of Lexington. Ad Hoc can make requests of Beta. But it must arise out of the vision which comes first and which informs all other decisions. Marilyn Fenollosa, HDC member, expressed that the chief goal is that the integrity of Lexington Center is not compromised. She stated ‘we have a unique, Sasaki-designed center. We should keep and improve elements, not throw it all out. Is what we’re going to do less than what we have?? We can have a continuity of materials and still meet the disability concerns over vibration. Brick can work.’ Another resident stood and said ‘splitting the sidewalk seems unfortunate. Maintenance is key. New England is hard on concrete and concrete is NOT sustainable.’ The ‘Interpretive Opportunities’ proposed by the Beta Group were discussed. These will be markers through-out the center. It was questioned if the Historical Society is best to handle these. They want signs that actually relate to what you’re looking at, not some stray fact. They shouldn’t be an afterthought. They also must accommodate the Scenic Byways signage. Accuracy is key. Several people felt the lighting design should include the reason for light.Traffic, pedestrians? A number of people expressed that they didn’t even know the streetscape renovation was happening at all and worried that many people don’t know about it still. They wondered how it could get so far without community input. A town member, present at the meeting, spoke and stated that there had been 51 meetings that included this topic. A Chandler Street resident spoke to express his strong belief that Lexington Town Center has integrity and should be protected.The question is how to maintain that integrity and keep it alive and accessible to all residents and visitors. He argues for renovation, and points out that it is, in fact, harder than just bulldozing and starting over. But Lexington’s beauty and grace warrant that care. A member of the audience, a Hill Street resident, felt that we can’t over-estimate the aesthetics. Lexington Center is not just a traffic improvement issue. A number of people felt that Beta produced the same design, over and over, and that Lexington would just look like all the others. Maria Delacruz, a new resident, said she does not want any change and chose Lexington for it’s inviting beauty. Permanent Building Committee Chairman John Himmel stood to speak and responded that $600,000 was the fee for the design of the center, and that the majority of that was for traffic. Dick, Balfour Street resident, said ‘we have a jewel that just needs to be maintained and made accessible.’ He suggests we should ask Beta should ‘stay between the curbs’ and leave the rest alone. Lexington is one of the great urban designs. David Kanter said ‘we need the vision first.’ HDC Consensus The HDC reached consensus on the following: a. A clear Vision for the Center is required. b. Subsequent decisions on materials, street furniture, lighting, etc. should flow from this guiding vision c. A vision of the Center already exists, established by the designers in 1966 (Sasaki and others) d. This historic vision should be protected and preserved e. The Center Streetscape design should be coordinated with the existing and proposed design of 1. Battle Green 2. Grain Mill Alley 3. Mass Ave street improvements f. Incorporation of the historical "interpretive opportunities" into the fabric of the center requires input from: 1. The Historical Society 2. Design professionals currently not part of BETA team In other business, the HDC voted unanimously to support Article 29 which would allow the establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Article 30, which seeks to extend protection against demolition by neglect to the Historic Districts, will be voted on at Town Meeting 21 March 2016. Lynn Hopkins, Chair, finished by thanking everyone in attendance, and stating that as with all projects in the Historic Districts, the HDC will review the final Centers Streetscape design before reaching a determination or issuing the Certificate of Appropriateness required for a building permit.