ubmitted to the Design Review Board on September 18, 2021 |
|||||||||||
| bestpractices_schematicdesignchecklist.pdf |
You can access submitted project materials at: Design Review Board | City of Salem MA
0 Comments
Pioneer Village was constructed in 1930 as part of the Tercentenary celebrations of Massachusetts’ founding. It is America’s first open air living history museum and enjoyed great success during the early decades of its existence. Over the past century, attendance has waxed and waned, buildings have been repaired, constructed, and demolished, and interpretation methods have shifted with the times. Throughout this, Pioneer Village has remained a valued Salem institution. Historic Salem is aware of the needs and issues this historic site has faced in recent years. We recognize the City’s more recent care of this resource under the supervision of Elizabeth Peterson, and her efforts to improve attendance and interpretation of the site.
This classroom film from the 1940s was set in Salem in 1626 and filmed at Pioneer Village.
Now, as Pioneer Village nears its 100th year, the City of Salem is proposing to move select buildings and operations from their original Forest River Park location to the Camp Naumkeag site on Collins Cove near the Salem Willows. As the city’s preservation organization, HSI has been evaluating this proposal carefully. We have the following observations and recommendations.
- 1 The original location of Pioneer Village was selected due to community goals in the 1920s, not to replicate historical siting. Done with care and thoughtfulness, the original intent of Pioneer Village, to be a living-history museum, can be met with equal or greater success at another waterfront site that fits current traffic and use patterns. The proposed location is near the Willows and readily accessible from downtown and it should help forward other preservation goals, specifically related to awareness and preservation of historic Fort Lee.
- 2 The current location of Pioneer Village faces immediate and future threat from water inundation due to its location at sea level and the planned redirected flood waters from Canal Street. The proposed site maintains proximity to the water, but at a higher elevation that could mitigate all but the most severe weather and water-related risks.
Pioneer Village, 1930. Photo from Historic New England Yankee Publishing Collection
-
3 We understand that an updated evaluation of historical and structural significance for the existing resources of Pioneer Village and Camp Naumkeag is being commissioned and we commend this effort and believe it to be a necessary step before additional action is taken. We also recommend that a plan be implemented to maintain buildings at both locations as the evaluations are undertaken.
- a) It is important to recognize the original intent of Pioneer Village as a year-round open-air commemoration site. This intent, the three-dimensional aspect of the site, and the seriousness of purpose of the creators is more significant and accurate than the ongoing characterization of the Village as “a stage set,” which diminishes the importance and viability of the Village as a teaching tool, reenactment destination and connection to the commemoration of Salem’s founding. The continued existence of the buildings is due both to the care with which they were originally constructed and to the work of historian advocates over the past century.
- b) Camp Naumkeag has its own unique history as a tuberculosis day camp, related to other historic health uses in the area, with original buildings that date before 1930. This site also needs an updated evaluation of significance, and it is our understanding that alternatives to demolition and other adverse impacts will be examined as part of Federal- and State-funding reviews.
- 4 We ask the City’s project team not to seek demolition of any buildings until the site evaluations have been updated and any required State and Federal reviews have been completed. This evaluation might lead the project team to incorporate some of the existing Camp Naumkeag buildings into the proposed plan; a move we would support.
- 5 We would like public presentations to indicate which buildings exist on the Pioneer Village site, which will be moved, and the intention for the remaining buildings on the site. This should be supported by background information outlining the reasoning behind each decision.
- 6 It is imperative that all buildings be documented in plan, placement, and by photographs before site changes begin. The photographs should be retained in the City’s Planning Department files and the information added to the MACRIS listing. We recommend that an interpretive plaque be installed at the original Pioneer Village site.
- 7 In planning, and especially in budgeting, the City must take a long-term view and determine what the maintenance and management needs, costs, and funding sources will be for these, and any new buildings, and Pioneer Village as a whole, and confirm the municipal commitment to budget for them. For example, any fees associated with the site should be dedicated to management and maintenance of the site.
- 8 As mentioned, Fort Lee must also be included in master, transportation, and maintenance planning and funding. While the minimum standard should be that development on the Naumkeag site causes no adverse impact on this adjacent historic resource, the plan should aim higher, for collaborative interpretation and ultimately facilitating visitation between the two sites.
The City’s project team has worked hard to inform local history and cultural professionals about their plans. We recommend that there be substantial additional opportunity for public input and sufficient time dedicated to incorporating that input into the plan and to developing community support.
Pioneer Village and Camp Naumkeag have been cherished local resources in Salem for many years. Each is a part of Salem’s historic fabric and the city’s residents should be able to actively participate in this process. When complete the face of both locations will be dramatically changed and have an impact on both neighborhoods. We look forward to HSI and community concerns being addressed in a transparent public process before additional actions on this project proceed.
4 Franklin Street (the former HMA car wash) sits on a major entrance corridor to our historic downtown and inside the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). The Planning Board is reviewing a proposal to build an ambulance depot on this site and as part of the review, the Design Review Board (DRB) provided a recommendation that didn’t meet the City’s standards as outlined in the Commercial Design Guidelines (2005) or the NRCC zoning ordinance.
What can you do?
If you believe Salem is an important historic coastal city with a need to respect and enhance our preserved fabric, and that developers should, at a minimum, be expected to meet the existing standards, then before the next Planning Board meeting tomorrow, Thursday, July 8th, let the Planning Board know (via mwells@salem.com) that the DRB got this one wrong, and that we look to the Planning Board as the empowered municipal authority to ensure that the NRCC and other commercial design guidelines are met at 4 Franklin Street.
What can you do?
If you believe Salem is an important historic coastal city with a need to respect and enhance our preserved fabric, and that developers should, at a minimum, be expected to meet the existing standards, then before the next Planning Board meeting tomorrow, Thursday, July 8th, let the Planning Board know (via mwells@salem.com) that the DRB got this one wrong, and that we look to the Planning Board as the empowered municipal authority to ensure that the NRCC and other commercial design guidelines are met at 4 Franklin Street.
Our take
Both the North River Canal Corridor District and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District were implemented to preserve and enhance neighborhood character and to ensure that these areas are improved for the best interests of the city. City approval boards exist to administer community vision as established by documents voted on by the City Council. It is hugely disappointing for a member of the DRB to state that “we’ve put a lot of responsibility on the owner of this property to become the gateway to Salem” when, . from our perspective, Cataldo bought that responsibility when they purchased this entrance corridor plot that has been regulated by the NRCC and Entrance Corridor overlay for years. They should absolutely be held to the standards set for them by the guidelines without any question or allowances made.
The Cataldo garage proposal does not meet the spirit and intent of the NRCC in many ways (including incompatible use and lack of sidewalk activation) but in addition the DRB has now recommended the massing and materiality of a building that does not reference its surrounding historic Northfields neighborhood and rejects specifically encouraged materials for the building facade. In fact, unlike other recent North St. arrivals like Valvoline and the Salvation Army Chapel, which did build with complementary materials, Cataldo seems determined to disregard the NRCC design guidelines to build a structure more like an industrial storage shed. The DRB made their decision while discounting significant and very specific public comment opposing the design and materials that were proposed and requesting more attention be paid to color, architectural detailing, and shape of the roof.
Both the North River Canal Corridor District and the Entrance Corridor Overlay District were implemented to preserve and enhance neighborhood character and to ensure that these areas are improved for the best interests of the city. City approval boards exist to administer community vision as established by documents voted on by the City Council. It is hugely disappointing for a member of the DRB to state that “we’ve put a lot of responsibility on the owner of this property to become the gateway to Salem” when, . from our perspective, Cataldo bought that responsibility when they purchased this entrance corridor plot that has been regulated by the NRCC and Entrance Corridor overlay for years. They should absolutely be held to the standards set for them by the guidelines without any question or allowances made.
The Cataldo garage proposal does not meet the spirit and intent of the NRCC in many ways (including incompatible use and lack of sidewalk activation) but in addition the DRB has now recommended the massing and materiality of a building that does not reference its surrounding historic Northfields neighborhood and rejects specifically encouraged materials for the building facade. In fact, unlike other recent North St. arrivals like Valvoline and the Salvation Army Chapel, which did build with complementary materials, Cataldo seems determined to disregard the NRCC design guidelines to build a structure more like an industrial storage shed. The DRB made their decision while discounting significant and very specific public comment opposing the design and materials that were proposed and requesting more attention be paid to color, architectural detailing, and shape of the roof.
What is wrong with the DRB decision?
irst and foremost, the Cataldo garage is Phase 1 of a proposed two-part development, where the second phase is a residential development along the North River. Phase 1 will set the visual and materials precedents for Phase 2 and this low standard sets a precedent for other new construction projects in close proximity including other projects on Franklin and Commercial Streets as well as the large project in early design on Bridge Street’s “Cresent Lot.” To start wrong is to end wrong. Secondly, it is giving a pass to a multi-million-dollar Massachusetts corporation with 800 employees by not requiring them to invest in the best and most compatible building design on a prominent gateway site. Part of a gateway where hundreds of thousands of visitors to our city begin to get their sense of Salem as an historic place. History means millions of tourist dollars to our city.
Cataldo’s design needs to be much better, and it can be with some specific and careful design adjustments. The development team did not begin this process without guidance. There are requirement in the NRCC Zoning as well as the City of Salem’s Commercial Design Guidelines which includes the following language:
Page 18: “In Salem’s Entrance Corridors…the unique architectural character of the district must come before corporate branding.”
Page 24: “New Buildings need not, nor should they, imitate the…past. It is… more interesting to match materials, proportions and scale while using modern simple materials…the use of similar compatible materials and matching cornice lines…can ensure that new structures contribute to the character of the district.”
Page 26: “Using materials not commonly found in the immediate surroundings will make the development stand out and appear jarring. Salem has a long tradition of wood and masonry buildings. At the same time, new materials can be incorporated into projects as secondary elements…”
This site is prominent and will be clearly seen and it needs to meet the longstanding guidelines of the NRCC and the basic recommendations of the City’s own Commercial Design Guidelines. Further, the community at large has clearly expressed a desire for higher quality design and materials at this important site; many individuals have expended time and effort to articulate these community values.
We invite you to share your thoughts with the Planning Board at or before the June 8 meeting by sending them to mwells@salem.com or by being prepared to speak at the meeting, which begins at 6:30pm. If you have previously provided comment to the DRB, you may want to reference that as well. We find that a wide array of respectful citizen voices is an effective way to ask boards to reconsider and hope you will add your voice to this conversation.
irst and foremost, the Cataldo garage is Phase 1 of a proposed two-part development, where the second phase is a residential development along the North River. Phase 1 will set the visual and materials precedents for Phase 2 and this low standard sets a precedent for other new construction projects in close proximity including other projects on Franklin and Commercial Streets as well as the large project in early design on Bridge Street’s “Cresent Lot.” To start wrong is to end wrong. Secondly, it is giving a pass to a multi-million-dollar Massachusetts corporation with 800 employees by not requiring them to invest in the best and most compatible building design on a prominent gateway site. Part of a gateway where hundreds of thousands of visitors to our city begin to get their sense of Salem as an historic place. History means millions of tourist dollars to our city.
Cataldo’s design needs to be much better, and it can be with some specific and careful design adjustments. The development team did not begin this process without guidance. There are requirement in the NRCC Zoning as well as the City of Salem’s Commercial Design Guidelines which includes the following language:
Page 18: “In Salem’s Entrance Corridors…the unique architectural character of the district must come before corporate branding.”
Page 24: “New Buildings need not, nor should they, imitate the…past. It is… more interesting to match materials, proportions and scale while using modern simple materials…the use of similar compatible materials and matching cornice lines…can ensure that new structures contribute to the character of the district.”
Page 26: “Using materials not commonly found in the immediate surroundings will make the development stand out and appear jarring. Salem has a long tradition of wood and masonry buildings. At the same time, new materials can be incorporated into projects as secondary elements…”
This site is prominent and will be clearly seen and it needs to meet the longstanding guidelines of the NRCC and the basic recommendations of the City’s own Commercial Design Guidelines. Further, the community at large has clearly expressed a desire for higher quality design and materials at this important site; many individuals have expended time and effort to articulate these community values.
We invite you to share your thoughts with the Planning Board at or before the June 8 meeting by sending them to mwells@salem.com or by being prepared to speak at the meeting, which begins at 6:30pm. If you have previously provided comment to the DRB, you may want to reference that as well. We find that a wide array of respectful citizen voices is an effective way to ask boards to reconsider and hope you will add your voice to this conversation.
This is the text of a letter submitted to the Planning Board in advance of their May 20, 2021 meeting and to the Design Review Board in advance of their May 26, 2021 meeting.
Dear Mr. Griset and Mr. Durand,
As we have been participating in this community review of the proposed project at 4 Franklin Street, we have been pleased to see the unified opinion the Planning Board expressed regarding building placement and the receptiveness with which the applicant responded to this request.
We have one other major concern and that is regarding the materials in this proposal. The North River Canal Corridor Zoning Ordinance in Section 8.4.2.2 highly discourages the following materials: precast concrete, pre-fabrication aluminum or metal panels. We ask the Boards to work with incoming neighborhood member Cataldo Ambulance to merge the desired look of their brand with the neighborhood’s established “brand” or, as it is described in the Zoning Ordinance, “historic neighborhood character.”
The materials that are encouraged in the ordinance are brick, stone or wood. These, or similar, materials could lend a warmth and connection to place that the building, as currently proposed, lacks. The highly discouraged materials should not be allowed.
Dear Mr. Griset and Mr. Durand,
As we have been participating in this community review of the proposed project at 4 Franklin Street, we have been pleased to see the unified opinion the Planning Board expressed regarding building placement and the receptiveness with which the applicant responded to this request.
We have one other major concern and that is regarding the materials in this proposal. The North River Canal Corridor Zoning Ordinance in Section 8.4.2.2 highly discourages the following materials: precast concrete, pre-fabrication aluminum or metal panels. We ask the Boards to work with incoming neighborhood member Cataldo Ambulance to merge the desired look of their brand with the neighborhood’s established “brand” or, as it is described in the Zoning Ordinance, “historic neighborhood character.”
The materials that are encouraged in the ordinance are brick, stone or wood. These, or similar, materials could lend a warmth and connection to place that the building, as currently proposed, lacks. The highly discouraged materials should not be allowed.
View from corner of North and Franklin Street. Image taken from applicant submission to the Design Review Board dated May 11. 2021.
There are numerous examples in the neighborhood that the architect did not identify when presenting to the Design Review Board. The Valvoline building and the Salvation Army Chapel (image attached), both designed prior to the NRCC district designation, underwent extensive design work so that the buildings could meet their function, which includes contributing to the public realm. The historic fire station building on North St. provides public safety and is a relevant neighborhood design precedent. Indeed, North Street has a wide mix of historic building uses and there are a variety of forms and materials that could beneficially influence the design of this building.
Because this proposal meets so few of the stated requirements of the NRCC plan, we ask the boards to insist that the building take stronger material cues from the immediate neighborhood and from downtown Salem, the backdrop of this site.
We appreciate the work these two boards do to elevate development in Salem and we appreciate the opportunity as members of the public to have our thoughts considered.
Sincerely,
Caroline Watson-Felt,
President
In 1986 Salem was on the cutting edge when city leaders implemented a six-month demolition delay ordinance. This means that when applying for a demolition permit for a building older than 50 years and owner has to wait six-months before they can demolish the building. Or they can apply for a waiver of this delay period through the Salem Historical Commission who can determine (after weighing all the factors) if the building can be torn down sooner.
Theoretically this six-month time period can be used to examine preservation options for a historic building, or to develop actions that mitigate the loss of a historic building. However, in today's construction world six-months of waiting is not a sufficient incentive for an owner to work with the Salem Historical Commission on alternatives. Six months is about the same amount of time it takes to get all the other necessary approvals and so an owner can request a waiver of demolition delay and while they wait out the time clock they can visit the other boards in the city (Planning, Zoning etc) and proceed as planned.
As Salem's desirability continues to rise, we anticipate an increase in “tear-down” real estate, which we are already seeing in the Willows, North Salem, and other Salem neighborhoods.
Theoretically this six-month time period can be used to examine preservation options for a historic building, or to develop actions that mitigate the loss of a historic building. However, in today's construction world six-months of waiting is not a sufficient incentive for an owner to work with the Salem Historical Commission on alternatives. Six months is about the same amount of time it takes to get all the other necessary approvals and so an owner can request a waiver of demolition delay and while they wait out the time clock they can visit the other boards in the city (Planning, Zoning etc) and proceed as planned.
As Salem's desirability continues to rise, we anticipate an increase in “tear-down” real estate, which we are already seeing in the Willows, North Salem, and other Salem neighborhoods.
Salem needs to increase the Demo Delay time period to 12 months (or even 18) and apply the requirement to partial demolition.
- This will encourage preservation rather than replacement.
- This will protect small “starter” homes and neighborhoods and maintain housing diversity in the city.
- This will protect land values from increasing faster than home values and creating a “tear-down” real-estate market.
- This will keep old-growth and hand-crafted materials out of landfills. In addition, preservation jobs hire local craftspeople, keeping money in the community. Replacement pays someone far away to ship newly-manufactured materials here.
- This will maintain the scale, massing and style of neighborhoods that have been functioning for centuries.
- This will put us on equal footing with nearby communities, including Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Ispwich and Newburyport, which have a 12-month demo-delay time period.
Strengthening the Demolition Delay Ordinance will bring clarity
Changes to the demolition delay ordinance will benefit everyone.
- This will help applicants know what to expect when applying for a demolition permit.
- This will define what qualifies as a demolition and what buildings are important to preserve.
- This will guide the Salem Historical Commission in how to use the demolition delay time period to find opportunities to preserve, rehabilitate or reuse the threatened building.
- This will encourage applicants to work with the Salem Historical Commission to achieve a mutually beneficial development plan that respects the historic context while allowing a project to move forward.
You can read our full list of recommendations for an updated Demolition Delay Ordinance here:
| hsi_ddo_recommendations_april_2021.pdf |
You can read the City's draft ordinance here (draft as it appears on the SHC website on 4/20/2021):
| demo_delay_ordinance_-_final_draft_revised_4-14-21.pdf |
You can read our letter to the Salem Historical Commission, April 20, 2021 here:
| hsi_-_shc_demo_delay_ordinance_april_2021_f.pdf |
You can read our letter to the City Council, April, 22, 2021 here:
| hsi_-_city_council_demo_delay_ordinance_april_2021.pdf |
This letter was submitted to the SRA in advance of their April 14, 2021 meeting. You can review the submitted meeting material, including other public comments on the SRA website via this link.
April 13, 2021
Ms. Grace Napolitano, Chair
Salem Redevelopment Authority
City of Salem
90 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Ms. Napolitano,
Historic Salem writes to provide comment on the proposal for 38 Norman Street on the SRA agenda for April 14, 2021.
We have been in private and public conversation with the development team and appreciate their responsiveness to our feedback, specifically on the topic of design and materials.
As we shared with the development team and now with the SRA, we have significant concerns about how a building of this height will impact Crombie Street, as well as how it will fit in the context of nearby historic neighborhoods.
38 Norman sits at the juncture of Crombie, Summer, and Chestnut Streets, each of which features iconic historical Salem architecture. Directly adjacent to this site is Crombie Street, a narrow way on which are located the last remaining small-scale residential houses in the downtown area. Crombie Street is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a designation that recognizes that “as the only surviving downtown residential group from the early 19th-century, the houses on Crombie Street provide important information about the character of the city at that time.”
On the other side of this project is a Georgian-period mansion that contributes to the historic streetscape of Summer Street. Crombie and Summer Streets were once part of the larger historic residential district that included both Chestnut Street and Gedney Street, but a series of destructive urban renewal demolitions on the proposed site and nearby blocks (where the Holyoke Insurance building now stands), created a rift separating these streets from one another.
This project is a rare opportunity to re-connect neighborhoods that were torn apart in the 20th century and therefore the height and massing should be inspired not by the nearby urban renewal-era infills, but by the remaining historic residential buildings. Because many of these buildings, such as the Salem Inn and 2-4 Chestnut Street are quite large, their influence can allow the developer to meet their goals within the scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood.
At five stories, the proposed building would tower over adjacent Crombie Street, including its direct neighbor, the Wendt House. This house at 18 Crombie Street was saved from demolition several years ago through the joint efforts of Historic Salem and the City of Salem. We strongly oppose allowing this height. An important SRA goal is to ensure that the designs of new downtown structures fit with the context of Salem’s remaining irreplaceable and highly respected historic architecture (Plan goals 2, 3 and 4).
In order to reduce the height of the building and increase ameliorative step-backs on the ends, we also ask the developer to consider whether the building could be fully residential. Retail at this location is not clearly necessary to meet Plan goals and without easily available on-street parking it may be difficult for tenants to succeed. On the other hand, residential on the ground floor would strengthen the residential link to the past and reinforce the connection between Summer and Crombie Streets. If retail were removed then, rather than seeking PUD approval, the applicant could seek a variance on the parking requirement that the SRA, and perhaps other community members, could support.
The overall massing and height of the building, the way it steps back at the ends and the uses in the building need to be addressed before the project is sent to the Design Review Board. At that point HSI will have further comments on design specifics, such as architectural treatment at the ground floor and execution of design elements.
We appreciate the efforts of the SRA to review these projects according to the Downtown Renewal Plan and in the context of our historic urban core. We thank the developer for their outreach to us and other community members. We look forward to seeing how this property can become a cohesive part of this historic neighborhood.
Sincerely
Caroline Watson-Felt, HSI Board President
April 13, 2021
Ms. Grace Napolitano, Chair
Salem Redevelopment Authority
City of Salem
90 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
Dear Ms. Napolitano,
Historic Salem writes to provide comment on the proposal for 38 Norman Street on the SRA agenda for April 14, 2021.
We have been in private and public conversation with the development team and appreciate their responsiveness to our feedback, specifically on the topic of design and materials.
As we shared with the development team and now with the SRA, we have significant concerns about how a building of this height will impact Crombie Street, as well as how it will fit in the context of nearby historic neighborhoods.
38 Norman sits at the juncture of Crombie, Summer, and Chestnut Streets, each of which features iconic historical Salem architecture. Directly adjacent to this site is Crombie Street, a narrow way on which are located the last remaining small-scale residential houses in the downtown area. Crombie Street is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a designation that recognizes that “as the only surviving downtown residential group from the early 19th-century, the houses on Crombie Street provide important information about the character of the city at that time.”
On the other side of this project is a Georgian-period mansion that contributes to the historic streetscape of Summer Street. Crombie and Summer Streets were once part of the larger historic residential district that included both Chestnut Street and Gedney Street, but a series of destructive urban renewal demolitions on the proposed site and nearby blocks (where the Holyoke Insurance building now stands), created a rift separating these streets from one another.
This project is a rare opportunity to re-connect neighborhoods that were torn apart in the 20th century and therefore the height and massing should be inspired not by the nearby urban renewal-era infills, but by the remaining historic residential buildings. Because many of these buildings, such as the Salem Inn and 2-4 Chestnut Street are quite large, their influence can allow the developer to meet their goals within the scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood.
At five stories, the proposed building would tower over adjacent Crombie Street, including its direct neighbor, the Wendt House. This house at 18 Crombie Street was saved from demolition several years ago through the joint efforts of Historic Salem and the City of Salem. We strongly oppose allowing this height. An important SRA goal is to ensure that the designs of new downtown structures fit with the context of Salem’s remaining irreplaceable and highly respected historic architecture (Plan goals 2, 3 and 4).
In order to reduce the height of the building and increase ameliorative step-backs on the ends, we also ask the developer to consider whether the building could be fully residential. Retail at this location is not clearly necessary to meet Plan goals and without easily available on-street parking it may be difficult for tenants to succeed. On the other hand, residential on the ground floor would strengthen the residential link to the past and reinforce the connection between Summer and Crombie Streets. If retail were removed then, rather than seeking PUD approval, the applicant could seek a variance on the parking requirement that the SRA, and perhaps other community members, could support.
The overall massing and height of the building, the way it steps back at the ends and the uses in the building need to be addressed before the project is sent to the Design Review Board. At that point HSI will have further comments on design specifics, such as architectural treatment at the ground floor and execution of design elements.
We appreciate the efforts of the SRA to review these projects according to the Downtown Renewal Plan and in the context of our historic urban core. We thank the developer for their outreach to us and other community members. We look forward to seeing how this property can become a cohesive part of this historic neighborhood.
Sincerely
Caroline Watson-Felt, HSI Board President
With new construction projects proposed throughout the historic downtown and our ongoing efforts to expand historic protections to all Salem neighborhoods, the work we’re doing at HSI often outpaces our communications to the community. 2021 has been “all hands on deck” to collaborate with our volunteers, neighborhood representatives, developers, and City officials. Of the numerous projects underway simultaneously, there is one active project which demonstrates the imperative need for two initiatives we have been working on this year: “A Citizens’ Guide to the Downtown Renewal Plan” and an expanded Demolition Delay Ordinance. We’ll be talking more about these efforts in the coming weeks but today, let’s talk about the James Barr House at 25 Lynde Street.
The home of a privateer, the James Barr House at 25 Lynde Street, is a very rare example of a pre-revolutionary building surviving in the downtown. As part of this project, the roof has been completely replaced as has much of the original historic material. The Barr House is one of many historic buildings that falls under preservation protections, not by a Local Historic District, but by the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA).
The home of a privateer, the James Barr House at 25 Lynde Street, is a very rare example of a pre-revolutionary building surviving in the downtown. As part of this project, the roof has been completely replaced as has much of the original historic material. The Barr House is one of many historic buildings that falls under preservation protections, not by a Local Historic District, but by the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA).
The SRA has many-fold responsibilities - ultimately they review and approve all design and development changes in the downtown urban core. In cases where this includes new construction, the Plan says that they are to be guided by the design guidelines found in the Downtown Renewal Plan, and in the case of historic buildings the Plan says that they are to be guided by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, the same standards applied in the Local Historic Districts. Essentially the SRA acts in the place of the Salem Historical Commission for buildings within its boundaries and has similar powers to restrict demolitions and inappropriate construction. The question citizens need to ask is, is our SRA meeting the preservation standards and expectations set in the Downtown Renewal Plan?
Historic Salem has created the “Citizen’s Guide for the Downtown Renewal Plan” with the hope that this summary document will make it easier for community members to advocate for the historic buildings that are within the downtown urban area. HSI's ability to effect change is purely through advocacy and relationships, just like Salem’s citizens. Community engagement and advocacy is necessary to effect SRA to advocate for more stringent reviews and approvals for the historic buildings in their jurisdiction. A recently created abutter notification requirement will help let neighbors know about project reviews. As part of our advocacy work, we rely on the concerned public to let us know if you learn of any similar projects.
In addition, the significant demolition of the Barr House is an example of why we need to strengthen the CIty’s current Demolition Delay Ordinance. Right now, a Demolition Delay is only triggered at 100% and so developers are able to retain a very small portion of the building and claim the work to be a renovation. We believe, in the case of the Barr House, that an expanded demolition delay ordinance which redefines the threshold of demolition to removal of over 50% of the exterior of a building, and an extension of the wait period from 6 months to 12+ months, would have allowed for closer oversight of the changes and design to this historic property. (We have a more comprehensive outline of what we’d like to see in an updated ordinance HERE in a downloadable file).
Among other benefits, strengthening these two specific aspects of the Ordinance would allow for intervention by the Salem Historical Commission before an historic building has lost so much of its original material and appearance as to essentially have been demolished. We are working with City Councillors and City offices on this effort, and hope to see a revised Demolition Ordinance filed with the City Council this month.
Ultimately, the efforts to protect and save the historic infrastructure of Salem are shared by all of us who live and work in Salem and believe in the preservation of this city’s historic fabric. We welcome the enthusiastic support from the citizens of Salem and hope that more voices will be added to the conversation in effective and productive ways by use of the “Citizen’s Guide to the Downtown Renewal Plan” and as the Council considers the Demolition Delay Ordinance.
To read more about the history of the Barr House, we suggest you read Streets of Salem’s recent post. We are so grateful to have local historians and preservation enthusiasts like Donna Segar for bringing attention to these important places.
Historic Salem has created the “Citizen’s Guide for the Downtown Renewal Plan” with the hope that this summary document will make it easier for community members to advocate for the historic buildings that are within the downtown urban area. HSI's ability to effect change is purely through advocacy and relationships, just like Salem’s citizens. Community engagement and advocacy is necessary to effect SRA to advocate for more stringent reviews and approvals for the historic buildings in their jurisdiction. A recently created abutter notification requirement will help let neighbors know about project reviews. As part of our advocacy work, we rely on the concerned public to let us know if you learn of any similar projects.
In addition, the significant demolition of the Barr House is an example of why we need to strengthen the CIty’s current Demolition Delay Ordinance. Right now, a Demolition Delay is only triggered at 100% and so developers are able to retain a very small portion of the building and claim the work to be a renovation. We believe, in the case of the Barr House, that an expanded demolition delay ordinance which redefines the threshold of demolition to removal of over 50% of the exterior of a building, and an extension of the wait period from 6 months to 12+ months, would have allowed for closer oversight of the changes and design to this historic property. (We have a more comprehensive outline of what we’d like to see in an updated ordinance HERE in a downloadable file).
Among other benefits, strengthening these two specific aspects of the Ordinance would allow for intervention by the Salem Historical Commission before an historic building has lost so much of its original material and appearance as to essentially have been demolished. We are working with City Councillors and City offices on this effort, and hope to see a revised Demolition Ordinance filed with the City Council this month.
Ultimately, the efforts to protect and save the historic infrastructure of Salem are shared by all of us who live and work in Salem and believe in the preservation of this city’s historic fabric. We welcome the enthusiastic support from the citizens of Salem and hope that more voices will be added to the conversation in effective and productive ways by use of the “Citizen’s Guide to the Downtown Renewal Plan” and as the Council considers the Demolition Delay Ordinance.
To read more about the history of the Barr House, we suggest you read Streets of Salem’s recent post. We are so grateful to have local historians and preservation enthusiasts like Donna Segar for bringing attention to these important places.
There has been a growing conversation on social media in reaction to images that were recently posted on Instagram of a preliminary design for a potential building at 38 Norman Street here in Salem.
Although this project has not yet appeared on any City board or commission agendas, the site is in the Downtown Renewal Area and will be reviewed by the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) and the Design Review Board (DRB). The Downtown Renewal Plan is the document that these boards will use to evaluate and approve any downtown development.
This is what a close reading of the Plan reveals:
First - the objectives of the Downtown Renewal Plan[1] support utilizing vacant or under-utilized land and further defining the edges of the Downtown Renewal Area as it abuts other neighborhoods. Clearly, the current site used for parking is an under-utilization of this downtown location.
Second - the language of the objectives and design standards overwhelmingly indicate that infill development should prioritize architectural designs that are compatible with their surroundings and are sympathetic to, or enhancing of, the historic and architectural values on adjacent properties. It is apparent that this project, as posted on September 14, would not do that.
Here are a few highlights from the Design Standards for the Downtown Renewal Plan:
- Massing, form, and scale should be complementary and respectful of existing buildings in the immediate vicinity.[2]
- While the height allowed under downtown B5 zoning is 70 feet, the urban renewal plan requires that the height of infill buildings should continue the pattern of adjacent buildings (the closest building is approximately 30 ft), and, if the height difference is greater than 10 feet, the DRB should review for context sensitivity including mass, scale, bulk and proportion of those adjacent buildings.[3]
- Other design standards address design features such as windows, set-backs, landscaping and materials that will be important to address when the developer seeks approvals.
The other document that the Design Review Board commonly refers to and which covers a wider area than just the downtown (for example, it is used in entrance corridors throughout the city) is the Commercial Design Guidelines. These guidelines talk about how to diminish perceived height and they prioritize surrounding building heights as a primary guideline for new construction.
Adjacent to this site is a narrow way, Crombie Street, on which sit the last remaining small-scale residential houses in the downtown area. Crombie Street is a National Register of Historic Places listed neighborhood, a designation that recognizes that “as the only surviving downtown residential group from the early 19th-century, the houses on Crombie Street provide important information about the character of the city at that time.”[4]
To the other side is a Georgian-period mansion that sits just across the street from the historic McIntire District. This residential neighborhood is an important draw for heritage tourism in our city. Though many of the houses are large, the neighborhood is remarkably dense, with a great deal of defining period detail.
Importantly, the Commercial Design Guidelines state that, “Successful commercial districts strive to retain and replace missing buildings with compatible replacements that maintain the continuity of (similar) elements. Buildings that fail to have these essential elements erode the cohesive quality of the street.”[5] The effort to replace missing buildings should be a guiding factor for design on a site that was once home to residential buildings and is now a void between two neighborhoods. The unique opportunity to serve as a bridge between the historic residential neighborhoods is missed by the current concept for this site. The incredible disconnect between height and scale of this proposal and adjacent properties will further separate the two and have a highly detrimental effect on the houses directly adjacent the property.
This image from the Frank Cousins collection shows Norman Street looking from Chestnut Street toward downtown, ca. 1865–1914.
By applying the design standards found in the Downtown Renewal Plan, we believe that this development team can achieve their project goals while also enhancing the downtown neighborhood in which it sits. Throughout downtown Salem, commercial density is achieved while still maintaining a small-city residential and retail feeling that draws pedestrians, both visitors and residents.
We have reached out to the development team to offer our thoughts and have encouraged them to approach the site’s neighbors for input. As this project moves forward, we will be a strong and active voice in the public process. We invite all concerned members of the community to engage in the public review process that will likely start with the Salem Redevelopment Authority. You can sign up for their meeting notices and agendas here. https://www.salem.com/subscribe
------------------------------------
As part of our advocacy and education mission we are developing a Citizen’s Guide to the Downtown Renewal Plan. Look for that in early 2021.
[1] Downtown Renewal Plan, City of Salem and Salem Redevelopment Authority, 2011. Page 3-1.
[2] Ibid. Page 3-8 and 3-10
[3] Ibid. Page 3-11.
[4] National Register Listing, Area Survey. Crombie Street National Register of Historic Places. 1979. Downloaded from MACRIS on October 19, 2020. http://mhc-macris.net/index.htm
[5] City of Salem Commercial Design Guidelines, 2005. Page 12. https://www.salem.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif3756/f/uploads/sdg_all_pages_0.pdf
Submitted to Salem Redevelopment Authority on September 24, 2020
Dear Ms. Napolitano, Chair:
Having watched the September 15 and 17 SRA interviews of the three development teams responding to the Historic Courthouse Request for Proposals, HSI has the following comments to add to our previously submitted letter of September 3, 2020.
We understand that the SRA is deciding which team would be the best partner in working with the City to reuse the historic Courthouses – the prime goal of the request for proposals – as well as to improve the public realm and to build a new residential building on the crescent lot. Because it is clear that each team brings relevant experience and qualified consultants, the following comments are not meant to be prejudicial.
Winn Companies
To ensure successful reuse of the historic Courthouses, the experience and financial stability of Winn Companies is advantageous, but we are concerned about the long-term ownership of the Superior Courthouse building. On page 69 of the proposal package, Park Towers (formerly Nine Zero Washington) is defined as being the owner of the Courthouse commercial space, albeit through a condominium legal structure. This is notable because we believe the lead developer in the team should especially have a long-term vested interest in the successful operation of the Superior Courthouse building.
If the plan is to have the ownership of the Superior Courthouse building be different than the ownership of the residential units, then the qualifications and enforceable obligations of that second ownership entity are as important as those of the proposal leader. The SRA should be clear about what will happen to leasing, management, tenant buildout of interior spaces, and long-term operating guarantees once Winn completes their short-term tax credit guarantees. We are concerned that this ownership division limits advantages of Winn as the lead developer with respect to the long-term operation of the Superior Courthouse building, which is a key SRA and community concern.
HSI supports courthouse uses that provide public access, like the concept of the Museum of Justice which seems particularly suited to this setting, but believes that in order to be successful a museum start up requires both substantial financial backing and programming in order to be viable and to attract sufficient visitor traffic to sustain it.
JHR
This team has significant local connections that would benefit the partnership and the Salem State public presence in downtown Salem in hosting lectures, presentations, conferences, and meetings, would be well suited to the grand courtroom spaces. We are also impressed by the innovative design elements in this proposal, which we agree could be functional and beneficial to the community. We reiterate, however, that there are many unknowns that could impact the feasibility of those specific site proposals, and if they did not come to fruition, the SRA should be clear about what that means for the plans overall and establish the expectation that similar innovation should be implemented in their place.
North River Partnership
This enthusiastic team emphasizes their willingness to work as partners with the City in redeveloping these historic buildings and adjacent spaces. A big part of that partnership will be designing the overall site and the new building on the crescent lot. Recent experience in Salem with the project’s lead developer leads us to wonder whether the architectural team, Gund Associates, will, in fact, continue with the project from beginning to end? If the design team were to change, as it did at 65 Washington Street, how would that impact their overall plan and how would the SRA regulate and reassess such a significant change?
Redevelopment Process
Once a development team is selected, Historic Salem looks forward to continuing our advocacy for preservation and reuse of the historic Courthouses. We will also continue to advocate for a new building that complements the existing commercial scale and fabric of Salem’s historic downtown and for publicly accessible features that create pedestrian connections through the site that add vitality to adjacent neighborhoods and our downtown.
As members of the community and as stakeholders in the preservation of Salem’s historic fabric, we thank the SRA for its efforts on this significant project and for its consideration of our comments.
Signed by Caroline Watson-Felt, HSI President
Dear Ms. Napolitano, Chair:
Having watched the September 15 and 17 SRA interviews of the three development teams responding to the Historic Courthouse Request for Proposals, HSI has the following comments to add to our previously submitted letter of September 3, 2020.
We understand that the SRA is deciding which team would be the best partner in working with the City to reuse the historic Courthouses – the prime goal of the request for proposals – as well as to improve the public realm and to build a new residential building on the crescent lot. Because it is clear that each team brings relevant experience and qualified consultants, the following comments are not meant to be prejudicial.
Winn Companies
To ensure successful reuse of the historic Courthouses, the experience and financial stability of Winn Companies is advantageous, but we are concerned about the long-term ownership of the Superior Courthouse building. On page 69 of the proposal package, Park Towers (formerly Nine Zero Washington) is defined as being the owner of the Courthouse commercial space, albeit through a condominium legal structure. This is notable because we believe the lead developer in the team should especially have a long-term vested interest in the successful operation of the Superior Courthouse building.
If the plan is to have the ownership of the Superior Courthouse building be different than the ownership of the residential units, then the qualifications and enforceable obligations of that second ownership entity are as important as those of the proposal leader. The SRA should be clear about what will happen to leasing, management, tenant buildout of interior spaces, and long-term operating guarantees once Winn completes their short-term tax credit guarantees. We are concerned that this ownership division limits advantages of Winn as the lead developer with respect to the long-term operation of the Superior Courthouse building, which is a key SRA and community concern.
HSI supports courthouse uses that provide public access, like the concept of the Museum of Justice which seems particularly suited to this setting, but believes that in order to be successful a museum start up requires both substantial financial backing and programming in order to be viable and to attract sufficient visitor traffic to sustain it.
JHR
This team has significant local connections that would benefit the partnership and the Salem State public presence in downtown Salem in hosting lectures, presentations, conferences, and meetings, would be well suited to the grand courtroom spaces. We are also impressed by the innovative design elements in this proposal, which we agree could be functional and beneficial to the community. We reiterate, however, that there are many unknowns that could impact the feasibility of those specific site proposals, and if they did not come to fruition, the SRA should be clear about what that means for the plans overall and establish the expectation that similar innovation should be implemented in their place.
North River Partnership
This enthusiastic team emphasizes their willingness to work as partners with the City in redeveloping these historic buildings and adjacent spaces. A big part of that partnership will be designing the overall site and the new building on the crescent lot. Recent experience in Salem with the project’s lead developer leads us to wonder whether the architectural team, Gund Associates, will, in fact, continue with the project from beginning to end? If the design team were to change, as it did at 65 Washington Street, how would that impact their overall plan and how would the SRA regulate and reassess such a significant change?
Redevelopment Process
Once a development team is selected, Historic Salem looks forward to continuing our advocacy for preservation and reuse of the historic Courthouses. We will also continue to advocate for a new building that complements the existing commercial scale and fabric of Salem’s historic downtown and for publicly accessible features that create pedestrian connections through the site that add vitality to adjacent neighborhoods and our downtown.
As members of the community and as stakeholders in the preservation of Salem’s historic fabric, we thank the SRA for its efforts on this significant project and for its consideration of our comments.
Signed by Caroline Watson-Felt, HSI President
Submitted to the Salem Redevelopment Authority on September 3, 2020
Dear Ms. Napolitano, Chair:
For nearly two decades Historic Salem, Inc. has been advocating for decision-makers to facilitate the successful reuse of these historic court buildings. We look forward to the selection of a development team to make this reuse possible. As the Salem Redevelopment Authority reviews the three proposals, we offer the following comments and questions.
Preservation
We thank the SRA, city staff, state agencies and the developers for recognizing the value of these historic court buildings and targeting development plans that allow for their reuse. With this shared understanding and appreciation, the reuse plans can meet the goals of the Preservation Restriction, the SRA guidelines, the City Council’s goals in transferring the Crescent Lot property, and the historic preservation vision that our community has repeatedly embraced.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission will rigorously review the final development plans for compliance with the Preservation Restriction and we understand that these proposals include only conceptual drawings. We note that one proposal for Superior Court that include residential uses may indicate a reduction in the width of the existing corridors and this may not meet the intent of the Preservation Restriction. Likewise, the proposal to replace all the historic windows and store the original materials does not meet the intent of the Preservation Restriction, the care taken in mothballing the buildings, or recognize the value of having the historic windows at all.
Building Uses
The uses planned for the historic spaces will be key to this project’s success. It has long been HSI’s position that institutional uses in the Superior Courtrooms and Law Library that parallel their historic use as gathering and judicial spaces will allow for more public access as well as retention of their volumes of space. We are pleased to see this conclusion drawn by the development teams. Each use proposed for the Superior Court building appears to allow tenant fit out that preserves the historic fabric. Therefore, it is important that the SRA clearly understands the real-life feasibility of each proposed use/tenant. We request that each development team be asked what other options exist if the proposed anchor tenant were unable to proceed, and in that case how the developer will ensure public access to the Courtroom and Law Library spaces in the future.
In regard to using the former County Commissioners building for housing, we believe this can be a good fit for this space. We support others in the community asking that this project achieve ambitious levels of affordability. With the recognition that the public has limited access to financial data in order to judge feasibility we ask the SRA to represent the community’s desire for affordable housing as you review the project price proposals and proformas to ensure that there is a significant benefit to the community as a result of this conveyance of city-owned property.
Urban Design
All the proposals appear to improve pedestrians’ urban experience in this prominent city location by reducing the crossing distance at the intersection and by creating gathering space at the County Commissioners’ green and on the plaza space on the Crescent Lot. We feel the JHR proposal demonstrates the highest amount of creativity and an understanding of Salem’s urban conditions at this location, as demonstrated by the seamless integration of existing amenities with new connections. In all cases we will be looking for the selected team to enable connections between existing pedestrian access points (North Salem, Salem’s downtown and the Bridge Street Neck neighborhood) and enhanced ties to nearby neighborhood amenities such as Leslie’s Retreat and Furlong Parks. This is another way that the community will benefit from this transfer of public land. We also look forward to integration of plans between the development of these sites, the updated Harbor Plan, and the bike and open space planning process throughout the downtown.
We are supportive of using railroad rights-of-way but note that these have consistently been obstacles in other planning processes and would like to understand what work the development teams have done to address those issues. We would also like to better understand access to the North River and how that will work with the significant tidal levels of the river and the need to cross the often-busy access road to the MBTA parking garage to reach the water.
New Construction in Historic Downtown Salem
In considering the proposed designs for the Crescent Lot, we have the following comments:
The design should be led by the strong presence of 19th and early 20th century commercial and mixed-use buildings of Salem’s downtown. Just as the row of court buildings on Federal Street reminds us of Salem’s central role in Essex County law through the centuries, the historic commercial buildings along Washington St. remind us of Salem’s prominence as a commercial center in Essex County throughout its history. A new building that will define the entrance to Salem for thousands of people should be related to this commercial heritage.
The final design must be rooted in a sense of place and meeting the conditions of the City Council in transferring the Crescent Lot, in this case that the resulting project be, “compatible with uses in terms of scale, use, design, and historic character.” This will be achieved through a study of scale, massing and detailing of materials. While the Ruane Judicial Center and the MBTA garage are prominent contemporary buildings, we find their size and massing out of scale with the rest of Salem’s downtown and they should not be used as precedents for this development. As community advocates, we will support either traditional-style designs or complementary contemporary designs. A ready and successful example is the addition to the Probate and Family Court building that references the adjacent historic buildings in size and massing and marries tradition and modernity through the window patterns and materials.
The building elevations as measured from Bridge Street should not exceed four stories in keeping with longstanding downtown scale and, in particular, we think that the proposal for a 15-story building is significantly incompatible not only visually but according to zoning, wetlands regulations, or public safety infrastructure including fire department capabilities.
The mass of the building should be considered from downtown as well as approaching the site from North Salem on North Street. We request that each development team illustrate how the building sits on the foreground of Salem’s downtown by having a view shown from the intersection of North and Commercial Street, as was provided by Winn Development.
As stated in Section 3 – Design Standards of the the Downtown Renewal Plan, “Large scale developments or buildings shall be reduced in overall impact by providing variation in building massing,” with the standards presenting specific ways this can be achieved. Window patterns should be rhythmic, the street level should be pedestrian friendly at all sidewalks, materials traditional or modern should be finely detailed.
We look forward to the upcoming interviews of each development team and will provide further comment after their completion. Thank you again for your rigorous review of these projects and for consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by Caroline Watson-Felt, President
Dear Ms. Napolitano, Chair:
For nearly two decades Historic Salem, Inc. has been advocating for decision-makers to facilitate the successful reuse of these historic court buildings. We look forward to the selection of a development team to make this reuse possible. As the Salem Redevelopment Authority reviews the three proposals, we offer the following comments and questions.
Preservation
We thank the SRA, city staff, state agencies and the developers for recognizing the value of these historic court buildings and targeting development plans that allow for their reuse. With this shared understanding and appreciation, the reuse plans can meet the goals of the Preservation Restriction, the SRA guidelines, the City Council’s goals in transferring the Crescent Lot property, and the historic preservation vision that our community has repeatedly embraced.
The Massachusetts Historical Commission will rigorously review the final development plans for compliance with the Preservation Restriction and we understand that these proposals include only conceptual drawings. We note that one proposal for Superior Court that include residential uses may indicate a reduction in the width of the existing corridors and this may not meet the intent of the Preservation Restriction. Likewise, the proposal to replace all the historic windows and store the original materials does not meet the intent of the Preservation Restriction, the care taken in mothballing the buildings, or recognize the value of having the historic windows at all.
Building Uses
The uses planned for the historic spaces will be key to this project’s success. It has long been HSI’s position that institutional uses in the Superior Courtrooms and Law Library that parallel their historic use as gathering and judicial spaces will allow for more public access as well as retention of their volumes of space. We are pleased to see this conclusion drawn by the development teams. Each use proposed for the Superior Court building appears to allow tenant fit out that preserves the historic fabric. Therefore, it is important that the SRA clearly understands the real-life feasibility of each proposed use/tenant. We request that each development team be asked what other options exist if the proposed anchor tenant were unable to proceed, and in that case how the developer will ensure public access to the Courtroom and Law Library spaces in the future.
In regard to using the former County Commissioners building for housing, we believe this can be a good fit for this space. We support others in the community asking that this project achieve ambitious levels of affordability. With the recognition that the public has limited access to financial data in order to judge feasibility we ask the SRA to represent the community’s desire for affordable housing as you review the project price proposals and proformas to ensure that there is a significant benefit to the community as a result of this conveyance of city-owned property.
Urban Design
All the proposals appear to improve pedestrians’ urban experience in this prominent city location by reducing the crossing distance at the intersection and by creating gathering space at the County Commissioners’ green and on the plaza space on the Crescent Lot. We feel the JHR proposal demonstrates the highest amount of creativity and an understanding of Salem’s urban conditions at this location, as demonstrated by the seamless integration of existing amenities with new connections. In all cases we will be looking for the selected team to enable connections between existing pedestrian access points (North Salem, Salem’s downtown and the Bridge Street Neck neighborhood) and enhanced ties to nearby neighborhood amenities such as Leslie’s Retreat and Furlong Parks. This is another way that the community will benefit from this transfer of public land. We also look forward to integration of plans between the development of these sites, the updated Harbor Plan, and the bike and open space planning process throughout the downtown.
We are supportive of using railroad rights-of-way but note that these have consistently been obstacles in other planning processes and would like to understand what work the development teams have done to address those issues. We would also like to better understand access to the North River and how that will work with the significant tidal levels of the river and the need to cross the often-busy access road to the MBTA parking garage to reach the water.
New Construction in Historic Downtown Salem
In considering the proposed designs for the Crescent Lot, we have the following comments:
The design should be led by the strong presence of 19th and early 20th century commercial and mixed-use buildings of Salem’s downtown. Just as the row of court buildings on Federal Street reminds us of Salem’s central role in Essex County law through the centuries, the historic commercial buildings along Washington St. remind us of Salem’s prominence as a commercial center in Essex County throughout its history. A new building that will define the entrance to Salem for thousands of people should be related to this commercial heritage.
The final design must be rooted in a sense of place and meeting the conditions of the City Council in transferring the Crescent Lot, in this case that the resulting project be, “compatible with uses in terms of scale, use, design, and historic character.” This will be achieved through a study of scale, massing and detailing of materials. While the Ruane Judicial Center and the MBTA garage are prominent contemporary buildings, we find their size and massing out of scale with the rest of Salem’s downtown and they should not be used as precedents for this development. As community advocates, we will support either traditional-style designs or complementary contemporary designs. A ready and successful example is the addition to the Probate and Family Court building that references the adjacent historic buildings in size and massing and marries tradition and modernity through the window patterns and materials.
The building elevations as measured from Bridge Street should not exceed four stories in keeping with longstanding downtown scale and, in particular, we think that the proposal for a 15-story building is significantly incompatible not only visually but according to zoning, wetlands regulations, or public safety infrastructure including fire department capabilities.
The mass of the building should be considered from downtown as well as approaching the site from North Salem on North Street. We request that each development team illustrate how the building sits on the foreground of Salem’s downtown by having a view shown from the intersection of North and Commercial Street, as was provided by Winn Development.
As stated in Section 3 – Design Standards of the the Downtown Renewal Plan, “Large scale developments or buildings shall be reduced in overall impact by providing variation in building massing,” with the standards presenting specific ways this can be achieved. Window patterns should be rhythmic, the street level should be pedestrian friendly at all sidewalks, materials traditional or modern should be finely detailed.
We look forward to the upcoming interviews of each development team and will provide further comment after their completion. Thank you again for your rigorous review of these projects and for consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Signed by Caroline Watson-Felt, President