​April 11, 2023
 
Ms. Grace Napolitano
Salem Redevelopment Authority
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA  01970
 
Re:  301 Essex Street
 
Dear Ms. Napolitano,
 
Historic Salem has been following this project consistently since summer 2022. HSI has been reviewing the project according to the principles for design in the SRA guidelines, including: “The design criteria are sympathetic to and conducive of the preservation and enhancement of historic and architectural values and to the construction of new buildings and facilities compatible with the preservation and enhancement of such values.”
 
As you review 301 Essex Street for schematic design approval, we note that during previous reviews, in several cases when this project was presented, there were significant differences between iterations, making it difficult to incrementally develop a design appropriate for this highly visible location.
 
In the case of the design that you are asked to approve at this meeting, the submitted colors of the materials were seen only once by the DRB. At that time, we expressed our dismay with this abrupt color change and stated that we would strongly support a traditional red brick choice, which has been fairly consistently shown throughout the review process. Many members of the public who wrote and spoke also requested that the brick color be something that resembled the existing brick found on the existing building and seen on the adjacent 1834 Salem Inn building as well as many nearby buildings.
 
The gray/black bricks create an addition that looms atop a small historic building, with no connection between the two, making the new addition visually overwhelming. It is also jarring against the context of the Salem Inn, other nearby downtown Salem buildings, and the historic residential neighborhood across the street.
 
There are specific parts of the proposal that we appreciate, including the design of the façade of the Essex Street elevation and the way it turned the corner onto Summer Street. However, in this current proposal, some of the articulated elegance has been removed with the simplification (removal) of the window mullions and the loss of the solid corner column. We encourage you to review the January 2023 proposal to see what was changed. And, again, to refer to the SRA’s own design guidelines.
 
On the Summer Street façade, we find the columns and heavy cornice that emphasize the garage opening unnecessary. The DRB members were also puzzled by the heavy cornice and included it as a piece that needs further review in final design. We believe that a more simplified Summer Street façade would showcase the Essex Street façade and provide a visual transition to the residential McIntire District.
 
We now ask that the SRA either (1) refer the project back to the DRB with specific recommendations, or (2) if schematic design is approved, that approval be conditioned on:  including more traditional-colored brick on the Summer Street façade, refinement of the Essex Street façade, and modifications to the upper cornice and columns on the Summer Street façade.  We believe that these conditions would be in keeping with the DRB’s recommendations to the SRA.
 
Thank you for considering our comments and for ensuring a thorough and rigorous review of this addition to Salem’s historic downtown.
 
Respectfully,

Emily Udy
Senior Preservation Advocacy Advisor
 
 

​March 22, 2023
 
Mr. Paul Durand, Chair
Design Review Board
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA  01970
 
Dear Mr. Durand,
 
On behalf of Historic Salem, Inc., I submit the following comments on the proposed addition to the “Jerry’s” building at 301 Essex Street. We continue to believe that thorough design review is appropriate for this key building in its prominent downtown corner location. We also note that each time this project is presented the changes are significant and very different from the previous iterations and often don’t match what was discussed in the previous meetings.
 
The most noticeable change in this design is the colors shown in the rendering. However, upon review of the Material Sheet that was submitted there is hope that the Summer Street façade will use traditional brick coloring to match that of the existing building. We strongly support the traditional brick color choice, which has been fairly consistently shown throughout the review process and we ask for confirmation that the Material Sheet description is accurate. If the entire new construction is dark gray, as illustrated, it becomes a looming hulk atop a small historic building, with no connection between the two. It is also jarring against the context of the Salem Inn, other downtown Salem buildings and the residential neighborhood across the street.
 
There were specific parts of the January 2023 design that we appreciated, including the design of the Essex Street elevation and the way it turned the corner onto Summer Street.  In this current proposal, much of the elegance of the Essex Street elevation is lost due to the simplification (removal) of the window mullions and the loss of the solid corner column. Some return to the more articulated elegance of the previous version would be appreciated as a contribution to the detail found in Salem’s downtown.
 
Another change on Essex Street is the newly introduced dark façade materials. Due to the inconsistency between the color of the rendering and the brick description we are led to wonder if the coloring on the Essex Street façade is accurate and look forward find out more.
 
On the Summer Street façade, we find the columns and heavy cornice that emphasize the garage opening unnecessary, as noted in our January letter. A regular pattern of windows would suit this elevation and relate well to the window pattern of the adjacent Salem Inn and the facing building on Essex Street. A more simplified Summer Street façade would showcase the Essex Street façade and provide a visual transition to the residential McIntire District.
 
Thank you for considering our comments. We encourage all parties to continue this thorough and rigorous review.
 
Respectfully,

Emily Udy
Senior Preservation Advocacy Advisor

​January 11, 2023
 
Ms. Grace Napolitano, Chair
Salem Redevelopment Authority
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA  01970
 
 
Dear Ms. Napolitano
 
Historic Salem, Inc. has been following the proposed addition to 301 Essex Street (Jerry’s) since before it was submitted to the Salem Redevelopment Authority for review in July 2022.
 
As the project plans, scale and design have changed, we have remained in favor of a 3-4 story building at this location as it strengthens the downtown streetscape on Essex Street and the “edge” of downtown before Essex Street shifts to a more residential character in the McIntire District. Therefore, we are pleased to see this proposal being submitted for further consideration by the SRA and appreciate that the revised design seems responsive to many of the comments made by the SRA, DRB and the public.
 
We look forward to commenting on the specifics of the design, particularly elements of the Summer Street façade, during the Design Review Board processes, and we support the action of approving this plan for schematic design review.
 
The attention that this project is receiving, including the back and forth between review boards as the program has been refined, are appropriate for this key building and location and we believe this will result in a better final design outcome. We encourage all parties to continue a thorough and rigorous review. Thank you for considering our comments.
 
Respectfully,

Richard Lindeman
President

​January 4, 2023
 
Mr. Larry Spang, Chair
Salem Historical Commission
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA  01970
 
 
Dear Mr. Spang
 
Historic Salem, Inc. has been following the proposed addition to 301 Essex Street (Jerry’s) since before it was submitted to the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) for review in July 2022.
 
Changes at this prominent location deserve rigorous review, a process that is
currently on-going under SRA guidelines and now continues with the Applicant’s demolition delay request waiver to the Salem Historical Commission.
 
This building is significant for its history, location and turn of the century commercial building style. Similarly, the building itself in this location is preferably preserved.  That said, we agree that a multi-floor addition to this building is in keeping with its downtown location and, once the design has been settled, has the potential to visually strengthen this key entrance to downtown.
We also understand that the addition will necessitate the demolition of the roof. 
 
In order for the appropriate review processes to run their prescribed courses, we urge the SHC to postpone the vote or find the building Significant and Preferably Preserved and deny the request to waive the demolition delay period until the DRB and SRA, the primary review bodies under the Downtown Renewal Plan, have given the project Preliminary Design Approval. At that point, the SHC can then review submitted plans and accept them as conditions that allow the waiver to be approved.
 
We also note that the application does not appear to be complete, lacking for example, existing conditions photographs and a description of the “proposed reuse, reconstruction, or replacement”.
 
For your information we are submitting our comment letters for the project scale and design sent to the SRA on 7/12/2022, 8/10/2022, 11/09/2022 and DRB 12/21/2022.
 
Thank you for your thoughtful review of this project and for considering our comments.
 
Respectfully,
 
Richard Lindeman
President
 

​December 21, 2022
 
Mr. Paul Durand, Chair
Design Review Board
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
 
 
Dear Mr. Durand,
 
Historic Salem has been following and commenting on the 301 Essex Street project for more than six months as it has been considered at the SRA and now at the DRB.  We supported an earlier version of the design that drew on and related to the historic context of the adjacent properties. 
 
We believed that the initial design proposal was an excellent response to the historic urban fabric at this important downtown corner. The Summer Street façade acknowledged the direct connection to the adjacent Salem Inn building (ca. 1834) both with height, window treatment and the continued use of brick. At the same time, the design of the Essex Street façade accomplished several things. It acknowledged the urban streetscape of downtown Salem with an urban height, materials and window pattern and in doing so it continued consistent structural lines from the first floor up through the façade. Most importantly, it also celebrated this key corner by wrapping the curtain wall around the corner before connecting with the more residential, punched openings along Summer Street. Altogether, the earlier version was a sophisticated design that was compatible with our historic downtown without imitating historic architecture.
 
In the new proposed design options, the curtain wall may be appropriate for the Essex Street façade and the downtown street wall. by referencing the existing bays found in the original street front. However, the curtain wall design is not respectful of the residential nature of the facing neighborhood and particularly of the 1834 Salem Inn building, over which it physically looms.
 
On the other hand, the proposed punched opening option has an appropriate residential feel adjacent to the Salem Inn, but it lacks connection with the original building elements and is underwhelming and dull along Essex Street.
 
Neither of the new options is appropriate as a single concept for the entire building and both options neglect the celebration of the corner and the opportunity to contribute to the Salem architectural landscape at this key location. 
 
It seems clear to us that a potential solution is to again wrap the curtain wall around the corner and then take great care to refine the bays, spacing, and details to create an overall composition that references the existing building’s past but is clearly a part of contemporary architecture.
 
Thank you for considering these comments and we look forward to the discussion at the meeting.
 
Respectfully,
 

Emily Udy
Preservation Manager

August 10, 2022

Grace Napolitano, Chair
Salem Redevelopment Authority
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970
 
Dear Ms. Napolitano,

Historic Salem has reviewed the submitted plans for the proposed project at 301 Essex Street, known as the Jerry’s Department Store building. It appears that, except for some additional information on the penthouse, there were no changes to the design of the elevations. This includes no change to the upper-level overhang facing Essex Street or additional design features that were discussed at the July SRA meeting and described in the memo from Tom Daniel dated July 20, 2022. We therefore re-submit our comments from July 12, 2022, which still apply.   

Sincerely,
Emily Udy
​Preservation Manager