​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

​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

June 22, 2022

Mr. Paul Durand, Chair
Design Review Board
City of Salem
98 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970


Dear Mr. Durand,

After reviewing the changes to the building design for the Crescent Lot as presented to the SRA at their June 8, 2022 meeting, Historic Salem offers the following comments. These comments are consistent with comments we have made during earlier schematic design iterations for this important project.

It is commonly agreed upon that this building’s location is a defining gateway to downtown Salem, which is rich in 19th- and early 20th- century commercial and mixed-use buildings representative of Salem’s history as a commercial center. The new proposed design fails to shoulder the responsibility for this keystone location.

In conveying the Crescent Lot, the City Council required that the building be “compatible with uses in terms of scale, use, design, and historic character,” and as stated in Section 3 – Design Standards of 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.

We support either traditional- or contemporary-design as long as the building is complementary and referential to the details and context of downtown Salem’s historic buildings. This “new” design must be explained and critiqued as rigorously as the initial Schematic Design. It is important that the Winn design team detail what aspects of Salem’s existing downtown buildings -- the scale, massing and details -- were referenced in creation of this new design. The DRB-approved Schematic Design from last fall incorporated numerous features that served to break up the mass of the building and provided depth and texture. Likewise, the new design needs to be thoroughly developed to achieve the same goal.

In its most recent SRA presentation, the design team highlighted four elevations that are of visual importance, and we agree that these locations should have emphasis or creative design elements, but we find that in the current design those elevations do not create anything of interest. Of particular importance is the “flatiron” elevation at the Washington and Bridge Street intersection as well as the river facing elevation, which have become noticeably plain and coplanar. In these locations, physical variation of the roof line and elevation depth, as well as purposeful detailing of the materials need to be considered.

We look forward to hearing more information about the materials. As presented, the materials lack articulation and, in comparison to the previous design, do not create the same visual interest, movement or highlighting of key building elevations. Buildings in Salem provide a wide slate of material options that, when used together, delineate windows/sets of windows, entrances, floor levels, rooflines, and vertical features. These elements could and should influence the design of this project in traditional or contemporary ways.

We appreciate that the Bridge Street pedestrian realm is being incorporated into the overall design and ask the Design Review Board to focus attention on the sidewalk level to ensure that the opportunity to change the character of this roadway into a pedestrian friendly path is maximized. Future presentations should include views of the building from North Street near the Federal Street traffic light.

We agree that the plaza and stair design is an improvement, particularly with a more effective terminus of the monumental stair in the center of the block.

We request that the DRB consider including the treatment of any rooftop mechanical needs as part of the overall design composition because of the extended view of this building from North Street on entering downtown.

Thank you for considering these comments.
​
Respectfully,

Emily Udy
Preservation Manager

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 [email protected]) 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.

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 [email protected] 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. 

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. 

​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

​Since the initiation of the North River Canal planning process in 2000, Historic Salem, Inc. has participated in and supported the goals of the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC) Master Plan and zoning ordinance.  All the neighborhoods that abut the NRCC are historic neighborhoods which will be affected by development in the Corridor.  A key aspect of the NRCC Master Plan is the importance of neighborhood character as reflected by the customized goals for each section of the Corridor.  Another key part of the NRCC zoning ordinance is the review oversight of the Design Review Board (DRB). 
 
The DRB is a board that possesses specialized skills and experience to address urban design issues as they apply in many areas of our city.  Their value has been proven in the long tradition of work with the Salem Redevelopment Authority.  The Planning Board and City Council have also shown their recognition of the valuable role of the DRB, as evidenced by the recent change that adds DRB review to projects in the Urban Entrance Corridors.  We support the work of the Design Review Board throughout the city and find that the iterative nature of their review improves each project that they evaluate. 
 
Since the introduction of the NRCC Zoning District in 2003, as far as we know, every development approved by the Planning Board has received a positive recommendation from the DRB. With the recent approval by the Planning Board of a project (16-18-20R Franklin Street) that received a negative recommendation from the DRB there is now precedent to allow projects with a negative recommendation to move forward. 
 
This dismissal of the DRB decision undermines the clear intent of the NRCC zoning ordinance.  Historic Salem believes that any project, in any zoning district, that must seek a DRB recommendation should receive positive endorsement to qualify for final consideration by other boards.
 
Historic Salem supports action to clarify the DRB relationship with the Planning Board to insure that the intent of the NRCC Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance is honored, and to improve communication and collaboration among all city boards.