Crescent Lot Development – Letter to Design Review Board (DRB)

Dear Mr. Durand,

We are providing these comments on the design of the “Crescent Lot” as an important part of the Re-use of the Superior Court and County Commissioners Development project being overseen by the Salem Redevelopment Authority. The significance of this project, which will become the defining visual experience upon entering Salem from the north, and as an extension of the historic downtown, cannot be overstated.

Our comments are founded on the principles and details of the Design Guidelines outlined in the Downtown Renewal Plan. These guidelines are integral to the Plan which the SRA is responsible for implementing. We request that the Design Review Board reinforce these guidelines or, if the proposal varies, explain, in detail, how the variation meets applicable Design Criteria as described in the Downtown Renewal Plan section 3.3.

The following comments are in response to the design as presented in August and to the changes that we could gather from the obscured placeholder images in the presentation posted to the shared public folder as of September 18, 2021.

Building Placement
We note that, as the design is now developed, the building would sit closer to the Bridge Street slip ramp. This façade and what pedestrians will experience have not been shown in perspective renderings or elevations nor have they been highlighted in site drawings. Pedestrians, including building residents, will continue to use these sidewalks, to connect to the Bridge Street overpass. We believe that the proposed design must address this façade’s placement before schematic approval is granted.

We acknowledge that the proposal will add an exciting and publicly accessible walkway aligned with the North River, increasing the appeal for pedestrians and other users and adding to Salem’s network of public spaces.

Façade Design and Relationship to Existing Context
We ask that the design team show specific ways that the design was developed in relation to the important historic context of downtown Salem. What in Salem has influenced the overall design, window placements, and material selections? We have noted before that the immediate context are late nineteenth and early twentieth century commercial buildings. We believe these references to be of critical importance for a design, such as this one, that should enhance and contribute to Salem’s long architectural history.

We are not opposed to contemporary architecture. We suggest the 2012 addition to the Registry of Deeds as a successful example of clearly contemporary architecture that is respectful, and reflective, of its historic context in design, scale and materials.

The early design conversations emphasized that there was no back-side to the building. At this point, much attention has been paid to the riverside façade, but less to the prominent elevation of the building that is seen from the intersection of Bridge and Washington Streets. This prominent building corner was referred to as a “Flatiron” shape but doesn’t yet create an iconic landmark experience nor one that relates to its historic courthouse neighbors. The simplified corner facing North Street achieves the “Flatiron” reference more successfully.

Building Materials
As part of schematic design approval, we would like to better understand the materials. As with the overall design, we ask, what elements from downtown Salem’s historic urban core are influencing material selections, placement, and color? Commercial, retail and housing in downtown Salem utilize an array of materials that have stood the test of time, are appropriate for a building of this scale, and that could be repeated or referenced in contextual detailing and color. References that have been made to materials used for siding historic ships are less relevant to the immediate urban context.

We request an opportunity to see the materials sample boards available at the Planning office for review.

Building Height and Stepbacks
The building steps back from the river and the team has clearly described the reasoning behind these decisions, but the result is a maximization of allowable heights on all other facades. We ask that some stepbacks be considered along Bridge Street and that the push/pull of the upper floors be further examined as the building faces the MBTA garage. This will create additional roofline articulation as viewed from the overpass above the North River.

As part of schematic design approval, it is important that the design team provide elevations with proposed building heights, particularly in relation to neighboring buildings. A site section that shows the relationship between the height of this building (including visible rooftop mechanical equipment) and the Ruane Judicial Center will help explain how this will relate and also what impact the building will have on Bridge Street drivers and pedestrians.

Façade Length and Articulation
We note that the Design Guidelines call for articulation of building length every 50 feet. This is particularly relevant on the Bridge Street slip ramp elevation and may be relevant on other long elevations facing the MBTA and the North River.

Architectural Treatments

The design team references the design of a bottom (pedestrian zone), middle, and top. We think that the top 1-2 stories need a stronger terminus and greater visual definition. It could be created in many ways, including a thicker top band with a deeper projection, or alluded to with a combination of material and texture.

We request more information about rooftop mechanical equipment and how the screening for this is integrated into the overall design.

Proportion and Pattern of Windows
The window patterns, including muntin, deck placement, and the divisions between windows on the upper two stories are not easily understandable and therefore verge on random. Once again, we think that a study of logic and pattern of windows in downtown Salem will inspire a creative, contemporary design that is both timeless on downtown facing elevations and playful on the river side.

Process
We think it is important that the public and the review boards get adequate time to review the schematic drawings, especially in light of the prominence of this building and the decisions made at the schematic review level. In preparing for the August 25 DRB meeting, it was difficult to comment in detail on the presentation because the key renderings were not available to the public in advance. Again, less than a week prior to the next Board meeting on September 22, the key updated renderings are not available. We ask the DRB to request all meeting materials be available online at a reasonable time in advance of the meeting.

In addition, we were left with many questions when the Board and staff began discussing what was needed to attain schematic design approval. The standard requirements should be clear for the applicant, as well as the Board and the public. An AIA definition of schematic design is attached as a reference point (attached below).

Finally, it is important that schematic approval be based on architectural drawings submitted as part of the record, in addition to a presentation file.

As this project is refined, we look forward to future meetings of the Design Review Board and with the project team. We appreciate the willingness of the project team to address community concerns. Our intention is to share comments that will help the team achieve the design goals as stated in the presentation. We appreciate your consideration of these comments.

Respectfully,

Caroline Watson-Felt
President