Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 8 · column 10 of 13 · from the scan, no model involved
on request.”
Mr. Wells said his concerns were the possible destruction of the summer kitchen; the obstruction and alteration of the building’s twin chimneys; and the permanent alteration to its west elevation.
Mr. Wells first expressed his views in a letter directed to Mr. McCarthy in May. “My concerns are more intense after observing the building’s relation to the courthouse complex — the seat of the county’s identity. It is a very prominent elevation in a very public space. Alterations should be considered more, rather than less, carefully.”
He said that, in his opinion, the proposal violated three of the federal standards: that contemporary designs not destroy significant elements of historic structures; that alteraations should be reversible; and that the existing character of historic buildings should not be destroyed by an alteration.
Whayne Haffler, an architect who consults for the ARB, told the council that he also feels that the addition is not appropriate. “To add on an obviously non-historic element will forever change the face of that building. No change in design can keep from altering the building.
“This is really a terrible mistake,” Mr. Haffler said. “The decision will be one which everybody will regret in 10 years. I understand the need, but that is not a justification to forever alter that building.”
“You are opposed to any addition?” council member Peter Skowronski asked.
“Given the program and the budget limitations, he has done about the best he can do,” Mr. Haffler replied. “It is up to you to decide.”
Julian Kulski, another architect requested as a consultant by the ARB, echoed Mr. Haffler’s concerns. “The unique historic character of the building will be totally destroyed by the addition.
“It will serve as a jail for at most a few years,” Mr. Kulski predicted. “The price paid is hardly justified by such small gains. The preservation of its characteristics, the best use of the land, is the most important consideration.”
Former Mayor Peter Kramer told the council that he estimated $15,000 could be saved if the addition were moved 90 degrees and set off to the north, toward the courthouse. If that were done, he said, the chimneys could be eliminated; producing the savings.
Security worries were overstated, Mr. Kramer continued. “They are worrying about having the kitchen on the second floor, when we’ve got trustees walking all
95.2%