think critically about the future of the district. The district was the |
|
resource. The individual parts were significant as a collective whole. In |
|
other words, contiguous districts were significant as a collective whole, |
|
and should be protected in their entirety. It should be the primary, |
|
overarching principal in reviewing an infill project. She did not feel that |
|
the project at 1965 Washington, which was approved in 2003, should be |
|
their guide. It had been nine years, and that review held little relevance. |
|
It was the HDC’s understanding of the character and significance of the |
|
district that should predicate the design review for the project. New |
|
construction should respond to and protect the integrity of the overall |
|
historic district in much the same way that an addition to an individual |
|
historic building did. Infill buildings should relate to and strengthen the |
|
core characteristics of the district and compliment and support. New |
|
construction should build upon the story of the district through its design |
|
and landscape. Winkler Mill Pond had a discernible rhythm in massing, |
|
scale and siting. The home should not deviate in detracting from that |
|
manner with its elements, but appear as complimentary. Its massing, |
|
siting, height and floor area ratio should correspond to the contributing |
|
buildings within the district. It should support the viability of the adjacent |
|
historic buildings. While infill construction should be identified as being |
|
of its period of construction, it should not be so differentiated that it |
|
detracted from or visually competed with its historic neighbors. Within |
|
contiguous historic districts, compatibility was more important than |
|
differentiation. Infill design elements patterning texture and materials |
|
should reflect the aesthetics and the history themes of the district. What |
|
made buildings from different eras and styles compatible was that they |
|
shared the same underlying principals of space, structure, elements, |
|
composition, proportion, ornament and character. The project should |
|
contribute to that established narrative of the district; it should never skew |
|
excessive attention to itself to the detriment of the district. In her view, the |
|
fundamental interest of preservation could only be served if compatibility |
|
was given greater weight, since it alone allowed the City to sustain the |
|
historic character. In Standard 9, it was clear that the guidelines |
|
emphasized that new construction should be compatible with and |
|
harmonize with the size, scale, color, material, rhythm and character of |
|
the district. The proposed home clearly did not follow any of the |
|
aforementioned principals for good infill design and compatibility. She |
|
asked the members to please deny the present proposal, in order to |
|
protect and preserve the integrity of the Winkler Mill Pond Historic |
|
District. The Grand Hotel was never a part of Winkler Mill Pond, and she |
|
stressed that they should not put it there now. She stated that the future of |
|
the district and its integrity was in the HDC’s hands, and she asked them |
|
to please do the right thing. |
|