pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-05-06 | 4 | Mr. Biggs said they had done an exploratory demolition of the existing building, and had engineers analyze the ability to adaptively reuse the building. The costs to rehabilitate the existing building are enormous. Chair Saxby asked if that study was focused on structural concerns. Mr. Biggs said that was correct. Board Member Jones asked if there was any possibility that the architect of these buildings was notable. She referenced public comments that note prominent architects were associated with the buildings. Ms. Kozakavich explained their research and what would make a building noteworthy and historically significant. The original plans for these buildings could have come from more centralized wartime plans which were used across the country to quickly build an installation for training and housing of armed forces. To find those plans they would need to dig into federal archival records, the 1996 report did not find those records. She added that even if this building did have a note-worthy architect it would not change the fact that the building had lost integrity. Board Member Jones wanted to know if this facility would qualify as a Historical Monument. Mr. Biggs brought up that most of the people who had written letters to ask the Board to save the buildings had no issue with the buildings being torn down when they previously asked the City to turn the site into open space. Since the City does not own the buildings they cannot turn them into a museum. Chair Saxby asked if it were possible these buildings could be restored to their original historical condition or whether the question is irrelevant. Ms. Kozakavich said it wasn't irrelevant, in many cases buildings can be restored to their historical appearance. In this case, if Building 1 was rehabilitated to its original appearance it would be a well-preserved single building but that still wouldn't restore integrity to the campus. It would only go a little way toward bringing back the original character of the site. Board Member Sanchez asked if the original application for Building 2 assumed Adaptive Reuse. Mr. Biggs said the original design and intent for Building 2 was to adaptively reuse the building. It was only after they had submitted everything with the Planning Board and the City Council that they were able to do the exploratory demolition. Then with the exploratory demo and the analysis from the engineers, it was determined that the original plan for adaptive reuse was no longer feasible. Approved HAB Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 4 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-05-06.pdf |