[MassHistPres] Our Town Hall

[Dennis De Witt]

Nancy

The previous comments on AZEK need no elaboration other than to say  
that in my experience it doesn't hold paint particularly well if  
there is any abrasion, such as from tree branches of someone raking  
against boards close to the ground.

One must ask not only why is the foundation being replaced but, more  
to the point, why is the building being lowered?  In terms of  
integrity, that by itself is a major issue -- and all the more so if  
that is the only reason the foundations are being sacrificed.  It is  
hard to imagine that there is not some less expensive, less damaging,  
and more appropriate way of meeting the perceived need -- be it ADA  
or whatever -- that has lead to the suggested lowering and thus the  
loss of the granite.

How could the previous proposal have been "excellent" when it too  
would have replaced the historic windows?  Often when one explains to  
a home owner that replacement windows will need to be replaced again,  
over and over forever, on a 25 year cycle (hence "replacement  
windows"), they are likely to respond that they won't be in the house  
in 25 years and so they don't care.  Your town has occupied that  
building for over a century and will for another -- or longer.  In  
the next century that means the cost and inconvenience of four sets  
of replacement windows as the insulating glass (IG) 'fails" and  
clouds up.  Has anyone thought of that?  (It should be calculated  
into the budget.)  Clearly interior or exterior storm panels are a  
better  alternative.  Obviously the interior ones look better from  
the outside.  However, the exterior ones preserve the original sash  
and substantially reduce maintenance -- and look better from the  
inside.  The energy efficiency of historic wood sash in reasonable  
condition combined with good quality exterior storms is about 70% of  
that of the best IG.  With low-e storms that increases to about  
90%.   The payback of the cost of the replacement windows based on  
that marginal 10% of heat loss thru the glass -- considered  
separately from air infiltration (the two must not be conflated) --  
would be much longer than the life expectancy of the replacement  
sash.  And much of the heat lost thru windows is thru air  
infiltration.  The best quality storms properly installed will be  
just as air tight as those replacement sash.  There is no savings to  
be had in that respect from replacement windows vs good storms.  Also  
remember there are naive (or deliberately misleading) assumptions  
used about how much of a building's heat is lost thru the windows.   
It is on average only about 20% of the total.  So any savings will be  
a small fraction of that small fraction.

Does the building have a slate roof?  If so the solar collector is  
problematical in terms of integrity and perhaps cost.  The lifetime  
of a well maintained slate roof can be almost infinite.  But not all  
slate is created equal.  If it is not slate, then I would suggest  
that an appropriately designed and installed solar collector might be  
worth considering -- as long as you have guidelines as to when it is  
and isn't appropriate.  We have an Upjohn Church (not in an LHD)  
whose nave was gutted by a fire in the '70s.  It was rebuilt with a  
solar collector for heating water -- of perhaps slightly a more  
elegant low profile design than some from that period.  It seems OK.

This issue recently came up in one of our LHDs as a hypothetical and  
a very rough first draft of a possible guideline came out as follows:

Solar roof panels would be acceptable a) if the roof is not slate, b)  
if the panels will lie flat on the roof surface, c) if they are as  
unobtrusive in color, appearance, and placement as practical, d) if  
no other features, such a dormers or chimneys are removed or  
compromised; e) if there are no special circumstances or  
characteristics of the particular house that in the opinion of the  
commission outweigh the benefits of the panels, f) to the extent  
possible, it is preferable that they be on a side or the rear rather  
than the front.

Good luck with it.

Dennis De Witt
Brookline


On Feb 2, 2008, at 10:45 PM, Nancy Dole wrote:

> West Tisbury  is planning an addition to  the town hall built in  
> the 1800's, and restoration of the existing building, which is  
> absolutely gorgeous but has not been maintained.
>
> The town originally approved 3,500,000 for the project, as  
> requested, but the building committee underestimated, and came back  
> to ask for an additional 1,500,000 which the town rejected.
>
> That was a few years back, now a new committee has promised to  
> deliver a town hall for a figure somewhere in between, and they are  
> cutting corners left and right to make it happen.  It goes before  
> the Town at the annual meeting in April for approval.
>
> But first it comes to the HDC.
>
> The design of the addition is not bad. It fits. The original  
> building needs a basement. The plan is to lower the building, at  
> least a foot, removing the granite foundation which was brought to  
> the Island as ballast in ships, is original, and substantial in  
> height. They plan to sell the granite.
>
> They want to use AZEK for all new trim, or any trim that must be  
> replaced, because it doesn't require maintenance like wood does.The  
> architect says it can be molded to match the details of the  
> original trim, and that from 15 feet away you can't tell it isn't  
> wood.
>
> They want to remove all the existing windows and replace them with  
> aluminum clad, they are looking at marvin, eagle or KML.  Not  
> custom. Too expensive. maximum 7/8" mullions.
>
> They want to put solar panels on the south roof. Flush, but they  
> will be visible, although the building is three stories high.
>
> The previous, rejected, addition and restoration was expensive but  
> excellent: wood trim, custom wood windows, retain the granite etc.  
> The committee says if we require these things the project cannot be  
> delivered at the price they promised the town. The building will  
> have to be sold, and the town will lose the most important building  
> in the historic district.
>
> Yes they have requested CPA funds, 100,000 a year for 5 years, but  
> they don't want to request more because the town wants to use the  
> funds mostly for affordable housing, which Martha's Vineyard has  
> very little of.
>
> Does anyone know of a town hall, or a similarly important  
> building,  that has replaced wood with AZEK? Used aluminum clad  
> windows to replace wood? Removed the original foundation?
>
> We have not allowed any of those things to be done in any of the  
> private residences in the district. We have consistently required  
> they retain the granite foundation, no AZEK, and windows must be wood.
>
> We are seeking input from all of you who have been in this  
> situation, or have seen aluminum clad and AZEK used in an historic  
> building.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Nancy Dole
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact  
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO  
> THE WHOLE LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************