[MassHistPres] Fwd: Rebuilding after demolition

[Tristram W Metcalfe 3]

The most egregious comment attributed to the architect &/or owner is the use
of the word "similar". "Exact same" should be your position especially if
they have blatantly violated trust and LHD zoning law.

If built exactly, then what ever the materials,, with it's precisely same
appearance, then the highest value to the public can be saved in the
historic visual aesthetics.

Tris 

Tristram W. Metcalfe III, AIA  NCARB  NY MA CT
142  Main St. Northampton, Mass 01060
Ph 413.586.5775 Fx 586.2577
Mobile 413.695.8200
twm3 at rcn.com 




> Dcolebslade at aol.com1/13/08 9:02 PMDcolebslade at aol.com

> How is this answer to the questions originally posed  below?
> 
> It is our understanding that the house now requires  reconstruction. The
> owner's opportunity for the  renovation of an existing structure was lost when
> his crew's reckless activity caused the collapse of  the building.  We believe
> that the exterior of a  historic building includes the
> shingles/clapboards/trim/window frames and sash,  the sheathing that stuff was
> nailed to and the frame
> that supported everything  and defined the building's distinctive form. By
> understanding and arguing this logic, the commission could require that  the
> original cape be reconstructed in its original manner, post and beam,
> vertical 
> sheathing, etc. Internal structure could be hermaphrodite construction  (a
> logical combination of new and old). The architect would have to prepare
> detailed construction plans including structural building sections, not vague
> elevations.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________
> From: Dcolebslade at aol.com
> To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
> Sent: 1/11/2008  10:24:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> Subj: [MassHistPres] Rebuilding after  demolition
> 
> 
> 
> The architect  working for an owner in the  historic  district who has
> demolished a substantial portion of an  1803 house is stating  that since
> most of the 
> house is gone, that the  rest should be torn down and a  new house of a
> similar 
> external  appearance can be built, but with new materials  if they so desire,
> 
> and that the historic district commission has no say  over  that.  A good
> portion of the building and roofing  structure  that collapsed has been saved
> through quick action by the  building  inspector although it is on the ground
> and in  
> dumpsters.    The architect challenged the commission with the  following two
> 
> questions: 
> (1)   Is there any requirement in Chapter  40C  or bylaw that states  that
> original materials be used in a  renovation?
> (2) Does the Commission have oversight over  internal  framing?
> Your responses were most helpful in how other  commissions  have dealt with
> the issue of demolition and  rebuilding.  I am hoping that  you can give us
> some 
> insight into  your responses to these questions -  within the context of
> demolition. 
> Thank you.  Betty Slade, Westport