MINUTES of the SPECIAL MEETING
TO DISCUSS HISTORICAL PRESERVATION
Citizens Advisory Committee
for the Northampton State Hospital
Monday, July 23, 2001
5:30 pm
Haskell Building, 2nd floor conference room
State Hospital campus
Present:(sign-in sheets attached)
Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee
Members of "Save Old Main" citizens' group
David Webster of MassDevelopment (Mass. Development Finance Agency)
Gerry Joseph of The Community Builders
Members of the public
Members of the press
1.INTRODUCTION
Mayor Higgins called the Special Meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee to order at 5:32 p.m. She summarized the evening's goal: presentation of the project's historical aspects. The Mayor mentioned that the steps in preparation for the forum were a bit in question. It had been agreed that Save Old Main would first meet with The Community Builders and MassDevelopment. Because this process did not happen, the useful dialogue that should have happened did not occur. How did tonight's meeting come about? Some people expressed concerns about the proposed demolition of the site and asked to have a forum for discussion.
How did we get here today? Reuse of the site has been discussed since the early 1980's. A variety of studies were conducted on this topic. Lozano, White and Associates (March 1982); Center for Economic Development (March 1984); Citizens Advisory Committee/MA DCPO Draft Development Guidelines (April 1987); Fay, Spofford & Thorndike Comprehensive Roadway Study (March 1987). A new flurry of discussion followed the historic nomination. The CAC has discussed the topic extensively over the years. Reminder: All reports, including the 1993 Master Plan, have recommended reuse.
The Citizens Advisory Committee members introduced themselves: Clare Higgins, Mayor; Bruce Fogel, Attorney; Gerry Joseph, The Community Builders; Mary Jane Bacon, Sen. Rosenberg's office; David Webster, MassDevelopment; Wayne Feiden, Planning Director; Teri Anderson, Economic Development Coordinator; Rita Bleiman, Ward 4 City Councilor; Ken Landon; David Modzelewski, Department of Mental Health.
2.SAVE OLD MAIN PRESENTATION A.Introduction ~ Marilyn Marks, Coordinating Chair Marilyn Marks, coordinating chair of Save Old Main, spoke as follows:
"My name is Marilyn Marks and I am coordinating chair of the Save Old Main Campaign. We would like to thank the CAC for hosting this forum and providing citizens with an unprecedented opportunity to openly discuss the Northampton State Hospital Development and saving the Old Main building. To start, I would like to submit petitions with an additional 840 signatures from people who support preserving Old Main. This brings our total up to 1615 collected in eleven weeks.
Next, I would like to briefly provide a context for the efforts of our group, by discussing our work with several elements of the 1999 Hospital Hill Redevelopment Master Plan. As you know, our primary goal is to save the old Main building complex. I'd like to make it very clear that we view our presentation tonight as only the first step, the first stage, in addressing the requirements for saving the building. That first step entails developing concrete possibilities for reuse of Old Main. Future steps will involve cost and market analysis.
In response to those who ask "Where is the money going to come from?", we reply that although that is an essential question, we believe that before we can discuss funding sources, we must have a project, a specific form of reuse in mind to fund. That is what we are here to discuss tonight. Let us begin:
1.)On page 30 of the 1999 Hospital Hill redevelopment Master Plan, The Community Builders corporation states that "it is highly unlikely that most of the larger structures at the Northampton State Hospital will be saved from the wrecking ball." According to the plan, lipreserving these structures may only be possible if a mechanism can be established with DCAM to capture at least part of the demolition cost savings."
Tonight, our group formally requests that the CAC lobby DCAM to shift money slated for demolition into a fund for preservation of Old Main. We believe this would amount to approximately 2-3 million dollars.
2.)TCB states on page 28 that there are three "difficult tests that remain to be satisfied before preservation.......... is assured." For the last three months, the Save Old Main Campaign has been working to address these tests. The first test is the suitability of the building for conversion to another use, taking into consideration the thick, load-bearing interior walls, small, narrow rows of rooms, unusually wide corridors, and the need for adequate structural support to meet building codes. The second test is overcoming the severely deteriorated condition of the buildings. The third test is that of the economic feasibility of reusing Old Main.
Tonight, in lieu of having each member of our group speak, we will have three of our members formally present ideas for reuse of Old Main. In their discussion, they will be taking into account these three major tests or challenges to restoration and reuse as delineated in the Master Plan. Tom Douglas and Tris Metcalfe, local architects and chairpersons of the Design I Reuse Committee, will be presenting detailed mixed-use plans which include affordable housing, condominiums, and a conference center. Mark Roessler, Museum Committee chairperson, will be discussing ideas for a museum and displaying interior and exterior photos of Old Main.
We formally request that the CAC and the developers give us feedback regarding these reuse plans, and that they let us know what the next required steps would be in furthering the goal of preservation and reuse of Old Main.
3.)On page 29 of the Master Plan, TCB states that in order to be able to afford to save the historic buildings on the campus, the developers need "direct public subsidies, historic tax credits, and a cooperative attitude toward historic rehabilitation design requirements by public agencies.
The Save Old Main Campaign formally requests more specific information on how we can support bringing down rehab costs through these measures.
4.)Finally, we would like to speak to the need to adhere to the development objectives and reuse guidelines on page 17 of the 1997 Request for Proposals document. In the RFP, historic preservation is strongly encouraged and "developers are asked to provide an opportunity for memorializing the patients that have passed through Northampton State Hospital since its inception. Developers should collaborate with DMH and the CAC on their proposal of a memorial."
We formally request that the CAC and the developers adhere to these recommendations and most importantly, incorporate them as soon as possible into the actual phasing of the development.
I would now like to turn things over to Tris and Tom for the first presentation on reuse possibilities."
2B.Mixed Use ~ Tristram Metcalfe, architect
Tris Metcalfe apologized for not having completed his presentation much before tonight's meeting. He suggested the forum's purpose as not to over-analyze the designs but to begin the dialogue. He asserted that expansion of the possible design need not delay actual development. He warned against the loss of the building's "exquisite design structure". Builders in the past recognized that "quality environments affect the minds of those who experience them." There have been many preliminary studies, but no in-depth study of the rooms' layout. We just accepted the difficulty of reusing small rooms, wide corridors, etc.
Tris addressed residential business approaches. One approach is to retain corridors and create units exposed on one side to the corridor; this allows up to five-room studio apartments. Tom Douglas will address the second approach. As long as vertical circulation lines up, both approaches may exist in the same building. Conference center use is a residential use. In the second phase of the site development, there will be a need to generate cash. If the all residential/conference center approach is taken, it would be symbiotic to City nightlife and to Smith College needs, and would infuse cash into the project. This works physically if we clip off three wingtips from the main campus. Estimate: 200+ rooms, 200+ parking spaces.
Tris asserted that someday in the world there will be a museum devoted to the human mind. The Oklahoma State University website includes a virtual version of such a museum. Mixed uses of the site include residential, business and museum components. The building has some damage to its roof flashing. 2% of the floor would have to be replaced. Earthquake proofing would be necessary. Using bricks where they lie is much cheaper than knocking down tons of bricks and building afresh.
2C.Business Use ~ Thomas Douglas, architect
Tom concentrated on the narrow architectural focus, to conform to the Master Plan. His main goal is to address the three common precepts about the site: (a) 8 x 10' cells cannot be reconfigured; (b) circulation does not conform well to scattered/multi use; and (c) dollar value of renovation as shown by money that could be regained. He displayed his rendering of the 1st floor of the building as commercial, with 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors residential. He stated that Old Main is like other buildings in that adaptive reuse of the site requires reconfiguration. Old Main differs in that the walls are much heavier; we'd have to remove 15-20% of walls. Tom stressed the importance of thinking of not one big building but many blocks, each with its own circulation, within the building. Necessary additions: bathrooms, stairs, and elevators. Average condominium size: 900-2,000 square feet. Plan 1: 21 condos. Very costly; need to find a building core from which to build 130,000 square feet total @ $100/square foot.
2D.Educational Use ~ Mark Roessler
Mark chairs the Museum Committee of Save Old Main. He declared the need to forget the patients' suffering as understandable, but it is wrong. Forgetting evils makes us repeat them. Museum Committee visited the old Tewksbury State Hospital and its Public Health Museum. "Save Old Main believes the Northampton State Hospital must be opened wide, the world invited inside." A portion of the building must be set aside and made into a museum. Using a videotape, Mark guided the audience through the building's three wings, to "* tell the early history of the Hospital and its benign intentions* how it began to turn into a warehouse for the nation's misunderstood* until all pretense of humanity disappears." His summary: "A world enamored of science forgot about the soul." The photos by Stan Sherer, interviews by last 40 employees, files, ephemera ~ all still exist, can be located, many in pristine condition~ to fill a museum. Such a museum would be expensive but grants can be pursued, backed by CAC support. A museum of this type will exist somewhere, why not here at Northampton State Hospital?
2E.Letter from Lois Plumb
Lisa Tennyson of Save Old Main read the statement of Lois Plumb, who could not attend the hearing.
"My name is Lois Plumb, and some time ago I spent three years at Northampton State Hospital. They saved my life there, and I am in favor of saving the Main building. I would hope that we could be given enough room to have a museum. If we are allowed the space for one, I would like it to be dedicated to the 'thousands of people who lived and suffered there.'"
2F.Northampton Historical Commission ~ Susan Well
Susan Well, chair of Northampton Historical Commission, spoke as follows:
"I am Susan Well, chair of the Northampton Historical Commission. I live at 60 Emily Lane. The Commission's charge is to identify, protect and promote the historic assets of the city. When we speak, you expect to hear that the old main complex should be saved. It should be saved. Interested individuals contacted us thinking we should spearhead the movement to save the buildings. I had to follow my head, not my heart, when I encouraged them to form their own grassroots group because it would be unexpected and what they said and did would have a great deal more impact. The Commission wants to publicly thank the Save Old Main Campaign for the time and effort they have contributed. We would not be in this room now if it weren't for them. You have heard why the buildings should be saved and wonderful ideas about how it can be done. This is a building on the National Register of Historic Places, no mean feat. A property needs to be architecturally significant or historically significant. For example in Northampton, Calvin Coolidge's duplex on Massasoit Street is historically important because he lived there without being architecturally significant but the Florence Diner is on the Register because of its architecture not its history. The Old Main complex is significant on BOTH dimensions.
I have heard the argument that preservation on Hospital Hill should be ignored because of the horrible things that happened there. That is like saying that Auschwitz or slave quarters on a southern plantation should be bulldozed. It's a position that you should reject. Since 1975, the Historical Commission has given annual awards to building owners who have preserved their properties. As I look at the approximately 100 winners, I see a railroad station converted to a restaurant, several factory buildings that are now apartments, offices, condos or some combination of the above and I see the Calvin Theater. Were any of these buildings in better condition than Old Main? Had any of them been abandoned for less time? As taxpayers, we do not expect tax-supported development to meet lesser standards. Using tax money to demolish this historic complex is an outrage. Who would want to be responsible for another Cosmian Hall? DCAM should pay the developers the same amount to preserve the complex as they would pay to demolish it. Barring that, the developers should pursue historic tax credits and other sources of preservation funds. I believe that MHC is waiting and expecting such requests. In 1995, the City, DCPO and Mass Historic signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Northampton State Hospital. If old main is demolished, DCAM must encourage new buildings and landscapes that are sympathetic or comparable including a campus like organization and a massing at the crest of the hill with smaller scale and sized structures of heterogeneous building types sited along the slopes of the hill. Rehabilitation and new construction must meet the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines. If this plan nine to our commission for review, we do not think it would fare well."
3.CAC PARTICIPATION
* Ken Landon of the CAC asked if Save Old Main Museum Committee had consulted anyone from the Alliance for the Mentally Ill to ascertain its wishes? Mark Roessler agreed that lots of i's need to be dotted; Save Old Main welcomes suggestions for more dialogue and advice about procedure.
* Councilor Rita Bleiman questioned if we may shift $2 million from demolition to preservation? David Webster of MassDevelopment responded that the state has invested $5.7 million to the project, half for demolition/environmental cleanup/marketing. Gerry Joseph of The Community Builders added that there will be a cost to demolish or renovate. When the Master Plan was written, it was calculated at $12.50/square foot for demolition; these funds were not available for restoration. The issue is to what extent may we use money not for demolition but for renovation? David Webster stated that as part of its review process, MassDevelopment will consider the tradeoff of demolition vs. renovation.
* Mayor Higgins noted that Save Old Main was concentrating on the most historic section, not the entire site. She reminded everyone that the only money in hand is DCAM funds. David Webster summarized: There is $5.7 existing capital to fund a $12-13 million total cost project. The money used only for demolition has changed in nature with the MassDevelopment/The Community Builders partnership.
* On a note of levity that still makes an important point, the Mayor reminded everyone that in accordance with zoning and with our agreement with Mass Historic, "it would be difficult for the City to throw up a trailer-park building."
* Mayor Higgins asked if Save Old Main had done an analysis based on zoning/Mass Historic requirements to show cost of their proposals? Tom Douglas cited $100/square foot depending on building height. Bruce Fogel asked how we would arrive at the real cost of renovation? A feasibility study that would cost in the $30-50K range, Tom answered.
* Dave Modzelewski questioned the building's structural integrity. The report of Ryan S. Hellwig was referenced. His report follows:
RYAN S. HELLWIG, PE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
July 23, 2001
Tristram W. Metcalfe III, AIA
142 Main Street
Northampton MA 01060
Re-Old Main Building
Northampton State Hospital
This letter is a summary of my impressions of the walk-through that we made of this building on June 6, 2001.
The building has a brick bearing wall structure. The floors and roofs are primarily framed with dimension lumber, although some newer sections have concrete floors. In general, the condition of the building is good where there are no roof leaks or broken windows. However, there are sections where the roof and floors have collapsed completely. There may be other locations where damage may be significant but not yet visible.
The Massachusetts State Building Code (Chapter 34) has clear structural requirements for the renovation of existing buildings. Although existing buildings may be "grandfathered" there are criteria governing the degree of compliance with the code for new construction that will be required. One of the primary concerns of the Code is the recognized lack of earthquake and wind resistance in older buildings, particularly those with unreinforced brick masonry. If there is an increase in occupancy or a change to an assembly use, or if there is a significant rehabilitation of the building overall, then the Code looks for some seismic or wind retrofit. Wherever the renovation calls for removal of any walls which are part of the lateral load resisting system, the Code requires upgrading the remainder of the system to meet load levels of the code for new construction. As well, the Code looks to verify floor load capacities wherever there is a change of use.
Additions that are not structurally separate which are more than 10% of the existing building's area or weight also will trigger a seismic retrofit requirement for the existing building. However, if properly located, an addition can be used as lateral bracing for the existing building.
Many of the interior brick walls are built with internal ventilation flues. Furthermore, there were no anchors visible between the wood floor joists and the brick masonry walls. These are some of the problems with the lateral load resisting system that would have to be solved in the renovation of the structure.
Obviously, a thorough site investigation would be required to identify and evaluate the structural system. Also, there would have to be a complete analysis of these systems. Some field testing of the brick strength may be necessary. With well integrated architectural and structural plans for the project, it should be possible to make the building safe and satisfy the Code. Sincerely,
signature
Ryan Hellwig
Massachusetts Professional Engineer #37300 STRUCTURAL
28 ALDRICH STREET NORTHAMPTON, MA 01060
VOICE 413-584-HLWG (4594) FAX 413-584-ULWFax (4593)
David Webster stated that the MassDevelopment/The Community Builders partnership will include not only a marketing analysis but also a thorough structural analysis, including such serious issues as wood bracing ties. The partnership will err on the side of historic preservation, but it must be economically feasible, sensible and marketable.
* Teri Anderson queried if the proposed conference center wasn't a commercial, not a residential, use? In response to her question of how many hotel rooms were estimated, Tris Metcalfe responded 200.
Mayor Higgins summarized the evening's areas of consensus:
* Presentation by Save Old Main.
* CAC will discuss the issue of preservation/renovation further.
* All parties expressed every intention to share information.
* Museum project will get input from Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
* In any scenario, someone has to show how the "astronomical" (deliberate use of word by Mayor) cost of running a museum can be met. Currently in the City the Academy of Music, Forbes and Lilly Libraries, and First Churches are conducting capital campaigns.
4.AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
* Dr. Milton Kurian spoke as a citizen, not as a member of Save Old Main's Museum Committee. He envisions a unique museum telling the history of similar patients who have lived in similar institutions. 300 million folks world-wide are estimated to require mental hospital care. The Museum is envisioned as a journey into the past, present and future, to enlighten everyone; not a library but a living institution. "We have yet to build an appropriate museum to mental health." "Let us keep in mind what the building was built for."
* Joe Manning, a local writer, pointed to MASS MoCA as a very viable project; its museum arising from the building itself is compelling. People flock there just to experience the use of that space. The buildings had seemed beyond salvation before that renovation was undertaken.
* Mayor Higgins raised the point that a 15-year lobbying effort, at least $35 million from the state, along with major ongoing Guggenheim Museum financial support, were critical in the success of MASS MoCA. "The wonderful part of the museum is the vision. The next step is the hard slogging through the mud" to see how MASS MoCA was in fact brought into reality by unremitting hard work.
* The opinion was offered that once our renovation effort became known, "hundreds of Guggenheims would come out of the woodwork to help." The Mayor clarified that it was the job of Save Old Main and its supporters to find those Guggenheims.
* Mayor Higgins shared that it is not easy to say one is against the museum and memorializing those who lived and worked at the State Hospital. But part of her duties as an elected official is as gatekeeper of the public's dollars. The Mayor repeated that throughout its existence, the Citizens Advisory Committee consistently has advocated reuse if possible. As a point of information, there were reports from the 1980's calling for the demolition of Old Main for structural damage.
* Gerry Joseph offered to analyze the financial feasibility of the various residential and commercial uses. But he stated candidly that the museum concept is unlikely to be the sole Old Main usage. Open issues: Who owns the museum? Who stewards the project from start to finish? Who provides the funds to operate, market and manage the museum?
* Gerry Joseph raised the same questions about the conference center, a great idea on the face of it. Who runs it? Who puts up the capital to build it? Can this Valley absorb all those additional hotel rooms? An early version of the Master Plan included a version of a conference center but abandoned the concept as not realistic.
* Bruce Fogel: Is Save Old Main's goal to save the building then tackle the museum, or save the building for a museum? Mark Roessler: Primary goal is to save the building and they would prefer it to include the museum.
* Mayor Higgins stated that we need to determine the structural analysis of Old Main building.
* The Mayor repeated that the City has no funds available for the State Hospital project. All funding will be state and private dollars.
Mayor Higgins attended the first meeting about the State Hospital site in 1987. Only now has a group coalesced around one particular building. She thanked Save Old Main for generating interest in the issue. Tonight witnessed the largest turnout of any CAC meeting! 5.NEXT MEETING:
In September
Details to follow when finalized
Motion to adjourn at 7:15 p.m. was moved and seconded.
Respectfully submitted,
Corinne Philippides, secretary
Mayor's Office