In a message dated 4/15/98 8:08:43 PM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:

> Although you don't specify what the program is to be, nor what exactly the
>  local prservationists deem "impossible" it certainly sounds like you could
> be
>  involved in something really great.  Please elaborate, and on what ideas
>  you're looking for ...

The building has been modified substantially over the years, like many of our
historic buildings. However, it has important local significance and is
locally designated.

The project faces several design challenges: the addition requires several
times the amount of square footage of the historic footprint (not good); but
the historic building would remain a visual centerpiece, with the addition
behind it and largely hidden behind some mature landscaping (good). The
historic functions of the building would remain essentially the same --
residential (good); but optimum accessibility requires insertion of a lift
somewhere (although we are having a tough time finding where to put it without
a) obscuring important openings or b) destroying (in my mind) too much
historic fabric -- bad.)

Development has caused the rural to give way to the semi-rural (rurban?
urbal?), with increased traffic on the historic roads causing a use-shift --
farms and homes along those roads are no longer as desireable as single family
homes. If they are to be kept standing, one had better find a new way to use
them. Here's where sprawl plays a role in generating these difficult adaptive
use projects. . .

The original design (which caused the local folks to get so upset) was for a
long, horizontal block, perpendicular to the axis of the historic building and
joined to it at one end. The client is willing to entirely rethink it to get
something appropriate that would "do the trick." Putting the 90 percent of the
addition (like the library) underground to reduce the visual impact is not an
option here, for a number of reasons, although putting some parts of the
facility below grade might work.

Here's another tricky part, which runs up against a Sec/Int no-no ("false
history").  In order to accommodate the large amount of additional square
footage, we have proposed thinking of the historic building as an element in a
composition of buildings (some larger, some smaller) that would emulate the
farmsteads that still exist in the area. This building did have some
outbuildings near it, but none of the scale of say, a barn, nor, in spite of
research, have we ever been able to establish that this building was ever used
as a "farmstead."  If this approach were to be used, scale and massing are
critical, materials are important, as is how blatantly "new" is differentiated
from "old." Also very critical:  the link between the new and the old.

I think the design issues are fascinating.  Also interesting is how to treat a
historic resource in a changing context -- does one accept that adaptive use
may be the only way to re-use a historic property (thus living
with/reinforcing the consequences that sprawl has wrought)? Or should
preservationists stand firm, preventing the building to be used for anything
but its historic use (thus bucking the consequences of sprawl), even though
that appears unlikely? The upshot, if the second view prevails, is that the
historic building will sit, deteriorating.  The longer it sits, the more
remote the possibility that someone will buy it to restore it (not impossible,
but remote). The building's ultimate preservation would seem to require some
compromises here.

So that's a little more background.  Any design ideas? Thoughts on false
history? Changing contexts? Life in general?

Mary Krugman