Sunday, November 19, 2017

Preservation: Conservation vs. Innovation


Bracket detail with foliated anthemion and acanthus
Historic preservation is arguably a game of conservation. The architect carefully examines what original building fabric can be kept, decides what needs to be preserved, and then he or she determines which elements have no historical significance and can therefore be discarded. If the building in question is considered a NYC Landmark or is part of the National Register of Historic Buildings (official list of places and buildings considered worthy of preservation by the National Park Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior) then, this activity is carefully monitored by the agencies to ensure an accurate preservation.

Rainbow Room C.1987
Round bar at New Amsterdam Theater c. 1994
For my late mentor Hugh Hardy, preservation was never synonymous with “placing buildings in formaldehyde;” instead, it was an opportunity to bring life to historic buildings and places. He had a “creative restoration ethos” which implied that restoration is never a “pure” act since one is always interpreting it from the vantage point of the present. He and I worked on a number of restorations including the New Amsterdam Theater, the BAM Harvey Theatre, and the Rainbow Room. Design remained central to all our conversations any guidelines by the Landmarks Preservation Commission or the Secretary of the Interior informed our decisions. 
BAM Harvey Theater
Because it is not located in a historic district, the BAM Harvey Theatre lended itself to innovation. For his production of the Mahabharata, Peter Brooks desired to represent the reality of the deterioration in the theatre. Hardy gleefully obliged and decided to do something unusual in most restorations: to arrest the state of decay and dilapidation in time. He maintained the visual evidences of the building’s passage through time while making accessible the public amenities of any other theater: AC, bathrooms, coat closets, and concession stands.  Can you imagine a more incongruous state of affairs? Such an “enfant terrible” attitude would be dissonant in preservation circles. 

After 14 years with Hardy at HHPA I decided to turn my attention to Classicism, and after participating in the certification program at the Institute for Classical Architecture in NYC, I became a “card carrying Classicist”. I worked with Ferguson Shamamian for 4 years, Roger Ferris for 2, and then worked for Jaque Robertson at his firm, Cooper Robertson. 
St. Luke's Episcopal Church Parish House
St. Luke's Episcopal Church Parish House
Jaque and I worked on the St. Luke Episcopal Church’s Parish House. The building was designed by Thomas Nash in 1910 and was modeled after a church in Maidstone, England. It is situated in East Hampton’s Historic Village District and is neighbor to the Home Sweet Home Museum which is a house dating back to the 1720’s. Our addition was scrutinized heavily by the East Hampton Historical Society to insure a harmonious integration in the historical setting. We were careful to keep the overall height lower than the church proper and in fact the Parish Hall portion of the addition is housed in a one-story wing that defers in scale to Home Sweet Home to the north. Nevertheless, the Parish House is no slavish copy of either the Church or the parsonage. Its quirky facade takes cues from both, transcending into a new creation which occupies its place between them with aplomb and contributes to a trialogue.
31 East 38 entry hall
31 East 38 living room


Our work at 31 East 38th Street does not involve the innovative preservation techniques of The Harvey, nor the creation of a new building as a fitting addition to an already harmonious ensemble. It is a more nuanced approach where, entirely new interiors are designed to fit seamlessly into the existing townhouse in such a way that when all is finished, one would not be able to tell exactly where the original ends and the new begins.  The house had originally been built as a single family house but converted to multi-tenant use in 1937. Our renovation reverted the house to single family use. The interior looks as if it was always there; yet the only rooms that were always there are the main stair and the entry hall.
330 Riverside Drive
Another single family townhouse: 330 Riverside Drive, never had a complete restoration since it was built in 1901. There are many technical requirements that need to be met to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants and immediate neighbors: fire safety, egress, as well as the latest plumbing, mechanical, and electrical codes. A new elevator will be added in place of the old staff spiral staircase that connects all 5 floors and the cellar.  The 4th and 5th floors will be gutted and the bedrooms redesigned so that each one has an “en-suite” bathroom. A new kitchen, pantry, and laundry room will bring these rooms into the 21st century. Several rooms will require a more specialized “surgical intervention” where existing rooms will be modified in subtle ways to accommodate new programmatic requirements and new technologies, arguably making the new room better than the old, not only from a programmatic point of view but also from an aesthetic one.  Our hope is that upon walking in for the first time, your eye will be fooled into thinking that this interior was always that way.

330 Riverside Drive skylight over central stair
330 Riverside Drive- fireplace inglenook seen from central stair


No comments:

Post a Comment