The Historical Commission has been asked to weigh in on various matters related to the current state and discussions surrounding various town-owned buildings. While we have been deliberately keeping a relatively low public profile as some of these issues play out, there has been much internal discussion about these matters at our meetings, and I’d like to clarify where we stand.
Town Hall certainly still looks bedraggled, and count me first among those who had hoped that the Community Preservation funds we secured for it last year would have already been set in motion. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before we can responsibly begin the restoration process.
Before paint can splash and hammers fly, we need to get a clear assessment about how to prioritize what the building requires, such as to understand the full extent of the damage underneath the cupola and around the failing gutters. Painting rotted wood or wood where water wicks out from the inside doesn’t make sense, though this approach has been done repeatedly in the past.
Preliminary good news is that the basement and walls seem to be surprisingly sound, regarding the degree of structural degradation they have suffered, but we need more specific information if we are to approach this project strategically, to avoid wasting more money. While we all look forward to the psychological lift that a nicely painted Town Hall would bring us, a long-term approach to this project will ensure a more cost-effective process, and we are fortunate that the project is being managed expertly, by those who are patient enough to ensure high-quality work, rather than immediately going for the false economy of a short-lived cheap thrill.
Before the fun begins, we need to be sure we understand the water management issues that caused recent paint jobs to fail, which are requiring us to repaint more often than it should require. Determining this involves an inspection around the roof and cupola, and the winter’s snow delayed that, but now that warmer weather approaches, that should happen soon.
Additionally, we are awaiting the town’s decision regarding a potential addition to the building. Restoring areas that will then be removed for a potential modification would be a waste of funds, so we will have a better idea of how to prioritize the restoration work after Town Meeting.
Meanwhile, the Historical Commission is keeping an eye on the activities of the Municipal Buildings Committee’s work.
I’ve been asked a few times where we come down on these issues, related to major alterations of three of the town’s historic properties.
While we urge caution regarding any new construction, particularly within the historic districts, we are of the opinion that a tasteful and effective addition to both Town Hall and Hildreth House are possible and necessary, and therefore are in support of the MBC’s warrant article that gives us the flexibility to change their footprints. Current usage demands on the space are clearly causing significant wear, and Town Hall’s upstairs meeting hall is a lost asset that we would like to see returned to public use.
The town doesn’t always get major construction right, so we support the plans for this expansion so long as the Historical Commission has close oversight regarding its design. Town Hall already has one questionable addition, at its rear. I think the new post office is a less-than-stellar example of how town-guided construction can go, and there are longtime residents who still comment that Harvard lost a community hub when the post office moved. But there are times when major projects are successful. More recently, the new library is widely considered to be a stellar success, and a much-needed town addition. With similar careful oversight, modifications to Town Hall, the former library, and Hildreth House, can be similarly successful.
Highly competent and careful thought has certainly been invested in considering all these, and we are fortunate to have extremely qualified resident architects volunteering their efforts towards determining our best options.
If Town Meeting votes to make these significant investments, then, when the designs stabilize, the Historical Commission needs to be at the forefront of the review process. I believe we have a good track record of helping such projects be successful, and we are the only official advocates for architectural aesthetics. The selectmen seem amenable to our participation. As long as this oversight is formalized in any decisions the town takes, we are comfortable with the MBC’s thoughtful proposals currently under discussion.
However, this should not be confused with agreeing to the details of the mock-ups currently under circulation. We agree in principle to the idea of the buildings being improved, but the actual details of design approval will come later, when actual designs are proposed. There is confusion that the MBC proposal is for specific designs, but it is is not; it is rather a proposal of scope, and the Historical Commission supports it.
Many people are to be thanked for their careful work on these projects, and the Historical Commission looks forward to participating as a resource in these matters.
Jonathan Feist is a Shaker Road resident
and is the current chairman of the Harvard Historical Commission
