Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-19 Public Comment - Z. Osman - Downtown Bozeman Improvement PlanFrom:Zehra Osman To:Agenda; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Phillipe Gonzalez; Jeanne Wilkinson; crystal; Chris Saunders; Martin Matsen;Jennifer Dunn Subject:Comments on the DBIP for Monday 4/15/19 commission meeting Date:Friday, April 12, 2019 4:27:11 PM Attachments:DBIP Comments 4-12-19.docx Here are my comments on the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan intended to informyour Monday 4/15/19 meeting on this subject. Best regards, Zehra Osman312 Sanders Avenue Bozeman, MT 59718 Honorable Mayor Andrus, Deputy Mayor Mehl, and Commissioners Pomeroy, Cunningham, and Krauss, Thank you for your commitment to Bozeman’s sense of place that is rooted in its historic districts, individual historic properties, and the areas around each of them - their setting and context. This was evident at the NCOD meeting on 4/8/19. I wanted to offer this brief discussion on compatibility, which leads directly into my subsequent comments on the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP). Compatible New Development The 2017 Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards state: “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.” They also state, “New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” Mayor Andrus was correct in stating that we want new development within the NCOD to be “compatible” rather than “consistent.” It’s important to call out the spectrum of design styles that are often proposed by designers as being compatible. Both ends of the spectrum (1 & 4), the extremes, should be avoided. This is the very reason it is important to hire historic preservation professionals to develop the design standards and guidelines for all areas within the NCOD, including the study area (B3) addressed in the DBIP. Spectrum of what designers call “compatible:” These design styles prioritize “Sense of Place, Compatibility, and Continuity over time:” 1. Minimal differentiation: Designers may believe literal replication of adjacent buildings is considered compatible. However, one should avoid creating a false sense of historical development. 2. Innovation within a historic style: adds new elements in either the same or a closely related style, sustaining a sense of continuity in architectural language. Tries to balance differentiation and compatibility – but is weighted in favor of compatibility. This requires informed designers. These designs prioritize the developer/architect’s vision over sense of place, using contrast, disruption, and emphasizing style of “our time,” which is the antithesis of historic preservation: 3. Abstract reference: Make reference to the historic setting while consciously avoiding literal resemblance or working within a historic style. Seeks to balance differentiation and compatibility – but is weighted in favor of differentiation. This is tricky because many historic styles cannot be reduced to an abstract shape. Rarely successful. 4. Intentional opposition: Conscious opposition to the context and the determination to change its character through conspicuous contrast, prioritizing differentiation at the expense of compatibility. This can go terribly wrong when the resource (adjacent historic properties) is seen as an artifact from a vanished world, something to be isolated in a museum setting or set off by contrast with a radically different modernist expression. Avoid this approach. Comments on the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP) I first want to commend the Downtown Bozeman Partnership and their consultants for producing a plan that contains some exciting and innovative ideas. Here are some areas where the DBIP would benefit from collaboration with Bozeman’s historic preservation program – current and future – so that the combined efforts can yield growth that retains our town’s sense of place. Do not remove Downtown from the NCOD protections: The above discussion regarding the spectrum of what designers offer as being “historically compatible” is the basis for why it is important to reject the Downtown Bozeman Partnership’s proposal to remove the downtown (core and all of B3) from the NCOD. The B3 doughnut surrounding the Main Street Historic District provides the setting, the backdrop – the foreground and background – to the Downtown Core/Main Street as well as to other adjacent historic districts. It should not be excised out of the NCOD. All of the ideas presented by the DBIP can be implemented using compatible architecture (#2 in the above spectrum). Higher density development within the B3 makes good sense – as long as it is designed to be compatible with the core/Main Street and not adversely affect the character of the downtown. We can certainly build more housing downtown without sacrificing sense of place. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) and the city historic preservation officer (HPO)—not the Downtown Bozeman Partnership—should play the lead role in recommending criterions within all districts and neighborhoods within the NCOD (including downtown/Core/B3). This role requires expertise the Downtown Bozeman Partnership doesn’t have. It would include: a. HPAB/HPO to work directly with paid historic preservation professionals to develop design standards and guidelines for compatible development within the NCOD, including all of Downtown/B3 b. HPAB/HPO to make recommendations directly to the city commission regarding the appropriateness of both new construction and proposed demolition within all of the NCOD (or any version of overlay districts), including the Downtown/B3 c. HPAB/HPO to work directly with hired historic preservation experts to update the city’s historic building/resources inventory. If the HPAB and HPO are involved, there is greater chance for continuity for all involved. This helps with setting appropriate expectations, which sets everyone up for success. Trees, trees, and more trees: Lastly, reject the DBIP proposal to limit landscaped areas and trees. Yes, the DBIP has some great ideas of continuous greenspace with a necklace of parks – which is great. However, we need trees and vegetation throughout the entire downtown. Trees and vegetation allow people to walk along cool shaded streets while shopping throughout the downtown. We want downtown to be walkable, right? Sincerely, Zehra Osman Bozeman resident