July 16, 2019 Re: Revised Concord Free Public Library proposal Dear Members of the Historic Districts Commission, The Library's strategy of differentiation in the proposed new construction compared to the existing historic Library building and the historic Haywood Benjamin house is one that fails to understand correctly the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guildelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1977), as I have pointed out in earlier correspondence, and fails to recognize that current architectural practice has moved beyond a narrow, dated interpretation of those guidelines toward much greater understanding of the importance of de-emphasizing differentiation and prioritizing compatibility in historic contexts. I recently became aware of the work of Professor Steven W. Semes, whose research focuses on the issue of defining appropriate new architecture in historic settings. Semes was formerly Historical Architect in the Technical Preservation Services Branch of the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. in the 1970's, when the Secretary's Standards were developed. Professor Semes is currently the director of the Graduate Studies Program for Historic Preservation at the University of Notre Dame. I have attached his 2007 article, "Differentiated and Compatible: Four Strategies for Additions to Historic Settings," which I commend to you for a quick overview of these issues. He is also the author of The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation (2009), a book which incidentally is in the holdings of the Special Collections at the Concord Free Public Library, and which goes into further depth on the topic. Professor Semes's work is particularly germane to the task before you in evaluating the historical appropriateness of the Library's proposal. Perhaps some of you are already familiar with his book, but in case not all of you are, I want to highlight some of the important points Professor Semes makes. I apologize for the length of this letter, but reading it will take far less time than reading the book (which nevertheless I highly recommend to you). It is intended to provide a conceptual framework that might be useful as you deliberate about the proposal. Here are some quotes from the book interspersed with some clarifying comments for context shown in brackets. I have also included comments of my own (not indented). All italicization is Semes's. I have bolded certain comments to highlight them. "Every new building enters a conversation already in progress, but whether the colloquy is joined with tact and grace or with rudeness and disrespect depends on the intentions of the newcomer's designers, patrons, and builders. ... The intensity of the disparity between the aesthetic intentions of a new building and its historic setting depends on the degree to which the architectural culture represented by the new structure is distinct from that of the older ones...there are cases where an alteration or addition to a historic setting presents a striking departure in terms of style, scale, materials, or composition, representing a significant difference between the aesthetic intentions of the new and old construction...The question of how to evaluate the appropriateness of new construction adjacent to or on top of historic buildings or joining an ensemble or streetscape in a historic district--especially when significantly different in scale, style, and materials--has become a matter of increasing public debate.... (pp. 25-28) "If we believe that safeguarding historic structures, districts and landscapes is legitimate and noble, then we may reasonably prioritize those approaches most likely to further this intention and deemphasize those likely to inhibit it. While there ought always to be room in our cities for architectural innovation and experimentation, there must also be places dedicated to the continuity of valued architectural character." (p. 29) 2 I would submit that the historic area embracing the Library, its surrounding streetscape, and neighborhood is a place where the continuity of valued architectural character should be maintained at all costs. "Historic buildings and districts are not stage sets or the setting for a theme park; nor are they museum artifacts to be protected under glass. They are our own homes, workplaces, gathering places, monuments, places of leisure, and the sources of several things necessary for human happiness, including the sense of pride, orientation, belonging, and participation in a community life longer and greater than one's own individual life span. A sense of place, recognized and supported over a long period of time by the community residing in that place, is a cultural achievement of a high order...." (p. 34) Concord has achieved and sustained such a sense of place over centuries. It is that cultural achievement that makes Concord so special and why we have a Historic Districts Commission to protect that special character for centuries to come. "Modernism has largely embraced contrast as its default mode in relation to the preexisting environment. This stance... has sparked public opposition, fueled the historic preservation movement, and empowered the recovery of traditional architecture and urbanism in contemporary practice." (p.40) "A large and increasing segment of the architectural profession now seeks to fully recover the formal languages, bodies of knowledge, technical skills, and craftsmanship that produced the environments we now consider worthy of preservation, inevitably blurring the distinction between historical buildings and new ones..." (p.34) "In general, when additions or new construction are proposed for settings of great value, they should be designed in such a way that the new construction is distinguishable from the historic fabric by informed observers or trained professionals but is otherwise continuous in character with the historic setting. No differentiation should be made that would result in an incongruous or ugly contrast. Where the new construction would not be readily distinguishable by the public at large, interpretive materials should clarify the construction history of the site rather than expecting it to be self-evident from appearance alone." (p. 170) The majority of the proposed new Library construction has an overzealous level of differentiation that causes great harm to the historic character of the built environment. I would further argue that this is a setting of great value to the Town of Concord, and that the new construction should be timeless and maintain a continuity of character in keeping with the historic setting. This design clearly does not do that. It puts too much emphasis on differentiation for which there is no support in the conservation ethic. "A concrete example of overzealous differentiation is the frequent refusal of new modernist buildings to engage physically with their historic neighbors, as if it were somehow improper for new and old buildings to touch at all. At an architectural scale, new and old buildings are frequently joined by 'glass gaskets' or transparent glazed connections...to underscore the uncrossable divide between tradition and modernism. A more straightforward joint would perhaps suggest that the new and old are entitled to establish a relationship based on equality and mutual respect." (p. 169) The currently proposed Link on the North facade and most of the Sudbury Road side of the proposed new construction with the extensive amount of glass exemplify overzealous differentiation and illustrate what Semes is referring to above as an uncrossable divide between tradition and modernism. All of this should be re-thought to establish a relationship of equality and mutual respect for the Library building and the Haywood Benjamin house. 3 In both the attached article and the book, Semes outlines four possible architectural strategies "toward the relationship of the new and the old, ranging from maximum compatibility to maximum differentiation, with two intermediate positions that favor one or the other:" (p. 171) 1) Literal Replication 2) Invention Within a Style 3) Abstract Reference 4) Intentional Opposition. [Literal Replication] "is the strategy of seamless addition that seeks to expand a preexisting structure or ensemble by directly reproducing or closely imitating the original form, material, and detail...This can work well as long as the scale of the replication is modest relative to the overall composition of the building or ensemble." (p. 173) The small addition that the Library is proposing to put onto the main Library building essentially uses this first strategy, which likely explains why no one has objected to it. The second strategy, Invention Within a Style, is useful for a new addition or an infill building, which adds new elements in "either the same style or in a closely related one, sustaining a sense of general continuity in architectural language. The intention of the strategy is to achieve a balance between differentiation and compatibility, but weighted in favor of the latter [ie, in favor of compatibility]. This is a strategy with a long history across the centuries. In fact, it is what most architects have always done--discontinuity and deliberate contrast having been more the exception than the rule except during those atypical moments when architectural culture pursued the deliberate cultivation of 'difference.' " (p. 187) The Library has now finally utilized this well-established strategy in its