Our presentation on historic impact
Address to Planning Commission concerning Kensington Terrace
Nov. 15, 2007
Dear Commission Members:
My
name is Pam Hubbell and I live at 4080 Terrace Court in a 1912 2-story
shingle home which we bought 7 years ago from the original family whose
great-grandparents built the home.
You have in your materials I
believe a 12-page packet of pictures to accompany my address. In it we
have provided pictures of many of the houses in Kensington which are on
the National Register of Historic Homes, and there are a few pages at
the end that help to situate this project in its surroundings. You can
browse through these pictures on your own as I talk, and we hope these
help to show the historic value of our community that we are trying to
protect.
When I think about this project being built in
Kensington, I am reminded of, say, a housing development called “Oak
Grove Estates,” and when you visit the development there is no evidence
of any oak grove in sight. Or, say, a condo complex called “The
Meadowlands,” and they’ve attempted to landscape it to look like a
meadow, which it doesn’t.
What is both funny and sad is that
these developments in effect obliterate their namesakes while at the
same time capitalizing on them. I feel the Kensington Terrace project
has the potential to do the same thing to our Kensington community.
A
3-story high building that spans one full block right in the heart of
Kensington is just too big. To be honest, the prospect of this size of a
building coming in to Kensington feels very wrong to me. And, clearly,
this has been impressed upon the architects.
In the DEVIATION REQUEST within the PROJECT PROGRAM they explain that they have “terraced” the corners and they
claim
they have “stepped the third floor significantly back along 80% of the
building, effectively creating a perception with the façade that the
majority of the building is a two story structure.” Having looked at the
plans, I feel strongly that the building will look very much like a
3-story building despite these design features.
Also, throughout
the Report to the Planning Commission on this project issued Nov. 1, I
have noted numerous instances where the size of the building is
manipulated. For example, it describes how the rear of the building will
be designed “to offset the bulk and scale of the proposed 3-story
building.” I feel Kensington deserves much more than an inadequate
attempt to make this building appear to be something that it isn’t.
I
am actually excited for this development to occur; this block needs
improvement. I think we are lucky to have the design talents of Allard
Jansen Architects on the project. But it is not right for this
development to capitalize on the very nature of what we know and love to
be Kensington while at the same time seriously compromising its
integrity.
The question I am asking you to consider today is
whether or not the Kensington Terrace development is right for
Kensington. On the one hand, according to the goals of the General
Plan’s vision for a City of Villages, this development is exceptional.
It is a consummate example of what a mixed-use project should provide a
community. But throughout the Urban Design Element section of the
General Plan, there is a conspicuous reference to the equally important
goal of not losing sight of distinct communities and historic
resources.
In the Policies for “Architecture” section of this
document, the stated goal is to “Design buildings that contribute to a
positive neighborhood character and relate to neighborhood and community
context.” It also “Encourages designs that are sensitive to the scale,
form, rhythm, proportions, and materials proximate to commercial areas
and residential neighborhoods that have a well-established, distinctive
character.” (UD-9)
There are also Policies for “Historic
Character” that stress the need to “Respect the context of historic
streets, landmarks, and areas that give a community a sense of place or
history” (UD10)
This tug-of-war between development and
preservation in the Urban Design Element is seriously tested with the
project you are considering today. Being 3 stories high for 1 entire
block, it is in no way sensitive to the scale of buildings around it,
all 1 and 2 story except for the previous building Allard Jansen built
in Kensington. The project’s façade is attractive, but the modern, boxy
look does not relate well to the majority of architecture throughout
Kensington. The west elevation, along Marlborough, is said to be Spanish
Colonial, but other than the three arches along the street, the
remaining two stories continue the same design as the south facing
façade. And the identical facades of the row homes on the east side
create a repetitive rhythm that is completely out of keeping with the
diversity of architecture one sees from house to house in Kensington.
Within
the context of this vision for a City of Villages, I must ask, does the
Kensington Terrace development help to create a village or to diminish
an existing one?I could make a very similar point if I
stepped through the Mid-City Communities Plan, which is cited often as
justification for the Kensington Terrace development project. And in a
similar manner, this plan is tested by this project. Within the “Vision
2020” section it states that the primary goal is “the re-establishment
of a deep-rooted community,” but Kensington is already a deep-rooted
community that would actually become less stable with this large influx
of retail and office space and the traffic that comes with it. Another
goal is for “Neighborhoods to recognize, maintain, and enhance their
unique identity.” The residents with concerns about this project fully
recognize the unique community that Kensington is, and that is why they
are here today. Another stated goal is to “Preserve environmental,
cultural, and historic resources,” which is what we have come here today
to ask you to do.
More locally though, the Mid-City Communities
Plan identifies very specific issues and problems that each community
faces. What I found disturbing is that the Kensington Terrace project
does not address any of the issues listed for the Kensington-Talmadge
area, and in fact it could conceivably contribute to 3 identified
problems: the first being the increased noise, visual impact, and
traffic circulation caused by State Route 15. The second being the
speeding and cut-through traffic that is disrupting portions of
residential neighborhood streets. And third, that commercial parking is
deficient with on-street parking overflowing into the neighborhoods.
My question then is how readily should we allow the Mid-City Communities Plan to become the mandate for this project?
Kensington
is essentially and most importantly a historic residential community
supported by a small-scale, walking commercial district. As homeowners
and residents in Kensington, we have invested in a unique community and
we ask today that we be allowed to work with the developer towards a
better vision for Kensington.