Preservation Issue #2: Scale

One of the tag lines for the Historic Trust’s proposed development is “compatible juxtaposition.”  Well, as we saw last time we looked at this topic, the Vancouver Code gives the criteria for compatibility.  

A. Compatibility. To ensure that new development is compatible in scale, character, and design with existing buildings and with the preservation of existing architectural characteristics of significant buildings in the area.

So let’s look at the very first criteria for compatibility:  Scale.

The proposed buildings are much larger than the Academy.  The proposed buildings are huge blocks, all mass, pushed to the edges.  They are taller than the academy, and appear even taller since they have full-height walls and flat roofs instead of gabled roofs like the Academy.  The buildings would even project beyond their own footprints.  The fact that the buildings push far closer to both Evergreen and C Street than the Academy only increases the disparity in scale since it makes the proposed buildings look even bigger from street level.  

The renderings offered for the proposal were quite obviously chosen to minimize that scale discrepancy - perspectives from elevated positions, Academy generally in front, no view from Evergreen - but it is still obvious.  The proposed buildings would become the dominant buildings on the site, visually and spatially dominating the Academy, easily displacing the Academy as the “the dominant landmark.”  And this is because the scale is NOT compatible.  

And, as we've discussed, this is one of the things that could cost the Academy future preservation funding.  The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation includes a requirement about scale:

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

This is why scale is important, generally from a preservation project, but especially for the Academy. The architectural character of the Academy is formal architecture.  This is architecturally significant, but historically significant since it was formal architecture dedicated to the poor and needy and not the poor.  But to supplant the Academy as the dominant building on the site - as the proposed buildings would do - would be to destroy both architecturally and historically significant aspects of the building. It’s hard to pass off that destruction as “preservation.”

And don't forget to sign the Petition if you haven't already!