Design clash

Architect pans library plans, By David Hulse Milford — An architect, hired by the borough and specializing in historic preservation, found the newly proposed Milford library design beautiful, but “not appropriate to the character of the historic district,” he said Monday. Architect Peter Benton, of the West Chester firm John Milner Associates, did the compatibility review of the Frederick Schwartz Architects design. Benton delivered an eight-page report and made a presentation of his findings before the April 23 meeting of the borough’s architectural review board. His report was not well received by an audience predominantly made up design advocates, many of them volunteers who had each devoted hundreds of hours to developing the design. In summary Benton’s report found: • The 18,000-square-foot design was too intensive for the residential scaled site: it would dwarf neighboring structures and impose upon still undeveloped private lots behind the library • the proposed in-front parking for 40 to 50 cars was “not a desirable pattern for new development in a historic district • that while contemporary designs are appropriate in the district, they should be sympathetic with the district’s historic character, and the proposed form “bears no relationship to the existing buildings within the historic district or the historic district as a whole” • the design’s proposed stone, glass and weathered vertical wood siding were not appropriate in a district dominated by painted horizontal wood siding In conclusion, Benton recommended that the library contract with Schwartz “to begin actual work on the design of the new library.” He further recommended: • that if the building be located in the rear of the site, “alternative exterior forms, massing and materials that use the surrounding buildings as their inspiration,” be used to reduce impacts on neighboring properties • consideration of moving the building to the street front and parking to the rear, which admittedly would “require an entirely different concept” Benton was interrupted by challenges twice during his talk - once after suggesting that Schwartz’ design had been prepared hurriedly for the sake of the design competition - although he pointedly added that he did not fault Schwartz for hurrying; and again after he opined that Schwartz’s choice of exterior surfaces did not reflect the surrounding structures. At the second interruption, review board Chair Beth Kelley threatened to have the woman who voiced her objections removed from the room. When Benton finished, Maleyne Syracuse, chair of the building task force responded saying the Schwartz design had taken six months to develop. “It was not haphazard.” Library Board President Charles Eible said the building size was not negotiable. “It’s going to be 18,000 square feet. That’s the size of a central library.” He said the building went far beyond the concept of a place to keep books and, with its variety of spaces and uses, was more of a community center. Building task force member Alistair Gordon, who reviews architecture for The New York Times said it had been his greatest fear that the review become a “showdown of contrasting intents.” Gordon noted that the task force panel had followed the borough district’s guidelines, which directs that new construction “not pretend to be historic.” “Fred (Schwartz) addressed exactly what the guidelines wanted,” Gordon argued. He said the design was the first attempt to introduce modern construction. “This is the 21st century. Milford has missed a whole century.” Gordon also challenged Benton to point out the requirement that new construction use historic construction as inspiration. Benton agreed that the guidelines were open to broad interpretation, but reiterated that the library design does not bear any relationship to any other Milford buildings at all. Many of the design supporters were disappointed with the board and Benton. “I don’t need your permission to hire Fred Schwarz,” Syracuse said,. “You’re calling for a redesign in essence. We’re not going to do that.” “The plan that we have is the plan that we have. We’re willing to cooperate, but not with the attitude you’ve presented tonight ... My impression is that you’re putting up roadblocks,” Eible said. “That’s interesting,” Kelley replied. “It’s my impression that your committee never had any interest in working with us.” Charges were exchanged about who had asked whom to be involved in the original planning. Borough Council President Matt Osterberg said he had been asked to join the task force, but declined knowing he would have to vote on the issue as a councilmember. “I recommended that they contact the review board,” he said. Borough Councilman and former review board member Ed Raarup defended the board, and suggested that the architects need to get together and talk about the design. “Everybody wants a library. There’s huge support for and against the design, but ugly and beautiful doesn’t matter here. What matters is what complies (with the guidelines),” he said. Despite the controversy, Monday’s session was informal since no application for approval has yet been filed. Concluding the session, Kelley directed the architects to get together and begin the process.