West Experiment Station, 682 North Pleasant Street
Statement from Joe Larson, Preserve UMass
The mistrust created by the unfortunate demise of the Trolley Station three years ago continues to hang over UMass:
Statement from Joe Larson, Preserve UMass
Click to enlarge/read
Trolley Station on North Pleasant Street, built 1911 trashed June, 2012
West Experiment Station sits on busy North Pleasant Street
682 North Pleasant Street
Trolley Station on North Pleasant Street, built 1911 trashed June, 2012
17 comments:
This is really disappointing. Part of the intrigue of UMass, Amherst is to walk the campus and catch these little nuggets of the past of which there are fewer and fewer. There is really no reason to move this building... it should be restored and preserved in its current location. I'm stunned the Amherst historical society or Massachusetts historical society has not stepped in to halt this bogus relocation plan.
The Amherst Historical Commission has no authority over UMass.
Just like the Town of Amherst- take a hike somewhere else.
"After two and a half years of planning, it took only three days to move the lighthouse back from the cliff side brink."
http://www.mvtimes.com/2015/06/03/gay-head-lighthouse-move-is-complete/
not quite rocket science!, the contractor on MV had moved many old heavy structures, maybe they could also move a Little Red School House and a West Experiment Station, i.e. a two-fer.
Thad
Hi Thad at 10:35
Will you be writing the check for $3 million per structure, just for the move?
http://www.mvtimes.com/2015/05/27/moving-lighthouses/
Regarding the Little Red Schoolhouse...a better investment would be to move Carol Grey.
All government decisions must be made without consideration as to cost. Failure to follow this procedure will result in accusations of back-room deals.
This all begs the question... what is the point of moving it "a couple dozen yards west and a bit south of its current location" as I am quoting UMass Facilities & Campus Services. If all you want to rebuild a foundation... you dig underneath, support the structure with "I" bars, build the foundation, then rest the building back on the new foundation. No "moving" necessary. This response doesn't answer the question why it's location needs to be moved AT ALL!!!! Especially a "couple dozen yards." Seriously!? Mark my words... some pathetic excuse like, "oh we lost some bricks" or "we mismarked the parts so now we can't put humpty dumpty back together again" will be the next thing you hear from UMass Facilities & Campus Services. The UMass campus is quickly becoming the Nimrud of New England. Maybe they'll put a Wi-Fi tower in it's place.
The Amherst Historical Commission has every right to petition the State Historical Commission to act to save this building, it has every right to make a formal request on its own behalf and on its own letterhead, stating that it would act itself if it had the authority, but as it doesn't (and the state commission does), the town commission would greatly appreciate it if the state commission did so.
While only a request, coming from the town commission in which the building is located, it inherently is going to be taken quite seriously, particularly if the state commission has no idea why this building is historically significant, has no knowledge of UM's past misdeeds (Trolley Stop, Lincoln Apts, etc.), and only knows what the university's PR propaganda claims is true.
This is perfectly legitimate, Larry -- they are the duly authorized body charged with preventing the demolition of buildings of historical significance within the Town of Amherst and while we can argue if UMass is or isn't "within" the town in a legal sense (i.e. if it instead is a "reservation"), it a geographical sense, it very much is. The building is virtually surrounded by land under the Amherst Historical Commission's jurisdiction, a point which hopefully they will make.
They might also cite the example of the UMass Faculty Club, which consists of two even older (wooden) buildings -- at least one of which was located where UM wanted to build the LGRC -- and instead of demolishing it (as was common in the 1970's), it was moved to its current location on whatever road it is that the faculty club is on.
Ellis Way (which curved in a Northwesterly Direction from Lincoln Avenue to North Pleasant Street) can no more be "restored" than Lincoln Avenue North of Mass Ave can be "restored" -- there are now buildings there. Whitmore, Herter & Tower Library in middle of Lincoln (the Student Union Circle was a drive off Lincoln), and LRGC (and memory is Campus Center) in the middle of Ellis.
They can lay out & build a new road and call it "Ellis Avenue" but it won't be a restoration of the old one, and they can build it around instead of through this historically significant building -- although why are they putting new roads into the center campus anyway? I thought the goal was to reduce and eliminate vehicles in what is supposed to be a "pedestrian campus", not to build new roads for vehicles -- just saying, if they are going to have the "pedestrian campus" philosophy, you'd think they'd be consistent with it...
(Now, personally, I'd like to see the Trans-Quabbin Expressway -- a 6-lane divided highway, built to interstate specs (including grade) running straight, out across the Quabbin on a bridge like Lake Pontchartrain and then following the old B&M Railroad right-of-way to Arlington. (Tracks East of Amherst were destroyed in 1938 Hurricane and never rebuilt.) While this gives an idea of my opinion of the "pedestrian campus" concept, if UM actually believes in it, they ought to "walk the walk" on it.)
UMass and any other institution can't just keep buildings for the sake of keeping them. If money is going toward maintaining a building it needs to be usable. According to UMass Facilities, keeping WES where it stands and making it a viable space would have required accessibility changes (likely ADA compliance) and and infrastructure changes (likely plumbing, HVAC and up to date fire and electric systems) in, on and around the structure, altering the appearance. Giving the building a deeper foundation and reworking the area as a whole allows for these changes to be made without altering the building's appearance. Along with allowing for safe and up to date use and not altering the aesthetics, this project opens more of the building for use. Essentially it is all being done so that people can enjoy this wonderful building for years to come.
Naturally there is a concern about deconstructing a building of this age. UMass Facilities also notes there are plans to replace anything that can't be salvaged. Nothing on the exterior of that building seems irreplaceable. Preserving WES benefits UMass beyond having the lovely building remain, but will provide space UMass needs for offices. To say "well they destroyed the trolley stop" as the justification for going nuts over WES is questionable. The trolley stop was a very simple, insignificant structure. Nice? Sure. But not as vital to the campus as Skinner Hall, South College, and Old Chapel...all which have been or will be respectfully modernized like WES will be.
As far as Ed's points on Ellis Way..it's amazing how he keeps proving his ignorance to the master plan that is readily available. The reestablished Ellis Way will, in fact, be a pedestrian corridor. The old Ellis Way arc existed essentially until the 1960s and went from N Pleasant, in front of Goessman, in front of the Student Union and through the present sites of the library and FAC to the other end of North Pleasant. The new Ellis Way will follow roughly the same route, but with a narrower arc over the pond, joining N Pleasant north of FAC. All of this is readily available on UMass' planning site.
And no I'm not some UMass plant like I've been accused of...I am simply informed!
My God, the verbiage.
Ed, that's a great idea
I'd like to see the Trans-Quabbin Expressway -- a 6-lane divided highway, built to interstate specs (including grade) running straight, out across the Quabbin on a bridge like Lake Pontchartrain and then following the old B&M Railroad right-of-way to Arlington. (Tracks East of Amherst were destroyed in 1938 Hurricane and never rebuilt.)
UMass and any other institution can't just keep buildings for the sake of keeping them. If money is going toward maintaining a building it needs to be usable.
Those two sentences explain why we all should be very worried about all the historical buildings on that campus. Heaven forbid we configure usage around the unique nature of a historical building, if we can't use the building the way our quite arbitrary "master plan" decrees, the wrecking ball swings.
According to UMass Facilities,criminals who should have gone to jail, keeping WES where it stands and making it a viable space would have required accessibility changes (likely ADA compliance)
No. Has anyone actually read what ADA says about historical buildings?
Of course we didn't read the lead paint regs either -- and removing intact lead paint 12 feet high in anticipation of some really tall children, I guess...
Why? First, HVAC in the 19th Century was called a "window" (that opened) and a "radiator" (that had steam in it). I can think of buildings with worse plumbing (e.g. library) and while electric and fire alarm wiring is a legitimate issue, there are ways of doing this without destroying the building. Besides, modern wires with nylon-jacketed thermoplastic insulation are much thinner than 19th Century cloth-jacketed rubber insulation.
Giving the building a deeper foundation and reworking the area as a whole allows for these changes to be made without altering the building's appearance. Along with allowing for safe and up to date use and not altering the aesthetics, this project opens more of the building for use. Essentially it is all being done so that people can enjoy this wonderful building for years to come.
So you are going to tear down the building, build a new one in its place, and put the exterior of the old one around it. That's not what I call "preservation."
UMass Facilities also notes there are plans to replace anything that can't be salvaged. Nothing on the exterior of that building seems irreplaceable.
They are going to demolish the building and the co-mingle 19th Century bricks with modern bricks and call the job done...
Preserving WES benefits UMass beyond having the lovely building remain, but will provide space UMass needs for offices.
Because our current master plan says that we must have offices in that building, damn it.
To say "well they destroyed the trolley stop" as the justification for going nuts over WES is questionable. The trolley stop was a very simple, insignificant structure. Nice? Sure.
No, "historical" and "protected" (like a Bald Eagle).
But not as vital to the campus as Skinner Hall, South College, and Old Chapel...all which have been or will be respectfully modernized like WES will be.
So much for historical buildings at UMass....
Did you see the press release?!?!
For Immediate Release:
The University of Massachusetts proudly announces the forthcoming construction of the new Subbaswamy School of Historic Demolition at 682 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA. Please donate to the UMass Razing campaign as we have over 150 years of history to destroy!!
Go UMass!
Call in the Taliban! And ISIS. Both adept at destruction of historic structures.
Hi Ed
There was never was a railroad line that went east from Amherst, unless you mean the current RR line that goes through Belchertown.
http://www.catskillarchive.com/rrextra/abnere1.Html
Thanks for pointing this out! I found it sketchy enough that the only promise on the website is "As part of its rehabilitation, the exterior of WES will be preserved to the extent possible. Materials that are too deteriorated to salvage will be replaced in kind to the extent possible. New construction will not replicate, but rather complement the historic character of the building."
But knowing this extremely vague judgement call is being made by the same people who destroyed the bus stop, this is even sketchier. Too bad it's being done during the summer when it's going to be harder to make a campus stink about it.
Ummm, Central Mass Railroad did -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Massachusetts_Railroad
Post a Comment