I am concerned that the initial design concept shared for the former Archer House site fails to reference appropriately the whole of the historic district of downtown and especially its immediate neighbors (think library and structures to the south). While I have seen in other locations the integration of modern palettes and materials into a historic district, it must do so in a way that complements existing structures. It feels that this new structure dominates and overpowers its historic neighbors as currently constructed. It feels more like the 5th St lofts; however, this site is firmly embedded within the historic district rather than adjacent to it. I think this warrants a bigger commitment by the architectural and property owner team for honoring the historic district. I know this can happen and I would love to see what they could reimagine. As a near neighbor to this site, I seek something both noteworthy and seamless in the way it fits the community.
The former Archer House was viewed as a community space for gathering, which is why so many community members have such a strong emotional tie to the building. What considerations, if any, were given to how this building's large amount of private residency could hinder the building's use by the public both inside and outside? How will it be a welcoming space to all? Especially considering that it backs up to city park land.
Re: Preliminary plan for the Archer House site
I am surprised and disappointed in the exterior treatment presented in the preliminary plan. The square, boxy slabs of the unadorned facade would be adequate for a suburban development, wholly out of character with Northfield. The dark brick is too heavy and the looming, gray top floor is particularly jarring. If the developer is requesting public funds via a TIF district, then the public should have a significant say over the exterior design. The presented plan is not it.
At a minimum, the facades should reflect the architectural elements of the historic district. Red brick, arched window treatments, lintels, ornamental details around the street level doors and windows, some texture to the brickwork, etc. A short stroll on Division from Third to Sixth Street provides an inventory of details. Do what makes economic sense on the inside, but use the facades to enhance the appearance of the core downtown, not detract.
I am concerned that the initial design concept shared for the former Archer House site fails to reference appropriately the whole of the historic district of downtown and especially its immediate neighbors (think library and structures to the south). While I have seen in other locations the integration of modern palettes and materials into a historic district, it must do so in a way that complements existing structures. It feels that this new structure dominates and overpowers its historic neighbors as currently constructed. It feels more like the 5th St lofts; however, this site is firmly embedded within the historic district rather than adjacent to it. I think this warrants a bigger commitment by the architectural and property owner team for honoring the historic district. I know this can happen and I would love to see what they could reimagine. As a near neighbor to this site, I seek something both noteworthy and seamless in the way it fits the community.
The former Archer House was viewed as a community space for gathering, which is why so many community members have such a strong emotional tie to the building. What considerations, if any, were given to how this building's large amount of private residency could hinder the building's use by the public both inside and outside? How will it be a welcoming space to all? Especially considering that it backs up to city park land.
Re: Preliminary plan for the Archer House site
I am surprised and disappointed in the exterior treatment presented in the preliminary plan. The square, boxy slabs of the unadorned facade would be adequate for a suburban development, wholly out of character with Northfield. The dark brick is too heavy and the looming, gray top floor is particularly jarring. If the developer is requesting public funds via a TIF district, then the public should have a significant say over the exterior design. The presented plan is not it.
At a minimum, the facades should reflect the architectural elements of the historic district. Red brick, arched window treatments, lintels, ornamental details around the street level doors and windows, some texture to the brickwork, etc. A short stroll on Division from Third to Sixth Street provides an inventory of details. Do what makes economic sense on the inside, but use the facades to enhance the appearance of the core downtown, not detract.