New Preservation Restriction For Jones Library Only Requires Preservation Of Building’s Exterior
Jones Library stairway as it looks today. The original stairway was carved from Philippine walnut. Note the intricate hand carving on the newel post. Photo: From a slide presentation by Eric Gradoia
Report on The Meeting Of The Amherst Historical Commission, March 16, 2022
The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.
Present:
Commissioners Becky Lockwood, Robin Fordham, Katherine Davis, Pat Auth, Hetty Startup, Jan Marquardt, Jane Wald (Chair)
Staff, Ben Breger
Historical Commission Strikes Final Blow To Preserving Jones Library Interior
With no discussion and no recognition of “hands raised” for public comment (until after the vote was taken), the Historical Commission gave unanimous approval of a permanent preservation restriction which saves only the exterior of the building and the view of the property from Amity Street. The Trustees of the Jones Library had signed this document earlier in the day. This was done despite both boards’ positive reception of the Historical Structural Report commissioned by the Historical Commission. This report also cites the National Park Service standards for historic preservation projects using public funding (see also here).
This preservation document was required when the Jones took Community Preservation Act funding in 2010 and 2011 to repair the slate roof and chimneys. In this agreement the Jones Library Trustees and the Town of Amherst Historical Commission both recognize in two places that in 1928 when the Jones Library was built: “The Trustees, particularly then President John M. Tyler, and Librarian Charles Green planned for the design of this new building to be like a “large overgrown home.” Rather than designing a building in the Carnegie model of an impressive but intimidating temple with imposing pillars and stairs, the Trustees desired their library design to convey the unique image of “Mother Amherst welcoming her children” into her living room. Also:
“It is the purpose of this Preservation Restriction Agreement to assure that the features and characteristics that embody the architectural, historic and cultural significance, “preservation values,” of the exterior of the Building will be forever retained and maintained substantially in their current condition and to prevent any use or change in the Property that will significantly impair or interfere with the Building’s preservation values. . . . and [any changes] shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, codes and by-laws applicable to the Property and/or the Building.”
The woodwork with local themes like wheat and flowers, the hearths carved from rare imported mahogany and walnut—high end embellishments that Samuel Minot Jones insisted on—will be replaced by a sterile modernist interior. Responding to the current Director’s wish for a modern library, Preservation Historian Eric Gradoia mentioned several historic libraries in Massachusetts that are functioning quite well under the conditions required by the Secretary of the Interior when government funds are used to finance renovations. His parting words to the assembled trustees and commission members were: “Let the building tell you what to do; don’t impose your ideas on it!” Alas, the Trustees and the Commission listened but didn’t hear!
Preservation Restrictions And Other Properties
In other business, the Commission continued their discussion of when or whether a temporary or permanent preservation restriction is appropriate for work undertaken with public funds from the Community Preservation Act (CPA), which funds are derived from a Registry of Deeds tax and a surcharge on our real estate tax). Staff had sought information on how other towns defined and interpreted the rather vague law requiring a preservation restriction when a town has a “real property interest.” The temporary restriction is easy to do because it can be completed “in house” and is approved locally while a permanent restriction written by professional preservationists and/or lawyers requires local, state and sometimes national approval and can take many years. As noted above, the Jones Library preservation agreement has taken more than ten years and still must be approved by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Wald recused herself for a presentation by preservationist Shantia Anderheggen, hired by the Dickinson Museums for work being proposed for the Evergreens, which remains the same now as it did more than 150 years ago when the Austin Dickinson lived there. The original décor, furnishings, art . . . are still intact. The National Endowment for the Humanities has awarded a grant to “stabilize the interior environment” to protect the house and its contents. Sources of water leakage and subsequent damage to the foundation and plaster ceilings must be repaired. Air conditioning and heating will be up-dated with modern equipment. The Museum was requesting a letter of support for the project as it progresses through the approval process by the Local Historical Commission et al. This support was granted unanimously.Lastly a discussion of the status of the Hills and Ithamar Conkey houses with regard to Community Preservation Act funding for needed repairs. The Hills House is the home of the Amherst Women’s Club abutting the Dickinson Museums and the Conkey House is the imposing brick mansion with the mansard roof on lower Main Street, converted to an office condominium. Both are at the entrance of our downtown and were built by two of Amherst’s 19th century elite families. Although there is money for these two projects, there was reluctance by some members of both the CPA and finance committees to fund them. Both projects are eligible for this money but some thought the funds should be saved for some public project that might come forth, and others thought that private funding does not serve a public purpose. Town Council can appropriate the funds at their March 21 meeting.
Thanks very much, Hilda, for this discussion of the Jones Library’s Historic Preservation Restriction Agreement for the exterior, and the remarkable intentions and execution of the Jones Library’s visionary founding Trustees! The new Historic Structure Report fails to do room-by-room documentation of the original 1928 rooms’ current status. It omits any mention of this historic Director’s Office, where Robert Frost used to deliver his signed first editions to Founding Library Director Charles Green. As you note, however, it does a great job of documenting some of the Library’s stunning features. No one can build like that today. The Library is actually a product of our last great pandemic. Samuel Minot Jones’s only son died in it. This is how Jones’s fortune from his lumber business came to be metamorphosed into our beloved Library.
It is regrettable for several reasons that the Restriction Agreement has taken more than a decade to reach final form. When I was a Trustee, our understanding was that this Restriction Agreement concerning the original slate roof and original six chimneys was to be subsumed into a comprehensive Restriction Agreement covering the entire, historic 1928 building. Obviously, this has not happened.
Hilda, I may be wearing rose-colored glasses, but I don’t believe that the interior of the Jones Library is as unprotected as might appear based on the focus of the Preservation Agreement you describe being on the building’s exterior.
Section 12a of the Community Preservation Act requires that a permanent restriction be placed on any “real property interest” acquired using CPA funds to ensure that the property continues to be used for the applicable CPA purpose. The Jones Library Trustees plan to accept $1 million in CPA historic preservation funds for construction of new quarters for the library’s Special Collections department. So it should follow that a preservation restriction on the interior of the building where the CPA work will be done will be needed. The reason that the current restriction focuses on the exterior is because it stems from CPA funds used for exterior work on the building’s roof and chimneys.
Moreover, I have faith that, as guardians of the Town’s historic assets, the Amherst Historical Commissioners will take seriously their responsibility for defending the Jones Library building, a national- and state-registered historic property, against adverse impacts. This should certainly be necessary if the project hopes to qualify for historic tax credits.
I would love to see the entire front interior of the Jones to be kept intact. The entry and woodwork is so beautiful, as are all the front rooms. An expansion could easily keep those areas, perhaps with some repurposing -although my kids loved the childrens rooms when they were young. Build on the strengths and beauty of the Jones-and then add some more.
Janet, I share your “impossible” dream. From the very beginning of the Jones’ demolition/expansion project planning in 2014-15, Director Sharon Sharry proposed that most of the historic 1928 library be gutted due to “rabbit warrens.” Residents can see from the approved schematic designs that there is little actual preservation of the current unique 1928 library. https://www.joneslibrary.org/DocumentCenter/View/6380/SchematicSustainability-Study—Updated-Presentation-by-Finegold-Alexander-Architects-October-8-2020-PDF
Most walls, staircases and fireplaces from the first floor on up will be removed, relocated or destroyed. At one point in 2016, there was consideration of taking out the iconic front stairwell and using it as a decoration on a wall in the expansion. Taking out this stairwell was also discussed in 2018.
Of course, there could be a more creative use of this historic space, but this has not been a priority of the Director or Trustees. For example, the third floor hosts a large meeting room and five ideal tutoring spaces but the latter rooms will be gutted in order to create a staff room.
Both the Amherst Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Historical Commission need to review and approve the plans but the library has not as yet sent the schematics to these governmental entities. These reviews take time and a construction timeline is looming.
Another consideration is what will happen to the neighboring Strong House Museum with the demolishment of 40% of the existing Jones. During the 1990’s Jones’ construction, the Strong House needed additional support due to its fragile foundation. No plans have yet been announced as to how this important historic building will be preserved when the wrecking balls arrive and who will pay for support of the Museum’s structure. Clearly, a commitment of the Jones Trustees towards its neighbor has not occurred in a timely manner.