Public Comment: Re-envisioning the Jones Library Expansion Project

1

This photo delineates the 1928 and 1993 parts of the Jones, 1928 dark gray, 1993 (to be demolished in the Jones expansion) light gray] Photo: Chris Wolak. https://chriswolak.com/2021/01/31/library-stop-jones-library-amherst-ma/

The following public comment was shared at the town’s Section 106 Review for the Jones Library demolition/expansion project, held on Zoom on October 10, 2024 and was also submitted in writing.

This comment addresses a visionary alternative to the Town of Amherst’s project to demolish the 1993 brick addition to the historic Jones Library; demolish certain exterior and interior parts of the original 1928 Library; and then to construct a large addition for a total of 63,000 SF (the Project).

This visionary alternative dates from at least 15 years ago. I encountered it then in the office of a well-known Amherst architect who was sketching it out, and smiling.

The Fire Station would have to be stripped clean of its asbestos and possibly other contaminants. But wouldn’t you rather see this town-owned property become the Library’s Fire Station annex than, for instance, see it sold off for demolition and a new high rise?

What emerged as a few of us watched were the Jones Library, built in 1928, and the Central Fire Station, built then as well. A covered walkway linked these two historic structures: the Fire Station was now an annex to the Jones. If memory serves, it had become the Children’s Library.

I speak as an Amherst resident for 22 years, a past President of the Jones Library Board of Trustees, and a member of the Amherst Historic Preservation Coalition. This visionary alternative to the Project makes eminent good sense to me.

The Massachusetts Historical Commission has determined that the present Project violates five of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the (Rehabilitation) Treatment of Historic Properties. Each violation counts as an “adverse effect” under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ( 36 CFR 800.5 (a)(1)(ii)).

These “adverse effect” violations pertain to the exterior, e.g., the Project’s obtrusive, cumbersome addition, and to the interior, e.g., the destruction of some of the Library’s cozy historic rooms. This would destroy historic fabric in order to produce large spaces with long sightlines. I have seen no reason given why modern video technology cannot provide the same safety factor as sightlines. Actually, it is even better. It provides a record of any objectionable behavior.

The National Historic Preservation Act requires that the Town avoid, minimize, or mitigate these “adverse effects.” Regardless, the town has twice sent this Project out to bid with plans that it knew embodied these violations. (General Contractors’ bids are due October 31, 2024.) Amherst Town Council, though not informed of the violations, has approved borrowing $46,139,800 for it.

But this alternative vision could provide a way to obtain the additional interior space that the Jones Library Trustees seek. It would eliminate the Project’s wasteful, polluting demolition, and its costly new construction. It would have no “adverse effects” on the historic Jones Library building. Quite possibly, it could even cost less.

The Trustees then would have ample space for the Civil War tablets that memorialize Amherst’s extraordinary sacrifice to save the Union. They’d have space enough for increased resources about Amherst’s indigenous and formerly enslaved Black populations; for the invaluable Literacy Project, which at present has no physical home in Amherst; and for the tremendously exciting Humanities Center, for which the National Endowment for the Humanities has given a grant of $1,000,000.

As to the Fire Station, it is dangerously obsolete for its original purpose. For more than 50 years, Amherst has talked about replacing it. The need to replace it now is dire. For instance, Amherst’s firefighter-paramedics at the Central Fire Station sleep near asbestos, and lack a “clean room” in which to don and doff their hazmat suits.

The Jones Library building itself has urgent needs. In light of the Project, the following three modifications have not received consideration. Yet they seem to me well worth pursuing.

First, increase the space for Special Collections by restoring all or part of the second floor over the old auditorium, now the Adult Reading Room. This restored space would be directly off Special Collections’ existing, climate-controlled archives area, convenient for processing donations.

At a July 2016 public information session, founding FAA architect Jim Alexander said that restoring this second floor was feasible.

Second, use geothermal/ground source technology for heating and cooling. In 2010, Trustee Carol Gray and I went around the Jones Library with the president of Dragin Geothermal while he evaluated the building. He determined that 21 wells would be required. The Jones Library property could accommodate them all. The existing climate control equipment was installed in about 1993. The need for modern equipment cannot be overstated.

Their cost would have been no more than ½ that of new, oil-burning boilers. Ground source energy, of course, costs less than oil or gas. It pollutes less if at all.

Third, have engineers evaluate the leaky Atrium roof’s drainage pipes. The Atrium’s lovely white, fluted columns encase these pipes. Can engineers install larger ones, capable of carrying the volume of water that falls on the Atrium roof, without destroying the roof? Or is another re-engineering fix possible?

I can report from the trustees’ experience that even heavy duty caulking is not enough.

Finally, I suspect that this visionary idea would generate substantial private donations. Northampton’s Forbes Library did a historically sensitive renovation that the public liked so well, their donations financed it all.

In that regard, it is worth mentioning that 31percent of online signers of Save Our Library’s recent petition said they had formerly supported the project but no longer do now. Sixty-seven percent of them cited the project’s impact on the historic Jones as a reason why they oppose it now. 

The public, moreover, supports sustainability. And as architectural historians remind us, “The greenest building is the one already built.”


Sarah McKee was an Amherst resident for more than 20 years. She is a former president of the Jones Library Trustees and is a member of the D.C. Bar.

Spread the love

1 thought on “Public Comment: Re-envisioning the Jones Library Expansion Project

  1. Thank you Sarah! What a wonderful idea. Let’s update our essential services and find more space for the library. A win – win scenario. There are so many ways to resolve issues in our town. Maybe the trustees and the town will see the wisdom of this approach. Or, that if the bids come in too high that the trustees and the town will follow this suggestion.

Leave a Reply

The Amherst Indy welcomes your comment on this article. Comments must be signed with your real, full name & contact information; and must be factual and civil. See the Indy comment policy for more information.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.