134-136 ESSEX STREET - BUILDING 734'-136'ESSEX STREET
4X4 Ra f
IX.a Fevice'Fo✓c
2"xl" bar-> Ix4CAP P164E
I
i
flr,
Turner Construction Company
Peabody Essex Museum Phase 2
Armory Park Fence
Elevation Detail
By: VVrW TSK-2
5/12/00
TEMPORARY AgAmy PARK
NEW LIBERTY 5M5T
SIDOWALK I �°rur nicks
IMAlaFh DG Il
— PRO
—sfotfADE Tma—
G/Y. /,hrr �R
/.ksv
AIY
MN
aN„ NAfIONFtL
YAK l
Idw �/
IYLa &Wut- /Arn Al k
/Aar R
Irx.a
NiyC,l Im". It. Q ['LIYf)� ALL
&W AV n
Ila/{L[ A4LL,
n• W/lMr Q Iota
O,.o aat4Y
flLifu
rano
uuul
IN rw
NW
mt.. h
.um 4 !.rN n•
YL I MSK AA•GL
X.
A A.
j BLOW, S
ay i
77i
9,�.Gv 0OL
W
Se
YS 7FpcS
1
OF M
LBO N
t LZ
Y
fa�xls 6,.40.0,,
M.
3..;Q,.6Oq
f
❑ M.91.9"t M SZ 8Z 1
W71 Gg
Eyvrnjlvm jofH-6 on siae"viv +0
e cL+ eat k a ti 4 zt+ 20'-M p
OD
CL sfundawd 3 &BDfia :5
IM
AWd 111
N.
cun�uxce i"
}ing4,
x1s
IX
Boor
Turner Construction Company
Peabody Essex Museum Phase 2
Armory Park Fence
I�v�v
bdS and Sidewalk' Plan View
By: VVrW
TSK-1
5/12/00
05/03,/00. WED 12:11 FA% 9787400072 JOHN D AEENAN �y w y �g 001/004
VVI
I CO"'MONWEALTHOFt4ASSACHUSZl-rS
ESSEN,5S.
bD SUPERIOP,COURT DEPARTMENT
CrM ACTION NO.
HISTORIC SAL.EK INC.,et al., 0-' 0717
Plsinta$s, )
)
PEABOD-e ESSEX MUSEUM, et AL )
Defendants. )
PLAINTIFFS'
REST MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
ORDER 0R17 o iSHOW C SE
Plaintiffs histotSalem,Inc, et aL ("Hul mov
J 65 a and �pursuant to Mass.R. Civ_p,
( ) e.L. C. 214, § 7A, for a temporary restraining order proWbitin Y
C- Essex Museum and their g the Peabody agents,
servants employees, at�meya and all o
concert or therein active
I pa�eipation with them,from dextro
d8,impairing or removing the
Salem,AnnoryH�o��aMnnaIIl
veYordetin
/1 B them to take all appropriate steps to
11 KI
secure and make safe the Headhouse until further
I ;ng.
Plaintiffs move for a further order requiring the Peapod
and show cause wh Y Essex Museum to appear
J Y a Pmt unary igltmction should not i08uo0
(1 Essex Mg the Peabody
th' agents,servants,emploYees,attorneys and all others in active
and
concert or pattioipation with them, from destroying, damaging,impairing or removing the
Snlem Armory Fleedhouse and
aTLrxnativelY ordering them to take all appropriate steps to
secure and make safe the Hcadhouse until further hearing
s
I�•n�l y�A� - / / /�/ •^�-3'72A'� ,1 �YJ 1 "Y7r 7T,� /_! •�/A
600/S00 .���,,... ��� ���NNN3 [ d OOP ZLOOOfiL8L6 RY3 TfIf Q3M 00/C6/SO
05/051/0_0 WED 12;12�FA% 9787400072 JOHN D KEENAN, ,I$106�/004
el
(��i/y�•' '��. , ��l�G,�,,,p pr /Gc..ry .T / '4+✓( /' �� CIS`�( � 'f�
ode.
7—y
-p--
r tiny r�vi'GG � �`
�° 1 �Y
II
1/ ' /a
74
rr�-
-05/09/00 WED 12;12 FA% 9787400072 JOHN D KEENAN
•
(i(6^x'0 K p � �.li.ri{,• 1/rL l'�iZc.r r �---�
Sys� �� � r� ✓.� � J� �G._�
t J v oy� rx
4 /c4rr�
00,
wx Ae� d' cam;
7 LLQ. (moi v;/ s2�s r•"vs�
s3 �
.CO
6
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS
STANLEY J. USOVICZ, JR.
MAYOR
April 24, 2000
Dan Munroe
Peabody Essex Museum
RE: Additional temporary measures to secure the Armory fagade site.
Dear Mr. Munroe;
After consultations with you and members of your staff and key City Department heads
on Friday, I have issued the attached directives outlining specific steps that need to be
taken immediately. These are additional measures to further secure the Armory site while
litigation continues. As was the case with the measures you were instructed to take on
April 14 by the building department, these measures will be at the Museum's expense.
If you have any questions about how to carry out these orders, please contact Peter
Strout, Building Commissioner, directly. Mr. Strout is the lead Department head in
enforcing the attached directives.
Thank you for your willingness to work with the City of Salem to take these additional
temporary public safety measures.
Sincerely,
Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr.
Mayor
CC: -feter Strout, Building Commissioner
Stanley Bornstein, Director of Public Services
Robert St. Pierre, Chief of Police
SALEM CITY HALL•93 WASHINGTON STREET•SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01 97 0-3 59 2•978/745-9595•FAX 978/744-9327
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE
EsE.r
April 25, 2000
3 Mayor Stanley J. Usovicz, Jr.
Salem City Hall
EAST INDIA SQUARE Washington Street
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Salem, MA 01970
01970-3783 USA
TEL:978-745-9500
FAx:978-744-6776 Dear Mayor Usovicz,
W Ww.PEM.ORG
This letter is to acknowledge your letter of Monday, April 24 ordering
additional safety measures for the Salem Armory fagade. Your letter is
pursuant to the meeting held at your office Friday, April 21, attended by you
and me, Mr. Grimes, Mr. Phippen and Mr. Correnti, together with Mr. Strout,
Mr. St. Pierre, and Mr. Walsh. At that meeting, we discussed the grave safety
issues presented by the fagade, particularly in light of the findings of the
City's independent engineering consultant, indicating that a catastrophic
failure of the fagade could occur at any time, and the more recent public
testimony of the City Engineer.
At our meeting, we discussed the prudent measure of closing that portion of
Essex Street adjacent to the Armory fagade,from Liberty Street to Plummer
Hall, to vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We agreed that, effective Friday,
pedestrian traffic would be directed away from the fagade to the opposite side
of the street, until the plan for closure could be implemented.
Your Monday April 24 order does not close Essex Street adjacent to the
fagade,but calls for a 12-foot traffic lane to remain. It calls for the erection of
an 8-foot chain link fence and jersey barriers next to the fagade, a pedestrian
canopy and jersey barriers on the south side of Essex Street, together with
"danger" and "pedestrian crossing" signs. It also orders a contingency plan
for temporary closure as warranted, and prohibition of bus traffic from Essex
Street between Hawthorne Blvd. and Liberty Street.
We will do whatever needs to be done to immediately comply with this
order. The museum will undertake these temporary measures until the May
2nd court hearing. In the meantime, we are also obligated to point out that
while the measures called for in your April 24 letter will reduce the risk of
injury from falling debris, they do not provide protection from the
catastrophic failure about which our consulting experts, your engineer, and
your consultant have provided clear warning, both to the city and the
museum. In this regard, you should be aware, that the museum is also in
receipt of an April 21 letter from Turner Construction Company, Inc., stating
its recommendation that Essex Street be closed to protect the public safety.
We believe that there is ample expert opinion that the situation is an
immediate and potentially deadly hazard. On April 11, Mr. Strout, the
building inspector, ordered the museum to make safe, secure or remove the
structure. The only effective option for complying with the order(removing
the structure) has been forestalled by court action, leaving both the museum
and the city with an ongoing crisis.
We must reiterate that there is at present no way for us to make the structure
safe, particularly from catastrophic failure of one or both of the towers, in
less than 15 weeks. Mr. Strout has repeatedly stated that to comply with his.
order, any plan would require an affidavit from a licensed engineer stating
that it makes the structure safe according to state building code. This
excludes any interim measure that could not be fully and properly endorsed,
since the clear and present danger to public safety would remain.
Therefore, to comply with your order, we can only move to inadequately
secure the building and its perimeter, given the fact that most of the
threatened perimeter is a public street and sidewalk owned and controlled by
the city. While we understand and appreciate the complex situation this
creates for the City, we need to reiterate our belief that it is necessary to
completely exclude the public from the zone around the fagade. Although
this will not eliminate the risk to public safety, given the indicated danger of
catastrophic and potentially deadly failure, we believe that this zone would at
minimum encompass the full width of Essex Street and portions of the
sidewalk on Liberty Street.
In consideration of all these factors, therefore, we recommend beyond the
measures outlined in your April 24 order, the complete closure of Essex
Street, including vehicular and pedestrian traffic, until the museum is able to
comply with the building inspector's April 11 order.
Since ely,
/C�
Dan . Monroe
cc. Kevin Harvey, City Council President
Peter Strout, Building Commissioner
SENT BY: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM; 078 741 8051 ; APR-25-00 10:25AM; PAGE 2!2
Date: April 25,20W
'fo: Peter Strout
Office of the Building Inspector
Salem City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem,MA 01970
Fax(978)740-9846
From: John Crimes
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem,MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 745-9500 Ex. 3103
Fax (978)741-8951
Re: Salem Armory Facade
VIA FACSIMILE: (978) 740-9846
Due to the dangerous condition of the Salem Armory Facade,and
because the Museum lim been delayed in its action to remove it due to
court action, we are conducting additional inspection and condition
monitoring commencing today. This activity will proceed with the
assistance of a bucket lift. Please call if there are questions.
WSH / CE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT
Breezy Point Road
P. O.Box 16
Warren,New Hampshire 06279
Phone 603764547
April 18, 2000
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
Public Property Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01907
Re: Salem Armory
Salem,.Massachusetts
_#0002R1
Dear Peter:
As requested by the Cityof Salem, on April 11", 1 went to the site of the
Headhouse Wall, relic front masonry wall, of what was the Salem
Armory on Essex Street at the corner of New Liberty Street. There,
met you, Mr. Stanley Bornstein and Mr. James G. Jacobs of CID
Associates, Boston to observe the condition of the existing wall. The
Armory building burned down in 1982. Several exterior masonry walls
remained after the fire, along with some internal structure.
Eighteen years later, everything other than the front wall with its two
turrets and short side return walls either side of it, has been removed.
The National Park Visitors Center has been built in the area to the rear.
At some time in the past, a bracing system was added behind the front
wall and ties into the side walls to make the remaining walls stable.
There is some pedestrian protection at the sidewalk in front of the wall
at Essex Street. The existing front wall was observed from the ground
level using a telescopic camera, both from the front and the back.
Themasonry is deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate. Water is
getting into the masonry through existing cracks and open joints,
through the top of the wall where flashings are missing, through the flat
masonry soffit over the main entrance area and through the jamb and
sill surfaces at window openings. The problem is particularly critical at
the rear face of the wall as that face of the wall and those details, being
designed to be interior, were never intended to be exposed to the
weather. No noticeable repairs have been made to the masonry since
the time of the fire.
Several reports have been written regarding the condition of the
remains. Each makes recommendations for the restoration and
maintenance of the walls. One by Robert Charles Group in 1991 and a
second by CID Associates in 1997 were reviewed by the writer. The
stability of the main wall as a whole has been investigated by CID and
found, while not meeting current code requirements, to be adequate
enough to make dramatic failure unlikely. The undersized condition of
the steel beams supporting the two turrets was also noted in the CID
report, with reference to the fact that in a major storm, the collapse of
one or both turrets is possible due to steel beam overstress. There is
also question regarding the condition of the masonry support for one
beam end. A March 2000 draft letter by CID Associates says that the
deterioration is continuing and notes several cautionary statements
having to do with potential public safety issues
There will be a continuing and accelerating breakup of the integrity of
the wall with time. Debris is falling, piece by piece, to land around the
base of the wall. This, in addition to causing a hazard to people in the
area, is weakening the structure of the wall to the point where there
would eventually be a general collapse of the wall. There is no way to
know when to expect this to occur. The wall would have to be
continuously monitored. The wall should either be made safe by
repairing it and protecting it from moisture penetration, or taken down to
eliminate the potential danger to the public and the owner's liability
exposure.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
William S. Hartley P. E.
2�Psi asass9� ,
yyyy o�
WILLIAM 6 r"
g
S. " G
HARTLEY
9169
F CONAL EAG
Y
WSH / CE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT
Breezy Point Road
P.O.Box 16
Warren,New Hampshire 03279
- Phone 603764-8547 .
April 18, 2000
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
Public Property Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01907
Re: Salem Armory
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Peter:
am enclosing the resume you requested, herewith.
In 1954, when I started working in an engineering office in Boston, my
first job was to investigate a radio tower in Medford to support some
additional equipment to replace that lost when the WEEI tower in
Brighton blew down during a hurricane. This was followed by an
investigation of the wood roof structure of Saint Joseph's Church in
Amesbury. The roof deck and beams are supported on scissors trusses,
which are notorious for spreading with age. These had spread about
31/2" at the top of each of the side walls. Then during the hurricane of
1938, the wind blew one of the walls nearly vertical and the other over
an additional 21/2". We came up with a solution for bracing the building.
Makes a nice story. Sometime in there, I worked on the design for an
addition for the Riverside Church in NY, Jordan Marsh, and a Sheraton
Hotel in Philly.
It has been that way ever since. Forty-six years of miscellaneous
building engineering.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
William S. Hartley P. E.
William S. Hartley
Breezy Point Road
P. O. Box 16
Warren,New Hampshire 03279
B. S. Building Engineering and Construction
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1952
M. S. Civil Engineering
University of Iowa 1958
Registered Professional Engineer in
Maine Massachusetts
New Hampshire North Carolina
Vermont Pennsylvania
Membership in
American Society of Civil Engineers(Fellow)
Boston Association of Structural Engineers(Past President)
Structural Engineers of New Hampshire
Boston Society of Civil Engineers
New Hampshire Section of ASCE
Sigma Xi
Licensed Construction Supervisor in Massachusetts
Experience
1990 to present William S. Hartley, Consulting Engineer, Stow MA&Warren NH
Owner/Engineer of struct eng office
1971 to 1989 Linenthal Eisenberg Anderson, Boston
Chief Engineer 1983 to 1989
Engineer 1971 to 1983
1970 to 1971 Barnes&Jamis, Boston
Engineer in charge of bldg eng office
1965 to 1970 William S. Hartley, Consulting Engineer, Boston
Owner/Engineer of struct eng office
1962 to 1965 Souza &True, Cambridge
Engineer
1959 to 1962 Linenthal Becker, Boston
Engineer ,
1958 to 1959 Maurice A. Reidy, Boston
Engineer
1956 to 1958 University of Iowa for M. S.
Ned L. Ashton, Iowa City, Ia.
Engineer
1954 to 1956 Maurice A. Reidy, Boston
Engineer
1952 to 1954 U.S. Army
V
APR-20-00 THU 03: 11 PM Historic Boston FAX: 1 617 742 7431 PAGE 1
P.03L
P.,pr-20-00 02:52P ..... .._ -�
OPIUMN FOM"1i-9N..
Advisory
Council On J Q
Historic P' -
Preservation
M �,r�' IIQIHRTQN
The Pe Post wnodding
1100 Pennsytvonaala Avenue.N7W.N809
t whington,I)C20004
APR 2 0 23W
Honorable Stanley J. Usovicaz,Jr,
Mayor of Salem
Salem,MA 01970-3592
REF: Redevelopment of the Salem Annory
Dear Mayor Usovicez:
On April 14,2000,we were noti fled by the Peabody F.ssex Museum that the City's Building
Commissioner had issued a notice requiring the Museum In demolish the facade of the Salem
Armory!lead House. The Commissioner has concluded that the facade present%an imminent
threat to health and safety and needs to be immediately made safe or removed. in response to the
order, the Muscum has indicated its intent to demolish the Salem Armory facado on April 24,
2000. Since the treatment of the Salem Armory liead ilouse was addressed in the Memorandum
of Agreement(MOA)executed on February 21, 1992,among the Salem Rcdevclopmcnt
Authority(Authority),the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer(SH PO),and the
Council,and concurred with by the U.S.Department of Housing and IJrban Development
ational Park Scrviee:(NPS),and the Museum Cooperative of Salem,inc., the MOA
shoal a an,e»ded before the City issues a demolition permit.
Stipulation No. 1 of the executed MOA provided for the preservation and reuse of the facade.
Satisfactory compliance with all stipulations was a requirement for the City to evidence
compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing
regulations,"Protection of Historic Properties"(36 CFR Part 800). Accordingly,any
modification of the original mitigation plan will need to be reviewed by the signatories to the
original MOA, and reflected in an amended Agreement in order to comply with the requirements
of Section 100,
During our April 17,2000 telephone conversation with the Museum and the Massachusetts S1 IPO,
we discussed a number of procedural issues that need to be addressed as pari of the Section 106
review. We also requested that the Museum provide more detailed justification for its decision to
demolish the facade rather than rehabilitate it or consider other optiata which ensure its
preservation and reuse. 1Tnfortunalely,the Authority,the agency responsible for compliance with
Section 106 for this undertaking,was not among the participants in this meeting. Thus,we were
unable to ascertain how the Authority intends to proceed with this matter.
APR-20-00 THU 02:57 PM FROM: TO:Historic Boston PAGE 1
. APR-20-00 THU 03:12 PM Historic Boston FAX:1 617 742 7431 PAGE 2
P.02
R.pr-20-00 02:52P
2
elieve that
Although HUI) has indicated in its letter to you of punt ypr2e0v�er heen recaivLK(fro.tjjat --it does m Salem:'his
thefinal documentation required.for this(UUAC)K
information is not conclusive. Accordingly,the City will need to verify through research and
confirmation from HUI)Headquarters that it did not receive ar allocate H11D funds to the
Museum for this undertaking since execution of he MOA 1992. The City also needs to clarify
that no other i-edetal assistance was provided for either the museum or National Park Service
or caused to be taken,since
center. Finally,the City will need to address the actions it has taken,
1989 to comply with the tents of the MOA. Of primary concern tout;is what actions the
Authority took to comply with Stipulation I.A. which required it to "immediately secure and
protect(rhe Salem Armory Ilead House)against damage until the measures In the MOA are
implamented." Our interpretation of the MOA is that the Authority had an obligation to ensure
that the facade of the Salem Armory Head House was protected pending its rehabilitation. The
fact that the City's Building Commissioner recently issued an order to demolish or stabilize the
facade clearly evidences that this provision was not met by the Authority. Nor does it appear that
the Authority took appropriate steps to require the Museum to protect the facade.
There are obviously Section 106 compliance issues which have boon ignored by the Authority
since signing the MOA. Not only was the facade not secured,but there are questions about the
early modification of design plans as early as 1994 or 1995,which brought into question the
continued use of the Salem Armory Head House facade. While the Museum has intermittently
broached this subject with the Council,as discussed during the February 2,2000,meeting
convened to discuss an amendment to the MOA,the Authority has not assumed a fonnal role in
many of these discussions. We,therefore,request that before any demolition commences,the City
take the necessary steps to fulfill its Section 106 compliance responsibilities and clarify for the
consulting parties and the public 1)whether there continues to hes a federally assisted undertaking;
2)how the Authority met the terns of the MOA when it stili intended to use Federal assistance;
and,3)what options,beyond demolition,exist for reusing the facade of the Salem Armory Head
House facade. Please contact Charlene Dwin Vaughn,AICD,at 202-606-8505 to discuss this
ter.
ty,
Klima
tar
Office of Planning and Review
LIC:
Massachusetts SHPO
Peabody Ilssex Museum
historic Salem Incorporated
National Park Service
Tony Johnston,HUD headquarters
APR-20-00 THU 02:58 PM FROM: TO:Historic Boston PAGE 2
rz
e Cite of 6alem, Alam5acbm5ett!5
Department of Public bcrbiceg
One Salem Oreen
(978) 745-9595 (Ext. 321
STANLEY 1.BORNSTEIN,P.E.
City Engineer -lax: (978) 745-5877
Director of Public Services
4-3-00
FROM: Stan Bornstein
TO: Peter Strout
RE: Peabody Essex Museum
Armory-Canopy
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Museum dated 3-31-00 and a two page sketch
from their structural engineers CID Assoc.
I am not sure who has jurisdiction over this proposed canopy. Lets meet after you have
had a chance to review the letter and enclosures.
CC: Mayor
Joe Walsh
Atty. Lundregan
y PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE
March 31, 2000
E. x
m
200 x
Stanley I. Bornstein, P.E.
EAST INDIA SQUARE Director of Public Services
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS
0,19703783 USA City of Salem
TEL:978-745-9500 One Salem Green, 2nd Floor
FAx:978-744-6776 Salem, MA 01970
W W W.PPM.ORG
Re: Request to install Canopy, Essex Street
Dear Mr. Bornstein:
On behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum, I request your assistance
in advising us of the procedures to obtain permission to install a sidewalk
canopy on Essex Street, in front of the existing Armory fagade.
With the advent of the tourist season, and the fact that we are
currently in the process of presenting plans for this site to Mass Historic,
we think it prudent to establish a canopy on this area. This will forestall
any unforeseen problems that may occur while our plans are being
reviewed.
We will provide you with an appropriate engineering sketch of the
proposed canopy construction, and then work with your office and the
office of the Building Inspector to complete the project, as soon as we
can.
Sincerely,
John Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
L11 naav"Alna i1V6 IQ008
DRAWN L- Z+ SUBJECT.� -�'� MLS SNEET NO4-?K�— .
QD CHECKED PROJECT ' �
O ,
APPROVED W1�3� �IQAyPA7E
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel 627.841.0600
280 Scmme+Street Fat 617.8UMN
Suite 500 E&M+D _Qddastacom
Boston,MA 012141131 Web Site waw.ddebseeeom
��lP IPS rr
I Al
f
G�
i.
Y-
c
�j�
ff:;, T+'IIL�b SHEEP Np.ALL
DRAWN � � — SUBJECT�s 'r�Ysl.+�-
(IDAPPROVE PROJECT
APPROVED � �-1-�EYe��I oArE L22
CID ASS°CIATES,INC. TeL 617AWWO
�mu Street - .. Fu 617.4439960
ZBOS
1t.,taWMA WHF1111 Web Site MMMbdsuita No rileeean
41V 4. Wf"V. 4/
Pi11
1
flxwc6rI>
r !
- coM�. SrP�►a'�1-1C' - - --
Citp of *alem, 41aggarbugettg
p f Public Propertp Mepartment
juflbing Mepartment
One�baletn Oreen
(978) 7459595 (Ext. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 11, 2000
Peabody Essex Museum
Dan Munroe
East India Square
Salem, Ma. 01970
Dear Mr. Munroe:
I have been informed that the fagade walls known as "The Old Salem Armory Headhouse
Facade:" structure is dangerous to life or limb and is uninhabited and open to the weather.
My duty as the City of Salem Building Commissioner is to order you in accordance with
the Massachusetts State Building Code 780 CMR, Chapter 121.0 "Unsafe Structures"to
remove or make the structure safe. 780 CMR, 121.3 orders the owner to begin this
procedures by 12:00 noon of the day following the service of this notice. The owner
shall employ sufficient labor speedily to make the structure safe, remove it or to secure it,
but if the public safety so requires and if the Mayor so orders, we will immediately enter
upon the premises with the necessary workers and assistants and cause such unsafe
structure to be make safe or demolished without delay and a proper fence put up for the
protection of passerby, or to be made secure.
Sincerely,
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
Cc: Mayor Usovicz
Joe Walsh
Stan Bornstein
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE -
411LDJNG DEPT.
Sint APR 13 A 10: 00
April 13, 2000
11 CEIVED
t �ss,x
{l1 Y OF SALEM, MA
's
? Mr. Peter Strout
200
Building Commissioner
EAST INDIA SQUARE Director of Public Property
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Inspector of Buildings
01970-3783 USA Citv of Salem
TEL:978-745-9500 One Salem Green
FAx:978-744-6776 Salem, Massachusetts 01970
W W WAEN.ORG
Re: Old Salem Armory Head House Facade
Dear Mr. Strout:
This letter is to acknowledge the order which the Peabody Essex Museum
received from your office on April 11, 2000, concerning the safety of the old
Salem armory headhouse fagade. As you know, the order requires the museum to
make safe, secure or remove the fagade structure. In response to your order I,
along with attorney Joseph Correnti, met with you on Wednesday, April 12, 2000
at 10:00 a.m. in your office. At that meeting we discussed the fact that the
museum was now required to act in an expeditious manner. I want to assure you
that the museum is carefully considering all options available to comply with your
order. We expect to have a proposed course of action which we can discuss with
you in the next few days. In the meantime, in order to protect public safety, the
museum will continue to work with the City in blocking off the sidewalk and bus
parking located immediately in front of the fagade. Please be assured that this
matter has the museum's full and immediate attention.
Very truly yours,
/John R. Grimes
Deputy Director of Special Projects
cc: Mayor Stanley J Usovicz, Jr
Joe Walsh
Stan Bornstein
Citp of *alem, fRam5acbm5etto
t Public Propertp Mepartment
Jguilbing Mepartment
One 6alem Oreen
(978) 7459595 ext. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 14,2000
Mr.John Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem,Ma.
Re: Old Salem Armory Head House Fagade
Dear Mr. Grimes:
In response to your letter received on April 14,2000 the building department is ordering you to install a
Pedestrian canopy that will start on the sidewalk and extend out in the street then return to the sidewalk and
a chainlink fence to enclose the sidewalk on the Essex street side. I have been instructed by the mayor to
Expedite this task. In the interim the police department has been ordered to supply a detail at the site
between the hours of 8:00 A.M.to 12:00 midnight until these precautions are completed. All work that
takes place and details will be at the Museum's expense.
Sincerel.
` 9
Peter SirOnt
Building Commissioner
Citp of harem, '41am6arbuzetto
Vublic Propertp Mepartment
�Builbing Mepartment
One 641em Oreen
(978) 745-9595 ext. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 14, 2000
Mr. John Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Old Salem Armory Head House Fagade
Dear Mr. Grimes:
I am in receipt of your response dated today (April 14, 2000)regarding the
Armory fagade. I have delivered by hand, so as to reach you before the close of business
today, a brief response instructing you what you must do immediately. I also wanted to
send a more detailed response to your letter regarding my"unsafe structures"order.
I need to correct an important inaccuracy in your response. The law does not
require you to "speedily"complete the action that you decide to undertake. My letter and
the law clearly indicate that you have been served notice "to begin to remove such
building or structure or make it safe or make it secure..." [emphasis mine]. The process
need not be completed immediately; it is necessary, however, that steps be taken without
delay to begin the remedy.
Specifically, your letter says that I ordered you to "speedily...make the structure
safe, remove it or secure it." That is not correct. The word"speedily"does appear in the
statute, but in the next section which clearly refers to the pace of your activity once a
course of action is begun, demanding that you"employ sufficient labor speedily"to carry
out whatever decision you make.
The decision whether to stabilize, make safe and protect the fagade or to demolish
it is solely the decision of the Peabody Essex Museum; it is not the decision of the
Building Inspector of the City of Salem.
My responsibility as Building Inspector is to see to it that you proceed with your
decision, whatever course you decide upon, without delay, in order to remedy the public
safety concerns that you made us aware of
As per my hand delivered letter to you, the building department is immediately
ordering you to install a pedestrian canopy that will start on the sidewalk and extend out
in the street then return to the sidewalk, and a chainlink fence to enclose the sidewalk on
the Essex Street side. In the interim the police department has been ordered to supply a
detail at the site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight until these precautions
are completed. All work that takes place and all details will be at the Museum's expense.
Sincerely,
Peterrout
Building Commissioner
cc: Mayor Usovicz
Joe Walsh
Stan Bornstein
y PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE
izILDING DEPT.
i.H APR I tl P 3: 32,
April 14, 2000
Ili
E t3„"....
L
4I t I
OF SALEM, Fix
55]Ga.
0 A� f`a
m Y
y
zoo S BY HAND r
EAST INDIA SQUARE -
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Peter Strout
01970-3783 USA Building Commissioner
TEV 978-745-9500 Director of Public Property
FAx:978-744-6776 Inspector of Buildings
WWWPEM.onc City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Re: Old Salem Armory Head House Facade
Dear Mr. Strout:
This letter is further response to your written order of April 11, 2000 concerning the
structure known as the Old Salem Armory Head House facade, and to summarize the
substance of the meeting Joseph Correnti,Esq. and I had on April 12 with you,Mr. St. Pierre,
the assistant building inspector, and Mr. Walsh from the Mayor's office. It also outlines the
Museum's intended course of action in compliance with your order, and additional
information leading to this decision.
As I said at our meeting,the Museum fully understands and shares the City's concerns
about the instability and deteriorating condition of the Headhouse facade. Since the Museum
acquired the property, the Museum has monitored the condition of the property and taken
prudent steps to insure public safety with respect to the facade and the surrounding area.
As you are undoubtedly aware, shortly after the Museum acquired the Headhouse site,
its plans for the property changed as the Museum changed institutionally by the merger of the
Essex Institute and the Peabody Museum. Soon after the new Peabody Essex Museum began a
facility planning process for the integrated campus,it became clear that the earlier plan to
construct an office building at the Headhouse site did not meet the Museum's functional
needs. Additionally,we became aware that the condition of the facade, which had been left
standing since the fire in 1982,presented serious unanticipated structural and related
problems. After extremely thorough consideration of virtually all ideas suggested for use of
the facade and the Headhouse site, working with internationally recognized.architects and
landscape architects and highly qualified engineers, the Museum concluded that the best and
highest use for the Headhouse site is a special,beautifully landscaped commemorative park
honoring veterans and the Second Corps Cadets. We believe that the proposed Armory Park
will be a wonderful new asset to the City of Salem and a fitting testament to the sacrifices of
our veterans. Plans for Armory Park call for the removal of the Headhouse facade, and the
retention of elements of the foundation wall and a restored or recreated archway.
The Museum's preliminary plans for the Headhouse site have been publicly available
for some time and have been presented by Museum through meetings, newspaper inserts, and
public access television to thousands of Salem residents. The Museum has also shown the
plans for the site to the Salem Redevelopment Authority ("SRA"). The SRA acknowledged
that the Museum would proceed through the permitting process with the plan for Armory
Park.
In October 1999, as soon as the City Council gave the first approvals for our
acquisition of the City property necessary for us to pursue our overall gallery expansion, we
took steps to reopen the consultation process with the National Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and the SRA. The primary parties
were unable to meet with us until February, 2000. At the February meeting, the National
Advisory Council representative suggested that any consultation under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act may no longer be required. Since the February meeting we
have been working with the City, the SRA, and federal officials to determine whether the
federal consultation process is required.
Concerned that the facade fragment had been subject to another winter freeze-thaw
cycle, and uncertain about the duration of the consultation process which lay ahead,the
museum engaged C.I.D. Associates, engineering consultants, to perform an updated inspection
of the facade's condition, so that the museum could take whatever prudent measures might be
required to protect public safety. Upon receiving the results of that inspection, we were
sufficiently concerned to request a meeting with the Mayor's office. At this meeting, which
occurred on March 17,Dan Monroe and I relayed our engineer's findings regarding the
increasing instability and deteriorating condition of the facade. To protect public safety until
such time that we could complete the approval process for the proposed Armory Park, and
based on recommendations from our engineers, we proposed that a protective walkway be
immediately erected around the facade,re-routing pedestrian traffic away from its base, and
precluding buses from parking on the adjacent portions of Essex Street.We also discussed
working with the city on procedures for posting a security or police detail during conditions of
high winds, such being cited by our engineers as significantly increasing the danger to public
safety from falling debris. The protective walkway,relocation of school bus parking, and
security detail were proposed and intended as reasonable precautionary measures for
maintaining public safety while permitting and approval processes were underway.
Subsequently, we supplied the city engineer with drawings for the proposed covered walkway
and solicited his advice on the procedure for its installation.
When we met on Wednesday,April 12, following receipt of your April 1 I order,you
informed us that based on your personal observations of the facade, in addition to the oral
report which you received from the city's independent engineering consultant, that you
determined that the facade was an "unsafe structure" as that term is used in the state building
code. You also further stated that prompt and effective action must be taken to insure the
public's safety. You told us that an affidavit from a licensed engineer would be required,
certifying any efforts to make the structure safe as defined in state building code. The
proposal to construct a wooden protective walkway, and the other proposed safety measures,
are now clearly not acceptable in light of your findings and order to make the Headhouse
fragment comply with state safety requirements.
As we discussed at the April 12 meeting, the Museum explored with its engineers the
feasibility of taking more extensive efforts to preserve the facade in a manner consistent with
public safety pending the outcome of the reopened historical consultation and the formal
amendment of the Land Disposition Agreement. These measures, of course, would have to
been completed"speedily,"to be in compliance with your order, as well as meet your
requirements regarding an engineer's certification of compliance with applicable building
codes. Our engineers have informed us that proper support and bracing of the facade
according to these standards would require structural steel and pre-cast concrete. It is our best
information, from both C.I.D. Associates and Turner Construction Company, that engineering
design, steel procurement and fabrication, and installation could not be accomplished speedily,
but would require a minimum of three months and possibly significantly longer. The cost for
such action, which would only stabilize, not preserve, the facade, is estimated to exceed
$500,000. The cost to fully preserve the facade is estimated by Turner Construction at$2.6
million.
Even if we wished to stabilize the facade, we could not do it in the speedy and prudent
time-frame required by the City's order. To the extent the present action precludes the
completion of any desired consultation, we believe that the completion of the consultation
process would not change the ultimate outcome.
We have weighed and considered all reasonable options to respond to your April 11
order. Again, it was our intent and hope to protect the public through the installation of a
temporary pedestrian canopy and related measures until such time as we could remove the
facade following due permitting process. We did not desire or request, directly or indirectly,
that the City issue an order finding the facade unsafe.
You have ordered us to"speedily . . . make the structure safe, remove it or secure it."
Like the City,our first and highest concern is and must be public safety. We cannot speedily
make the facade safe,even if that were our ultimate intent for the structure.We cannot make it
secure since we do not own or control the property upon which the facade fronts. Therefore,
given all factors, we must choose to remove the facade. We intend to move with all due haste
with preparations for this action,which will begin on Monday, April 24. In the meantime, we
urge the City to take all prudent measures to protect public safety on and around Essex Street,
up to and including the complete closure of Essex Street. We will notify your office of
detailed plans for removal as soon as they have been completed. Thank you for your
consideration of, and thoughtful attention to, this serious matter.
Sincerely,
John R. Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
cc: Mayor Stanley Usovicz,Jr.
DRAFT
March 16, 2000
Mr. Tor Utne,R.A.
Project Manager
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem,MA 01970-3783
Re: Existing Remaining Armory Building Wall
CID Project No. 99037K.00
Dear Mr. Utne:
This letter is to report on our recent observation of the Armory Building wall. Lance Robson,
Charles Ricci and the writer from this office were on site on Thursday, February 17, 2000. We
reviewed all areas of the existing strucl are, both front and back of the wall, from the ground
and from a bucket truck. There was a i inanimous opinion that the deterioration of the wall has
advanced significantly since our last review approximately three years ago.
Public safety warrants immediate atten ion. Pieces of the precast and of the brickwork are
going to continue to fall. We believe t iat the amount and frequency of this will increase over
time. There is also the possibility that a dramatic collapse of one or both turrets could occur
during a major storm.
While it is unlikely that the main body of the wall would suffer dramatic failure, the general
wall structure does not meet current Commonwealth of Massachusetts Building Code
requirements for wind load (see attach calculations).
The specific conditions that have won ened are:
• Cracking and weathering of virtua ly all areas of the cast stone work.
• Enlargement of the cracks at the It vel of the turrets, particularly at the west turret.
March 16,2000
Mr.Tor Utne,RA.
Peabody Essex Museum
Salem,MA
Page 2
• Weathering and decay of masonry brick work(pieces of brick were evidenced on the
ground on the street side of the structure. One brick was able to be removed at the top of
the wall by hand with virtually no effort and it was reported to us that the area along the
street is periodically cleaned of all falling debris).
• Movement and enlargement of the beam pocket on the structural steel beam supporting the
west turret.
• Copper wall flashings have blown off the front wall.
Our recommendations are as follows:
• Provide a canopy protection along the sidewalks on Essex Street and around the corner on
Liberty Street for the extent of the existing structure. This canopy should be installed to
protect pedestrians from pieces of falling debris coming from the building. This work
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
• The City of Salem should consider closing the street to all traffic when wind loading
conditions exceed 50—6-miles per hour.
• Decisions should be made regarding either the complete repair of the facade or the
demolition of the facade.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to call me at any time:
Very truly yours,
CID ASSOCIATES, INC.
James G. Jacobs, P.E.
President
K9037000/rb
CID
CID Associates Inc. Principals
Michael A Cassavoy
James G.Jacobs
John F.IGng Jr.
March 16, 2000
Associates
Mr. William Phippen James B.endre
Gary W.Hentln:n
The Peabody Essex Museum Thomas C.Houston
Peter E. latt
ast India Square Lance EPRobson Jr.
Salem,MA 01970-3783 Walter F Thomron
Re: Existing Remaining Armory Building Wall
CID Project No. 99037K.00
Dear Mr.Phippen:
This letter is to report on our recent observation of the Armory Building wall. Lance Robson,
Charles Ricci and the writer from this office were on site on Thursday,February 17,2000. We
reviewed all areas of the existing structure,both front and back of the wall, from the ground
and from a bucket truck. There was a unanimous opinion that the deterioration of the wall has
advanced significantly since our last review approximately three years ago.
Public safety warrants immediate attention. Pieces of the precast and of the brickwork are
going to continue to fall. We believe that the amount and frequency of this will increase over
time. There is also the possibility that a dramatic collapse of one or both turrets could occur
during a major storm.
While it is unlikely that the main body of the wall would suffer dramatic failure, the general
wall structure does not meet current Commonwealth of Massachusetts Building Code
requirements for wind load(see attached calculations).
The specific conditions that have worsened are:
• Cracking and weathering of virtually all areas of the cast stone work.
• Enlargement of the cracks at the level of the turrets,particularly at the west turret.
• Weathering and decay of masonry brick work(pieces of brick were evidenced on the
ground on the street side of the structure. One brick was able to be removed at the top of
the wall by hand with virtually no effort and it was reported to us that the area along the
street is periodically cleaned of all falling debris).
• Movement and enlargement of the beam pocket on the structural steel beam supporting the
west turret.
• Copper wall flashings have blown off the front wall.
Fnglneers 28o Summer Street T 617.443.0400
Anhllicts Suite 500 F 617.443.9880
Planners Boston/MA Email®cidasscc.com
022101131 www odassoc.com
CID Associates Inc. March 16,2000
Mr. WHIiamPhippen
The Peabody Essex Museum
Salem,MA
Page 2
Our recommendations are as follows:
• Provide a canopy protection along the sidewalks on Essex Street and around the corner on
Liberty Street for the extent of the existing structure. This canopy should be installed to
protect pedestrians from pieces of falling debris coming from the building. This work
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
• The City of Salem should consider closing the street to all traffic when wind loading
conditions exceed 50—6-miles per hour.
• Decisions should be made regarding either the complete repair of the facade or the
demolition of the facade.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above,please feel free to call me at any time.
Very truly yours, 1
a4,
CID ASSOCIATES, INC. �`�•or M•ss ,.
JAMES
o JACOBS
P.E. s N4 20626 p w
J es .. Ia b , a •1
President $O7fsrots`i; �+�`!
K90370001rb
DRAWN C`'+1— SUEJECT SAL !Y'IL veto SHEET NO.
(ID
CHECKED PROJECT
ECT
DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel. 617.413.0100
2805u Stmet Fu 617.6139660
SWIG 500 E-Mail gddnlw, ,,
llaga6 MA MU011:n Web Site t+ ,dduseetom
U ..pSF
To tool 3l (xF
-ora o s l.t q A
f'ah6-a- OeL. I.C, �1G-T fate-k
._._..__ _ �HLLM �—V yam.• (S �.dTS
-- .. .1��i Q7h.+ .�lti'OlM1'1451'O'y uSr I.Z.a ��Y�b>S ��r"'w1
...._..--__-___ 1•jC'l.l7u� l;L, S� l �bx Llr 25.2• �r
WfdLlt^ 12" '"feltc.eC ��nIC.c Wt-'�i.i
M10k-7*41+ C0u_nottr-+ O•J Cortd,4SpQ..j0% Tt7 l yid& a I�
-N 6. � S
' �104MC1V &-r--?ftSrt.Jd �s12F JIYw•. �7aM16tPV.tin TJ r �i� =
t'(G-ST I4G;J L.r'S �VN : Zbov `r
175 fNCw, +3 C•t-tZ�—w a,�t5 moa -cy;,� N t-tan-r.s-sL,
1
t ,�'
(46
__ _ FL- vU1`4;- `to Oen JD
Druvm e,.,ti SUNECr_ 5�w�. Ang q sHEerHa 1—
(I® CHECKED DPIO.IECT APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. .,
IBO Sm "street Tel 617.60.6100
5.112 540 F. 617.443.9560
Baton,MA OII70.1131 E•M+B —Vddass c*m
Website w' gidleme.e.m
TV
—'-- _. z.ClzlC IL�LzIti. 2i�
....---._..... � 7op �R.n-e.c.dr F'o4-- 11ri.A•ti3 '�, ;a Gu6fe!
-----.. td='7 'eC3-t•i�- R111a E� +Ru�ly�w Ya
M
-- n 4•o a .h c4 32.3 T 2-I
Top •$rLae•.T �AuvE
-o(> P 6LA�t t CLQ'
!0
,L
• 25.v �
19q
e vu
aa9 215
Q-iL�t,i.11'7t �j7 k..,
IoP LCyv t3U
Vi.L (4`4t,) C3i ��• SoL
111I s.,r -icy
2�r-11. 41•v �. ):i`'Le.stZ �• 3YL,
4eJ `
INS 140 I•V 12x4 o�
��7. `. t..1r 1o`�YYV (j•i,l�: Ll&r
U � y
- - �, .�tti r. 15��9- 13•t21` -1.�3�_1t3''
e ioL W g J 7 Y�'• pl<
3,53ti--
DRAWN A 111J SUEitECT. SA l.a�vl 4q.kn-lq SHEEP N0.
QD CHECKED IJ.7 w,�. 'RA.dtb PAOJECY
APPROVED DATE 8 Sav�9'f
ccn assocL4=„ru.
ra 617Ai3.OJ00
380Sxmo�er Streel Fa 677A).5660
Bmwksuiw 0 EAW _Bcidasav '
snbq MA 02110.1131 Web Site sn+seddassn cam
�_ s7ftP�:. .�O�T IOf) W1N�oiy
i So
----- - - �,L. . . n- 1 = l'L', � �•�. 12'7 a z 32,l t.'1 i� �y �Z'j r,t
I �Ilo 1�J.S � 170 1
19— LaF>,n o,J iutf z 2a�-L 3"I,LiLF roc.
i'-- 'x_'..• 31 r-i�7 r`e s�jl �.Lt.`"��, e ?-a.-L.t st_I,JId+'+ 4 7,11— to 12�.
G
-LS.L x-QL.4 II-
` /� W�„auvw� .
FJC'�✓✓l S •k1QJOVl7 LNf) �-D oyv- L1.7_ t51 -''t {(iI`K 1.S.L— 34L2,
5 M= .`-l 't {3� �3.4� l t1t fa. Ac .52' �Z 'L�3 4vi
7j 4x{S��yo li• at W9zly 1) 1.14MIT 53 L'iSr .l,
L ( �1�t4.51''' HLo•i J
J 17A) �L5,1 Q`� 11�3 9 L wN
.
1� y CRo k 1vl�jz •.,L L = i4St`1r-'1
.4% -A - �S WI q 14th � SZ ;?141
1U' >As �� lL ll.� W`3ttiy � � c 12,71 S` 11u11 - Go L 6tL1 a.
Lh.1 = 1T.L �YIL_ 301•`t * tF`I
L
{•{.1 !�1 ' ��,� ftv`f�. e i'..L �UlO � �o ° T_ - :.il W'�3•r_a� �,f2�.�o
(IDtHRAEC"K
SUBJECT •PROJENO.
CED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC - Ie1 617.40.0400
2WSnmmer Sheet F!: 617.67.9660
Salle 500 E-1.1211 _Oddasso"cP
ewto6,bfA P2110-1131 _ Web Site xww.cidaasoclam
- JHCrssq� Cp'P= �$5 671 4L.
I r-�
3/ll• �1 � 301 'VOIY Cq�. s�J 3`t st 2p— �..(a pj IG .7 S11L
c Yoe .s R: S,Il ' �• iI ' 'aD�,s e c-��t� Slpc
..._..___. 5.1... S.L c i71Z.i tL
Fb> laoa ll4� f•13 7. 0 otL
Srn�ry OfJ SItJ� �o�.-t 1N 3-r-a-�-INq
'23 Ic-=
o �
_ DRAWN C-t. SUBJECT - .
CID SHEET NO.
CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
Cin ASSOCIATES,ING
760 Su u Street , TEL 617.60.0400
Suite 500 Fax 617.U33NO
Beams.MA 0:810.1131 - E-Ma _Bdduaa.mm
Web Slte v ww.ddu,w.com
t i��(✓r H�li. iL.1e,
VV . ...
el
.Q'tb � 579 +�tF7
Q•t �11.(t�1 1(.�51c'll�L-�-'� �' v v
t
Tb -
.0 yey I ,�5v
ifs
193, 1 sig
�u
7z1
7,uS115,,.t 7 114�9
7,us`JL(LS•�• "e,
' I•L
+4 v L••1 �3 Uy( '
i lxl
W D P,(4
J
174 1 1J 4 �
°O✓d Lnnl t
lUt
DRAWN
(ID CHECK SUBJECT SHEET NO.
CHECKED pRa�
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC260STeL 617.K1 Wpp
suite�0 taftsmnv Street Fu 61TA43AM
6M4 —®ddss tom
6oatoa MA 02110.13316M4
w ..ddm mmm
Y1%D (�1. �•'1=. ,yv[i5 '3` T.I�c • i 7.ottC
i
C1Z N : tyosx s`/s£ 16.z i.-7
?-r--V:,4-1,0r1 fop E=�
�T t Y 1
6•N•
.. . - 141D v..
yT to r
G
L•u
prt 34 � 19rt - 3.L�
�t• ,-14 A 111,_ 2_ES
a F4
(�,1L
J 4
I.S � �-t-opt Sc 3�i•Y w-� S-•T - /�. � t1..i./t•��_ tz� rw_
L� _ 17�ti S: S.�Y �(.: I. CI .1'/^.l�a.��;.,•�-• -'.:, �'ey�„y
13
_ ..._ •59S G i oc
taw At4a10IV4
DRAWN elJ(L SUBJECT- No.
SRE6T No.
CHECKED _ Jprj J�yK LPta:-GtC _ PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC.
780 Sm a$tmt TCL 617.40.0m
00
Fs: 617AMU0
limlo ®aidsssoe.eec.
Bm1oe'MAOh30•IIA E-Ma
- Web Site wws+.ddassocrom
I� _ 3,"l> YSt1E —<�.-1S-3tob)�2.�) � LI.e,E- 1•B�• ; M
1.'4( 1w;1w; lo.L-b
K- ube.- d3•4
-------- .. �1'L 4I'4�..b 1y.3. FC,,�• `l.O:LG 7tS,C' 6� .
ov
25.04 vt7 t3-7 1 21.6 � � tu
7 XI,S +,zS .4•�i o
DRAWN SUBJECT . SHEET ND.
ID AKECKEDPPROVE PROJECT
MPROYED
DATE
CCD ASSOaATES,INC.
7B7 Summer St"t Tel 617A43Z4W
S.U.sm - Fu 617A.U,9666
Bmt*k MA%uo-iui E-bL+O _9ddaaac.cam
Web Site w..�,ddsswe:eum
I
i
L.
Z2.c.7 w S
Nrli
j� i•C"'
\511. I � 7t l
L.'c. leer
1 IV ,
1 JD D1
C?v 4° _
—Lt. 4
Ll
i
. I V
�I
v
K '
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO. -
(ID °
PROJECT
APPROVED
_ DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC
180 Sn w Sheet Tel. 617.443 1W ,
Sail.500 Fu 617.O0.9890 -
1{nmgMA02110-U31 E-Mail _eada$s wm
lccy Site ea .ddassxmm
• w
Xla'
N i5r, xt,
ly
1
k
v.
(ID DRAWN SBPRWE T
CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED _IrDY•1Na FoH jloi D/SEl9 se'T7'/�7
CTD ASSOCIATES,INC T2uS s
150 beau Street Tel. 617.443NDO
S,ule 500 Fax 617.4419N10
Bmeon,MA 01110.1131 SMat1 —.®ddave .
Web Site w+rs+-edaseuccam
� e i
, btalc I
CI® SUBJECT DCPt.E�M TNLyN on.`I SHEET NO.
CHSCKM Jl nG W ' . PROJECT
APPROM
• DATE
CM ASsociATES,INC
SWs® aStmt TeL 61740jg00
Satte wo .. Fu 6171479680
Bmtoe,MA 021104131 - F.-bun `Qddamc.
. . Web Site .e .ddy ,.
. . . P_- .. _... . �xpos�.ae- �� W A•w it
2t.g p1:c
1L4
ia^
3Da.v Pt f 3 �K
1
n
DRAWN, "�T++ SUBJECT- E"H'6DA�J �S S cJ� SHEET NO.
CID C14ECKED PROJECT
APPROVED
CID ASSOCIATES,INC
269 STel snsut!!p
ammee Sheet Est 617.W3JIBep
Batim SuiteE-%Ia _®ddm,a
oq MA Qri16UJ1 Web She —.ddsyy c
v �aPy�i
T
z, S
M
'� It,•h3 U ,5,�
v
110
X*'le
u y,y1
HG
40
4x-7 ] _
Ila q � x `i �y� 't I X5.6 Y I-S
a .
_ 2
If`40'
DRAWN SUBJECT?, p `� d �. b'HEE7 NO.
C�® CHECKED HbKJ PROJECT
"PROWD DQE_10 ,UO V 47
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Yet 617u3.0OO
2905ammar Stmet Pae 617. BAWO
Sage= E-MaD. ®cidacsoccom
Bottm1,MA O2130.33J1 Web Silt www.edas�ac.mm
-Tori (LO%.o lo"—: Ls,vpsr
l/.] IL.4 'Ir,.L� ,Job.••( �' F-/ .
Il.:,n 3va.v'i IF7 �o7-.4
IZ'
k/I o Zi2-4' IFI Zit �2a,i .�Jz' L.S 'c Ct
L
DRAWNSUBJECT T1 � �061�f t15 SdC• SREETNO.
�I® CHECKED J�7'YdY) ;"'1�� PROJECT
APPROVED - DATE 1D"k8J
CID ASSOCU=,INC Td. 617. 0JXW
16asu wsR t Fa 617.K19MO
Sw6:sm E•MaB ®ddusoeeem
Baamq MA On10.1111 Wab site w*' 4daas ,m
�u kw I.S, y �! 15�Y1•s
--- �� 7 = lae,k•wa
----._.. -- - l/ow,ti1 ka
Apr 19 00 02s15p Bill Hartley 603-764-8269 p. 2
WSH / CE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT
&wry Poirt Road
P.O Box 16
Warton,New F6rnpphire 0300
Phone=-764S547
April 18, 2000
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
Public Property Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01807
Re: Salem Armory
Salem, Massachusetts
#0002R1
Dear Peter:
As requested by the City of Salem, on April 11'. 1 went to the site of the
Headhouse Wall, relic front masonry wall, of what was the Salem
Armory on Essex Street at the corner of New Liberty Street There, I
met you, Mr. Stanley Bornstein and Mr. James G. Jacobs of CID
Associates, Boston to observe the condition of the existing wall. The
Armory building burned down in 1982. Several exterior masonry walls
remained after the fire, along with some internal structure.
Eighteen years later, everything other' than the front wall with its two
turrets and short side return walls either side of it, has been removed.
The National Park Visitors Center has been built In the area to the rear.
At some time in the past, a bracing system was added behind the front
wall and ties into the side walls to make the remaining walls stable_
There Is some pedestrian protection at the sidewalk in front of the wall
at Essex Street The existing front wall was observed from the ground
level using a telescopic camera, both from the front and the back.
The masonry is deteriorated and is continuing to deteriorate. Water is
getting into the masonry through existing cracks and open joints;
through the top of the wall More flashings are missing, through the flat
masonry soffit over the main entrance area and through the jamb and
,:,Hpr 19 00 02t1Sp Bill Hartley 603-764-9269 p, 3
sill surfaces at window openings. The problem is particr.rlarly Critical at
the rear face of the wall as that face of the wall and those details, being
designed to be imerlor, were never intended to be exposed to the
weather. No noticeable repairs have been made to the masonry since
the time of the fire.
Several reports have been written regarding the condition of the
remains. Each makes recommendations for the restoration and
maintenance of the walls. One by Robert Charles Group in 1991 and a
second by CID Associates in 1997 were reviewed by the writer. The
stability of the main wall as a whgle has been investigated by CID and
found, while not meeting current code requirements, to be adequate
enough to make dramatic failure unlikely. The undersized condition of
the steel beams supporting the two turrets was also noted in the CID
report with reference to the fact that in a rngor storm, the collapse of
one or both turrets is possible due to steel beam overstress. There is
also question regarding the condition of the masonry support for one
beam end. A March 2000 draft letter by CID Associates says that the
deterioration is continuing and notes several cautionary statements
having to do with potential public safety issues
There will be a continuing and accelerating breakup of the integrity of
the wall with time. Debris is falling, piece by piece, to land around the
base of the wall. This, in addition to causing a hazard to people in the
area, is weakening the structure of the wall to the point where there
would eventually be a general collapse of the wall. There is no way to
know when to expect this to occur. The wall would have to be
continuously monitored. The wall should either be made safe by
repairing it and protecting it from moisture penetration, or taken down to
eliminate the potential danger to the public and the owner's liability
exposure.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
William S. Hartley R E. tN OF M
mow+S.
HAA LLE
ORAL
• ADMINISTRATION §2-1572
rector shall be responsible for the general care (h) The director shall oversee the mainte-
and custody of the city hall, city hall annex and nance, operation and use of the city hall annex
• public properties. lounge, including the franchising, operation and
billing of vending machines.
(b) He shall supervise the maintenance of such
buildings and shall delegate various duties to the (i) The director shall keep a calendar of meet-
custodial staff with regard to the cleaning, light- ings and shall coordinate the use of the council
ing,heating and cooling systems and the mainte- chamber and conference areas in city hall and city
nance and operations of common facilities. hall annex in conjunction with the city clerk's
office. He shall oversee preparation of meeting
(c) He shall assign an individual from the areas and cleanup.
public property department to handle the mailing
system in city hall and city hall annex, with the d) The director shall supervise the operation
and billing of photocopy machines and other pa-
duties to include the following: sorting, distribut- per processing devices.
ing, processing and delivery of mail for all city
departments; operating the postage machine and (k) The director shall arrange special func-
maintaining postal expenditures of the postage tions such as dedications, parades and inaugura-
machine; pickup and delivery of mail to the post tions and arrange for the placement, raising and
office daily. This individual shall also have the lowering of the flags of public buildings.
care and custody of and shall distribute all city (Code 1973, § 2-393)
documents, books and papers, when directed by
the mayor,the city council or the president of the Sec. 2-1572. Review process for granting
city council or by the city clerk. demolition permits for historic
buildings or structures.
(d) He shall have the responsibility for the city
hall partition system, excluding the city council (a) The director of public property shall receive
chamber and the council subcommittee anteroom, applications for demolition of buildings or struc-
and shall arrange and oversee changes in the tures and, in accordance with applicable laws or
office plan and related services,including electric regulations,issue permits for demolition of build-
and telephone, subject to the approval of the city ings subject to the following restrictions:
council. (1) No permit for demolition of an existing
building or structure that is listed or
(e) He shall be responsible for the storage and
eligible for listing on the National Regis-
security of all city documents, including the as- ter of Historic Places or that is located in
signment of space for future documents that are an established historic district, created
to be stored in the basement vaults, maintaining pursuant to this Code, or that is 50 or
a work relationship with the state's superinten- more years old shall be granted unless it
dent of public records and coordinating a possible is first submitted to the historical commis-
restoration and microfilming operation. sion for review and comment.
(f) He shall see to it that public property build- (2) Upon submission to the historical commis-
ings are secured from unauthorized entry and sion, the commission, within 30 days of
theft. He shall see that buildings are opened and such submission, shall issue a prelimi-
readied for the day's operation and shall see that nary recommendation regarding the grant-
they are locked and secured at night. ing of a demolition permit. If the commis-
sion issues a recommendation in favor of
(g) The director shall coordinate the opera- the granting of such a permit, a demoli-
tions of city hall and city hall annex, including tion permit shall be issued.If the commis-
shipment and entry of supplies, night and week- sion issues a recommendation in opposi-
end use,and payment of rent and common service tion to the granting of such a permit for
bills. demolition, no permit shall be issued un-
CD2:65
§2-1572 SALEM CODE
til a more thorough investigation is un- director shall forward an application for
dertaken and a final written recommen- demolition of such a structure to the city
dation is provided by the commission. planner and a representative of the his- •
Such investigation and recommendation torical commission.Within 15 days of the
shall be completed within 180 days of the receipt of such a request,the director,the
original submission to the historical com- city planner, and the historical commis-
mission. sion representative shall make a determi-
(3) During the maximum 180-day period,the nation of the historical or architectural
historical commission shall meet with the significance of the garage or shed. If the
property owner and conduct such hear- structure is deemed significant by a ma-
jority of these three individuals, the ap-
ings or investigations as it may determine plication shall be forwarded to the full
to be necessary in the formulation of its historical commission for review as out-
written recommendation regarding the lined in this section. If the structure is
granting of such permit. The historical deemed to possess no historic or architec-
commission shall consider the following tural significance by a majority of these
criteria in its deliberations: three individuals or if no action is taken
a. The building or structure is of such within the 15-day period, a demolition
interest or quality that it would rea- permit shall be issued.
sonably meet national, state or local
criteria for designation as an his- (b) Nothing in this section shall supersede the
toric or architectural landmark. regulations of the state building code, 780 CMR.
sections 123.0 and 124.0 regarding unsafe struc-
b. The building or structure is of such tures and emergency measures.
unusual or uncommon design, tex- ` (Code 1973, § 2-393.1)
ture,or materials that it could not be
reproduced or could be reproduced
only with great difficulty and ex- Secs. 2-1573-2-1600. Reserved.
pense.
C. The building or structure is of such DIVISION 3. ASSISTANT BUILDING
architectural or historic interest that INSPECTOR'
its removal would be to the detri-
ment of the public interest.
d. Retention of the building or struc-
ture would help preserve and protect The position of assistant building inspector is
an historic place or area of historic established. There shall be an assistant building
interest in the city. inspector, or assistant building inspectors if de-
(4) The historical commission shall, within termined by need, appointed to such position,
the 180-day period,issue a written recom- each of whom shall be appointed, shall serve,
mendation to the director of public prop- shall qualify and shall possess the duties and
erty and to the property owner regarding powers mentioned in this division.
the granting of the permit for demolition. (Code 1973, § 2-394)
If no such recommendation is issued within
the period,the historical commission shall Sec. 2-1602. Appointment.
be deemed to have recommended the grant-
ing of the permit. The mayor may appoint and remove,subject to
(5) For a residential garage or storage shed, council confirmation, the assistant building in-
but excluding carriage houses as defined *Cross reference—Officers and employees, § 2-101 et .
in the zoning ordinance, section II.B, the seq.
CD2:66
April 19, 2000
TO: Patrick(SRA)
4eter(Building Commissioner)
FR: Joe Wals400*10
RE: Update on Armory fagade: PEM meeting with Mass Historic
I had a conversation with Massachusetts-Historic Commission representatives a few
moments ago. They told me PEM (represented by Goodwin Proctor) met with them on
4/18 and got some pretty direct instructions—which at this point they've failed to share
with any of us.
While we wait official notification from the State, or a courtesy call from PEM, here's
what I understand the museum was told:
The Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (the big guns) told them:
1. The 1991 MOA is still legally valid and binding (the building inspector's order does
not release them from that), and the terms must be carried out. (That seems to mean
that demolition is not a legal option available to PEM in complying with Peter's
"unsafe structure" order.)
2. If the City wishes to see the MOA amended so that we can demand demolition in
light of this crisis, the City could request it be amended (which we will NOT; without
demolition, PEM still has the option to make safe or secure it to ensure public safety,
and that is our only concern).
3. Even if it was the City's wish to amend the MOA in this way, that change must be
agreed to by all signatories of the MOA.
MassHistoric (as the SHPO) asked PEM for:
• Stamped copy of the final engineer's report
• A copy of the $500,000 bid for repair(which they suspect is inflated)
• A good faith effort from PEM to attempt to seek to stabilize while the process
continues,,instead of demolish it Monday.
I've told Mass Historic that we will continue to carry out the Mayor's directive on this: to
first and foremost ensure public safety, and to do what ever we can to encourage PEM to
do so in a way that respects (not short-circuits)the complicated process they are in with
the state and federal agencies.
Let's keep each other posted on any new developments on this throughout the day.
Thanks!
3 �• mP Mtu of j ttWr t, Aussar4usetts
Pubtir 11ropertg Department
Nuiibing Department
(One 6alem 6reen
588-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
November 12, 1993
Dan Monroe
Peabody 5 Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Salem Armory Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Monroe:
I am in receipt of your letter and the engineering report regarding
the headhouse facade at the Old Salem Armory. What everyone is overlooking
is the fact that my letter specifically stated I was concerned with the GUN
TURRETS which are being supported by I beams at each end of the facade.
This area is not mentioned in any report received by this office.
I would appreciate a report stating the GUN TURRETS are structurally
sound and pose no threat to public safety. I thank you in advance for your
anticipated cooperation and prompt attention in this matter.
Sincer4y,
�
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Buildings
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
1 �Rpr, 19 00 11a53a Hill Hartley 603-764-9269 p. 1
WSHICE
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CON`JULTANT
&eery Poirt Road
P.O. Box 18
Warren,Nov Hempdtre O3£79
PhoneH W50547
April 18, 2000
Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
Public Property Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01907
Re: Salem Armory
Salem, Massachusetts
Dear Peter:
I am enclosing the resume you requested, herewith.
in 1954, when I started working in an engineering office in Boston, my
first job was to investigate a radio tower in Medford to support some
additional equipment to replace that lost when the WEEI tower in
Brighton blew down during a hurricane. This was followed by an
investigation of the wood roof structure of Saint Joseph's Church in
Amesbury. The root deck and beams are supported on scissors trusses,
which are notorious for spreading with age. These had spread about
3112" at the top of each of the side walls. Then during the hurricane of
1938, the wind blew one of the walls nearly vertical and the other over
an additional 2112". We came up with a solution for bracing tate building.
Makes a nice story. Sometime in there, I worked on the design for an
addition for the Riverside Church in NY, Jordan Marsh, and a Sheraton
Hotel in Philly.
It has been that way ever since. Forty-six years of miscellaneous
building engineering.
If you have any questions, please call
Sincerely, J
William S. Hartley P. E.
� Apr- 18 00 11 : 51a Hill Hartley 603-764-9268 p. 5
William S. Hartley
Braacy Point Road
P. 0- Box 16
Warren,New Hampshire 03279
B. S. Building Engineering and Construction
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1952
M. S. Civil Engineering
University of Iowa 1958
Registered Professional Engineer in
Maine Massachusetts
New Hampshire North Carolina
Vermont Pennsylvania
Memhemhip in
American Society of Civil Engineers(Fellow)
Boston Association of Structural Engineers(Past President)
Structural Eugmeers of New Hampshire
Boston Society of Civil Engineers
New Hampshire Section of ASCE
Sigma Xi
Licensed Connlruutiun Supervisor in Massachusetts
Experience
1990 to Present William S. Hartley,Consulting Engineer, Stow MA&Warren NH
Owner/Engineer of struct eng office
1971 to 1989 Unenthal Eisenberg Anderson,Boston
Chief Engineer 1983 to 1989
Engineer 1971 to 1983
1970 to 1971 Barnes&Jamis,Boston
Engineer in charge of bldg ang office
1965 to 1970 William S. Hartley,Consulting Engineer,Boston
Owner/Engineer of struct eng office
1962 to 1965 Soun&True, Cambridge
Engineer
1959 to 1962 Linenthal Becker,Boston
Engineer
1958 to 1959 Maurice A. Reidy,Boston
Engineer
1956 to 1958 University of Iowa for M. S.
Ned L. Ashton,Iowa City, ta.
Engineer
1954 to 1956 MauriceA. Reidy,Boston
Engineer
1952 to 1954 U-S.Army
696 34 Mass. App. Ct. 69CX34' Mass. App. Ct. 696
697 .
Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Code Appeals Board. tr., Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Code Appeals Board.
,w; Qlit]on permit for buildings at 189 and 191 Hampshire
W Street, Cambridge.
`:Upon the argument of the appeal before us, counsel dis-
BUILDING COMMISSIONER of CAMERiDGE & others' vs:°'9 closed that, pending this appeal, the building commissioner
BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD & another.' �jad. in fact issued the demolition permit in accordance with
rc'; tthe.decisions of the State Appeals Board and the Superior
No.92-P-276. e. Court, and the buildings had been demolished accordingly.
Thus the question arose whether the appeal should be consid-
Middlesex.April 14, 1993. -July 1, 1993. ";i r .
ere moot.
{ Present: DREBEN.KAPLAN. & PORADA.JJ.
l Upon consideration of the supplemental briefs of the par-
6s discuss]n the question, we do now dispose of theappeal
- Moot Question. Practice, Civil,Moot case. Building. Rent Control, Ro-j' u g _q p
moval of unit from market. Euj;i; asbeing moot.
I Ana appeal in an action for judicial review of.a decision of the Buildi v
3n brief digest, the situation was as follows. After a report
pp i PB� ofan inspection by a board of survey (see G. L. c. 143, § 8)
4 Code Appeals Board,ordering the building commissioner of Cambgdge„.
to issue a permit for the demolition of certain buildings, was rendered riding the buildings unsafe in various respects, with sundry
moot when the buildings were razed pursuant to the permit [697-6981;' }solations of the Building Code, the building commissioner
�i no special circumstances existed to warrant this court's considerationght well have been prepared to issue a demolition permit:
issues relating to the removal from the housing market of rent conirep
'�
airs, he believed, would be possible but economically pro-
trolled dwelling units formerly within the buildings [698-699]. '�,
f. h]bitive. He declined to grant the permit, however, because
N Pthe position of the Cambridge rent control board (Cam-
ridge Board) that demolition could not lawfully proceed un
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Depart less and until the Cambridge Board granted a "removal”
PP went on-November 7, 1990. '
permit, i.e. a permit to remove from the market the twenty-
The case was heard by John P. Forte, J., sitting under
�> statutory authority. coo controlled units in the buildings.
th"' nThe owner filed an appeal with the State Appeals Board
Patricia A. Cantor (Susan Hegel & Laura H. Yager wi
her) for the plaintiffs. a x111,from the negative decision of the building commissioner. Par-
l; ties to the proceedings before the State Appeals Board, be-
Paul J. Moriarty for the intervener. id
Anthony C. Penski, Assistant Attorney General, for Build-,= es the owner and the building commissioner, were the
ing Code Appeals Board, was present'but did not argue ii Cambridge Board and tenants of the buildings. A full admin-
i_..
J. This was an appeal from a judgment of-the ,istrative record was made. The State Appeals Board found
Superior Court which affirmed an order of the State Buildifig, 3 that the buildings were unsafe and that in the circumstances
Code Appeals Board (State Appeals Board). The order di ., the owner could elect not to repair but to demolish. Further,
where demolition was justified because the premises were un
-
4 rected the Cambridge building commissioner to issue a dem safe, there was no room for a prerequisite of a "removal"
i' „permit from the Cambridge Board. So the building commis-
_sioner was ordered to issue the demolition permit.
'City of Cambridge, Cambridge rent control board, and eight membe{q'.
of the Hampshire Place Tenants Union. +'
'Donna Lyons, intervener. {x,YTwo other professional inspections reached similar conclusions.
44
698 34 Mass. App Ct 6911 X34 Mass. App. Ct. 696 699
Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Cade Appeals Board Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Code Appeals Board.
Upon judicial review of the decision of the State Appeil engaged in word-chopping — making a fetish of some formal
Board, a judge of the Superior Court held that there .. phrase.
substantial evidence to support the State Appeals Board's de xilf the issue — however formulated - should present itself
cision. The judge then examined critically the Cambrid)) sometime in the future, it will not likely evade proper review.
n :
Board's contention and concluded, with analysis particulare present case was apparently seen by the State agency
of § 114.1 of the State Building Code (780 Code Mass, and by judges on all three tiers to be so strong as not to
Regs. § 114.1 [1980]) and § 8.44.050 of the Cambridge. warrant a stay; hence demolition followed. Future cases may
Code, that the contention failed. (The interpretive question; ,present situations of varying strengths, and stays will be
involved is set out in the Appendix to this opinion ) z 'forthcoming as appropriate.
After noting its appeal from the judgment of the Superio Again, there is argument, seeking to invoke another "ex-
Court, the Cambridge Board applied to the judge to stay,,,.- caption," that the present parties have a continuing stake in
judgment pending appeal. The judge allowed the stay onll v s;particular controversy. See Blake v. Massachusetts Pa-
condition the tenants vacate the buildings by a given date; ale Bd., 369 Mass. 701, 707 (1976). We are referred to the
September 12, 1991: the judge stated, "Thiscourt is cpn Cambridge removal permit ordinance, which imposes fines
earned with the safety of the tenants and public." The Ca'm' for the wrongful removal of controlled units (Cambridge
i bridge Board then sought an unconditional stay from a single. Code § 8.44.090 A [1987]), and it is suggested that the pre-
justice of the Appeals Court; the stay was denied on Septem, sent owner remains in peril of this ordinance because it
r
ber 4, 1991. The Cambridge Board then requested an uncopr ght be decided ultimately that a removal permit was
ditional stay from a single justice of the Supreme Judlcia needed. Surely this is a fictitious, not a genuine concern: here
Court; it was denied on September 19, 1991. The building a owner acted under a demolition permit actually ordered
commissioner issued the demolition permit on Auguste„ .competent authority on the basis that it was the only per-
1992, and the buildings were demolished. tw required. The idea of exacting the penalty in these cir-
With the demolition of the buildings pursuant to.thel de f" tltnslances seems bizarre.
olition permit, the controversy appears to be at an end,tbtx> then it is suggested that if the owner should in the future
some argument is made for applying "exceptions" to the rul'' ecide to build on the vacant site, the Cambridge Board as-
of mootness. rting that the demolition was unlawful because no removal
It is suggested that this is a case where the issue is on emit had been obtained, might demand that the owner se-
"capable of repetition, yet evading review," Wolf v. Comma" cu e, anew, a removal permit, as a condition of being able to
sioner of Pub. Welfare, 367 Mass. 293, 298 (1975) T lam that the new building was exempt from rent control.
Cambridge Board in its supplemental brief describes the, `'
g PP �he problem is for the future, is highly contingent, and will
sue herein to be whether a removal permit is required z,"w)i, esf be answered if and when it becomes actual.*
no code enforcement authority found that demolition wash
quired or recommended on public health or safety grounds:?
This statement implies,that, had such a formal finding b' !Compare the discussion in the stake case, 369 Mass. at 706 n.9: "In
-made, no additional removal permit would be requlred,r �., e-particular case, with the action at the appellate level, economy of a
that assumption, little substance was left to the appeal l%6
rt might be served by going to a decision if it were anticipated that simi-
for the seriousness of the safety situation ran through al issues might arise in the future. Cf. Wellesley College v. Attorney
Gen.,.313 Mass. 722, 731 (1943). But predictions of the nature of future
proceedings, and the Cambridge Board.seems.to be $f" Ligation and the applicability of precedents are notoriously infirm; and
a and circumstances of decision are not indifferent factors in the devel-
Gln
_ e
' 700 34 Mass. App. Ct. 696 34 Mass. App. Ct. 696 701
Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Code Appeals Board. Building Commissioner of Cambridge v. Building Code Appeals Board.
'j- +broad sense to include law having a relation to the Building Code even if it
In conformity with practice where a case becomes moot;on
'� 'does not distinctly deal with safety.
appeal, we "vacate the [judgment] appealed from with a';n '` x^There is further argument that, if the Cambridge Board's view were
talion that the decision is not on the merits, and remand::the;. adopted, the Board, by witholding a removal permit in a case like the pre-
case to the Superior Court with directions to dismiss,::_,,E : could as a practical matter force the owner as a last resort to make
[complaint]." Reilly v. School Comm. of Boston, 362 Mas : extravagantly uneconomical repairs — even though the Board has no di-
689, 696 (1972). F] rest authority to order an owner to make repairs.
So ordered,„
APPENDIX.
1 Section 114.1 of the State Building Code (780 Code Mass Regs. ti
§ 114.1 [19801) provides that "[tlhe building commissioner .'s Ell `�'•
amine . . . all applications for permits . within thirty (30) days`aftei
-filing. . . . If he is satisfied that the proposed work conforms to the req,q.
ments of this code and all pertinent law applicable thereto, he shall issue'.
permit."
Cambridge Code § 8.44.050 (1987) provides that [i]n decidl
f -
whether to grant a permit under this chapter [entitled "Rent Control' ;._¢
the [rent control] [b]oard shall consider: "A. The benefits to the pe _Z,
sought to be protected by the Act and by this chapter; B. The hardshi'
- imposed on the tenants residing in the unit proposed to be,removed„incl
�i ing any mitigating provisions made by the applicant; and C Any,a
tion of the shortage of decent rental housing accommodations, espec[a e:=
” for families of low and moderate income and elderly people on fixediu+
comes, which may result from the removal." vC <
The Cambridge Board has contended that the words of the Budd,, " },
Code—"conforms to the requirements of this code;pnd all pertine',1! ,
applicable. thereto' — embrace as "pertinent law",:the cited,Cambgd
Code,provision for issuance of permits in regard to rent control inchi, '
a permit which may be granted for removal from the market of they
trolled units in the building to be demolished.
The State Appeals Board and the Superior Court judge consider tlia,.
be "pertinent" law "applicable thereto," i.e., applicable to the "req
ments of this code" (the Building Code), the law must deal with
matters'; whereas the Cambridge Code provision deals generally witli�,tfie
issuance of permits regarding rent control and has little, if any relatto F; ."i
safety. The Cambridge Board apparently reads "pertinent
zs,
opment and outcome of law. Thus the supposed economy,may ,bete¢ #:
readily cancelled out by other factors.":
'It may be noted that the Cambridge traffic,police,,and,fire.depit.
rt'
agreed with the application to demolish.
yll_
wpm
Citp of *alem, 0agzarbu.5ett.5
Public Propertp Mepartment
3guilbing Department
One&diem oreen
(978) 7459595 Cxt. 380
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property.
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 14, 2000
Mr. John Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Old Salem Armory Head House Fagade
Dear Mr. Grimes:
I am in receipt of your response dated today (April 14, 2000) regarding the
Armory fagade. I have delivered by hand, so as to reach you before the close of business
today, a brief response instructing you what you must do immediately. I also wanted to
send a more detailed response to your letter regarding my "unsafe structures"order.
I need to correct an important inaccuracy in your response. The law does not
require you to "speedily" complete the action that you decide to undertake. My letter and
the law clearly indicate that you have been served notice "to begin to remove such
building or structure or make it safe or make it secure..." [emphasis mine]. The process
need not be completed immediately; it is necessary, however, that steps be taken without
delay to begin the remedy.
Specifically, your letter says that I ordered you to "speedily...make the structure
safe, remove it or secure it." That is not correct. The word "speedily" does appear in the
statute, but in the next section which clearly refers to the pace of your activity once a
course of action is begun, demanding that you"employ sufficient labor speedily"to carry
out whatever decision you make.
The decision whether to stabilize, make safe and protect the fagade or to demolish
it is solely the decision of the Peabody Essex Museum; it is not the decision of the
Building Inspector of the City of Salem.
My responsibility as Building Inspector is to see to it that you proceed with your
decision, whatever course you decide upon, without delay, in order to remedy the public
safety concerns that you made us aware of.
As per my hand delivered letter to you, the building department is immediately
ordering you to install a pedestrian canopy that will start on the sidewalk and extend out
in the street then return to the sidewalk, and a chainlink fence to enclose the sidewalk on
the Essex Street side. In the interim the police department has been ordered to supply a
detail at the site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight until these precautions
are completed. All work that takes place and all details will be at the Museum's expense.
Sincerely,
Peter " out
Building Commissioner
cc: Mayor Usovicz
Joe Walsh
Stan Bornstein
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITEcru R9 CUL'I'u RE
RECEIVED
9: 117
gr=r 40-,4,143434 SALEM
PLANNING DP
BY HAND
aA4r mIX&We-.vu
?orraL NnayK110SF'r19 Mr.Peter Strout
01970-3783�,A Building Commissioner
i
w-,978-745.95W Director of Public Property
ti":978-744-6776
, V Ji."-0 Inspector of Buildings
City of Salem
One Salem Green
Salem,Massachusetts 01970
Re: Old Salem An wry Head House Facade
Dear Mr_Strout.
This letter is further response to your written order of April 11.2000 concerning the
structure known as the Old Salem Armory Head House facade, and to summarize the
substance of the meeting Joseph Correnti,Esq.and 1 had on April 12 with you,Mr. Sr. Pierre,
the assistant building inspector,and Mr.Walsh from the Mayors office.It also outlines the
Museum's intended course of action in compliance with your order, and additional
information leading to this decision.
As I said at our meeting,the Museum fully understands and shares Elie City's concerns
about the instability and deteriorating condition of the Headhouse facade. Sincethe Museum
acquired the property,the Museum has monitorcd the condition of the property and taken
prudent sups to insure public safety with respect to the facade and the surrounding area.
As you are undoubtedly aware,shortly after the Museum acquired dee Headhouse site,
its plans for the property changed as dee Museum changed institutionally by the merger of the
Essex htstituEe and the Peabody Museum.Soon after the new Peabody Essex Museum began a
facility Planning Process for the integrated campus.it became clear that the earlier plan to
Construct an office building at the Headhouse site did tot meet the Museum's functional
needs.Additionally,we became aware that the condition of the facade,which had been left
standing since the fire in 1982,presented serious unanticipated structural and related
Plrblems.After extremely thorough consideration of virtually all ideas suggested for use of
the facade and the Headhouse site,working with internationally recognized architects and
landscape architects and highly qualified engineers,the Museum concluded that the best and
highest use for the Headhouse site is a special,beautifully landscaped commemorative park
honoring veterans and the Second Corps Cadets. We believe that the proposed Armory Park
will be a wonderful new asset to the City of Salem and a fitting testament to the sacrifices of
our veterans.Plans for Armory Park call for the removal of the IIeadhouse facade,and the
retention of elements of the foundation wall and a restored or recreated archway_
ENT BY: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM; 978 741 8951 ; APR-18-00 9:42AM; PAGE 3/5
c-
�FC'Fi�rED
t_ J,_t v L
The Museum's preliminary plans for taleFItadhiuse si[4 have been publicly available
for some time and have been presented by Museum througgh meetings, newspaper inserts,and
Public access television to thousands of Salem resid6f l-El elMuseam has also shown the
plans for the site to the Salem Redevelopmenq1)ftpurAiJ�j;RA'`i-The SRA acknowledged
[hat the Museum would proceed through the permitting process with the plan for Armory
Yank.
In October 1999,as soon as the City Council gave the first approvals for our
acquisition of the City property necessary for us to pursue our overall gallery expansions,we
took steps to reopen the consultation process with the National Advisory Council for Historic
Preservation, the Massachusetts Historical Commission,and the SRA.The primary patties
were unable to meet with us until February,2000.At the February meeting, the Nacional
Advisory Council representative suggested that any consultation under section 106 of the
National Historic preservation Act may no longer be required. Since the February meering•we
have been working with the City,the SRA,and federal officials to determine whether the
federal consultation process is required.
Concerned that the facade fragment had been sabjera to another winter freeze-thaw,
cycle, and uncertain about the duration of the consultation process which lay ahead,the
museum engaged C.I.D.Associates,engineering consultants,to perform an updated inspection
of the facade's condition,so that the museum could take whatever prudent measures might be
required to protect public safety. Upon receiving the results of that inspection. we were
sufficiently concerned to request a meeting with the Mayor's office. At this meeting, which
occurred on March 17,Dan Monroe and I relayed our engineer's findings regarding the
increasing instability and deteriorating condition of the facade. To protect public safety until
such time that we could complete the approval process for the proposed Armory park,and
based on recommendations from our engincers, we proposed that a protective walkway be
immediately erected around the facade,re-routing pedestrian traffic away from its base,and
precluding buses from parking on the adjacent portions of Essex Street- We also discussed
working with the city on procedures for posting a security or police detail during conditions of
high winds, such being cited by our engineers as significantly increasing the danger to public
safety from falling debris.The protective walkway,relocation of school bus parking, and
security detail were proposed and intended as reasonable precautionary measures for
maintaining public safety while permitting and approval processes were underway.
Subsequently, we supplied the city engineer with drawings for the proposed covered walkway
and solicited his advice on the procedure for its installation
When we met on Wednesday.April 12,following receipt of your April 11 order,you
informed us that based on your personal observations of the facade, in addition to the oral
report which you received from the city's independent engineering consultant, that you
detentiined that the facade was an "unsafe structure"as that term is used in[Ire state building
code. You also further stated that prompt and effective action must be taken to insure the
public's safety. You told us that all affidavit from a licensed engineer would be required,
certifying any efforts to make the structure safe as defined in state building code. The
proposal to construct a wooden protective walkway,and the other proposed safety measures,
are now clearly not acceptable in light of your findings and order to make the Headhouse
fragment comply with state safety requirements.
As we discussed at the April 12 meeting,the Museum explored with its engineers the
feasibility of taking more extensive efforts to preserve the facade in a manner consistent with
ENT BY: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM; 978 741 8951 ; APR-18.00 9:42AM; PAGE 4/5
r,
-c-NES
public safety pending the outcome of the reopened historical consultation and rho formal
amendment of the Land Di ositioq q "
sp gn ennts �biesE ures,of course, would have to
been completed"speedily,"to be in compliance with your order,as well as meet your
requirements regarding an engineer's certi gn_ofcompliance with applicable building
codes. Our engineers have infornrcdq and bracing spppo - g of the facade
according to these standard;would sttllcttiral steel and pre-cast concrete. It is our best
information,from both CLD.Associates and Turner Construction Company,that engineering
design,steel procurement and fabrication,and installation could not be accomplished speedily.
but would require a minimum of three months and possibly significantly longer.The cost for
such action, which would only stabilize,not preserve,the facade,is estimated to exceed
$500.000.The cost to fully preserve the facade is estimated by Turner Constmetion at$2.6
million.
Even if we wished to stabilize the facade,we could not do it in the speedy and prudent
time-frame required by the City's order.To the extent the present action precludes the
completion of any desired consultation,we believe that the completion of the consultation
process would not change the ultimate outcome.
We have weighed and considered all reasonable options to respond to your April 11
order. Again,it was our intent and hope to protect the public through the installation of a
temporary pedestrian canopy and related measures until such time as we could remove the
facade following duc permitting process. We did not desire or request,directly or indirectly,
that the City issue an order finding the facade unsafe.
You have ordered us to"speedily . . . make the structure safe,remove it or secure it."
Like the City, our first and highest concern is and must be public safety. We cannot speedily
make the facade safe,even if that were our ultimate intent for the structure.We cannot make it
secure since we do not own or control the property upon which the facade fronts.Therefore,
given all factors, we must choose to reprove the facade. We intend to move with all due haste
With Preparations for this action,which will begin on Monday,April 24. In the meantime.we
urge the City to take all prudent measures to protect public safety on and around Essex Strced,
up to and including the complete closure of Essex Street. We will notify your office of
detailed plans for removal as soon as they have been completed. Thank you for your
consideration of,and thoughtful attention to,,this serious matter.
Sincerely.
John R.Grimes
Deputy Director for Special Projects
cc: Mayor Stanley Usovicz,Jr-
ENT BY: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM; 978 741 8951 ; APR-18-00 9:41AM; PAGE 1
PFABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ALIT AR CH I'i dk7'r L'/ik CULT PECEIVi�D
FOR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
tR 13 i,ti ° 7
Via Facsimile: 740-0404
SALEM
PLANNING
TO: Patrick Reffett, Executive Director
Salem Redevelopment Authority
arl FROM: Peabody Essex Museum
F.1AT Mrif.`.if.4'^.RY. DATE: April 18, 2000
>11Ii'A.MA.3nCJIU.MTTS
utU7u">78'3 vu. RE: Salem Arno Head House Fa ade Fragment
1� :v7s"74s.v4w, ry �" g
lrax:974"744 677b
w,'V.,'TF., ,"i We are sending this memorandum to you as a party to the Memorandum of
Agreement executed in February, 1992 regarding the Salem Armory Head House
site.
As you are aware,in the more than eight years since the Agreement was executed,
the Museum's plans for the site have changed dramatically. Beginning several years
ago,we reopened the consultation with the Massachusetts Historical Commission in
this regard. As you are also aware,the Museum's current discussions with the
Historical Commission and others revolve around demolishing the Head House
fagade fragment and creating a historic park honoring the military history of Essex
County on the site, including commemorative reconstruction of the base of the gun
turrets and the archway of the Head House fagade fragment.
On April 11, we received the attached letter from the Salem Building Commissioner,
notifying us that the fagade is dangerous to life or limb and ordering us to begin to
remove the stntcrure or make it safe by noon April 12.
We met with the Assistant Building Commissioner and discussed potential courses
of action for responding appropriately to the order. These alternatives, as discussed
at the meeting, are set forth in some detail in our attached letter responding to the
Commissioner's order.
As a result of the Commissioner's order and the outcome of the meeting, we have
concluded that we must remove the fagade fragment forthwith to protect public
safety. We intend to begin demolition on Monday, April 24,2000. The purpose of
this memorandum is to give you as much prior notice as possible. We have also
attached a copy of a letter to Mayor Usovicz from the U.S, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, which we learned of earlier today.
We urge you to read the attached letters to understand the series of events leading to
this conclusion.
APA.Ia-nn 0:d1AM: PAGE 21S
ENT BY: PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM; 978 741 8951 ; APR-18-00 9:42AM; PAGE 515
`lCitp of Oalem, f aggarbU5ettS;
• rr� _�
VOW 13xopertp lip tplel{t�
uilDinge {t�1n�,I o: 117
s ;
®ae Salem Erten
(978)745.0595¢:m,4h✓1
Peter Strout [=L4NNING C.EIF
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer
April 11,2000
Peabody Essex Museum
Dan Munroe
East India Square
Salem,Ma. 01970
Dear Mr.Munroe:
I have been informed that the fgade walls known as "The Old Salern Armory tieadhouse
Facade" structure is dangerous to life or limb and is uninhabited and open to the weather.
My duty as the City of Salem Building Commissioner is to order you in accordance with
the Massachusetts State Building Code 780 CMR, Chapter 121.0"Unsafe Structures"to
remove or Mabe the structure safe. 78()CMR, 121.3 orders the owner to begin this
procedures by 12:00 noon of the day following the service of this notice. The owner
shall employ sufficient labor speedily to make the structure sate,remove it or to secure it,
but if the public safety so requires and if the Mayor so orders, we will immediately enter
upon the premises with the necessay workers and assistants and cause such unsato
structure to be make safe or demolished without delay and a proper fence put up for the
protection of passerby, or to be made secure.
Sincerely,
F
Pcicr Strout
Building Commissioner
Cc: Mayor (Isovicz
Joe Walsh
Stan Bornstein
PEABODY,= Ess X MUSEUM -
_..` - ART A,RC.H IT E C T,URE. 0 U�LTU RE
,PR 1"3 -A 0 0:0 .'.
_;April 13,_2000_ ... ...
Y u: SALEM. 11A
ESSFa.
Mr. Peter Strout
Building Commissioner
EAST INDIA SQUARE Director of Public Property, _ ^
SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Inspector of Buildings - - - -
01976-3783 USA City of Salem
TEL 978-745-9500 - One Salem Green
FAx:978-744-6776
M.0RG Salem;Massachusetts--01970
WWU%"PE
Re: Old Salem Armory Head House Facade
Dear Mr. Strout:
This letter is to acknowledge the order which the Peabody Essex Museum
- - received from your office on April l 1, 2000, concerning the'safetyof the old
Salem armory headhouse fagade. As you know. the order requires the museum to
make safe . secure or remove the fagade structure. In response to your order 1,
-along-with attorney Joseph Correnti, met with you on Wednesday, April 12,-2000
at 10:00 a.m. in your office. At that meeting we discussed the fact that the
museum was now required to act in an expeditious manner. I wantto assure you
that the museum is carefully considering all options available to comply with your
order. We expect to have a proposed course of action which we can discuss with
you in the next few days. In the meantime;in order to protect public safety,the
museum will continue to work with the City in blocking off the sidewalk and bus
parking located immediately in front of the fagade. Please be assured that this
- ' matter has the museum's full and immediate attention.
Very truly yours,
John R. Grimes
Deputy Director of Special Projects
cc: Mayor Stanley J Usovicz,Jr
Joe Walsh .
Stan Bornstein ._
Citp of &alem, mal;.4acbUattg
Mepartment of Vublic &erbiceg
(One 6alem Oreen
(978) 745-9595 ¢Ext. 321
STANLEY I.BORNSTEIN,P.E.
City Engineer �aX: (978) 745-5877
Director of Public Services
i`
4-10-00
FROM: Stan Bornstein
TO: Memo for the record
RE: Essex Peabody Mus m- ory Facade
I spoke with Bill Hartley P.E., (603-764-8547) a structural engineer, regarding the above
referenced property.
He will be here on 4/11 at 9:00am to review the structure and make recommendations
regarding its integrity.
CC: Mayor
Joe Walsh
Peter Strout
Peabody & Essex Museum
FAST INDIA SQUARE • SALEM,MASSACHUSE M 01970
A carzxilkla inn(y llx f+nn(T I'ailawlv,tOrsnun q sraan and 161£nes ImMI Ile.
November 5, 1993
Mr. Leo E. Tremblay
Building Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Salem Armory Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
The Museum's Armory Committee has discussed your October 25th letter regarding
concerns about the soundness of the Salem Armory headhouse facade.
A fire gutted the headhouse several years ago. Last year, the Museum had most of the
damaged structure demolished to minimize the threat to the public until plans could be
formulated to determine how the property is to be utilized. At that time, steel framing
was installed behind the south facade to support the masonry wall while reuse of the
facade is being evaluated. Attached for your reference is a copy of a memorandum
issued by the structural engineer regarding the steel bracing.
As you are aware, the first phase of the revitalization of the property, the National Park
Service Visitor Center facility, is currently under construction at the Drill Shed. The
contractor was recently directed to install a fence to separate and protect the area of
construction activity from the rear of the headhouse. At this point in the construction
process, the interior steel framing is nearing completion, and it is anticipated that the
Drill Shed will gradually be fully enclosed over the course of the next few weeks.
Although options relative to the disposition of the headhouse facade are being
considered, no final decisions have yet been made. We will be able to respond to you
in greater detail by mid-December.
Sinc ely,
D L. Monroe
ecutive Director
DM/co
TEL:508-i 5- 1876 F..X: 508-744-6776
TitLl Of *RlEm, Aassar4usetts
l �'o Ilublir Prupertg Bepartment
Nuilbing Bepartment
(fte #Sian 6"en
500-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
November 12, 1993
Dan Monroe
Peabody 5 Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Salem Armory Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Monroe:
I am in receipt of your letter and the engineering report regarding
the headhouse facade at the Old Salem Armory. What everyone is overlooking
is the fact that my letter specifically stated I was concerned with the GUN
TURRETS which are being supported by I beams at each end of the facade.
This area is not mentioned in any report received by this office.
I would appreciate a report stating the GUN TURRETS are structurally
sound and pose no threat to public safety. I thank you in advance for your
anticipated cooperation and prompt attention in this matter.
Sincerqy,
�
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector .of Buildings
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
(>lit of *Ulrm, massac4usetts
t <<a Public Propertg Mepartment
Nuilbing Bepartment
out *stem %keen
508-745-9595 fin. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
October 25, 1993
Dan Monroe
Peabody 6 Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Monroe:
This office is concerned that the masonry walls at the San,-tua s-
wb*;Ju se:.supported by I beams at the facade walls of the old Salem Armory
may not be structurally sound. They have been weakened, first by the fire
and now by the vibrations caused by the construction on the job site. I
would appreciate having an Engineer's report submitted to this office
stating the existing conditions are safe and pose no threat to the public
health and welfare. I am particularly concerned with the safety of
pedestrian traffic.
I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation and prompt
attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Buildings
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
SARKIS ZEROUNTAN & ASSOCIA'T'ES
J
�1'CSl .`tQwion, : 111?
til 61i•Jh;
1 February 199,1 7/
MEMO— RANDUh1 !if/ L!/1
To : Cubellis & Associates
From: Sarkis Zerounian
Re : Salem Armory, Facade Bracing
This is to inform you that the bracing for the facade as was
designed and indicated on S001 dated 7 February 1992 and
subsequent sketches was inspected , in the field for
compliance . Also the steel shop drawings were reviewed and
arproved by us . All corrective measures were conveyed to
the Contractor and were implemented . To the best of our
knowledge and belief the work has been performed in
accordance with the structural design requirements .
I
DRAFT
March 16, 2000
Mr. Tor Utne,ILA.
Project Manager
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem,MA 01970-3783
Re: Existing Remaining Armory Building Wall _ ...
CID Project No. 99037K.00
Dear Mr. Utne:
This letter is to report on our recent observation of the Armory Building wall. Lance Robson,
Charles Ricci and the writer from this office were on site on Thursday.February 17, 2000. We
reviewed all areas of the existing structure, both front and back of the wall, from the ground
and from a bucket truck. There was a unanimous opinion that the deterioration of the wall has
advanced significantly since our last review approximately three years ago.
Public safety warrants immediate attention. Pieces of the precast and of the brickwork are
going to continue to fall. We believe that the amount and frequency of this will increase over
time. There is also the possibility that a dramatic collapse of one or both turrets could occur
during a major storm.
While it is unlikely that the main body of the wall would suffer dramatic failure, the general
wall structure does not meet current Commonwealth of Massachusetts Building Code
requirements for wind load (see attached calculations).
The specific conditions that have worsened are:
• Cracking and weathering of virtually all areas of the cast stone work.
• Enlargement of the cracks at the level of the turrets,particularly at the west turret.
March 16,2000
Mr.Tor Utne,R.A.
Peabody Essex Museum
Salem,MA
Page 2
Weathering and decay of masonry brick work(pieces of brick were evidenced on the
ground on the street side of the structure. One brick was able to be removed at the top of
the wall by hand with virtually no effort and it was reported to us that the area along the
street is periodically cleaned of all falling debris).
• Movement and enlargement of the beam pocket on the structural steel beam supporting the
west turret.
• Copper wall flashings have blown off the front wall.
Our recommendations are as follows:
• Provide a canopy protection along the sidewalks on Essex Street and around the corner on
Liberty Street for the extent of the existing structure. This canopy should be installed to
protect pedestrians from pieces of falling debris coming from the building. This work
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
The City of Salem should consider closing the street to all traffic when wind loading
conditions exceed 50—6-miles per hour.
• Decisions should be made regarding either the complete repair of the facade or the
demolition of the facade.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to call me at any time.
Very truly yours,
CID ASSOCIATES, INC.
James G. Jacobs,P.E.
President
K9037000/rb
' DRAWN SUBJECT SAt, vano SHEET NO. I
("IDAPPROVE PROJECT
APPROVED DATE a Sa'Qt9'I
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel. 617.U3MM
780 Summer St.eet - Fax 617A43SUO
Suite 500 - E-Man _6ddafsoc.coi
Boston,MA 02110-un Web Site u xidapo *z
tw.7o..
�o To loot 3l (XF
-
• ! -�.o,ra-s�S I .L C 12�ss l�n.b+t otti. �.Ce FJGt- -A•n.et�
_ . --- . . _ �9t•1r.c.t-t C-vv+�• �S l.a-ts
__ .`�f L0�1.. C i✓C)rxtst�'+-( US6 I.Z �"IKrFyi �G--14
n o �,2 ti ?,I
a�w� E� S� I,z w i i .- 2S.2 � r•
1-1 t'-7 CIO q--1p0f.tT-t O.J Coapds 7o..joS -ru iyp O 7 3
'T`( p d; W l
�DaT�+V Cotr-?YLtT:st%Ja Ta ?y1) r
l (c Sr R.ESv Lrt,
���ps O MoAtJ.o. r �tn/i IIw�G^• 3S0q%n7TO
SSE ilGNi o �Ltsw4t�ts �o(L T`f�b N Non th-TL.
FL K•sJrlte f P 10 �cn Sota� Z.-I P>i
TE-tltu 3oL-t GJ� Sr-w •`
• DRAWN e-L� SUBJECT 30, F51~0...H SKEET NO.CHECKED
Z
(ID APPROVE - PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASsoaATES,INC. _ TeL 617.443.0800
780 Summa Sheet Fu 617.433.9860
Suite 500 E-Mall _6'dda6soc.mc
Boston,b1A 02110.1131 . . Web Site w .ctdauo "r
i CiIO:J MO.1VW19C
TV W
•i—__--..._.._ .. -rap ii 4uu.
r ?-til
LID
4DR .-Ic�J 3a.-3 ?z-1
- - - put- cop I)A-4ee K%avc
Top FJLac!
199 IS ' 199_
BO YO
a yy z.i
OF LfsV�iL
Set_ 3 -JI 7
JL> &t.t-u 111.4 s.i.i` ta. L.
J poJ OL
uo � w12,x�lr ✓ �—
1;..1- io rLr4 (3TL1- uf.r
Lo 1y
_ S . eti wsfLy4— oi�
3.53ti—
DRAWN 1i,LiJiI SUBJECT Si4lhryyl lan,„,nw� SHEET.NO.
(lD
CHECKED I)J6~•J �P1A.Ae..6 PROJECT
APPROVED DATE B Sa•p'r�_
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. . TeL 617A11A100
780 Summa Stmt - Fu 617,47.9650 -
Suite S00
E-Mail, _Ccidas *w.
Bwtu4 MA o2uo-1131 Web She wwaddaafouom
PTl}•fa �1KJOON
i Icy =
GZ.'I of
noT -
bti Z'l.
Lo ;a.n o..a Tod SoL.
J T
1�t rc,.-------- -----� •t'1_ •1Jt�.1.aa�'/�• "Lt..-L+�Wto+�° . ,Sl 15211.. tulb
'L'�'`_ ... ►S` I� e 8.l J..Jo+w p t'Jr 41✓ ,� W$xl2
-LS.•z/,�Y -L-)L)
�:G'$+✓t S �0uvu, 270 W c lq L -k l t.1�x L5•�.- 34L.3 `t �1 F-1
t l•L}l�
wmi4o 2
lNtLf 't17. Qt .52. - 1- 2'I�
�`{ is- 11 11.E W9 x J1 . -,7
I,yM1Z 53 W S ,t 16
$G�Q +Vl1 f�plVL/�CJ r rlcKt 1—�I.oDtr �t) troow C L"'o �L�6�
�1v- wqw� (tLl�I4.S}"- iflo+i
7'7xy/I� -9LS•L 'FLi 1L�9r�r►u � �P • �'
Colo } Iv}(LS•LNf'Z. = t4S1Cla?
Mr 14Sil �`I�` '>E' 4112.1.}0 � it'?, t, Ili.lZ ' �A1 1 �lLxdo <
2 tL Iv._ i-As �%lb,Ii(• 'Ln W 5 x Ito, � .�j a jl.li7S JIU1i - l.i° Lu61-LI ✓o
e Ft-vLkrvv"%-
lIJ : LS:L. -A `1Y I L.- 3D2.K tt l f-1
Nt\� V4 +i..` Iv, c Z �•t_ Wroi o ° I - LI\ k71$r3� Ivl� �t�10
il5`I� - a.� w9x le �tIi-rf;- wAa�•d
DRAWN SUBJECT 'SHEET NO.
(001D
APPROVED
PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel. 617A43A400
760 Summa Sheet Fax 617A43.9660 -
Suite 500 E-Mail _®ddase "c
Bwtm MA 07130-1131 - Web Site w ,ddwm"v
i
to
Of.Q�.R_`E K ..`4D-t t�V YS) (Zl Cn,\ >r,6-a-A.. cb-C/1na,, Q2ri.a-L
Zss
I
n
i
�2E?�oarn OCT- Ti
i
-- .. C7.L S11,t � c ZtIt-
Fn (CIM0 �, 5.7 A Iy�bi•S = 2 S
Lb5 _ 7, V 1�12,L-`
cp 0l.n 5
o�
DRAWN C.lih- SUBJECT SHEET HO.
(ID CHECKED - PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
. .CID ASSOCIATES,IANC.- , - TeL 6174114100
286 Somme Sheet Fax 617413.9680
Suite 360 E-MaB _@ddusu.co.
Bmtmb1A02110-1131 Web Site w .cidusocsm
f A(a,%:..
_Z-7 LAIL. .
1Urt,
G I
�• t �'•� t ve I
ys ('A 1�•c as T. o
lls to yoy �5v
L-1.5 Tb i
y 3 S-19 w'
7,1411 t4e.J 1u�9
lu•�, Baa
1
14} L'`i '13s i
v �y1 I
CL ti•yv - 3•�7j
t)t V Wo
I6`
3y o 3 z3
/l•
t1xlt �t��=2�
CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS:
BOARD OF APPEAL 1 J
T
�' fr� 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR
a . . F o SALEM, MA 01970
9BoiEooP TEL. (978) 745-9595
FAX (978) 740-9846 -,
STANLEY J. LISOVICZ. JR.
MAYOR
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF RUSSELL KIERMAN REQUESTING AN
ADIMISTRATIVE RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 ESSEX STREET
A hearing on this petition was held on August 21, 2002 with the following Board
Members present: Nina Cohen, Chariman, Richard Dionne, Bonnie Belair and Joan
Boudreau. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of thq
hearing were published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A.
Petitioner is requesting an Administrative Ruling for the review of the Planning Board site
plan conditions of the Peabody Essex Museum for the property located at 135 Essex
Street.
After hearing the evidence the Board of Appeal makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner sought enforcement by the Building Commissioner of the Amended
Decision of Site Plan Review dated 10/13/01 (Amended Decision) for 135 Essex
Street pursuant to M.S.L. Ch. 40 A, Section 7 According to the petitioner, who is
represented by Nicholas J. Decoulos Esq., the Amended decision has not been
enforced by the Building Commissioner with respect to paragraph 16, which states:
The applicant shall provide free and clear access at all times as shown on the
approved plans to the parcel located at 135 Essex Street. The access shall be
maintained by the applicant and shall be maintained by the applicant and shall run
with the property, not the owner.
2. Petitioner states that at various times the applicant, which is the Peabody Essex
Museum, has not maintained free and clear access to petitioner's property.
3. The Peabody Essex Museum did not appear at the ZBA hearing, nor did it submit
any documents. The Building Commissioner, Mr. Tom St. Pierre was represented at
the hearing by John Keenan, Esq., City Solicitor for the City of Salem.
4. Mr. Keenan stated that Mr. St. Pierre has at all times made reasonable efforts to
enforce the provisions of the Amended Decision. Mr. St. Pierre states that the
applicant is currently constructing a new addition to the gallery space an on occasion
during the construction process a construction or delivery vehicle has blocked
access to Mr. Kiernan's property. Mr. Keenan submitted a letter to the petitioner
from Mr. St. Pierre dated June 7, 2002, which states, " I feel that the Museum,
through the contactor Turner, has made a good faith effort to comply with the
Planning Board's site plan condition."
DECISION OF THE PETITION OF JOHN KIERNAN FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
RULING FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 ESSEX STREET
pagetwo
5. Mr. Keenan further commented that it was his understanding that the Amended
Decision was intended to effect conditions during construction of the new addition.
6. Mr. George Ahmed of Salem spoke at the hearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.
Ahmed stated that, in future, the Museum could allocate security personnel to limit
public access to Mr. Kierman;s property during Museum events. Mr. Stephen Harris
of Salem noted that a security fence across the petitioner's driveway is shown on the
approved plans, although such a fence has not been erected as of this point on the
property.
Therefore, based on the fact and on evidence presented, Ms. Cohen made a motion for
the Board to support John Keenan's opinion and stand behind the Building Inspector
with regards to the Peabody Essex Museum with a vote of 4-0 to deny the petitioners
appeal.
Nina Cohen CSC
Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND
THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the
' Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 days after the
date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk. Pursuant to Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11. The Variance or Special Permit granted herein
shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk
that 20 days have elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has
been filed, that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex Registry
of Deeds and indexed under the name of the owner of record or is recorded and noted
on the owner's Certificate of Title.
Date OCT 2 21102
1 hereby certify that 20 days have e3q*W
from the date this instrument was received, -and that NO APPEAL has been filed InthIS -
office.Al.rue Copy
AMST:,,,_CITY CLERK, Salem, Mass. -
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
�ID CHEC PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel. 617A43JNW0
780 Sommer Street Fu 617A433880
Suite S00 &Mail _@ddaeeocco
Soatory ASA 0MG-U31 Web Site wwwddu
rrzux_aarcc:i c�_•r. :�_:_ti _ .. _ ....a:.._: _
To
Nr .S"�x_l4' 1� -- 2c.•Ltc. tuivr>,o
_. _
kto (6) : M j. 14vii4116- -1.1 "
loosq
�G—tit-7 ow Tip ` tse
Gyle
}•110 •4v
Ll T Io
.•MD+i i t41y+ 3•g'� �'v
G•��
na ,34 ��e9rv- 3'ti�
f1�1L 1{ r� �:•'I htri16 IL
4
�17{2� ),y , :7.t.5 S e Le-{ S 33• v w . S..) l/ti, ,t..t./o-c,. l:� Fs-
Le _ {).5 Ss S•�Y �L: I• CI J141lya.�/ ' 3`✓ Fe��,o9
t �iC .QC/ G•Lt� ,I�3
11•t.3 .545 L l o�
Low ntA4lo"+',
DRAM n.l.'(1-. SUBJECT ���F�l�L.A� SHEET NO.
(�D CHECKED R,6*V& C44&rttl. PROJECT
APPROVED - DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel 617A43A400
780 Sommer Street Fu 617.617.9880
Suite 300 - E\fill —6tddms
Bwtm?AA OMO.1131 - Web Site re Adutors
I 3;�i xSele._-.\°7r;.1_�.3,ob)�2e1) � 'i►.t.E- 1.54 = F1
f Qta `
40 2!O"
U= 10.z�
_ 4 i3 a.t.s L- IL" r Ov-
-
22.'s3 IL ��,.-ly � Sl...i -r 19,f t-leme,• {'J•4 MAY
-- ------ -- �rti 9{'4�te • t5 3. Fq,% QO.tic 7J5�t or
-
Fc,
°'t-
v,Z ,c3.�•i 'S/.vt L"vr alt
T y 1„vi � 13, 1 L
60 A+1--1 tj uuvl
. .n...'t... '.'_..V. .� - .:.. „—moi .'_..��.-ut.ti�._i�u���� . - __�/_�_�._ — ar.._.:i/ .�_.._� � • ._ ..
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
QD
CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel. 617AUZM
180 Summer Street - Fax 617A43.9UO
Suite Soo E•MaD 6ddusocso
Kmloa,MA OIIO-U31 - Web Site www.ddueoeto
� 1
i
i
ne'•�
1/
+° t,cK
J
I ✓
IGoI
t
(/S r ; t4
ILI
t� •5� � 2.�c
�Y1 i Z'ys a
3l
/r
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
QD
APPROVED
PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel. 617A43AM
780 Summer Sheet Eu 617A43.9NO
Suite SM E-Mail Oddaat xo
Soetm MA 01110.1131 Web Site w .ddaesocto
i
e1.L
i
I
F
t
v '>� rL
ty
1
u
s-�-
l. S
7
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
QD r__
CHECKED . PROJECT
APPROVED tr�A NRr GOAT IIDL DATE I4 54117-117
Tiros i
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. tel. 617ALkNoo
360 Sommee.Sbeet - Fu 617A339660
Sage S00 E•M4 —Oddie "
Soatoq,MA 03130.1131 -Web Site w Adaafa m.
—TjLt�S
14 Stip
p�tl
RU
Yqt —rs
And h-sac2
„e r,Ml
IL
t�i2 •12�-v�
_ --.. ._ __._.._..-dSd'12•` ''+'+�fC+'i r� �a,.�sod� ' �� s�rt:ct- -Give' .
Ot pp*w ails QaM- ITRULLZO tlfV'ool�$
° pp*— UM-3 - ODS aiNS
D99rttt•G19 =a .. lmgsnmm sm -
31tlC _ 03110tlddM .
jairoaa t�vt•v�+'1 ' t ®a3ro QI
'ON 133HS t03r8ns wMwa
DRAWN CLA, SU&IECTT� D acs S 6w - SHEET NO.
(ID CHECKED .IJ E�'9h MG��=• PROJECT
APPROVED DATE. ,D T�OJ t1
QD ASSOQATES,INC Tet 617A43JU o
780 Semmes Sheet Fu 617A43SWO
Suite$00 _ E-Nien _Odduec
Boston,MA 00110.1131 Heb Site www.ddm,
V
r �
w
y
J' p
T
atm�a I-05
�y \ OP
'Yo
,S k
4,6N 3.7
uPG4P7r 1041 4. q. 4-MSS « 6Lor IV's
SKc7tn= 9,21304 G.e) r3•l� �i•l�ec �j
40 ted'— �r= d. i,-�•
4x-7 tzO .
VI Y
Lf 10
'S
it
C,Q.tw�
DRAWN SUBJECT ?1 ( �E+� SNEETNO.�_
.
QD .CHECKED ��►1f1') NkfW . . PROJECT
APPROVED DATE 10 Mau eJ3
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tet 617A11AM
280 Sammet Street Fu 617A415880
Suite S00 - E•MaD _®cldma om
Sinton,MA 02110.1171 Web Site v .cidsse "m
.c. la i� Frio.ti Con,NWA, j
�I
"LOP nO+ O Lorno �Ls.s.psr
1t 1
}cam �v1a,.— 2te3„t)4.e3t
taw-
U.) =
2:,'bw-W = M1 L ZS L.- 3os.•{ rT
IL' 3o'J.4 jt 1%1.%4,L _ tt-
ILOW%k 3os. �F7 3b'1.41t1Y.J�
iZt
q.'10 . .. ZJt# 1P7 iti �2.t.t.. 1 _ 2.5 ti Ct
y,lo
ti
DRAWN SUBJECT TT1 � 'AJ061�{ CXSdC. SWEET NO.
(ID CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE I074h)
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. TeL 617ALIM00
7S0 Sa tSheet - - Fu 617A43.9880 -
suite S00 F bbH _Qcida o,
BmtoN IAA 01110.1131 Web Site w Adavoeco,
-- -.1R,o- 12e.. 1c-S,t SILK 7 c IaS�o..> IS•8> I.S
--------..._-_ LU YA
(ID
cro Asaoclata Ine.
T RAN SM ITTAL
DATE: 3/9/00 TRANSMUTED BY: Lance E.Robson
To: Tor Utne PROJEcT NAME: Head House
COMPANY: Peabody Essex Museum CID PRojEcT Ne.: 99037K
ADDRESS: East India Square COPIES:
Salem,MA 01970-3783
PHONE:
FAX: TOTAL PAGES: I
TRANSMITTED VIA: ❑ OVERNIGHT MAIL ® FIRST CLASS MNL ❑ FACSIMILE ❑ EMAIL ❑ COURIER_
COPIES EDATE hEM
1 Video of Head House survey
=REMARKS: use. It is pretty bad. Let me know if need any other of the photos.
Page I of I
X9037001
AreMtects 280SamwShot P81TA43.S880
Engineers Sub 500
Planners BostanIMA E-nafl@ddessooaom
022101131 www•dasso• n
11
4-04-2000 5: 12PM FROM PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM 508 745 9107 P. 2
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
ART ARCHITECTURE CULTURE
VIA FAX
af ,.Yll:A'L
;q k Date: April 4,2000
:AST VDIA SQUARE- Attn: Peter Strout, Public Properly -
SALEM„MASJAI.r,ustrIs Stan Bornstein,Public Services
0197037$3 USA Patrick Rc&ft,Planning
TM,t 978-745-95(l) Cc: Joe Correnti, Serafmi,Serafini,Darling&Correnti
FAx:978-744-6776 Subj: EMPIRE BUILDING
133 ESSEX STREET
Please be advised that the Museum will be de-installing the"Empire"signs from the
front of 133 Essex on the morning of Wednesday,April 4,2000. The signs will be
removed to Museum collections and stored for posterity's sake.
The planned signage removal may prompt public inquiries to your offices. You may
assure all that no demolition is planned and that the operation is limited solely to the
sign's removal.
Please feel flee to call if questions.
TitU of *n1an, Aassar4usetts
Public Prapertil i9epartment
Nuilbing Separtment
(One !idem (&reen
500-745-9595 Ext. 300
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
October 25, 1993
Dan Monroe
Peabody & Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Monroe:
This office is concerned that the masonry walls at the gun turrets
which are supported by I beams at the facade walls of the old Salem Armory
may not be structurally sound. They have been weakened, first by the fire
and now by the vibrations caused by the construction on the job site. I
would appreciate having an Engineer's report submitted to this office
stating the existing conditions are safe and pose no threat to the public
health and welfare. I am particularly concerned with the safety of
pedestrian traffic.
I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation and prompt
attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Buildings
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
L H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
September 27, 1993
Via FAX
Mr. Dan Monroe
Peabody & Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Headhouse Facade
Dear Dan:
Please be advised that the work related to the bracing of the headhouse wall was completed more
than a year ago. Therefore, the Museum Cooperative of Salem, Inc. is responsible for all
maintenance of the headhouse facade.
We strongly recommend that the Museum Cooperative hire a structural engineering firm to
inspect the building at intervals, as recommended by the engineer and perform remedial work
as required.
Ve ly yo s
/foseph Lynch
Vice President
cc: Carter Harrison.
Frank Mead
One 13th Street / Charlestown, MA 02129
Tel: (6171 242- 1000 / Fax: (617) 242-8526
CUBELLIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSMITTAL LETTER Charlestown Navy Yard
2 Thirteenth Street
Boston, Massachusetts
02129
617-242-3331
,q� w / /� /, FAX 617-242-0231
PROJECT: N�e1W"V DATE: q4 QVVY
/�. �y���/� PROJECT NO.: (� (
TO: �/► � �/1 ' • ('^ ' If enclosures are not as nooteed,,�pieeasee inform
sender immediately.
If checked below,please:
SW^ 61510 El Acknowledge receipt of enclosures.
wiw� f��o5, 0
/ Return enclosures to us.
ATTN:
WE ARE SENDING YOU:
HEREWITH ❑I FORWARDED UNDER SEPE RATE COVER VIA:
❑ IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST__— —_-1
FOR YOUR:
❑� APPROVAL ❑ SIGNATURE ❑ INFORMATION
❑ REVIEW&COMMENT ❑ DISTRIBUTION TO PARTIES ❑ RECORD
USE ❑ --
THE FOLLOWING:
❑ DRAWING ORIGINALS ❑ SPECIFICATIONS ❑ CADD DISKS
❑ PRINTS ❑ CHANGE ORDERS. ❑ SAMPLES
❑ SEPIAS ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS
QUANTITY DATE REV.N0. - DESCRIPTION
REMARKS:
COPI'E'S.TO'':��11 1 (WITH ENCLOSURES) -
TAV� '.��VI� ..
\ t l
BY: AIA
CUBELLIS &ASSOCIATES, INC.
AFFIDAVIT
To The Building Commissioner:
RE: National Park Service - Salem Visitor's Center
2 New Liberty Sreet
Salem, MA
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, construction has been
completed in accordance with Construction Documents prepared by Cubellis & Associates, Inc.
for the above referenced project and are in accordance with the requirements of the
Massachusetts State Building Code and all pertinent laws and by-laws. (This Affidavit
excludes work in Barracks Building and redesigned ad / walk along New Liberty Street
performed by .)
others
721
a! j eosrcri, F\ iArchitect - Mass. Re No.
z aI
F.1A
f h'
L� S
Company
Address
Phone
501� k 19CIIA L�
Then personally appeared the above name KR0fXP' 1 and made oath
that the above statement by him / her is true. = aJ
Before me,
r
My CCommissio xpires:
`� � soon
^Y P,'�"iY .. iC 'trvrvk,:.rS £• 'wa.^dRmTne�x:[.;kq;F?�tt^""tae's.+..'w.a[:?Sgs5;4MSr"7:rgrta&l P .S '
,ian,Iry-
�O CERTIFICATE ISSUED
DATE June 15, 1994
CITY OF SALEM T
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 BUILDING PERMI �• - ,
a4C CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
�C���.����M�� ��g��[DA�TE June 71, 19 93 I_P€RMIT ND. 199-91-
APPLICANT Ltl ESA81m P. midwski ADDRESS Nr]1jH�
/y�S IND.) ISTPCETI IC041 SS LICENSEI
PERMIT TO 1IMq f_1 STORY BARB SCA NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS
Itr.( OE. I4.AOVlM[Ntl MO. IPIIO.OS(O VS(1
AT ILOCATIONI SUIlErSYSS! ZONING
BPS
IN0.1 IST11E11I DISTRICT
BETWEEN AND
'CROSS SIR[[,) ICAOSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
BUILDING IS TO BE FT, WIDE Pr FT, LONG BY FT, IN NEILMT AND SMALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION_ _
&m=ate cza lating building for Visttor's Center for the Natuna! I1�iik Service
REMARAS:
CAI.:. FQR PM41T M (X:C:f7PY 745-9595 �fm fm is a��+'y
Imilm
AREA OR iBB! In
VOLUMENUNN IF= 'DIP
'Tf1,�1 ^<--.era sow.R[ FM[nl fy
OWNER q��qp�
r�Wum Wrp. Assoc.S `�• dwlswlswEsrns�'xswlvw.vwlbeiloellowlyrrlswlsensw.vlrly
ADDRE 55
1.7 Essex .st•Ebdl emov SEE REVERSE STtlCrER MEMO I�pT)f ELATE
I DEPARTMENTALiAPPROVAL.FOR CERTIFICATE
ot'OCCUP'ANCY and COMPLIANCE
r. T atilled in b� each division indicated hereon
or� completion of; its final ;inspection.
a r
BU3DINGS "I ' 199-93
Permit No. j
Approved by Leo E. TremblayDate 6/ 15/94
Remarks
PLUMBING Permit No. j
— i
I
Approved by John L•eClerc ' Date 6/ 11/94
Remarks
ELECTRICAL Permit No.
II
Approved by Paul ;TuttleDate_ 6/9/94
i
Remarks
f
I
I
OTHER Fire Permit No.
I
Approved by Norman LaPointe Date 6/ 10/94
j
Remarki'
i
I
OTHER` Permit No.
Approved by ! Date
i
Remarks
i
T
4°
t
• ♦ll
r ,(OMII[L-
~Otr CERTIFICATE ISSUED
CITY OF SALEM 5 ! DATE June 15, 1994
SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 BUILDING PERMIT -
24c CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
DATE - 19 1 PERMIT NO. -
APPLICANT 1.. r, a-, _•
ADDRESS
IINO.1 ISTR EETI ICONIR'S LICENSEI
PERMIT TO NUMBER OF
(_1 STORY DWELLING UNITS
II.PE Of IMPROVEMEN" NO, (PROPOSED USE)
AT (LOCATION( li R" ZONING
ice. "_. ..� .-,- .... .�
INO.1 (STREET) DISTRICT
BET,WEE({; p .. .':`;.':.r ''•'L:f CF'.. AND ::,cG. J=Lee'
(CROSS STREET( (CROSS STREET) I
•SUBOIVISION LOT LOT _ BLOCK SIZE
iBUI{;Q ING^J5';;(O!BE FT, WIDE FT. LONG BY FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN CONSTRUCTION
J6 TYPE U '^
USE GROUP
7_. BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION
trn
»�� (TYPE
2 i =arij
(�. res -.;nr vv' . .r.s t.• b. •:. .._ - . : ,�• n:: t :
BEMARKS:h '
f7.
c T_nEt:@11 . VP.. S.I JO 11 `1F 9 Pff•t r.`.. . - �•`[i^�'�((
Almy � AfWE$
AREA OR
V
VOLUME
C :01C SOUrAE FEfTI
OWNER •tUSZ'II". (:,,ri A^.r,c in(:' E.e•rmi-ns�Ee.-nornovlernoernbefioeOo'n o'tmenoanu�,oe'no
TO BE POSTED ON PREMISES
ADDRESS 1-;( f:^C' J"'"T'1" 'Ci - SEE2REVERSESIOEIFORIECENEITIONS OF CERTIFICATE
DEPARTMENTAL APPROVAL FOR CERTIFICATE
of OCCUPANCY and COMPLIANCE
To be filled in by each division indicated hereon
upon completion of its final inspection.
BUILDINGS Permit No. 1-94
Approved by
Leo E. Tremblay Date 6/ 15/94
Remarks
PLUMBING Permit No.
6/ 11/94
Approved by John Leclerc Date
Remarks
ELECTRICAL Permit No.
6/9/94 „•. y.
Approved by Paul Tuttle Date
Remarks
OTHER Fire Permit No.
Approved by_
Norman LaPoointe Date 6/ 10/94 n
_... .
Remarks
OTHER Permit No.
i
Approved by Date
Remarks k1 � _
! V . i.. 4
. e�r <
l> P OLS'' '. T �R' n+. .. IF MI .
SAOCify WAS6S M' SET1� O00if
����( ¢�(,
Iw'ItiS$ACtiti V Lyp T6 %9 � s •
• `SAL�ht . M s
•.;hP'"'' F�l� a -o9d Y R i4t1�'NEl 1 'rF ve * ; s
GAP
:a A"at ' yPRNo .
I ucAwF c D On m �s ts#3tjjR, Wvl h�, a
.V, Sri s<kt 1E E�#.GNily I v"- kkAryy N:U.I'?�i'� "� iCUAIfBE11.TOF`
aERMbS3.4A `'EIt ZA+��?'i�'�A M7,3P?leo �1FT` .":_. �,v7ki F
g ;�,4ja�Ego! ov .,A, F1w o •:µ.y.. w^tY' s? e«
a o'k's
ELQC�,T` ry1' KQ.
a
51jBD11YSTt G, tot www* W A+k1 k+
} act TORY'
t
4M
M
SOL
M�f*}61 T.thrr�+ �: v nY�$tt a r .jb"CF �"�'
'''�;� T'L BPa sp F" •Ab. M � �rF � �N }'� - '�'S..' /} y i. n t J+" E � E�TFeiM R #. .i i
RELEASE THE PP PLIC AN7FROM iHEC ONDIT IONS 4M1�, `
NQS. '
OF ANC APP L I'Cti OLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. '' >qw�^;- –"` .'"` "� — '-- --- - gS
MINIMUM OF THREE ^ K.LL' - APPROVED PLANS MUST.BE RETAINED=ON-JOB AND THIS PE NMITS PAR EC REQUIPEOARFOP
INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FPR CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN ELECTRICAL; PLUMBING AND
ALL CONSTRUCTION:,WORK:
I. FOUNDATIONS,OR 'FOOTINGS. - MADE. WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS {2 E- MECHANICAL IN STaLLATONS.
t. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL OUIREO,SUCH BUILDING SHALLNOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL
MEMBERS(READT TO LATH). FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. r
3. FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE
GCCUPANEfT.-POST-'THIS CARD °SO::IT; 15�YISIBLE FR_ OMTSTREET -=-• -� - ---
' BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS. P MBINd INSPECTION AP PROVALS ' ECSC TRICPI INSPECTION APPROVALS
.t
rwL//
2 2
Ta *+
BOARD OF HEALTH GAS INSPECTION APPROVALpS FRE faEPT.INS TING APPRO
1 { 1
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2
WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION CAN BF IONS IN
BD FOR YCTED N CALERMONER
INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION.
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT IS ISSUED AS NOTED ABOVE.
RMpkTt,.pNIWUW1.ESi a t
R4 1R4YyFh*^�El h,DW G`k5}IIER rc ,
dA. - ul I Y,QF S'ALM, "
SALEM; MASiACHUSETT54197iL, P '°
wslo ,
�(! �+ {�. +¢j}}��''A+e� r�yat;��K*tl� "t.,.F„iW��l r�[�fRie�� t R��� �, � y� i " ♦
y,�t7tHuR
i + � e aIi� �tlAv '^` T[y ek -fi: p6Y I `/9$SrlP'r'IS + ?E�IMfT Yfd�lT 'f4ok+ ae
Ap-LR,; 1,k sY <i 4A .? . d. ^�� 1AOORC$S i .. r `� .n,.,. Ok,.:.w _ y•l?8 • .,a' .. 't' y V*kY
,� 4.6.1 { AITRCCTI '+�a tt �- 4 {CRKTR Y Lt Ria w
'. ....OT.� " Of - AtF� '�i0' -fnwcyy # S•. R :s " ._'i
PERMtir4o 1 . a , t4 ��T ��'• '.E w 'YTt�J .t,�S'`;..fir#+. 7 .lit'}�t wiled T ISt,.�JS { s�;,
51 f'*Y`a�1 4 ITT, 4110, IMpROY Rn ; , Re.... /...- ,., tFRp Rto-M a. ` + it 1`J «✓ ;P I,.; - ,(
AT tLOC;TIONI° tTIO
"MI, *f*Tl:10140110,P,y �:Mf"MNd mM?;';.q� i/T"EVE I+L P fw,ISSOM 'OR;��. %wS
!A �°t"i x[ "<h:@"r F":th9?f1hs.*F,' ',I atS"l1 r ;{fhY1'F JW s
+ ,ab ICROtaI'4TWltTt ,., ., a "'.f 'loess sTR[aTl 1
. .IA.£SalOFr ...♦. .%JF,�'t.y t ,Or?t1': a 16
SU/b1V1,51ON COT; /j;OCK��^St2E_" y 0
Wa f- .'Y4YaT�:^Ms J..w.�"/""o'«" !P-Tyw n 'w A^� "i„
/U1Lb IM6 IB O/q FT IQE� FS �pNG: iT
" ryt+� .�rc.,, xst,rs➢ jfi nage, xid ++ t 'Ityl hat+,Tbta raptst�� M x ::S
TO TY 11/E �_,YL ERT tdrCY'L`SOM POWIOATtr/fis' Na ',' of
P,,PS ,a, It �11a1dM.1v' M 1
MAW .'104-
�"�' t-•T7:��; �v .T I ; Ri,*Tyc r{I'A.` FyL. yT� A * .T r4 -I ty�SrS t3 -
REMARKS' - • x t a 1 yt r I T
�` std ± a ply i"At p»at{xn a,ws <�g tlrt MEy "sfiNIR„ta.+eat Fii�l ry' RSa #16.f a"4"lit 'f� '.0 -
�° )I
4S 4 �n �f', y iot k t »4 +l,n p fiffNt
CLUME'R.F �.::a,.. +�ww4 .m�+ Rar,w- ESTrMATf cOSr .�i
r u rtwV6Ra .rte +t
M[11 �� °`". ♦ fTe+ _'i+v'itF<Pe' R ,'*A,
-
AOORESB
+
,e•-.1.9- $4..PEC,x T.ar.,O.�.,
RLs -Bu�ei
BLj7jUBjIV1SI64 RESTRICTIONS.
.
IT
G
MINIMUM OF THREE CALL APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND THIS WHERE APPLICABLE SEPlFATtF".. ��
INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR CARO KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN PFRMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR*'L
ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: -ELECTRICAL P, VMpINO AND .
I. FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS. + MADE. WHEREA CERTIFICATE -OFI OCCUPANCY IS RE- 'MECMANICA IN ALLA IONS, -
2100 TO COVERING STRUCTURAL OUIRED,SUCH BU ILDING`SHR LL NOT BE OCCUPIED VNTIL vmf `'
M EMBERSIREAOY+TO LATNL,T+...,
J FINAL INSPECTION FINAL INSPECTION-HA5'B E'EN`MADE`-'`
pE F ORES
OCCUPANCY.
-s; POST``THIS.�CARD SO ITASINfSIBL15FROM`STII T�
T 4
BUILDING INSPECTION-.APPROY AL$^";+ —�IPLUMB ING 14SPECTIOWAPPRO V'AA"LLSS+ X 'T .ECE.CTTRICAL IHo E'£ IgN~x P' S �tA; -
t `� - - 1 F�V: ,� *yrd-.<i`�' - 'G.y ••«..- 1 f�-,T"''` /y `d' -., t j�^.r°,sk�e8 +�"
_.. 'I
m
POARO r HEALTH GAS INSPECTION APPROVALS FIRE DEPT. INSPECTING APPRO ALS:°
Ir
M.TSIy' i
OTHER CITY ENGINEER 2 2
Y
1 ,
WORK SMALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON T4115 CARO ,T!
INSPS. JR HAS APPROVED TME VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE CAN�BE ARRANGED FOR BY.TCLEPMQNE.
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT IS ISSUED AS NOTED ABOVE. OR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION"
+
d+ •r
No. 2/-�q City of Salem Ward<_
�tUaMS.
APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO BUILD ADDITION, MAKE ALTERATIONS OR NEW CONSTRUCTION
IMPORTANT-Applicant to complete all items in sections:1, It, 111, IV,and IX.
I. AT(LOCATION) Two New Liberty Street DISTRICT B-5
LOCATION (NO.) S BEET)
OF BETWEEN Brown Street AND Essex. Street
BUILDING (CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET)
LOT
SUBDIVISION LOT BLOCK SIZE
II. TYPE AND COST OF BUILDING -All applicants complete Parts A -D
A. TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT D. PROPOSED USE-FOR"DEMOLITION'USE MOST RECENT USE
1 ❑ New building Residential Nonresidential
2 ❑ Addition(It residential,enter number of new 12 ❑ One family 18 ❑ Amusement,recreational
housing units added,if any,in pad D, 13) 19 C] Chruch,other religious
13 ❑ Two or more family-Enter number
3 ® AReration(See 2 above) of units ....................................................... 20 ❑ Industrial
21 ❑ Parking garage
4 E] Repair replacement 14 E] Transient hotel,motel,or dormitory- 22 ❑ Service station,repair garage
Enter number of units ...........................
5 ❑ Wrecking(If multifamily resitlenfial,enter number ❑ 23 ❑ Hospital,institutional
o/units in building in Part D, 13) 15 Garage
24 ❑ Office,bank,professional
6 ❑ Moving(relocation) 16 ❑ Carport 25 ❑ Public utility
7 ❑ Foundation only 26 ❑ School,library,other educational
17 ❑ Other-Spectty 27 ❑ Stores,mercantile
B.OWNERSHIP 28 ❑ Tanks,towers
8 ® Private(individual,corporation,nonprofit
institution,eta)
29 ❑ Other-Specify
9 ❑ Public(Federal,State,or local government
C.COST (Omit cents) Nonresidential-Describe in detail proposed use of buildings,e.g.,food processing plant,
machine shop,laundry building at hospital,elementary school,secondary school,college,
parochial school,parking garage for department store,rental office building,office building
10. Cost of improvement ......................................................... $ 54 , 050 at industrial plant.ff use of existing building is being changed,enter proposed use.
To be installed but not included
in the above cost 650 Install floor draing and nnderdrainc in
a. Electrical...........................................................................
b. Plumbing.. 12,325 Basement. Install additional two inch
c. Heating,air conditioning.............................................
(2" ) water line and meter. Install
d. Other(elevator,etc.)..................................................... NSA
11. TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT $ 67 , 025 partial slab in Basement.
III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BUILDING -For new buildings and additions, complete Parts E-L;demolition,
complete only Parts J&M, all others skip to IV
E. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF FRAME F. PRINCIPAL TYPE OF HEATING FUEL G. TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL I. TYPE OF MECHANICAL
30 ❑ Masonry(wall bearing) 35 ❑ Gas 40 ❑ Public or private company Will there be central air
31 ❑ Wood frame 36 ❑ Oil 41 ❑ Private(septic tank,etc.) condilioning?
32 ❑ Structural steel 37 ❑ Electricity 44 ❑ Yes 45 ❑ No
33 ❑ Reinforced concrete 38 ❑ Coal H. TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY Will there by an elevator?
34 ❑ Other-Specify 39 ❑ Other-Specify 42 ❑ Public or private company
46 ❑ Yes 47 ❑ No
43 ❑ Private(well,cistern)
J.DIMENSIONS M. DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES:
48. Number of stories ............................................................
49. Total squors,b sed of Anor terior Has Approval from Historical Commission been received
all floors,based on exterior PP
dimensions ......................................................................... for any structure over fifty(50)years? Yes_ No_
50. Total land area,sq.ft...................................._................ Dig Safe Number
K.NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES Pest Control:
51. Enclosed.............................................................................
HAVE THE FOLLOWING UTILITIES BEEN DISCONNECTED?
52. Outdoors........................................................................... Yes No
L RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ONLY Water:
53. Enclosed............................................................................. Electric:
Gas:
54. Number of Full........................................... Sewer:
bathrooms DOCUMENTATION FOR THE ABOVE MUST BE ATTACHED
Partial.----------.............. BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED.
IV. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Historic District? Yes X No (if yes, please enclose documentation from Hist. Com.)
Conservation Area? Yes_ No x (If yes, please enclose Order of Conditions)
Has Fire Prevention approved and stamped plans or applications? Yes= No=
Is property located in the S.R.A.district? YesX No
Comply with Zoning? Yes No (If no,enclose Board of Appeal decision)
Is lot grandfathered? Yes_X No (If yes,submit documentation/if no,submit Board of Appeal decision)
If new construction, has the proper Routing Slip been enclosed? Yes= No —
Is Architectural Access Board approval required? Yes_ No X (If yes,submit documentation)
Massachusetts State Contractor License # D 5 Go , I Salem License#
Home Improvement Contractor # Homeowners Exempt form (if applicable) Yes_ No_
CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMMENCED WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
If an extension is necessary,please submit
CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE COMPLETED BY: May 15, 1994 in writing to the Inspector of Buildings.
V. IDENTIFICATION • To be completed by all applicants
Name Mailing address-Number,street,city,and state ZIP Cade Tel.No.
136 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970
Owner or
Lessee Assoc. Inc.
2. LH Development One 13th Street Charlestown MA 02129 617/242
Contractor
Builder's
Co. License No. . 1000
3. Cubellis & Assoc.Two 13th Street Charlestown MA 617/242-
Arch--'--
Engineer
17/242ArchiectorEngineer 3 3 31
1 hereby certify that the reposed work is authorized y,the owner of record and that I have been authorized by the owner to make this application
as his authorized a and we 22E22:"nfQmTfoa1I applicable laws of this jurisdiction.
Signatol�r�f applll If Address CSG_t^ b ARpli tin da
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
VI. VALIDATION
Building _ �C� FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Permit number
Building Use Group
Permit issued 9 Fire Grading
Building
Permit Fee $ �• C� Live Loading
Certificate of Occupancy $ Approved by: Occupancy Load
Drain Tile $
Plan Review Fee
TITLE
NOTES AND Data-(For department use)
a l Co w -0, C/o a
PERMIT TO BE MAILED TO: J
DATE MAILED:
Construction to be started by: Completed by:
VI ZONING PLAN EXAMINERS NOTES
DISTRICT
USE
FRONT YARD
SIDE YARD SIDE YARD
REAR YARD
NOTES
SITE OR PLOT PLAN -For Applicant Use
O N
DRAFT
arch 16, 2000
tne,R.A.
Project Manager
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem,MA 01970-3783
Re: Existing Remaining Armory Building Wall
CID Project No. 99037K.00
Dear Mr. Utne:
This letter is to report on our recent observation of the Armory Building wall. Lance Robson,
Charles Ricci and the writer from this office were on site on Thursday,February 17, 2000. We
reviewed all areas of the existing structure, both front and back of the wall, from the ground
and from a bucket truck. There was a unanimous opinion that the deterioration of the wall has
advanced significantly since our last review approximately three years ago.
Public safety warrants immediate attention. Pieces of the precast and of the brickwork are
going to continue to fall. We believe that the amount and frequency of this will increase over
time. There is also the possibility that a dramatic collapse of one or both turrets could occur
during a major storm.
While it is unlikely that the main body of the wall would suffer dramatic failure, the general
wall structure does not meet current Commonwealth of Massachusetts Building Code
requirements for wind load (see attached calculations).
The specific conditions that have worsened are:
• Cracking and weathering of virtually all areas of the cast stone work.
• Enlargement of the cracks at the level of the turrets, particularly at the west turret.
March 16,2000
Mr.Tor Ume,RA.
Peabody Essex Museum
Salem,MA
Page 2
Weathering and decay of masonry brick work(pieces of brick were evidenced on the
ground on the street side of the structure. One brick was able to be removed at the top of
the wall by hand with virtually no effort and it was reported to us that the area along the
street is periodically cleaned of all falling debris).
• Movement and enlargement of the beam pocket on the structural steel beam supporting the
west turret.
• Copper wall flashings have blown off the front wall.
Our recommendations are as follows:
• Provide a canopy protection along the sidewalks on Essex Street and around the comer on
Liberty Street for the extent of the existing structure. This canopy should be installed to
protect pedestrians from pieces of falling debris coming from the building. This work
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
The City of Salem should consider closing the street to all traffic when wind loading
conditions exceed 50—60 miles per hour.
• Decisions should be made regarding either the complete repair of the facade or the
demolition of the facade.
If you have any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to call me at any time.
Very truly yours,
CID ASSOCIATES, INC.
James G. Jacobs,P.E.
President
K9037000/rb
DRAWN
SUBJECT S(3l. r+^� SHEET NO. I
QD CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE 8 SayT47
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel 617.433.03011
2605umme
[Sbett Fax 61).433.9660
250 Su 00 E-Mail _Scidu .co.
SuiWeb Site
Bostoq,MA 02110.1131 www.ddaasocxo�
- -- 0._4o Sot . A _?V '
'• �A YS-O S 1 .L G)YLtaS i �ti6-.ar OA. 1.� �E-r _,Q-a�i:
�1i LGw �—VITx. (S LazS
C"'IrtcfYSn4--1�
�r) (.o>� �DDV�T Etr s o - �,t ,i �% - 25-7,1 p;F
�l`1R Lit t 12 7�t icic i��CLtC-,r- WC Zvi
t.-rR-ti. Con—ToSJT10r-3 COM1GESsIt)...+�5 TJ I �/jf)
�io0.7Clt, lA�fr�TLt9:StJ6 JT126 � ) iwt egc�M16tpV«,� TJ tyle ` 1
Z000 +
(
J
( ' 5bO -fo'1S0}-lontk ,r✓L Ru-+nein'•
�C, VLA &W CM -ts �ti TK^b 1� f Jon th�rL.
_F WI A
SrtG- Y� J1. tS i�vv 7 2E3
Pa 1,�•,J��..-�.
Pd--O-v 'OG-n SOlaq 2,� JD AL,
DRAWN e L tj/ SUBJECT SHEET NO. Z
(ID CHECKED - PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel. 617.443.0700
380 Sommer Street Fax 617.473.9860
Suite 800 E-Mall _acidass«.cor
Bostor4 MA 03110.1131 - Web Site m .cldassoc.coc
I
1-Lrc W4-.`;
Yo
Qur ToP '>n.a-Ltr hewvc- ?a�b%, l.t.,,r
`CeI,l���3oa\ 2Z oJ�
:rp O S1i 4.A=t -'rz, CSO'
�tl
19q I $ ' I9y
B� 4u
99 Zz�
�op
C Cf Lit, _
cnl rtly\. 3,.L ( � s+ ) �3l•L�. Sot
.. . . . .. SOL _JU7
�r 501- tLvL�� 4Lv7� �' 'LU tr1.� V1.%4 ,L t.ta. Z- 3YL
uc ,, k11Zx�1� ✓ ��
v 1y
s l0'1. W s rr`
.. �= t4, X \S►L� 3.53 �—
. ... .. . . ..
DRAWN 0.1 flu SUBJECT SHEET NO. •3.
QD CHECKED - •�nsJ— I.UMw 64ALe PROJECT
APPROVED DATE B Sts-pTT
4 l-
CID ASSOCIATES,INC . Tet 617AD.tti00
780 Sommer Street Fac 617.143.9860
Suite 500 EAUU.. _Scidassoc.coc.
Bostov4 MA 07110-1131 Web Site s .ddassasom
o VI.f Torp -
--'
Z _
- 1-t" : 23l 1L.a 37.1— `Ilan 1 ty
2-10 c -J>1,t IL / -Xy G Z.'j OL
Lo A'o o✓ Tor
J
�t� i �I.I.I _._3\.lC..t�-� �-'�o �ljl •}Lto�/fie 'Zlr_Ltkw10 A . eSLr .r. � 21L �tJlt
Spa �= 27 >C `I1� = z5.1 x�lt iLI°„cz-,u
W�NnoV'1
U= t91
wIl_,�4o t
_J'✓ I�` � •�{ 7�1.1��r 70J•�J Wll� `✓'O, Q � •5 L. j- Z.-17J
n Jo, '.Zj I.y ei l= 53 Uj B le u '
2-7xy/,� -9L5.1 .QttIt�� t�rw•� � • �'
tL
GI b,�� Y.,( = .�(S ;J4"L—� Itut T - '.O7 - tel I. zc/o :
(.u9 % Jy � �3e 12.1i�S� �It.tZ - tic lu(3 �tt1 `�o
'x'11
C FlIl.ST'. Ft-oo..- Ldwt-
�A,1 : 25.1 u 1YIL- 3o'i.v. ed 1F'1 •31 �Ir—�
t�s+� N -. t 17l ;.it• tv� _ Z•t,.X. W I l Do ° I = 211 ktt�r;4- lul 2>'Ju
2•''�� fA= �t ><t5`ly �.� w9Xta q1 I• -rE- wSR�w
DRAWN SUBJECT - 'SHEET NO.
QD CHECKED - PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tet. 617443.0400
760 Sommer Street Fee 617A43.9880
Suite SM E-Mail _®dd""c.coe
Boston.MA 07110-1131 Web Site w Aidm"xou
w�
1
SHt+sty C.pr : 2.55122,`E Ing-i yS1lLN
70p_ . . _ .tS. Xr S�ltt ,Q, �1 ' �O�'ie e &vo-GH S1pG-
�2E.�t3�n. pr > Stoa oS= Ti
i
( ec JZ1 �y j,2i �L�b1•S �'S
/000/1to'4 f, la . 7,
2/Lh5 = 71L-
10
.
S t(}pS ON 1D1<. 1OL'I 1I2 til rpy yI NS p
3.S�1C �S 1 -.4 .-1 C r .L -Q ,{ a /s. b
1)0yrS
a
DRAWN C.\..«- SUBJECT SHEET NO.
(ID CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC- TeL 617.443AtM
180 Summer Sheet Fu 617.443.9686
Suite S00 E-Mail _Oddass"X0,
Boston,MA 02110.1131 Web Site w .<idmmxoi
L;�u•
j rtl,\ 5
7
•
_
lv�u
t
6.5
LChvw714,3
� x-11 7..5•'L ,' -
ris 7 c.r 7. p y
I'IS.0 409 �5
[-7.
S19 i
�v
�,us`) fti5•�1� �4�,
L,
11)
' •111 �.. '---...... . -__ .... .• . -.
ail . ..._..
C1ru✓' .
�. 16
3.23
'"Y.%L
QL.Z.S J
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
(01D CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Td. 617,641=0
280 Sommer Street Fax 617A11.9880
Suite SM E-Mail _6ddmmxo
Bwton,MA02110•2131 - Web Site v .ddmu co
i
(rel �I:, tyt.i�i'4�. 'Ll
7,t1t
` k 1D
TA
CJ2 N I4o'SxJS�/s£ IB•t T-,o7
qct;� ti 1ti/g, 1.I� � �77
P. .
KG—ra c-1 0 w I 10p
G•4e
Qin ..Ho3 j lei It,•
CL, , t4ut?t; o/1,•
G•z.1�
DR , 7i4 � t9/to 3.1,7
D[. ,�4 tilt, 1_es
L,11i
M 4
IN12�.L5. �7-�'�5 T .,.o�i S = 33• Y .�, s..i �/�, . I�..../t•ct- Its Ft.
-I = I•CI ���, /tet"�;.n:' 3 � F Jog
Y .
qq e"a
C'lF� . IJl.� l3� iY4G
11•t•3 .595 L l o�
(,ow ntAGroN+%, _3er-1 22 1.w
• DRAWN 0,L4L SUBJECT (�'F(LA LASHEET NO.
'
(01D CHECKED - Ii1G1d'Vul 4+Lt'Gtl PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel. 617,443.410)
260 Summa Street Fu 617A43.9660
Suite SM E-MS1 _6Xidms
Ewton,MA02330.1131 - Web Site w .cidus
3 ti xS,�e e)�2.,) it.�e- �•s4 ; H
Q 3'-oo 4o --b o,.
_ . . . ._ U= 5,1ti ter: 5.�.� =ltsg � �t.�c� • t0S 8s11, � Io.z�
Q
19.5 rC lebG. {�J4 14„f
F�,, VG 71q,r as-
AA
R!tA -L Lo ot
ru4.Niyr+6 o V-S
_._. -.-'_('. 25.06 vtZ ,c �.-1y '5�,,.r, 21.g1 11, 7 -,Jb•, X1,5 .t•zS ..(..�1- a't
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
QD CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. TeL 617A43.%=
780 Sommer Street Fax 617A43.9680
Suite SM E-Mail —®ddsssoc.co
Boston,MA 07110.1131 - _ Web Site w .ddauoc co
E
1 t
ti�
Le
4d i to
q.1
.40 Z.c
J ,�y
L ✓ I`+
loop
IV 1�v 1•q
�
16of
(
10.01
it
�f {V+!4K
1 G)L Z.G.0 21. 4
Sn i 2.t.t.
LO i 14 S
e _ .
DRAWN SUBJECT - SHEET NO.
('D CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel 617.413.0100
780 Summa Sheet - Faa 617A13.9860
Suite S00 - E-Mail —acid"s""
Boston,MA 02110-1131 Web Site w .cidmsocm
sb
°
71
'� .
t
5� 1L
J
11 S
••c
DRAWN SUBJECT SHEET NO.
(ID CHECKED PROJECT
APPROVED rtarl NN f!OI(i j 10 L DATE 19 SifR79'7
TRNS S
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. TeL 637.411.0100
780 Su er.Sheet - Fu 617.417.9880
Suite SM E•MaD —Odduw.co
Soetoq MA 07110-1131 -Web Site t ,ddusocco.
f
i
n ,
— -- ------ i. .. . . c= H-I - • ,b 1L to .c y.NJ
-----=----
c7v to
DRAYM �L.rt. SUBJECT SHEET NO.
(ID CgECKED S30fn W!3't.u1` PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tel 617.313.6400
•
2e0sm uSheet •• Fu 617.313.9880
Sulte 300 - E-MO _Cddaec
BmtM MA 0slo-1131 - - Web Site w..cidmo
Sal - .. Wata_, �R7i3_
-
-
IL4
3oZ•�t pt,f 3�K'
e. — it
:jOs,,(
I
t O:
tilti 6-so' j1, 1t34Li
r •
DRAWN CLIL _- SUBJECT `C`+S SHEET NO. Z/
QD CHECKED Me- PROJECT
APPROVED DATE 10)aW 17
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel 617A11.0300
260 Summer Street Fa 617A43.9680
Suite 500 E-Mail Oddassc
Boston,MA 02210.1131 Web Site wsysrddassc
Y
R
IG'�3 U St�
V
40
i �ly.p5
U?LlP7s Imi L y. 4 a SS I.tior IL,t�
SeaG,an: ILI 3,Y NG.S r3•l � K,�tr �,
4o
4x-71
14
�oC4-� nn
ti
- . .. Lf
DRAWN SUBJECT—?45t .,/SHEET No.�,__
(IDCHECKED NKW - PROJECT
APPROVED DATE 10 u d V g�)
CID ASSOCIATES,INC Tet 617A13.0400
380 Sommer Street F" 617.443.9660
Suite 500 E-Mail _®cidusoc.com
Bmton,MA02110.1131 Web Site w .cidu c.com
�.vc,gTg `Tie C 1L=v F7to.n, C.oAn1WV ,
_ TDP �a Loe�+, = 'L�•i.rec
3.
4o-f4 - -LS,-L p j=. x IS X 1;/z W bte3 p1 f
zx itl,q 7 a2
LAJ = lL,t Z=a�L� ,301.x! rT
Il�:ro — 50%"tt'IF7 3°7•k>I. 2V.II = G•Sr
'L xtl,.S
�Zt
Z12Y ►p7 ZtZ (2,+.t .�'Lr 2 •SK Cit
IL
L/:fo
>R L
DRAWN SUBJECT—Tf 061!1 gglhl0. SHIEET NO,
(ID CHECKED J.d'2'A F'3 bTa� PROJECT
APPROVED DATE
CID ASSOCIATES,INC. Tel 6174UJ400
780 Sommer Street Fu 617A47.9880
Suite Soo E-Man _®ddass cr
Boston,MA QM0.1131 - Web Site w Adassoc cor
S V 7 %L-7 .
'- - -,�'1.o h.w nG SX S/LK 7 = lo.S�re•..> 15•$ r I.5
SID
CID Associates Inc.
TRANSMITTAL
DATE: 3/9/00 TRANSMITTED BY: Lance E.Robson
To: Tor Utne PROJECT NAME: Head House
COMPANY: Peabody Essex Museum CID PROJECT Ne.: 99037K
ADDRESS: East India Square COPIES:
Salem,MA 01970-3783
PHONE:
FAX: TOTAL PAGES: I
TRANSMITTED VIA: ❑ OVERNIGHT MAIL ® FIRST CLASS MNL ❑ FACSIMILE ❑ EMAIL ❑ COURIER
COPIES DATE ITEM
1 Video of Head House survey
REMARKS:
Tor,
I do not think you will find this of much use. It is pretty bad. Let me know if need any other of the photos.
Lance
K9037001t Page I of 1
Architects 260 Summer Street T 617.443.0400
Engineers Suite 500 F 617.443.9660
Planners Boston IMA E-md@cidassoc.com
022101131 xwnddassoc.00m
BUILDING WALL SURVEY
ARMORY HEADHOUSE WALL AND RELATED
STRUCTURES
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
Salem, MA
CID PROJECT NO. 97078K
June 18, 1997
Prepared For:
PEABODY ESSEX MUSEUM
EAST INDIA SQUARE
SALEM MASSACHUSETTS
Prepared By:
CID ASSOCIATES, INC.
280 Summer Street
Boston, MA 02210-1131
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The existing Armory Headhouse wall retains sufficient integrity of the existing
construction materials to allow for future restoration efforts if desired. The existing
brick masonry is generally in a sound condition. The exterior requires complete
repointing. The interior requires repairs,minor modifications and the application of a
weather barrier material. Restoration of the interior brick masonry is not considered
reasonably feasible for long term utilization of the structure. The cast stone masonry
ranges in condition from satisfactory to seriously deteriorated. The most significant
aspect of cast stone restoration required is at the original entry doorway. Other
significant cast stone repairs are required in the upper portions of the existing
construction. Repairs include working with the materials in their current place and/or
replacing the materials in kind.
The existing tower supports are inadequate for the current construction conditions and
require immediate repair efforts to be undertaken. Repair efforts can be accomplished
in such a fashion so as be incorporated into any permanent solutions for the restoration
of the wall. The existing bracing system can be removed and replaced with an
alternative bracing system set on new footings at the base of the wall on the interior
face. Such a system would not overly encumber the site as the existing does. Whether
repairing the existing bracing system or replacing it, a visual impact will occur on the
exterior face of the wall construction.
In determining the historical qualities of the existing construction it should be
remembered that in addition to the remainder of the facility having been destroyed by
fire, modifications of the existing front facade prior to the fire significantly altered the
architectural character of the property.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 2
Also reviewed was the South Drill Shed Wall masonry wall which is generally in a
more deteriorated condition than that of the Armory Headhouse Wall. The original "
construction of this wall was not intended for its current use as an exterior wall and the
existing brick masonry construction is of an inferior quality to that of the exterior of the
Headhouse wall. Repair efforts necessary for this are significant and include the.
installation of new foundation structure to resist lateral forces the provision of
waterproofing and the application of a new surfacing material so as to provide weather
resistance above grade.
Relocation of the existing Headhouse construction to an alternative area of the site is
not considered a reasonably feasible undertaking.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 3
II. ABSTRACT:
At the request of Peabody Essex Museum in May of 1997, CID Associates, Inc. '
conducted an evaluation of the remnant walls of the original Second Corps
Cadets Armory Building and related Drill Shed south wall structure. Our given
task was to establish the existing conditions and determine the viability for
adaptive reuse.
More specifically, CID was to review the original facade components along
Essex Street and the associated remnant wing walls perpendicular to Essex
Street and the original common wall between the Armory Building and the
building identified as the Drill Shed. CID's view points were established to be
both short term and long term and were to address existing structural
conditions, materials quality and conditions in consideration of the feasibility of
restoration. Restoration considerations for preserving the structure in its current.
state, preserving the structure in part, and/or relocating the structure in whole or
in part on the site are provided.
In order to accomplish this, CID reviewed previous documents concerning the
facility, conducted interviews with on site facility representatives, visually
surveyed the building,utilizing an aerial lift, analyzed existing structural
components and conditions, observed the taking of test cuts into the existing
wall structure, had laboratory analysis performed of existing construction
components and performed test pits along the existing interior foundation walls
and steel support system. We were assisted in this task by the Museum Staff,
NER Construction Management, Inc. and Miller Engineering and Testing.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 4
It should be noted that CID's considerations were not to include the
reutilization of the remnant front facade wall into a new building structure,but
rather to consider its repair and reuse in fashion characterized by the term
"urban structure. CID was not to establish the historical context of the property
as it relates to the community.
III. INTRODUCTION:
The Salem Armory and connected Drill Shed Building were reportedly
constructed in circa 1923 for the State government for the utilization of the
militia. The building was utilized.as such until the fire of 1982, and maintained
by the government until just recently. The remaining construction of the Drill
Shed currently serves as a regional National Park Service Visitor Center and has
just recently been renovated for this purpose. Additional renovations are
ongoing for additional uses of this building by the Museum, primarily in the
form of various storage areas.
In 1982, a severe fire occurred at the Headhouse, the fire involved the entire
Headhouse Building, essentially gutting the building, leaving remnant sidewalls
on all sides and partial floor plates at the first and second floors. In 1992; the
remnant floor sections were removed, as well as the majority of the east and
west walls and a steel bracing structure was constructed in the basement level
and the site filled.
In the preparation of this report,CID reviewed previous correspondence
between the City of Salem Building Inspector and the Peabody Museum
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No. 97078K
Page 5
Cooperative, Anway and Company and their consultant Engineers' Design
Group. Additionally reviewed were investigative reports prepared by Goldberg
Zoino and Associates in August of 1990,the Robert Charles Group in March
of 1991, and Fidelity Reality Group, Inc. in October of 1990. Lastly, we
reviewed the inspection reports and design documents for the temporarybracing
as prepared by Sarkis Zerounian and Associates.
Although reports indicate original design documents exist for the building,
these were not located at this time and are considered of little value in the
preparation of this report in any context.
The Headhouse Building was originally three stories high with a full basement
level and additional part floors at the front towers. The building was(is) a
timber framed structure with exterior walls of brick masonry and precast
concrete stone embellishment with granite block foundation walls and a
continuous concrete footing. Except for the remnant floor sections in the tower
areas, none of the original timber framing remains. Aside from the structural
stabilization, and site infill, no repairs or improvements have been undertaken
on the building since the fire of 1982. It appears that the last significant repair
work performed on the Headhouse was in 1972 and consisted of masonry
repairs and repointing. This time period for repairs was substantiated by our
observations of the existing construction.
IV. OBSERVATIONS
A. Masonry
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 6
The remnant Headhouse facade is approximately 7,800 SF in area. The facade
was constructed with varying wall thickness, including:
• The foundation to the I" floor - 5 brick wythes (20").
• The I"to 2nd floor - 4 brick wythes (16").
• The 2"d floor to roof - 3 brick wythes (12").
The masonry is a solid common bond construction with pre-cast concrete stone
embellishment. Aside from remnant pieces, none of the original wood
fenestration remains intact. The structure contains a parapet wall on all sides.
On the east and west walls, the parapet construction is corbelled and ranges in
thickness from 3 brick wythes to 5 brick wythes. On the towers and originally
on the front facade, the parapet was a crenellated brick masonry creating an
appearance of battlements.
In reviewing historical photographs of the construction, it appears that no
significant alterations to the facade occurred excepting two notable items both
involving the parapet walls. On the towers,the crenellation of the parapet walls
was originally exposed brick masonry with cast stone caps. However, painted
lead coated copper sheathing was added completely encasing the parapet walls.
On the facade area between the towers, the original battlements were and a
copper cap with pressure treated wood blockings installed. The crenellated
parapet wall areas appear to have been a source of significant recurrent
problems as regards to the masonry deterioration. Signs of previous masonry
repairs in the underlying facade areas are readily evident. Additionally, the
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 7
removal of the frontal battlements was indicative of a chronic condition. It
appears, as judged by the aging of the materials installed that this section of the
facade, which was removed, was done in the 1972 repointing efforts. In the
older photographs, signs of efflourence around the tower embattlements were
noted. The removal of the front battlements between the towers significantly
altered the visual characteristics of the property.
As referenced, the brick masonry construction of the Headhouse walls varies in
thickness from 12"-20" thick. The brick itself is a hard fired water struck brick
with an irregular surface quality laid in common bond fashion with a course of
headers after every fifth stretcher course. The average brick size is 3-3/4" x 8"
x 2-3/8". Custom sized and styled bricks were utilized on portions of the tower
construction. All wythes of brick are inter woven, including that of the inside
face. Although a number of deficiencies exist in various areas of the brick
construction, the construction is essentially structurally sound. The mortar
appears to have a lime base content, however, it was found to be an extremely
dense and durable material. Both samples of brick and the mortar have been
sent to laboratories for petrographic analysis to establish the mortar content and
flexural strengths and to establish the compressive strengths of the brick
masonry. It should be noted that there is no indication of excessive absorption
in the brick.
On the exterior face of the wall, numerous areas of deficient mortar joints exist
which continue to permit further moisture entry into the system. In some areas
of the wall, most notably in the upper sections of the construction, repointing is
readily evident. All indications point to the fact that only one significant
repointing was undertaken with the wall. At the top of the wall between the
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 8
base of the parapet and the 3rd floor window heads a number of spalled brick
were in evidence. It appears that the spalling in the brick masonry has existed
for some time as evidenced by patching with mortar materials matching that of
the repointing effort.
A subject of the brick masonry is the condition and absence of the crenellation
which creates the battlements. On the top of the towers, the battlements and the
lower portions of the parapet walls are clad in a painted lead coated copper
sheathing which has been installed in a watertight fashion. Original
photographs reveal that these battlements were originally an exposed brick
masonry with the precast concrete stone caps. The historical photographs also
reveal evidence of efflorescence. More interesting, and perhaps of some
significance in establishing the historic character of the building is the fact that
the battlements along the parapet wall between the towers have been removed
entirely and replaced with a flat copper parapet wall cap. As evidenced by the
treatment of the wood to which the cap is secured, it would appear likely that
the cap was installed in restoration work in the early 1970's.
In the previous reports, concems of some significance have been expressed
relative to the interior wall face conditions. Several points should be addressed
in this regard. The first is the fact that on the interior walls the brick wythe is
not a skin applied to the original masonry construction but rather is integrally
woven with the inner brick wythes. The appearance of separation occurs
around fenestration openings where the returns of the fascia brick had to be
completed in a fashion so as to allow the precast concrete installation. This
separation is also evident in the mullions between window sections where the
precast concrete precluded the installation of a full brick. The inside face brick
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 9
is approximately 75% of the same consistency of the exterior brick. However,
the shapes, condition and qualities of the brick are such that it appears the
contractors used the clinkers or the less desirable bricks from the original
purchase of the building materials for the inside facing. The remaining brick in
these inside wall areas are in fact an under burned softer brick commonly
referred to as a"salmon brick". A significant amount of efflorescence can be
seen on some of the interior walls. The efflorescence is primarily attributed to
the mortar materials subjected to moisture infiltration. The primary reason why
we find more deterioration, not only of the brick masonry,but, also the mortar,
is the fact that the original joints on the interior face of the wall were not tooled
in a weather jointed fashion. As such, the mortar did not have the same
compressive strength and weathering qualities as the exterior mortar joints did.
Now, exposed as it is, these mortar joint conditions have become exacerbated.
The miscellaneous materials within the mortar, which originally washed out
through the original construction on the face of the building or were cleaned in
the construction process are now manifesting themselves in the interior due to
the exposure to the elements.
Of particular note also in explaining the brick masonry deterioration on the
inside face of the wall is the fire event. Extreme can often create a condition
whereby the brick masonry is weakened and much more subject to absorption
and freeze thaw damages. There is evidence of this on the inside face of the
walls.
When the building was infilled and stabilized in 1992, the sidewalls were
apparently cut off. The nature of the cuts are such that minimal water
penetration is resulting from the end wall conditions being exposed. More
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 10
problems are experienced in and around the fenestration points and in and
around the tower elements. On the upper most sections of wall, the original
copper cap remains in place. In some instances, the cast stone coping cap is
also still in place.
The only significant fracturing noted in the brick masonry was observed above
the head of the windows in the towers on the Essex Street face. A plane of
fracture runs around four to six sides of the tower at this elevation. The fracture
plane is continuous from the face brick through to the inner brick wythe. It is
believed that the fracture has resulted from differing wind loads as a result of
the fenestration which is no longer in place and as a result of deflection in the
structural members remaining. It may also be attributed to the heat of the fire.
On the interior face of the brick masonry two types of support were utilized. In
areas of flat lintel construction, a steel beam was utilized for structural lintel
purposes. In general, the lintels are in satisfactory condition allowing for the
need of maintenance repairs. In areas of arched fenestration openings, the brick
masonry was constructed with brick arches behind the prescast stone arches.
The remaining primary construction component is precast concrete masonry,
more commonly referred to as `Cast Stone'. The cast stone in this facade, for
the most part, was utilized as an architectural embellishment. In the instance of
a number of the window openings, the cast stone serves in an arching fashion as
the support for the wall components above it. In general, the cast stone was of
an inferior quality as originally supplied.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 11
As a point of fact, the cast stone is reinforced with common 1" threaded steel
pipe, normally utilized as plumbing piping. The presence of the piping in the
stone presents two surfaces for moisture attack and migration on the inside of
the pipe, as well as on the outside of the pipe. It is believed that condensation
effects create greater deterioration inside the pipe. The cast stone was also
observed to be spatting as a result of exfoliation(rust expansion) of the
reinforcing members.
In general, the cast stone has now wom to exhibit a highly exposed aggregate
surfacing and differs significantly throughout the facade as to its conditions.
Beginning at the upper most portions of the facade, the battlement coping caps
were noted to generally be in a sound condition, however the setting beds are
highly questionable and in many instances deteriorated. In all instances where
metal through wall flashing exists underlies the coping caps. No indication of
dowels could be found in the stone caps. The cast stone cornice underlying the
battlements at the top of the towers is severely cracked in areas. Along the
front of the building, directly underlying the original parapet wall construction,
the brick masonry projects out at the height of the original roof over the top of a
stilted arch crenellation of precast concrete masonry. The precast concrete
within this arching was noted to be heavily fractured. The fractures appear to
be related to original parapet wall failures and the subsequent freeze thaw
damages and do not appear to be attributed to deterioration of the metal
reinforcing and subsequent exertion of pressures outward. However, the
potential for this exists. No sections of this were noted to be free and/or in
danger of falling.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 12
At the window heads,the more severe precast concrete deterioration exists on
the second and third floor levels. This is due to the exposed conditions on the
interior face of the wall which permit an accumulation of moisture to occur and
subsequently subject the stone to freeze thaw action and exfoliation of
reinforcing members. At the I"floor level, the cast stone lintels have suffered
relatively minor damages due to their greater protection by the overlying
construction. The cast stone sills on the upper two floors in areas have
experienced significant loss of material and spalling as a result of original
embedded reinforcement materials being insufficiently covered by the cast
stone.
Excepting the front archway, the cast stone around the base of the building is in
relatively sound condition. The mortar joints are a raised bead style. The
primary aspect of deterioration here as well as found typically on the other
stone surfaces is an erosion of the surface materials resulting in an exposed
aggregate face surface. In some areas minor spalling is noted, however it is
attributable to the age of the materials.
The original entryway to the building is a four comer arch with a significant
tympanum reveal. At the rear of the tympanum reveal, the entry is soffited into
the building face. On the interior of the building, the structure is surrounded by
an independent brick wall construction. Significant deterioration of the upper
portions of the reveal have occurred, resulting in spalled areas and a significant
loss of section. The most significant areas of deterioration are in the soffit
stones in the areas behind the reveal. This deterioration has resulted from an
accumulation of moisture in the materials overlying the soffit stone. As
referenced,a brick structure surrounds the rear of the archway, over the top of
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 13
the archway,the brick structure is open. During the time of fire and or
subsequent demolition efforts a significant amount of building materials fell
into the space overlying the arch. Water subsequently saturated the materials
and subjected the lower stone areas to a significant amount of moisture related
damages. Steel tension rods over the arch way were found to be badly,
damaged. Previous repairs to the cast stone entry way detailing were noted.
Aside from supporting its own weight and immediate construction, the
deterioration of the cast stone entry is not considered a structural failure due to
the fact that the brick masonry construction overlying the archway has a built in
arching system which supports the wall structure itself.
The remaining cast stone coping stones on the wing wall sections of parapet
have experienced significant failure. At the time of this review, loose materials
were removed from the top of the wall to minimize falling concerns. It should
also be referenced that in areas of the facade where loose cast stone was found,
the stone was removed. In the area of the arch, none of the cast stone was
removed due to its separation from general public.
During the excavation of the foundation walls it was found that only minor
deterioration has occurred in the brick masonry and granite mortar conditions as
a result of being buried by fill. The top of the granite rubble foundation wall is
approximately 18" to 24" below the surface of the site fill. In all areas
excavated the original slab remained in place. No significant accumulation of
moisture was noted on the slab. An examination of the lower wall areas from
the inside and the excavation did not appear to evidence any signs of damages
resulting from traffic surcharges and related activities.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 14
The structural steel supports were placed on plates connected directly to the
concrete slab and to what appeared to be original column footing bases. No
deterioration of the bearing points was noted, however, it was noted that the
structural steel had been coated on the exterior with a tar based bitumen
material. In many areas, the bitumen coating was insufficient and rusting of the
steel members has started to occur. The rusting is not at a level yet to be
considered significant, however left untreated, will undoubtedly prove so. Of
particular concern is the lack of treatment on the interior of the reinforcing
tubing and its exposure to the elements and capacity to retain water in the event
of rain fall.
In the tower areas of the structure, remnant sections of the original timber
framing and flooring sections remain. However, the integrity of the framing is
virtually non-existent. Severe damage as the result of fire and weather
deterioration has created this condition. On the roofs themselves, a coal tar
pitch based built-up roof membrane system exists placed directly on top of the
wood plank deck. The roofs were originally accessed through copper clad
hatch ways. The roofs have failed and have subsequently allowed for
deterioration of the roof decking. Fires damages also exist in roof framing
materials. The original flag masts are no longer present above the height of the,
roofs however the openings still remain.
On the Wing Wall structures of the building, minimal damages to the brick
masonry have occurred as a result of the unprotected conditions. This is due to
the fact that the original construction was saw cut. The saw cut left a surface
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 15
which for the most part sheds water. Limited exceptions to this occur at small
horizontal shelf sections.
B. Drill Shed
In review of the common wall with the drill shed, as requested, a number of
significant issues were found to exist. These issues concern the structural
integrity of the wall both above and below grade and the moisture resistant
integrity of the construction both above and below.grade.
From approximately the height of the first floor up the wall is constructed with
3 wythes of brick masonry. The wall is currently in an unconditioned space and
separates the Armory site from a passageway adjacent to the National Park
Service Headquarters. The wall is constructed with a stepped gable
construction. Originally, approximately 25% of the wall area was exterior
construction, the remaining areas were interior to the Drill Shed and Armory
complex. In the areas originally inside of the complex, the wall does not have
the granite foundation construction as the remaining Armory area,but rather
has brick masonry construction apparently supported directly on concrete
footings. Exceptions to this occur in areas of the wall originally exposed to
exterior conditions.
Below grade, a number of issues pertaining to the common wall exist. The first
issue of concern is the ongoing moisture infiltration through the wall. Currently
a significant build-up of efflorescence is occurring in all areas of brick masonry
wall, most notably at the lower portions of the wall. This is a concern due to
the fact that basement space underlying the Park Service has been renovated for
Museum storage purposes and as such the ability to control climatic conditions
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 16
is extremely important. In some areas this build-up of efflorescence is also
occurring within the structure of the brick themselves resulting in spalling of
the brick masonry. The reason for the moisture penetration is due to the lack of
any exterior or interior waterproofing measures. The source of the water
infiltration results from a compounded problem. The first is the presence.of the
back fill placed at the site following the demolition of the original Armory
structure. The back fill subjects the wall to a constant pressure of moisture.
Additionally, by leaving the original slab in place and lower portions of the
foundation wall as exists at the Armory building, the slab effectively traps
moisture on top of it and does not allow it to percolate in a timely fashion into
the underlying substrata. This creates a layer of saturated soil on top of the slab
and directly against wall, thus explaining the higher quantities of efflorescence
at the very base of the wall within the Drill Shed side of the facility.
On the exposed portions of the wall, numerous problems exist. At the top of the
wall, which is a stepped gable in configuration, it appears that brick masonry
was reconstructed along the parapet steps in the recent past. On each of the
steps is a shop fabricated aluminum coping cap construction. The cap was not
counter flashed into the vertical step face adjacent,thusly resulting in an open
joint condition at the vertical face. No blockings were installed on top of the
wall to which the cap could be secured but rather lead shielded expansion
anchors were fastened directly through the horizontal surface of the sheet metal
into the underlying masonry. No underlayment was installed under the metal
caps. Standing water was observed on top of the metal caps. Directly adjacent
and below the height of the roof line of the Drill Shed, a significant amount of
the brick masonry was noted to be heavily spalled. It is believed that the
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 17
spalling was is a result of original roof moisture conditions, however the
spalling may also be related to the fire.
Throughout the plane of the wall,numerous conditions exist in the construction
of the brick masonry and the condition of the mortar joints. Essentially, the
majority of this wall was never intended to be exposed to the elements and as
such the mortar joints, as is the case with the Headhouse, were never properly
tooled for exterior exposure. Also, a mixture of hard and soft brick was utilized
in the construction of the wall.
Currently, a number of fractures exist in the wall. The most prominent fracture
runs from top to bottom of the wall and is continuous from the outside to the
inside face of the wall resulting in a serious separation in the overall integrity of
the wall. It is believed that the fracture was triggered by an inappropriate
temporary opening made by a contractor during the renovation of the Drill Shed
basement. Evidence remaining of the opening, (as well as discussions with
related personnel), indicate that no shoring or temporary structural measures
were taken. This weak point in the construction was then believed to be
aggravated by winds and temperature changes. Essentially the majority of this
wall was braced by the Armory floor structures which are no longer present, as
well as the Drill Shed structures. Therefore, lateral forces not originally
provided for are being experienced by the wall. Additional to this is the fact
that the wall for the most part resided in a conditioned environment and is now
exposed in its entirety resulting in more significant thermal related damages.
Although the primary fracture is reported to not have worsened in recent
memory, it would appear that the cause of the fracture may still be active as
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 18
evidenced by the fact that the wall was recently painted on the inside face and is
now noted to have the crack showing through the paint.
Lastly, in regard to the wall, as it was never intended to be an exposed
construction condition and in consideration of the various conditions of the
mortar joints and brick, a significant amount of moisture penetration is
occurring in this wall. This moisture is manifesting itself in the form of
finished damages and efflorescence within the passageway between the
Headhouse and the Drill Shed.
C. Structural:
There are two towers in the Head House structure. The two towers are similar
in construction,geometry and support. Approximately, 70% of the perimeter of
the turrets are supported on the exterior walls of the structure. The two walls
which are perpendicular to the exterior walls are supported continuously by
shallow steel beams. The beams and the entire interior diagonal wall are
supported by a 15"deep steel beam which spans on a diagonal from the front to
side walls. There is a second beam parallel to this which is 2' into the turret.
This beam does not support the turret since a gap was noted above the beam and
below the turret walls and side beams.- The brick masonry bearing directly on
the beam(s)is deteriorated. The 15"beam carries the entire gravity load of the
turret plus any vertical component of the wind loads. A beam size was selected
from the physical dimensions taken in the field and analyzed for the loads. This
beam is significantly over stressed. Also, the inner brick wall around the
support plates shows signs of movement. The existing deflection in the beam(s)
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 19
is also likely a result of heat induced stress' from the fire. The exterior wall
fracturing on the front of the towers also likely occurred at that time as well.
All of the structural steel noted for the tower support was untreated for
corrosion resistance. Rusting of the steel is occurring. Although it has not yet
effected the structure, it will if left untreated.
The Wing Walls are presently inadequately braced. Currently the walls are
point loaded at only two points each, in addition to the tower steel supports.
This results in a `punching' condition for the brick masonry. Shoring this wall
will involve supporting the wall along a line instead of points which presently
exist and either adding additional braces or incorporating the existing braces for
the front wall with the braces for the side wall. The location for the lines of
support must take into consideration wind loads, wall thickness, and openings
in the wall. The brace support could involve either construction of new footings
or reinforcing existing footings.
The front walls are also point loaded resulting in a `punching' condition.. An
analysis of the supports indicates the supports could punch through the wall
when code required loads are imposed. The front wall supports should also be
revised to support the walls along a line instead of a points as it presently exists.
The structural steel frame is adequate to accept the transfer of loads if the right
attachment to the wall is provided.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 20
V. CONCLUSIONS
The structure of the Armory Headhouse wall is essentially intact. The brick
masonry construction is solid, although requiring extensive remedial work at
this time. It is anticipated that laboratory testing will show sufficient strength in
the mortar and brick materials utilized in the construction and as such repairs
thereto are a viable alternative. In the consideration of the cast stone, it is our
opinion that the initial supply of the cast stone was of a poor quality to begin
with and accordingly at this time, some significant elements of deterioration
exist in the stone. It is our opinion that excepting the stone at several of the
windows lintels and the stone at the entryway, the majority of the other stone
failures are associated with a normal aging process on the building envelope.
The remaining damages are due to the interior and exterior exposure of the
stone to weathering. The stone is repairable and/or replaceable. The
foundations of the structure appear to be intact and do not present any
significant problems.
The task given requested that a number of situations be considered. In
consideration of demolishing the building or dismantling it for reconstruction,
we do not believe such a dismantling will be necessary in order to carry forth
the repairs on a large scale. An additional consideration was to restore and
retain the building structure as it currently exists. This is a viable option,
although the impact of the structure over shadowing the site should be
thoroughly considered. Additionally, the expense in relation to its end use and
historical context should be reviewed. The salvation of part of the structure is
viable and is accordingly presented in the following. The concept of relocating
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 21
the wall to another position on the site is not considered to be reasonably
feasible due to the fact that the site is a non-compacted fill material, excavation
of the site and/or the placement of shoring columns (piles) will be necessary to
provide a proper track for relocating elements of the building. Relocating the
building would entail a partial dismantling of the structure. This would-r esult in
a loss of integrity and strength of the walls and unsightly lines when complete.
This option would sustantially increase the cost of restoration and result in
irrepairable damages to the visual qualities of the structure.
Aside from the historical context of the building, its current physical condition
without the presence.of the battlements along the front parapet wall, should be
considered when evaluating the significance of this structure.
The Drill Shcd wall is currently utilized for a function not originally intended.
This function can be accommodated, however some significant efforts will be
required in order to achieve this use on a permanent basis.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
General recommendations for repair and replacement work include the
following:
• The exterior surface brick masonry should be entirely cut out and repointed.
All spalled brick areas should be removed and replaced. Please note that by
utilizing the existing site fill which contains a significant quantity of original
brick materials, it is anticipated exact matches can be achieved.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 22
•. The interior brick masonry is of such a condition and consistency of
construction that repointing the masonry will not suffice for long term repair.
Accordingly, it is our recommendation that all significant deficiencies on the
brick masonry be replaced, minor restructuring and parging be performed
around the window openings and a cementitious stucco applied over a wire lath .
secured to the brick utilized.
• In general, repair considerations for the cast stone would include
replacement with_matching profiles and repair in place and subsequent coating.
In consideration of any repairs to the cast stone, it must be recognized that exact
replication of surface qualities cannot be achieved. Repair of existing stone to
remain in place would include removal of all spalled elements and embedded
reinforcing and the replacement thereof. The injection of epoxy adhesives at
fracture lines and the application of consolidant coating for strengthening
purposes and in turn coated for future weatherproofing concerns and so as to
provide unity of the materials. Please note that coating of the cast stone is not
necessarily in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, however it is
recommended in consideration of the existing conditions.
• A permanent solution is to reinforce and brace the 15" beam, reduce the
length of the un-braced compression flange of the beam and raise the allowable
bending stress. To accomplish this, it will be necessary to "unload" the beam
by shoring the masonry. This permanent repair could be incorporated into a
final renovation of the structure. The brick around the supports should be reuilt
as well. All remaining exposed structural steel framing members should be
prepared, primed and painted.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 23
• The existing structure can be re-braced in whole or in part on the interior
side. This bracing will necessitate new footings and a significant amount of
work as indicated above. The bracing for the diaphragm at the towers can be
accommodated in several different ways and should be reviewed within the
context of the final approved use. Allowances presented herein include the
erection of bracing in a octagon shaped configuration installed at each of the
existing floor plate levels. A significant aspect of the bracing will include
impact on the exterior walls surfaces of the building as a result of through bolt
anchor washers being requried. These can be ornamental iron elements or can
be done in a more sophisticated manner including the removal of face brick
installation of a bracket washer and the reinstallation of the exterior masonry.
Cost opinions herein are provided for the former of the two options.
• If the building as a whole is retained and the front entryway is re-utilized for
access to the site, then, in addition to the typical cast stone repairs necessary, it
will also be necessary to provide abutment supports and sidewalls lower than
the base of the existing arch. This is due to the fact that handicapped
accessibility through the existing opening is hampered by the existing stairs.
• The fracture planes in the towers should be repaired by the utilization of
structural epoxies and the replacement of deteriorated steel lintel sections.
• The existing roof decks and roof membranes should be replaced with new
timber framing and a new fully adhered EPDM roofing system.
• Consideration should be given to reconstructing to original battlements
along the front parapet wall. Additionally, consideration may be given to repair
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 24
and reconstruction of the embattlements on top of the towers. Although, it is
our opinion that the existing sheathing could be reutilized in its current
condition.
• A permanent roof structure would have to be constructed over the front
entry archway in the event that it is saved for reuse.
• All residual wood framing associated with the fenestration and structures of
the building should be removed in its entirety.
• If a portion of the facade is retained and the majority disposed of, the
separation point for the two areas of wall surface should be achieved by
utilizing a saw.
• All sloped sections of brick.masonry wall remaining following repairs
should be coated with a polymer modified cementitious coating sloped to shed
water. All horizontal sections of wall should be capped with a copper coping
secured to the brick and counter flashed to the adjacent vertical surface.
• In any considerations of salvaging part of the existing structure,the existing
Wing Walls and a portion of the front wall facade will have to remain as a
minimum. This is to provide sufficient wall area to develop bearing conditions
for the back support of the tower structures. As the Wing Walls exist now, no
additional masonry should be removed in order to provide permanent support.
In terms of a demising point on the front facade, a similar sized Wing Wall
should remain at a minimum. Such a Wing Wall should be stepped in a similar
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 25
fashion as the existing Wing Walls and can incorporate the first vertical row of
windows on each floor plate.
For the common wall at the Drill Shed,we recommend the following repairs:
o The exterior side of the foundation wall should be excavated and a new
footing and structural concrete foundation wall cast against the existing so as to
provide lateral force resistance. Following placement of the concrete, it is
recommended that a waterproofing system be applied to the foundation wall
with the appropriate footing drainage.
o The above grade masonry conditions in the area of the original common
wall are so deteriorated so as to preclude a reasonable restoration of the brick
masonry providing any aesthetic balance. CID therefore recommends one of
the two following options:
* The first option would be to apply a cementitious stucco system over
the entire surface of the wall placed over a mechanically fastened
expanded wire lathe. Within the context of such an installation,
architectural detailing can be provided as a shadow affect of a
building facade.
* The second option is to apply a new brick veneer over the existing
facade. The veneer would be secured to the existing facade with the
appropriate anchors and relieving angles. The interstitial space
resulting between the brick constructions should have a
waterproofing system applied. The brick installation proposed
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 26
would stop at the line of the original west wall of the Armory
Headhouse which still remains.
• Prior to undertaking either a stucco or a brick masonry surfacing, the
existing brick masonry fractures to the west side of the wall should be repaired
with the utilization of pressure injected epoxy materials and repointed following
the injection. In regards to the significant fracture extending from the top to the
bottom of the wall, it is our belief that if this fracture plane is structurally
repaired by adhering the materials or fastening the two planes together then the
crack will reappear at another location in the future. We therefore recommend
that the crack be considered as an expansion joint, however lateral restraints
will be necessary in order to keep the planes of the brick masonry walls aligned.
The existing coping cap should be removed and replaced with a new coping
cap. If application of coping materials to the vertical faces of the steps is
ascetically unacceptable than a counter flashing should be cut into the vertical
face
As a function of our task, we were to assess interim repair measures for the existing
construction conditions. Our definition of interim is considered herein as one to two
years time. Such interim measures would include the following:
• The structural reinforcement of the existing tower steel should be
performed. The nature of this repair is such that an interim repair can also be
incorporated into any final repair specification. A short term solution for the
tower supports will be to shore the 15" deep beam. This solution will require
installing a footing 4'-0"below grade and shoring the beam. Any future
renovations of this structure will need to take into account this work, either by
a
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 27
building around it or reinforcing the beam in another manner. The brick work
at the end supports and around the beams needs to be rebuilt.
• At the brick masonry surround of the entryway, a temporary wood framed
structure should be provided over the top of the entryway. The structure would
be sheathed in plywood and covered with a single ply elastomeric membrane.
• All horizontal shelves remaining in the wing walls should be parge coated
with a polymer modified mortar sloped to shed the water.
• The installation of additional bracing should be completed, however, such
bracing modifications should be performed with an understanding of the future
intent for the wall so as to avoid unnecessary changing of the appearance of the
facade prior to any future restoration effort. If interim bracing is not
completed for the wall, then we recommend that a sidewalk staging protection
system be installed.
• A parge coating of masonry cement should be applied around the heads of
all precast concrete window lintels and similar surfaces where water penetration
can lead to further deterioration of the materials. Mortar application should also
take place in and around the support structure of the higher sections of the
tower. -
• In a similar fashion to applying the mortar materials at the wall shelves the
gaps between the interior brick wythe and the window surrounds should be
accomplished so as to minimize the water penetration.
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 28
II. SUMMARY OF COST OPINIONS
A. Option 1: Demolish Building Facade
1. Remove and dispose of existing wall materials $26,000
2. Site restoration (no landscaping) $4.000
Total $30,000
B. Option 2: Restore Entire Facade
1. Structural repairs a) Towers $17,500
b) Bracing(w/foundation) $56,000
2. Brick masonry a) Repoint $93,000
(exterior) b) Repair/Replace $5,600
c) Reconstruct Embattlement $16,000
3. Cast Stone a) Repair/Replace Wall Elements $32,000
b) Repair/Replace Entry Way $50,000
(including ramp work& soffit cover)
4. Stucco Coating System (including brickwork& lintels) $101,400
5. Roofs a) Structure $12,000
b) Covering $3,000
6. Miscellaneous $25.000
Total $411,500
C. Option : Remove/Restore Partial Facade(1 Tower)
1. Demolition a) Remove and dispose of Existing
Building Materials $20,000
b) Site Restoration $3,500
2. Structural Repairs a) Tower $8,750
b) Bracing(w/foundation) $28,500
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 29
3. Brick Masonry a) Repoint
$37,200
b) Repair/Replace (including
battlement) $8,700
4. Cast Stone Repairs $14,000
5. Stucco Coating System(including brick work& lintels) $40,500
6. Roof a) Structure $6,000
b) Covering $1,500
7. Miscellaneous S12,500
Total $181,150
D. Option 4: Drill Shed Wall
1. Foundation a) Excavation & Concrete $12,500
b) Waterproofing $8,000
2. Structural Repairs $15,000
3. Roof Cap $3,400
4. Wall Cover a) Stucco $33,600
b) Brick $56,000
5. Miscellaneous $15,000
Total $143,500
E. Interim Repairs
1. Head House a) Towers $17,500
b) Bracing $22,000
c) Entry Cover $3,000
d) Parging $12,750
e) Miscellaneous $4.000
Total $59,250
Armory Headhouse
Peabody Essex Museum
CID Project No.97078K
Page 30
K7078000.doc/mgh
�x'x a-•»�.ex.��xe>...2iG\'a`s,.'E'" 'C�,a�a"a.,`�:b<''.�y`.,�`'...�
.q:.R �: ;� 'a?xA;a�a�a...x�.,.�"F"<;'z-';" ;:k�:agiga•:..is�ii<isi.�:u':wi>'�`�"..'�'q-r...�` .a,::,ik'i:
mmry
&;`� �Y 1 i •£C ��s.Y rc"L�`\r` 4��L q Rh� '� '�4x'
A:
rF
n tui p
w.
'. iiz qy��P �`%g2N5L�/m..2. '%lU-.- lN5^i::.�55'l t✓ �ytivu '
tb /
s r
� � 1
3
ChitIIfttl�m, AEitttttk�us� s
C� l ria tlublic 11ropertq 33epattment
+. Nuilbing Bepartment
(One *stem Green
508-745-9595 Fxt. 380
Leo E. Tremblay
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Building
Zoning Enforcement Officer
October 25, 1993
Dan Monroe
Peabody & Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Monroe:
This office is concerned that the masonry walls at the gun turrets
which„are supported by I beams at the facade walls of the old Salem Armory
may not be structurally sound. They have been weakened, first by the fire
and now by the vibrations caused by the construction on the job site. I
would appreciate having an Engineer's report submitted to this office
stating the existing conditions are safe and pose no threat to the public
health and welfare. I am particularly concerned with the safety of
pedestrian traffic.
I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation and prompt
attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Leo E. Tremblay
Inspector of Buildings
LET:bms
cc: Councillor Harvey, Ward 2
L H DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
September 27, 1993
Via FAX
Mr. Dan Monroe - -
Peabody & Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Headhouse Facade
Dear Dan:
Please be advised that the work related to the bracing of the headhouse wall was completed more
than a year ago. Therefore, the Museum Cooperative of Salem, Inc. is responsible for all
maintenance of the headhouse facade.
We strongly recommend that the Museum Cooperative hire a structural engineering firm to
inspect the building at intervals, as recommended by the engineer and perform remedial work
as required.
Ve ly yo
/foseph . Lynch
Vice President
cc: Carter Harrison
Frank Mead .
Peabody & Essex Museum
FAST INDIA SQUARE• SAI Em,MASSAMSETTS 01970
A turuclldalbn nfdr/urmnAtthalvhf�enrm ofSfon andfbefine InVftne.
November 5, 1993
Mr. Leo E.Tremblay
Building Department
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Re: Salem Armory Headhouse Facade
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
The Museum's Armory Committee has discussed your October 25th letter regarding
concerns about the soundness of the Salem Armory headhouse facade.
A fire gutted the headhouse several years ago. Last year, the Museum had most of the
damaged structure demolished to minimize the threat to the public until plans could be
formulated to determine how the property is to be utilized. At that time, steel framing
was installed behind the south facade to support the masonry wall while reuse of the
facade is being evaluated. Attached for your reference is a copy. of a memorandum
issued by the structural engineer regarding the steel bracing.
As you are aware, the first phase of the revitalization of the property, the National Park
Service Visitor Center facility, is currently under construction at the Drill Shed. The
contractor was recently directed to install a fence to separate and protect the area of
construction activity from the rear of the headhouse. At this point in the construction
process, the interior steel framing is nearing completion, and it is anticipated that the
Drill Shed will gradually be fully enclosed over the course of the next few weeks.
Although options relative to the disposition of the headhouse facade are being
considered, no final decisions have yet been made. We will be able to respond to you
in greater detail by mid-December.
JDL.
ly,
y
Monroe
utive Director
DM/co r
P� Y� r � ".
� �� Hg � �, � � �� z ���ppy
9 • 3F �# :�
• •
.. �. - •
r♦
r♦
K.i des.: _ �
'�^ 4 iT� �T F"+PW'uY^A'P^'6nMla4L1 '"� � .. f u
t Y�'
r �
� 454 .� �� 3 I�f�,#� � a
`� MN y ,t,t,, 'x 2
� � �� R4ry Y„ 'R y{ �f e,kq lir
�.,q -_,�. r s � � � �
� s:��{�.ai9 Y•,f�.2f`"`a ` ��'�:',{� ..`�� �b'sa t�x�$+a i "CC.f'�r ��,(' ��: �
!". y., t B � �.
� " �� r� �§ � o- t µ �a. , .
:�.xr�
�;na �a �k. fi w
A , .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When Salem was settled in 1626, it was chosen for its functional
harbor, plentiful fish and extensive forests. Subsequently, Salem
became the capitol of Massachusetts and the leading seaport in
America. At its zenith during the late 18th and early 19th
centuries, the Custom House in Salem generated more than 90% of
the total revenues of the Federal treasury. So wealthy and
sophisticated was Salem that the first American millionaire, Elias
Hasket Derby, built the most expensive and elaborate mansion in the
new world on what is now the site of Old Town Hall. As other sea
captains built mansions on Chestnut Street, the city became world
famous for its architecture and gentility.
The fate of Derby's mansion, however, is analogous to the fate of
Salem in the 20th century---Derby's children were forced to tear
down the costly mansion because they were unable to maintain it.
As sailing vessels required deeper ports, Boston overshadowed Salem
and captured the location as the capitol of Massachusetts. Salem, in
defense, turned away from the sea and focused on its cotton and
leather factories for survival. This industrial re-orientation in the
shadow of Boston's commercial dominance has persisted into the
current century when, most recently, Salem became home for Parker
Brothers, most famous for the game of Monopoly. Concurrently,
however, Salem's nationally significant, historic, maritime-oriented
downtown fell into economic decline.
By the early 1970's, downtown Salem was in desperate need of urban
revitalization. The city was fortunate at that time to have visionary
leadership that was able to attract critical reinvestment dollars
targeted toward assuring the historic preservation of Salem's past as
the key to a successful future. Millions of dollars were poured into
the infrastructure of downtown by both public and private entities
to the 1970's. A new pedestrian mall was constructed, buildings
were rehabilitated and the East India Mail with its enclosed parking
garage was built. Neighborhood improvements began, trees were
planted, brick sidewalks were laid. Although much of the physical
plant of downtown was rebuilt, little else happened. Salem has not
come back to life as a thriving economic entity.
Where, then, does the economic future of downtown Salem lie?
Now that much of the physical plant is in place, how does one
breathe in economic life? What ingredient is missing? How can one
really "revitalize" Salem's downtown?
There are three parts to the answer: first, to reinstate Salem's
downtown as a focal point for events of interest to Salem residents;
second, to make it a destination for regional tourists and visitors;
and, third, to establish a new and economically sound business
enterprise in downtown.
REINSTATING DOWNTOWN AS A FOCAL POINT FOR SALEM
RESIDENTS
As with numerous industrially-based New England cities, the 1950's,
1960's, and 1970's witnessed a dramatic phenomenon of
suburbanization in Salem. First, residents were attracted away from
downtown locations by new housing developments which offered
modern alternatives and more spacious lots. Next, retail uses
i followed, choosing locations on major highways where "downtowns of
the future" could offer regional residents more convenient access to
modern stores and merchandising concepts. Finally, jobs followed
suit. With the emergence of the service industry in America, white
` collar workers replaced blue collar workers in office buildings
1 conveniently located to the new suburban populations and shopping
centers.
The net result, of course, was the familiar hollowing of historic
downtowns. For a period of time, however, Salem was more
` fortunate than others. Rather than being completely abandoned,
11 downtown, and more particularly the Armory supported by the
Hawthorne Hotel, maintained its prominence as the focal point for
social and civic events. As a result, the Armory played an important
role in maintaining the connection between Salem's suburban
population and its historic downtown roots.
The fire which destroyed the Armory in 1982, coupled with the
decline of the Hawthorne Hotel, effectively severed most of those
ties. Since that time, the majority of redevelopment in downtown
Salem has been unsuccessful in competing with the suburban
shopping centers for retail trade, and residents have not yet found
a comparable substitute in downtown, or elsewhere, for the civic and
social functions that the Armory previously hosted. Several
residents remember with strong sentiment and nostalgia a lifetime
of events, ranging from important official gatherings to purely social
occasions, where the Armory touched their lives and heightened
their awareness and appreciation of their historic past. .
One of our answers to the question of revitalizing downtown Salem,
therefore, has to do with reinstating the Armory as a focal point for
civic and social events for Salem residents. As owner of the
Hawthorne Hotel, the developer is in a unique position to deliver
this reality.
CREATING A HUB FOR REGIONAL TOURISM
Although the substantial investments of the 1970's did not generatc
the expected economic turnaround of downtown, these expenditures
did accomplish a magnificent restoration of the historic downtown's
architecture and sense of place. Today, downtown Salem has the
physical plant of a New England Williamsburg. With its man%- major
museums, its immense architectural integrity, the sea and its
extensive maritime history, the oldest national park in the nation
and Salem State College, downtown stands poised to assume a role in
the 21st century as the focal point for tourism and visitation to the
whole of Essex County and the historic North Shore of Boston. The
missing ingredient, we believe, is a facility such as the Armory that
could house a comprehensive visitor introduction to the historic
North Shore; that could serve as "home base" for a multi-day visit to
this nationally significant historic region.
The "hub" concept for tourism is entirely consistent with and
reinforces the vigorous planning process now underway by the
National Park Service to upgrade the existing Salem Maritime
National Historic Site to National Maritime Park status. Millions of
dollars will be spent in this effort to center in Salem a regional
perspective on the entire North Shore's maritime history.
The developer's proposed museum for Parker Brothers, a
world-reknown manufacturer of games, colocated with the National
Park Service visitor center will constitute an appropriate complement
from the private sector in upgrading downtown's attractiveness for
tourism.
The second of our answers to the question of revitalizing downtown
Salem, therefore, has to do with installing in the Armory a National
Park Service visitor center along with complementary hotel, food
service and additional museum uses.
COMPLEMENTARY ECONOMIC UNDERPINNINGS
The addition of a conferencing center and a premier dining and
entertainment establishment will provide additional momentum to
reinstating the Armory as a center for local events.
A conferencing center at the Salem Armory would address four
submarkets. The first is overnight conferences. The facility would
include 14,000 square feet of conference space and 42 hotel rooms,
managed in conjunction with the Hawthorne Hotel, and could
accommodate both executive conferences---groups of 10 to 50---and
larger groups of up to 140 conferees using new on-site rooms and
existing rooms at the Hawthorne Hotel. Coupled with a prospective
expansion of overnight rooms at the Hawthorne Hotel, this capacity
might be expanded to -150 overnight conferees in the near future.
The second segment is day meetings. There are a number of
corporations within a 10-mile radius with needs for one-day business
conferencing facilities for groups up to 400. The third submarket is
banquets and dinner dances. Several Salem residents remember with
1 great fondness such events in the Armory's past. The major open
1 space in the redeveloped Armory could accommodate up to 320
guests for such an event. The final segment is receptions. In this
instance, the same space can accommodate up to 600 guests.
The high level of demand represented by these market segments in
the local area, coupled with the lack of first-class facilities that
offer a unique, memorable and historic environment yield a natural
opportunity for the developer to assure the economic stability of the
Armory project, to enhance tourism, to provide a center for
residents' use of downtown and to attract business to the downtown.
In addition to these direct economic impacts, increasing visitation to
downtown will have spin-off benefits for all downtown business
operators.
The third of our answers to the question of revitalizing downtown
Salem, therefore, has to do with establishing an economically
vigorous conferencing center with an upscale dining and
entertainment establishment as a complement to other uses in the
Armory.
DEVELOPER CONMUTMENTS
The key to the successful development of the Salem Armory will be
the ability of the developer to assure that the building will carry
itself. As we in Salem have seen with other bricks and mortar
projects, failure to maintain a rehabilitated building is a real
danger. We do not wish to happen with the Armory what befell
Derby's mansion two centuries ago.
This proposal, therefore, will result in a self sustaining, tax paying,
and successful economic entity. Its feasibility is not contingent
upon public subsidy either upfront or in its subsequent operation.
As the present owner of the Hawthorne Hotel, the developer is the
only candidate able to substantiate this claim by capitalizing upon
direct experience and economies of scale in the operations of the
hotel, food service, and the conference components of this proposal.
The developer is absolutely committed to maintaining the historical
and architectural integrity of the building. He has demonstrated
this commitment in the recent renovation of the Hawthorne Hotel
which received the Salem Historical Commission's 1988 award.
The developer is committed to assuring that the City receives tax
revenues from the building. Alternatively, and if the City wishes,
the developer would be happy to pay the same dollars to a fund
similar to that of the Lowell Plan. These funds could be dedicated
to a major capital upgrade and the subsequent promotion and
maintenance of Salem Common in recognition of its potential---like
the Public Garden and the Christopher Columbus Park in Boston---to
add substantially to the overall ambience of downtown.
As the owner of the Hawthorne Hotel and East India Mall and as a
native of Salem with a lifelong commitment to the city, the
developer believes that Salem's downtown can be a successful,
exciting, and interesting destination for tourists and can once again
become a focal point for local community activities. With strong
commitment to Salem and other historical properties within a short
walk of the Armory, the developer knows that Salem can become the
regional hub for visitors to the North Shore. As a successful hotel
operator, the developer knows the viability of the hotel and
conferencing uses proposed, both as economic ventures and as
` generators of new downtown visitation.
I DEVELOPER'S PROPOSAL
The developer will invest approximately $12.0 million in hard and
soft costs to execute the plan that follows. The developer proposes
a deferred payment to the Commonwealth, out of operating cash
flows, in the amount of $565.000 for the property. Beyond the
conveyance of the property, the developer is not dependent upon
public subsidy for development or subsequent operations, intends to
pay full property taxes to the City of Salem on the basis of its
improved valuation.
i
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Development Program revolves around four major uses---the
National Park Service Visitors Center, a regional conference center,
hotel rooms and entertainment/food service. These are selected and
sized with three objectives in mind.
OBJECTIVE l: MAXIMIZE THE GROSS LEASABLE AREA
Our program seeks to maximize the productive area within the
confines of the existing structure consistent with the reuse
guidelines specified in the Request For Proposals. Accordingly, the
National Park Service Regional Visitors Center is located on the
ground floor of the Head House. The second floor accommodates a
museum. The upper floor provides office and/or museum
administration space.
The Drill Shed accommodates a regional conference center designed
to respond to public assembly needs for lectures. public meetings,
receptions, social events, and the like. In addition to a large
reception area, meeting rooms and kitchen facilities, the conference
center also includes 42 oversized hotel rooms occupying a portion of
the ground floor and the lion's share of a newly created mezzanine
floor. Food service operations with appropriate entertainment use on
the ground floor, conference rooms at the lower level and dedicated
spaces throughout the public areas for museum displays round out
the Drill Shed building program.
The specific allocations of space to proposed uses are described in
the table below.
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Location* Sauare Footage °/o Total GLA
Visitors Center HH,1 6,935 8%
Museum HH,2 6,935 8%
Speculative Office HH,3 7,515 9%
Fitness Center HH,B 8,215 9%
Conference Center DS,B 14,705 17%
Conference Hotel DS,1,2,3 36,075 41%
Food Service DS,1 6.815 8%
TOTAL: 87,195 100%
*HH: Headhouse
DS: Drill Shed
B: Basement
1: Ground Floor
2: Second Floor
3: Third Floor
1
The paragraphs below contain more detailed descriptions of the
development program proposed for each space.
Head House
The Head House will be restored and redeveloped to house the
National Park Service Regional Visitors Center, a major museum
display, community rooms, speculative office space, and a fitness
center. The exterior architecture will be restored, but will remain
unchanged with the exception of modest exterior fixtures for flags
and banners.
Reproduction wood doors will grace the entrance providing access
through an airlock to the interior space. The principal interior
architectural feature will be an open, circular rotunda staircase,
approximately 40 feet in diameter leading up to the second level.
Centered in the circular space created by the stairways on the
ground floor will be a major public sculpture reflective of the
history of the region. Additional access, including handicapped
access, to all four levels will be provided by an elevator near the
main entrance flanked by a stair core. An additional stairway will
be provided in the area where the Head House opens to the Drill
Shed to meet fire code requirements. The entire facility will meet
handicapped access and use guidelines.
First Floor
The primary tenant on the first floor will be the National
Park Service. Entering the front doors to the right will be
the elevator and stairway. To the left, and occupying one of
the corner turrets, will be a general orientation center with
pamphlets and displays. Positioned around the rotunda
staircase will be a walkway flanked on the outside by
interactive, animated, permanent natural and historic
displays. At the rear of the first floor and adjacent to
double door openings leading to the drill shed will be public
restroom facilities including handicapped accommodations
for both men and women.
Second Level
Accessible from both the rotunda staircase or the elevator,
the second floor will house the Parker Brothers Game
Museum. In a fashion similar to the layout for the ground
floor, walkways and a display will flank the staircase
opening. To the front of the second floor, will be two
offices and a super-scale, playable monopoly game board.
Third Floor
Accessible by elevator from the ground floor, the third floor
will be devoted to speculative office and/or museum
administration space. This space can accommodate 13
generously-sized offices, a conference room, a large board
room with interior space for a library and clerical positions.
Basement
The basement area will accommodate an adult-oriented
fitness center. Operated primarily as a membership club, the
center will include an olympic distance lap pool, sauna and
steam rooms, an aerobics room, a nautilus center, locker
rooms for men and women and a reception area. In addition
to monthly members, facilities will be available to hotel
guests and conference attendees and, thus, add to the
project's, and to downtown's, capability to promote all-season
visitation. Access will be via a new Liberty Street foyer with
stairway leading down to the basement level from a position
to the left of the new conference center and hotel entrance.
Drill Shed
The Drill Shed is reprogrammed as a regional conference center with
food service, entertainment and overnight facilities. Its primary
entrance will be via a heavily landscaped, awning-covered porte
cochere facing Liberty Street. In a fashion similar to the Head
House, the principal interior architectural feature of the Drill Shed
will be an open rotunda staircase with a glass elevator connecting
the first floor with the basement level and with a new mezzanine to
be constructed above. In contrast to the round staircase to be
located in the Head House, the Drill Shed staircase will be elliptical
in response to the rectangular dimensionality of the structure.
Above the Drill Shed stairway will be a generous skylight designed
flush to the existing roof surface in order to preserve its visual line.
Ground Floor
Entering the ground floor from the Liberty St. porte cochere,
visitors are greeted at a check-in desk with adjacent
concierge stand. To the right of the check-in desk and at
the rear of the Head House is located an informal Museum
Cafe. A more formal Liberty Street Club with food service,
an active bar and appropriate entertainment, extends through
an opening in the Liberty Street facade to a new 900 square
foot gazebo pavilion. The gazebo pavilion will be constructed
of white painted wood and glass with a copper roof to
complement, but be clearly distinct from, the existing
structure. In addition to providing dramatic dining space,
the gazebo provides a backdrop for the period restoration of
the municipal park and frames the porte cochere entrance to
the facility. The remainder of the space on the ground level
accommodates 13 generously-sized hotel rooms designed to
accommodate flexible reconfiguration between individual
rooms and commodious suites. The whole ground floor as
well as the level below will be bathed in natural sunlight
from the generous skylight above. First-class finishes,
accents, and plantings will be selected to enhance the
strength of the architecture of the existing structure.
Second Floor
Accessible from the glass elevator, the new second floor will
contain 29 generously-sized, two-story hotel rooms, designed
to allow flexible reconfiguration into super suites. These
rooms will take full advantage of their two-story height, of
the natural brick walls, and of the details of the ceiling's
structural support system as driving forces in their interior
decoration.
iLower Level
The lower level, accessible from the ground floor via the
Drill Shed rotunda stairways and via the glass elevator, will
contain the conference center made up of four large rooms
with a total capacity for 600 reception attendees. The
largest of the four rooms is subdividible into an additional
four rooms to accommodate smaller groups and/or
luncheons. Movable partitions will allow the largest room to
be reconfigured in such a way that it can be integrated with
the lower floor public space to comprise an auditorium with a
seating capacity for 250. The lower floor also accommodates
a major kitchen facility with its own service elevator from
the outside, a table and chair storage room, mens and
womens bathrooms, mens and womens locker rooms and a
conference manager's office. An oval water feature with
seating will add interest to the interior from all floors.
Site Work
Investments in site work will be concentrated in the existing
municipal park at the corner of Essex and Liberty Streets and along
the Liberty Street facade of the building. Along Essex Street, in
addition to banners which will change periodically to animate the
facade of the Head House, generous planters will accommodate a
rotating selection of seasonal plantings.
r
Site treatment for the municipal park is envisioned as a classic and
historical design appropriate for a space this size. The central
feature will be an oval lawn surrounded by a formal circular
walkway, flanked by extensive flower beds and punctuated by white
painted, period design wooden benches. Period cast fixtures will
illuminate the park at night and add visual interest during the
daylight hours. A complementary, low iron fence will surround the
park with gateways on the Liberty and Essex Street sides.
Paving for the porte cochere vehicle dropoff will be brick with
granite banding. This paving treatment will be continued across
Liberty Street to emphasize the primary pedestrian pathway from the
municipal garage to the Armory. Accent landscape mounds,
plantings and light fixtures will be located alongside the Liberty
Street facade. A modest water feature, attentive to the historical
period of the building, will occupy a portion of the lawn inside the
horseshoe-shaped dropoff.
Parking
The municipal garage with spaces for 1,025 cars, currently
underutilized, is directly across Liberty Street from the proposed
conference center entrance. Its proximity and current low
utilization constitute a natural opportunity for synergy with the
proposed project.
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
OBJECTIVE 2: PROJECT ECONOMICS
In addition to respecting the historical architectural character of
the structure and the need to accommodate civic and cultural uses,
the project also needs to make sense from an economic point of
view.
In this regard, our development program has been tailored to an
understanding of the current conditions of demand and supply in
the local and regional marketplaces, and includes as major
assumptions the ability to generate a 72% stabilized occupancy rate
in the hotel rooms at an average rental rate of $95 per night and
average rental rates in the tenant spaces of $15 per square foot on a
triple net basis.
REVENUE SUMMARY
THIRD YEAR STABILIZED
Square Total Annual
Footage Revenues
Visitors Center 6,935 $ 104,000
Museum 6,935 104,000
Speculative Office 7,515 113,000
Fitness Center 8,215 25,000
Conference Center 14,705 1,300,000
Conference Hotel 36,075 1,100,000
Entertainment/Food Service 6.815 1.700.000
TOTAL: 87,195 $4,446,000
With regard to operating costs that need to be applied against these
revenues, the developer's co-ownership of the East India Mall and
the Hawthorne Hotel affords a substantial advantage. As examples,
reservations and marketing for the conference center, hotel rooms
and food service can be handled through existing systems at the
Hawthorne Hotel. On still another front, the developer will enjoy
certain advantages of scale in the maintenance and cleaning of the
facility. On another, these savings will allow for the provisions of
an extensive program of public activities to entice visitors and
residents to historic downtown.
OBJECTIVE 3: DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
Reaching beyond the boundaries of the site itself, this proposal
carries with it the promise of establishing Salem as the hub for
regional tourism and the promise of reestablishing downtown as an
activity center for local residents. This will result in substantial
spin-off economic benefits to the whole of historic downtown. As
mentioned in the Executive Summary, the results of investments to
date have been disappointing in this regard. In addition to being
economically viable as an independent entity, the proposed project
can provide the missing link and, therefore, unlock significant
returns not only to the developer's own investment in the project,
but also to many of the other investments that have occurred in the
past. The project will also generate approximately 60 new jobs in
downtown, and will contribute approximately $200,000 annually in
direct property tax revenues for the City of Salem.
Very importantly, the timing of the developer's proposal promises the
realization of this downtown revitalization sooner, rather than later.
The Armory has been out of service now for more than six years.
The East India Mall and parking garage have been underutilized
now for 11 years. The developer is committed to begin construction
on the Armory within nine months of his designation in order to
J solve in a hard-nosed, pragmatic and businesslike way, rather than
perpetuate, these problems.
PROPOSED
DESIGN PACKAGE
The following pages contain a series of site plans, floor plans,
elevations and perspective sketches to illustrate our development
proposal. Reproductions of these drawings at the scale specified in
the Request For Proposals are enclosed separately.
1 With regard to finishes, the building standard package will be a
selection of materials similar to those used in the Hawthorne Hotel
that reflect the inherent character of the base building and also
convey an image of first-class, contemporary, private and public
development. For the Head House, the developer will provide
reproductions of the original wood doors in natural finish, either
brick or quarry tile floors, ceilings with period moldings and
recessed lighting, a wood-trimmed elevator, and natural finish wood
trim around all window openings.
Treatments in the Drill Shed will be similar with the inclusion of
additional high capacity lighting and air handling, and the addition
of substantial, appropriate plantings, accent pieces, brass trim and
fixtures. Hotel rooms will be oversized, exposing brick and other
base building features as appropriate, complemented by first-class
bathrooms and room furnishings. In a fashion similar to the
Headhouse, a major piece of regional artwork or historic artifact will
serve as a focal point for the atrium space. Cafe and club building
standards will have provisions either for full glass or for highly
detailed period wood and glass store fronts.
The rotunda staircases in both major spaces will be detailed wood
structures with high levels of lighting, with accent plantings
anchored by modest water features and seating.
Site work includes the replacement of the boiler house and existing
railings with a formal, covered entrance to the conference center
and the renovation of the Municipal Park. Improvements to the
Essex Street side of the site include repaving in front of the
building, the installation of substantial planters, and the addition of
structures to support colorful banners that change periodically in
support of public space programming, conventions, or regional
events. In addition, a period outdoor lighting program will
illuminate the grounds, highlight the significant architectural
features of the building, and reinforce its image as a destination
point for evening events.
7 2r
41
EXTERIOR VIEW FROM BROWN ST.
MARKETING
MARKET EVALUATION
As part of the developer's proposal for the Salem Armory, an
evaluation was conducted of local and regional markets for
conference, hotel, office, and restaurant uses. In addition, the
redevelopment concept was tested vis-a-vis its ability to act as a
catalyst for the following:
0 To enrich the mix of commercial establishments and
year-round visitor attractions in Downtown Salem and to
complement rather than compete with existing businesses and
cultural institutions;
0 To create a center of interest for local citizens and visitors
and to establish a strong identity for the site; and
0 To serve as a source of economic revitalization for the
downtown area as a whole.
Site and Area Analysis
The Salem Armory occupies a 32,000 square foot site at the corner
of Essex and New Liberty Streets in downtown Salem. The building
is strategically located within a 2- to 8-minute walk of Salem's
significant historic sites in the downtown core and along the
waterfront and is adjacent to the Essex Institute and Peabody
Museums. Other surrounding uses include the East India Mall, a
107,000 square foot retail center opposite the Armory on Essex
Street; the City-owned 1,000 space East India Square parking garage;
the 89-room Hawthorne Hotel; and retail and financial uses on Essex
Street in the downtown core.
The Armory's location places it within walking distance of the City's
best-known historic sites. In addition to the Peabody and Essex
Museums, these include the House of Seven Gables, Witch Museum,
Chestnut Street, Hamilton Hall, Old Town Hall, the County Court
buildings, Witch House, and the National Maritime Historic Site
along the waterfront.
Regional access is provided via State Route 114 connecting with
Route 128/I-95, 2.5 miles to the northwest. Access to the
metropolitan area and downtown Salem is also provided via Route
107 and IA. Logan Airport is within 20-30 minutes of downtown
Salem. Given downtown construction projected over the next 8-10
years, Salem is equidistant in time from several downtown Boston
destinations.
Tourism Potential
Salem's historic attractions area a natural focal point for tourism
and visitation to Essex County and the entire historic North Shore
of Boston. Salem's incredible wealth of historic sites and attractions
already provide the City with visitors estimated conservatively at
600,000 to 800,000, but more realistically at 1,000,000 annually. The
missing ingredient, we believe, is a facility such as the Armory that
could house a comprehensive visitor introduction. This visitors
+ center could integrate and present in a cohesive manner Salem's, as
well as the entire North Shore's, major themes---maritime,
J architectural, industrial, literary, and witchcraft. Such a visitors
center could bolster the City's capture of visitors; could enhance
the prospect for additional downtown redevelopment; and, could
1 position Salem as the hub for multi-day visitor destination.
Visitor trends to Salem are summarized in Table 6.1 Based on these
trends, the creation of a sound marketing strategy and a coherent,
coordinated, and understandable way of linking the City's
attractions through the Armory's Visitor Center, we estimate that
tourism should increase by at least 5% to 7% annually, but could
± increase much more vigorously depending upon promotional activity,
11 after the Visitors Center opens in 1990.
1
1
1
TABLE 6.1
VISITOR TRENDS
SELECTED HISTORIC SITES
SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS
% Change
Sites 19 4 1985 1986 1987 1984-1987
Salem National
Maritime Site N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
House of Seven 142,488 142,108 145,225 148,410 4.1%
Gables
Essex Institute 45,017 47,068 59,404 74,973 66.5%
Peabody Museum 83,694 80,265 82,564 84,875 1.4%
Salem Witch 119,000 175,000 215,000 230,000 93.2%
Museum
Witch House N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL: 390,199 444,441 502,193 538,258 28.0%
1 Source: City of Salem; Halcyon Ltd.
i
i
i
Competitive Analysis
Market and development trends in conferencing facilities, office,
hotel, and restaurant uses were analyzed to substantiate support for
the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Armory. Findings for each
of these four segments are discussed below.
Conferencing Facilities
The proposed redevelopment includes 14,000 square feet of
executive conference space and 42 hotel rooms, managed in
conjunction with the Hawthorne Hotel. The space would be
designed to accommodate both executive conferences---groups of 10
to 50---and large groups of up to 250 overnight conferees in the
future. In addition, the concept is designed to provide
much-needed space for day meetings, banquets accommodating up to
320 guests, and receptions accommodating up to 600 guests.
jTable 6.2 highlights the North Shore's major conferencing and
meeting facilities. Of six facilities surveyed, three are located
within hotel facilities that provide from 125 to 367 hotel rooms.
Two of these three facilities, the Sheraton Tara and the Colonial
Hilton, provide the largest conferencing and meeting space on the
North Shore, with more than 26,000 square feet each. The
remaining facilities provide from 2,100 to 13,100 square feet each.
The North Shore lacks an executive conferencing facility of the
quality proposed for the Armory. At existing facilities, the market
for social functions is strongest from early April through late
November. The corporate market is active year-round and accounts
for the largest share of conferencing activity at the area's largest
facilities, the Sheraton Tara and the Colonial Hilton.
The strength of the area's conferencing market and the lack of
quality facilities are evident from a locational context as well. Two
of metropolitan Boston's largest facilities, the Sheraton Tara in
Danvers and the Sheraton Boxborough, are not located near major
i employment centers. Both are able, however, to draw extensively
from major employers and office corridors along I-95 (Route 128)
and I-495. Salem's close-in location, its inherent architectural and
historical character, and proximity to Boston will enhance its
prospects for capturing a portion of the conference market seeking
to avoid Boston's traffic and parking congestion.
l
i
K K K K IR R K .
TABLE 6.2
COMPETITIVE CONFERENCING FACILITIES
SALEM ARMORY
TOTAL
BANQUET CAPACITY MEETING AVERAGE # OF
DINNER/ CAPACITY % MARKET BREAKDOWN PRICE/PERSON HOTEL
FACILITY/LOCATION DANCE CONFERENCE SQ. FT. (SQ. FT.) SOCIAL CORP. OTHER LUNCH DINNER ROOMS COMMENTS
----------------- ------- ---------- ------- --------- ------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- --------
SHERATON TARA 950 350 10,000 16,476 20.0% 75.0% 5.0% $14.38 $21.50 367 Conf. rates range from $200 to $625, depend-
HOTEL AND RESORT ing on size and requirements. Group business,
1-95, Danvers no walk-ins. Will block as many hotel rooms
as needed. Asking room rates: $90 to $120.
KING'S GRANT INN 300 225 2,100 2,100 10.0% 85.0% 5.0% $11.00 $15.00 125 Small conf. rooms accommodate btn. 10 and 14;
Route 128, Danvers rental rate per conf. room in the range of
$200/day. Maximum capacity for luncheons is 225.
Will block up to 50 hotel rooms. A la carte menu.
Room rates: $63 to $95.
DANVERSPORT YACHT 1,000 250 10,000 3,136 95.0% 5.0% N/A $11.25 $20.75 0 Add'] charges for appetizers, desert, continental
CLUB breakfasts, etc. No audio equipment. Ballroom
Route 62, .5 miles rental fee: $500., Mates Room: $200. Waived
from Route 128, for luncheons; 500 parking spaces. A la carte
Danvers menu.
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: HALCYON LTD.
TABLE 6.2 (CONTINUED)
COMPETITIVE CONFERENCING FACILITIES
SALEM ARMORY
TOTAL
BANQUET CAPACITY MEETING AVERAGE 8 OF
DINNER/ CAPACITY % MARKET BREAKDOWN PRICE/PERSON HOTEL
AGILITY/LOCATION DANCE CONFERENCE SQ. FT. (SQ. FT.) SOCIAL CORP. OTHER LUNCH DINNER ROOMS COMMENTS
---------------- ------- ---------- ------- --------- ------ ----- ----- ------ ------ ----- --------
4KEFIELD COLONIAL 800 1,000 14,539 17,008 25.0% 70.0% 5.07 $9.95 $18.75 300 Situated on 220 acres, inc. 18-hole public golf
aute 128/1-95
akefield course, private health club. Corp. room rates:
E90 to $120; group room rates: $75 to $85. A la
carte menu.
ARUSO'S DIPLOMAT 1,100 550 N/A N/A 80.0% 15.0% N/A N/A $16.75 0 Facility caters primarily to weddings and other
wte 1, Saugus social functions. Capacities are estimates only.
Facility includes three ballrooms and three
conference rooms.
1MILTON HALL 150 200 2,350 1,980 80.0% 5.0% 15.0% N/A N/A 0 Operated by Hamilton Hall, Inc., a non-profit corp.
Chestnut Street to to Events must be catered, preparation areas only as
rwntown Salem 225 225 in-house kitchen is under renovation. Rental fees
range from $50/hr. before 5:00 PM to E75/hr. after
w/ 3 hr. minimum for small rooms, to E75. to $125./hr
for ballroom on weekdays. Weekend rental rate for
facility: $1,500 for 4 hrs. plus $200 for ea. add'1 h
----------------------------------------------inc_ staffing and security).
-------------------------------------------------------------- ------------security---------------------—----
IURCE: HALCYON LTD.
` Office/Museum Use
1 In an effort to maximize the Armory's productive area while
meeting the objectives of public and cultural uses, the proposed
} development provides for 7,515 square feet of speculative office or
i museum administration space. This space should be marketed to
uses of greatest demand, that is, a single professional office or
` service tenant requiring unique, first class space. We believe the
i Armory's proximity to the Essex County Courthouse and public
parking would provide an ideal office location for museum
administration, lawyers, accountants and other professionals.
To document market support, Halcyon also evaluated office market
trends in the Salem CBD. These trends are summarized below and
highlighted in Table 6.3.
Downtown Salem currently contains more than 214,000 square feet
y of private office space located principally in older structures
lthroughout the business district. At present, the downtown's office
vacancy rate is slightly under 10%. Much of this space is located on
the upper floors of unrenovated buildings scattered throughout the
CBD. Based on discussions with a number of real estate brokers,
demand is strongest for smaller increments of better quality space
i with access to nearby parking.
Asking gross rental rates, coupled with an evaluation of the
amenities of competitive space, suggest a realizable rent of $15.00
per square foot on a triple net basis.
Hotel
In addition to meeting rooms and food preparation facilities, the
conference center is proposed to contain 42 oversized first class
hotel rooms occupying a portion of the ground floor and a
newly-created mezzanine level co-managed and operated by the
Hawthorne Hotel.
a An analysis of competitive hotel facilities in the surrounding
!* marketplace is highlighted in Table 6.4.
There are 1,200 hotel rooms in six competitive facilities in several
communities surrounding Salem. The largest of these facilities, the
Sheraton Tara in Danvers, contains 367 rooms as well as more than
26,000 square feet of meeting space. Estimated annual occupancies
at these six competitive facilities range from 60% to 80% with
average annual estimated room rates of $75 to $90 per room.
The predominant market mix at each of the facilities surveyed is
commercial, ranging from 58% at the Colonial Hilton to 60% at the
Appleton Inn. More than 60% of the Sheraton Tara's market mix is
from commercial group business. Tourism accounts for 10% to 20%
of market mix, with other (such as cultural or educational programs
or exhibits) accounting for up to 25% of local market mix.
Restaurants
There are approximately 22 restaurants in downtown Salem. These
include 15 fast food or moderately-priced eateries and between five
and seven better quality, full-service facilities. Market demand for
the Museum Cafe will be generated primarily day and overnight
tourists to Salem. Due to its location proximate to the National Park
Service Visitors Center, and its ability to offer both a dramatic
interior environment as well as outside, garden eating, it will enjoy
unusual advantages of competing for casual tourist food service
business.
The Liberty Street Club will offer a more formal dining experience
with an active bar and appropriate entertainment in a relaxing
1 atmosphere. Its target market will include young, upscale clientele
made up of residents and visitors to the North Shore.
The addition of these operations along with a selective number of
additional, appropriately themed restaurants could provide the
critical mass necessary to convert downtown Salem into a regional
dining and entertainment destination.
TABLE 6.3
COMPETITIVE OFFICE SUPPLY
DOWNTOWN SALEM
SALEM ARMORY
TYPE OF SIZE VACANT SPACE
BUILDING/LOCATION SPACE (SQ.FT.) SQ. FT. PERCENT RENTAL RATES COMMENTS
----------------- ----- -------- -------- ------- ------------ --------
Masonic Temple B 60,000 0 0.07 $12 - $14 NNN Rental rates quoted are asking rents. Estimated
70 Washington Street effective rents are approx. 10% to 157 lower.
One Salem Green B+ 52,500 11,230 21.47 $12.50 NN Landlord pays for air circulation, tenant
1 Salem Green pays for all utilities and 7 of CAM. Typical
concessions inc. 5 mos. free buildout and
6 mos. free-rent. Major tenants include City
of Salem.
Pickering Wharf A- 25,434 3,800 14.97 $12.00 gross Mixed-use project that inc. 11,500 sq. ft. of
Wharf & Union Streets specialty and fashion retail and restaurants.
Tenants inc. prof'l office and service firms.
Hawthorne/Eaton Block C 20,000 2,200 11.07 $12.00 gross
Washington @ Derby Streets
6-26 Front Street 8 20,000 3,000 15.07 $10 - $12 NN Partially rehabbed bldg. Tenants inc. prof'l
service, real estate. Landlord pays heat and
air conditioning; tenant pays electric charges.
Prince Building C 17,400 0 0.07 $10.50 NNN
265 Essex Street
Odell Block C 14,000 0 0.07 $10.00 NNN
5 Lynde Street B 5,000 700 14.07 $13.00 gross Includes use of law library, conference
facilities, reception/secretarial services.
------ ------
------
TOTAL CBD OFFICE SPACE: 214,334 20,930 9.87
NOTE: NN = DOUBLE NET
NNN = TRIPLE NET
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SALEM; NEW ENGLAND REAL ESTATE DIRECTORY, SUMMER 1988; HALCYON LTD.
TABLE 6.4
COMPETITIVE LODGING FACILITIES
SALEM ARMORY
TOTAL
MEETING EST. ESTIMATED CORPORATE DISTANCE
YEAR NO. OF SPACE ANN. EST. ANN. RACK RATES ROOM RATES MARKET MIX FROM
FACILITY/LOCATION OPENED ROOMS (SQ.FT.) OCCUP AVG. RATE SINGLE DOUBLE SINGLE DOUBLE COMM. TOURIST OTHER D.T. SALEM
----------------- ------ ------ -------- ----- --------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----------
APPLETON INN 1987 122 450 60.0% $87-$90 $85.00 $95.00 $75.00 $85.00 60% 15% 20% 5.5 NW
275 Independence Way
at Liberty Tree Mall
Danvers
HAWTHORNE HOTEL 1925 89 6,070 68.0% $78.00 $88.00 $85.00 $85.00 N/A
On-the-Common 1987 to to
Salem renovation $110.00 $120.00
HOLIDAY INN 1970 209 6,000 65.0% N/A $78.00 $86.00 $72.00 $82.00 N/A N/A N/A 8.0 W
One Newburyport Tnpk. to to (2)
Peabody $84.00 $92.00
KING'S GRANT INN 1961 125 6,905 80.0% $63.00 $75.00 $65.00 $65.00 3.5 NW
Trask Lane at to to
Route 128 $75.00 $87.00
Danvers
SHERATON TARA (1) 1985(3) 367 26,476 60.0% $80 $95.00 $110.00 $99.00 $99.00 30% 10% 60% 7.0 NW
Ferncroft Village to to
Route 1 at I-95 $160.00 $190.00
Danvers
WAKEFIELD COLONIAL 1965 285 28,868 62.0% $75-$78 $80.00 $85.00 $90.00 $90.00 58% 20% 22% 8.0 W
HILTON INN to to
Route 128 $105.00 5115.00
Lynnfield/Wakefield
(1) IN 1987, 100 ROOMS WERE ADDED TO THIS FACILITY; MAJOR RENOVATION PLANNED UPON REACHING 72% OCCUPANCY LEVEL.
(2) REPRESENTS SEASONAL RATE; DECREASE IN RATES FROM NOVEMBER THROUGH MARCH.
(3) REPRESENTS THE YEAR SHERATON PURCHASED THE HOTEL FACILTIY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: HAWTHORNE HOTEL; HALCYON LTD.
�aaa � aaaaaaaaaa �ra � rra
TABLE 6.5
SURVEY OF NIGHTSPOT ACTIVITIES
AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
SALEM ARMORY
TYPE OF NUMBER HOURS OF COVER CLIENTELE
FACILITY/LOCATION ESTABLISHMENT OF SEATS OPERATION CHARGE PROFILE COMMENTS
----------------- ------------- --- --------
_ _
GROVER'S Progressive 125 8:00-2:00 $2.00 College students Entertainment from 9:15 P.M.
392 Cabot Street
Beverly per person Young professionals Cover varies according to night
type of group. No cover before
9:00 P.M. except Fri. and Sat.
J.R.'S PLACE Country & Western 150 8:45-12:45 No cover Mid-30s and up Casual dress, dancing.
404 Cabot Street Thurs-Sat
Beverly 7-I1 Sunday Country dance instruction.
LYCEUM PUB Dixieland/Jazz N/A 8:00-12:00 No
43 Church Street cover N/A Casual dress.
Salem Wednesday
8:30-12:30
Thurs-Sat
11-2 Sunday
YANKEE RESTAURANT Varied 100 7:30-11:30 No cover N/A Casual dress. Local crowd.
AND LOUNGE Fri-Sat
85 Lynnfield Street
Peabody
CHARLENE'S JAll CLUB Jazz 40 8:00-12:00 No cover Hotel
uests
Best Western Inn @ Local market Proper dress.
Route I and I-95
Danvers
CAPUCINO'S PIANO BAR Recorded 34 7:30-11:30 No cover Youn
40 Atlantic Avenue Wed-Sat 9 professionals Proper dress. Live entertainment
Marblehead on Fridays and Saturdays.
ROMIE'S QUARTERDECK Contemporary 285 7:00-12:45 $3.00 Mid-40s and up Proper dress. Entertainment and
Endicott Street Wed-Sat per person
Route 62 dancing charge unless otherwise noted.
Danvers - Shows on Wed-Thurs 8:15, 9:15, and
10:30; Fri-Sat 9:00, 10:00, 11:15.
----- -------------------------------------------------------------------Singing waiters/waitresses.
-------- ---------
SOURCE: THE BOSTON GLOBE; HALCYON LTD. ------ ------
Cttp of *arem, fiazzatbugett.5
l t Public Vropertp Mepartment
Wuitaing Mepartment
One*alem Oreen
(978) 745-9595 Cxt. 360
Peter Strout
Director of Public Property
Inspector of Buildings
Zoning Enforcement Officer June 26, 2002
Mr. Rob Anderson
Board of Building Regulations & Standards
McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place
Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108
Re: Yin Yu Tang House
Peabody Essex Museum
Salem, MA
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Enclosed please find the report submitted by the Schirmer Engineering Corporation
outlining the project and the code compliance approach which has been developed for this 18th
Century residence which was disassembled and transported to the Peabody Essex Museum for its
anticipated use as a museum exhibit.
As you can see, due to the uniqueness of this structure, several Massachusetts State
Building Codes cannot be executed in the usual manner. This document outlines all of the
outstanding issues related to construction that have been developed in order to meet acceptable
levels of fire and life safety,without greatly compromising the historic integrity of the structure.
Please review the enclosed information and do not hesitate to call me if you have any
questions or concerns regarding the outlined issues. I await your response in regard to the code
compliance approach developed for this project.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
e //z-
Frank DiPaolo
Local Building Inspector
Our ret 31134 955 NAaSSaChusetls Avenue Suite 402
Date 25 June 2002 Cambridge,MA 02139
Tel+1617 864-2987
Fax+1617 864-6178
viw,v.arvp.wnn
Frank Di Paolo
City of Salem
City Hall Annex
1 Salem Green AR�Ulj
Salem,MA 01970
Re: Restoration of Yin Yu Tang
Dear Frank Di Paolo,
This letter is to confirm the snow load used to check the existing timber framing supporting the Yin Yu Tang
roof. As per the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code Section 1610.4,the roof was checked
for a uniform design snow load of 30 psf. The roof was also checked for the unbalanced gabled roof condition
specified in 1610.5.1 of 45 psf on the leeward side and 0 psf on the windward side.
Yours sincerely,
4
Caroline Fitzgerald
EpI18 OF
oa s�
v R E
FI ?�
S D w
X:\PROJECT\311U\DOCLLET TERSNSSM62W2.DOC Ove ANP 8 Partners Cons ul5ng Engineers PC
SCHIRMER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1253 WORCESTER ROAD, SUITE 401 ♦ FRAMINGHAM, MA 01701 ♦ PHONE(508)872-3033 A FAX(5091872-3085
June 25, 2002
Frank DiPaolo
City of Salem
Public Property Department
1 Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
3,�ytH OF
YIN YLI TANG
CODE COMPLIANCE APPROACH ROSE"M.
8 cARAsmn
FmPFtOTECnM
NO. ,
Dear Mr. DiPaolo: 90 oy
AL Er.
Introduction
The Yin Yu Tang Project is a special re-construction project of a 18`" Century residence
from China. Given the age of the building and its anticipated use as a museum exhibit, a
unique code compliance approach has been implemented. This report: documents a study
of applicable codes and regulations; and identifies the code compliance approach utilized
for the project.
Project Description
The project entails the relocation of the 200 year old residence, Yin Yu Tang (the House)
from China to the historic campus of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem,
Massachusetts. The House was disassembled and transported to the United States several
years ago. The House components have been stored in a warehouse where they were
unpacked, inspected, repaired as necessary and inventoried for re-assembly.
The House consists of two stories with a projected footprint area of approximately 2,000
square feet. The first level contains eight bedrooms, an entrance foyer and reception area.
Rooms are accessed from an interior courtyard. The courtyard is provided with two
fishponds and Other ornamental features. The second level contains ten rooms. These
rooms are accessed from a balcony feature that overlooks the interior courtyard. Two
stairways serve as access from the first level to the second level. The stairways are
located at opposirte ends of the interior courtyard's long dimension (Sketches and pictures
are provided in Appendix A).
Fire Protection Engineering ♦ Code Consulting ♦ Loss Control ♦ Security Consulting
Yin Yu Tang House -2- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
Once reassembled, the House will serve as an exhibit for the Peabody Essex Museum. The
House will not be used for any other purpose (i.e. residence, offices or s-torage).
Applicable Codes and Regulations
The primary building code and accessibility regulations applicable to the project are as
follows:
Building Code
• Massachusetts State Building Code, Sixth Edition (MSBC►
Accessibility Regulations
• Americans with Disabilities Act - Accessibility Guidelines
• Massachusetts Architectural Access Board, 521 CMR
This report focuses only on the approach implemented for compliance with the MSBC.
Accessibility compliance has been addressed in a separate package. That p ackage was
previously submitted and approved by the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board.
Building Code Application
The MSBC is primarily intended for application in the design and construction of new
buildings. The arrangement of safeguards specified by the MSBC results in an acceptable
level of fire and life safety.
In addition to new construction, the MSBC contains specific provisions for existing
structures undergoing alteration, repair, or renovations (Chapter 34). It is the intent of
these provisions to provide a minimum level of safety and, to the extent practical, improve
existing safety features.
Specifically, structures that are moved into the jurisdiction of the MSBC are required to
comply with Chapter 34 (MSBC 102.5.6).
Historic Buildinoc
The provisions of Chapter 34 not withstanding, qualifying historic structures may utilize
the Historic Building provisions. These provisions provide flexibility in applying the code in
an effort to maintain the historic fabric of a structure. These provisions are generally less
restrictive than the existing building provisions.
However, these provisions are applicable only when the structure meets the following
definition (MSBC 3401 .1):
Yin Yu Tang House -3- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
Historic Buildings - Any building or structure individually listed on the National
Register of Historic Places; or any building or structure evaluated by the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to be a contributing building within a
National Register or State Register District; or any building or stru cture which has
been certified by the MHC to meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Historic Buildings are sub-classified as follows:
Partially Preserved Building - Any building or structure individually listed on the
National Register of Historic Places or any building or structure ce rtified as an
historic building by the MHC and not designated as totally preserved.
Totally Preserved Building - An historic building or structure whose principal use is
as an exhibit of the building or the structure itself which is open to the public not
less than 12 days per year. Additional uses, original and/or ancillary to the principal
use are permitted within the same building up to a maximum of 40% of the gross
floor area.
The sub-classification ultimately determines the extent to which modifications must be
made to the existing building.
Alternate Methods of Design and Construction
Methods of design and construction that are alternatives to the specific requirements of
the MSBC may be used when approved by the building official (MSBC 109.3). Approval is
dependent on the effectiveness of the alternate methods in satisfying the intent of the
specific applicable Building Code provisions.
Code Compliance Approach Issues
The fundamental issue facing the Yin Yu Tang Project is that the applicable codes and
regulations do not anticipate the relocation of a 200 year old structure from another
country. The intended use of the House most closely resembles that of a totally preserved
historic structure as defined by the MSBC. However, the House does not specifically
qualify as a historical structure based on definition since it is not a listed historic structure.
If the project were treated simply as a non-historical existing building, the primary intent of
maintaining the House in its historical condition could not be satisfied. Major modifications
would be necessary to the entrances (door widths and steps), the room access (door
widths and steps), and the second level (stairways dimensional criteria and balcony widths)
to satisfy current egress provisions. In addition, the newest structural loading criteria
would requirement significant structural modifications.
In order to meet the project intent, the following approach has been implemented.
Yin Yu Tang House -4- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
In order to meet the project intent, the following approach has been implemented.
Building Code Approach
The implemented compliance approach entails treating the House as an existing building
with a continuation of the same hazard index. To the extent practical and consistent with
project objective, provisions of MSBC 3400 are implemented. However, since the
objective of the project is consistent with that of maintaining a totally preserved historic
structure, the implemented approach considers the provisions of MSBC 3409.2. The
provided features in effect, far exceed those that would normally be required for a totally
preserved building but are less restrictive than those for a non-historic existing building.
The provisions of MSBC 3409.2.2 require the following:
• Fire extinguishers as required by the Head of the Fire Department.
• A fire alarm system activated by smoke detectors and manual pull stations.
• Exit signs and lighting.
• Limiting occupant load to twenty or less persons at a given time.
The most significant additional safety feature provided that exceeds the requirements of
3400 is a complete sprinkler system. The Basement will be protected with a wet sprinkler
system. The remainder of the House will be protected with a double interlocked pre-action
sprinkler system. As part of the pre-action sprinkler protection, an area smoke detection
system is provided throughout the upper levels of the House.
Unique Issues and Clarifications
The following is a list of code compliance items that are unique to the House. Each issue
is followed with a response approach noted in italics. Each issue is unique for one of the
following three reasons: 1) strict compliance is not achievable because alterations
necessary for compliance would destroy the historic character of the House; 2) strict
compliance is not technically feasible given the building features; or 3) the Code does not
address the specific issue within its existing provisions. Also, some items have been noted
for clarification although compliance is achieved.
1 . The House cannot achieve Energy Conservation compliant with the provisions of
the MSBC.
In reviewing the energy conservation requirements of the MSBC Chapter 13, the
design engineers attempted to calculate the performance of the existing building
Yin Yu Tang House -5- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
substantial unglazed windows and other permanent openir>gs throughout the
courtyard walls, it is not possible to establish a performance Jevel for the House
(a copy of software output is attached in Appendix B).
Envelope upgrades necessary to achieve any appreciable results would
significantly alter the historical character of the House and defeat the overall
Project objective. Consistent with the code application approach, the team next
reviewed the historical provisions of Chapter 3409.0. These provisions
specifically exempt historic structures from compliance with energy conservation
requirements of the Code, recognizing that alterations to achieve compliance
would adversely affect the historical character of the structure.
In summary, the limitations of the building's construction prevent compliance.
Relief is being sought consistent with the exemption permitted under Section
3409.0 of the MSBC.
2. There are two fishponds located in the courtyard. The water level within the
ponds is never more than 24 inches in depth. The original guards around the
pond are 36 and 30 inches in height respectively.
Altering the height of these existing guards would significantly alter the historic
character of the courtyard. These guards will remain at the existing heights of
36 and 30".
3. The second floor structure cannot satisfy the required design live load criteria of
the MSBC.
The second floor structure has been designed with live load criteria of 30 lbs per
square foot. Given the physical constraints of the House, occupancy exceeding
this load limit is not practical. The House occupancy will be limited to no more
than twenty people within the building at a given time.
4. One doorway does not provide a minimum clear exit width of 32 inches.
Only one doorway has a clear opening of less than 32 inches (28 inches actual).
The doorway is located on the second level between the elevator lobby and the
second floor corridor. The doorway is original and its opening size cannot be
modified because original structural columns flank each side of the opening.
The opening will remain in its original dimension.
5. The two original stairways from the second floor of the House are not
compliant.
The two original stairways do not satisfy the exit stairway criteria of the MSBC.
However, both stairways are functional and available as means of escape. To
help mitigate egress concerns from the second level, a new stairway is being
Yin Yu Tang House -6- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
constructed that meets the rise, run, width and handrail criteria of the MSBC.
The new stairway is located at the east end of the House in the
elevator/stairway tower.
6. The new elevator cab satisfies ADA criteria but cannot accommodate an
emergency gurney per criteria identified in the Massachusetts Elevator
Regulations (MER).
The intent of the MER provision is to allow for the extraction of an emergency
gurney without traversing an excessive number of stair flights. As the House is
only one story above grade, and the new stairway permits the extraction of a
gurney in the supine position, the elevator cab is not required to accommodate a
gurney,
7. There are numerous thresholds that exceed the maximum permitted heights for
ADA compliance. Rather than permanently altering the height of the thresholds,
and thus the historical character of the House, unique mechanical thresholds are
being developed. The thresholds will lower and rise mechanically as needed to
allow passage of a wheelchair user. The Code does not address these
thresholds and fail-safe criteria should power be lost.
Rather than permanently altering the height of the thresholds, and thus the
historical character of the House, unique mechanical thresholds are being
developed. The thresholds will lower and rise mechanically as needed to allow
passage of a wheelchair user. The Code does not address these thresholds and
fail-safe criteria should power be lost. In the event of power foss or interruption,
the thresholds will be designed to lower to a position flush with the surrounding
floor.
8. There is not a compliant pathway to allow ADA egress from the Peabody Essex
MuseumNin Yu Tang connecting vestibule to the public way.
Originally, in plans presented to the Salem Building Department, there was no
paved or otherwise ADA compliant surface from the vestibule to the public way.
Since then, a paved pathway has been incorporated to connect the vestibule
exit to the sidewalk on Charter Street.
Yin Yu Tang House -7- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
9. Strategy for Exit Signage.
Because numerous exit signs will adversely affect the historical character of the
House, the team has developed the following approach. Non—electrified, radiant,
self-illuminating exit signs will be installed. A sign will be located at the north
exit of the staiNelevator tower. Another will be located at the west exit from
the interior court of the historic house.
10. Fire Protection Systems
Complete automatic sprinkler protection will be provided throughout the House.
The system will consist of a double-interlocked pre-action sprinkler system and a
wet sprinkler system. As a result of the pre-action system, area smoke
detectors will be provided in the majority of rooms. The combined fire sprinkler
and fire alarm system exceed the minimum provisions of the MSBC.
11 . Emergency Lighting
Standard lighting circuits serving each room will be connected to the museum
emergency generator system. These lights will provide emergency illumination
in each space of the House.
12. Alternative Fire Ratings and Enclosures
The door between the museum vestibule and the House should be rated.
However, as the door needs to be consistent with the historical character of the
House, an alternate approach has been applied. The door is a solid core wood
door. Similar doors of archaic construction have been found to provide an
equivalent one-hour rating. In addition, sprinkler protection on either side of the
door will prevent the likelihood of fire spread from one building to the other.
Also, the new stair/elevator tower is enclosed in one-hour construction. New
doors are being provided between the first floor lobby of the tower and the
kitchen vestibule and at the second floor between the lobby and the original
House. Again, solid core wood doors will be provided with sprinklers on each
side of the door to protect the door opening.
Lastly, the stairway and the elevator tower share the same enclosure. The
eleva for provides an accessible route to the second level. Although not a typical
configuration, historic considerations and physical space constraints required a
unique layout combining the two elements. As this stairway is in addition to the
existing two stairways of the House, acceptable egress routes are provided.
Yin Yu Tang House -8- June 25, 2002
Code Compliance Approach SEC No. 2201021-000
Conclusion
In reviewing the requirements of the MSBC, and in reviewing the features of the existing
House, it is the design team's conclusion that the building cannot satisfy all new
construction criteria of the MSBC. Further, given the historic nature of the House and the
overall objective of creating a museum exhibit of the structure, application of combined
provisions of the new construction criteria and the historic building criteria is reasonable.
We believe the proposed approaches provide a level of safety consistent with the intent of
the MSBC.
Sincerely,
Robe rasitti, P.E.
Appendix A
Yin Yu Tang
Illustrations and Photos
3 a -
! �: ��, -�egfmC ',"tJ�k dh � ��? � 3R w � � �rw�� �r.1w `'` 7sS p?+'ti W: 2 1 t2 � .ya �:•
'At
t
.„ry
� T' f t
k t
�xyffi� t
"Uwal
y I
,rt
.il
}
J S
s,
���
I 4
r c itI
7. 2 1
F In5
Is
� t. Ill♦
t yk� -} mil '' tl •a. �� � '^"
I;
Will
i
,
^� '•:we � c: it- � � � Y �� '
1. h 61t,2• r o,
i
YA
tkll
4,r�ty may+ f .✓^�„y 1�'T>Na` f,.+.
Wi
�- ��• I.�, '� /� '� �F'w�`Y�1 �,,;tSl. -A `fro �'�f,�� „�.. •t'�" � ` t•,,�y:,'
1 i �� I'I� jj{I} � �- ��F'�"�4--R. 1 F �" .�r.• _�.�� �a i�+,'ry I P' � .
g� rJ A
Y Y
�a�� �Ik �a��,r� � t♦ .�f 'fir ar 1 i Q �q C xc;,k ,,. �
_ +...- d� 5" sit �'.• k' .
♦"�SL tl��♦L � ♦51p. � �14vfi (N 14 f ir. � ♦ ...
�r ✓
_ • w '
'.r -16
Milo
_e
.a
`L R*tl'r �µ J ✓y� ` �� ! Pss 9 fFa Fes..+—. i
Ij
a
' it' i / , % r /
9 I it
I
t i '
+C
[' a
41
i
OU
I
01
L .
, l.
I .
L .
pilllll A� ..
♦\\II SII. ' % IIII,��`��� j `•iii�i"�:
\ �`��II'�JI�IL. 011lllll�lllllllb/DI III, ���f y�{,\'
MIN
\ I` \''�,` � \\\������� I;It� Q/\�• a�\�G.,;,. / moi,,
\\\\�\ \ \' � ,�\ �i�,li I'.moi• ►�III%/� '':
BEDROOM
(TYPICAL)
STAIR/ELEVATOR
LOBBY
IL
N 2'-4 1/4" 2•-4 1/4^ 2._4»
i
I
BALCONY LIGHT WELL
S1 2'-4 1/4"
T. S2 /
- 2'-4 1/4" /
2'-9 1/2"._ P2 2'-9 1/2- 2.-9 3/4» ---
2'-5"O KITCHEN
�»..,........«.
K
/
/
/ GONG
/ TOWER
UPPER HALL / (CLOSED)
n
I
N
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
MOTTO SCALE
ACCESSIBILITY PLANS - EXISTING BARRIER LOCATIONS KEY:
-BARRIERS
YIN YU TANG R
1� JOHN G.WAITE ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECTS,PLLC
JANUARY 22,2002 X32
APr-UF
;OZ 'U2:O6pm from OVE ARUP AND PARTNERS 617-864-617: T-160 P.03/04 F-670
Envelope Compliance Report
Massachusetts Commercial Code
COMcheda.EZSoftm Version 24 Relcam la
Section I: Project Information
PrgjectIafamomd YiaYuTang
Owaer/Ager
Telephone;
Docaneat Audtar.
Telephone;
Daft.
Section 2: General Information
Buming Locaaoru Salem,MassaehuseEm
Climate Zone: z8a
Mating Degree Days(base 65 degrees F); 5641
be
Cooling Degree DMYs(base 65 degrees 678
1 Mg Use Method of Compliance Whole Dur7dmg Method
1
Masenat P1oor Area
2561
Pmjept Descsitle=(check one}
_,,,New C===U' —Addidoa _Alteration _Unconditioned Shell(File Affidavit)
Section 3:Requirements Checklist
Air Leakage,Con4meat Oration,and Vapor Retarder g"v&emm y
Iaspecdaa Approved Tn4?;al
AA joints and p=ctratioas are=,&, d,s md. Date (YIN)
' -sutPed.OrO&wwisesealed
Windows.doors,and sky&gi=certified
as meemag leakage reTdr�
Compotrnt I values&L7'facbm labeled as certified
V'y%retarder msb&A
Apr-09-02 02:05pm From-OVE ARUP AND PARTNERS 617-864-6178 T-189 P.04/04 F-678
0
CLi=tC-Specmc ltegpjremeub
C=ss C CODL Budget
C NemelD � ed
C�accerT7- ar r
hoof 1:Oar 2561 OA34 0.065
Hky7isht 1:Mesa'Franc,Sin&Pane, Clear,disc 0.97(e) Soo 1.000 0.060
f+ awlior Wan L.Ocher,lfc1.0 1.963 — — 0260 0.091
O)FSlar'for Wan 2.Other,11C 1.0 1558 — 0391 0.091
$asezn=W all 1:Solid Concrete or Mawary>8^
Fmriag Nome,Was Ht 9,0 Depth Depth B,( .9,0 238 5.0 D. 0.115
Slab1:1bibeatedaclow-G,adc 0 D.0
�o o� _
(8)$adgns11Facmfsameusedformgq,,,,ebmd calcularionsmrrvY,andarcnoseodcsegDirem�s•
(b)Thio compooem furls a maadas�yU faetar/R value scgvireman(components d=fag are
c printed in itdlies).
(d)Cerp building��� Dos exceed defaulo in Tables 1301-9-3.1.No s���y,uademode So an��.
�lab ( 7K rhusests Code Saesion 1304.7.7 add 130428).
J.Uvelope FAMLS: Maadowry Regamromrntts Violated
Section 4: Compliance Statement
The proposed envelope design repsesmted in,,&docent is cow with the building
other calenladons eubmuted with]his =nit a lis,spedfiaed tos and
MacsachuaetzComnnetcWCode" ' o7L TheptoV=icmnve�.lopesYslaonhasbeecdesigvedsomeetT>fe
goi,etrti=ats in COMchecIFEZ YelsiQn 21 Rtiease la.
Prmcmpal Envelope Dia Name 9ignasrrm Daze
m-
Massachusetts Office on Disability
One Ashburton Place, Room 1305
Boston, MA 02108
Mitt Romney, Governor [617]727-7440 VITTY
Kerry Healey,Lieutenant Governor [600]322-2020 VITTY
Myra Berloff,Acting Director [617]7270966 FAX
Web: http:/Avww.mass.gov/mod
Jeff.Dougan@rnodl.state.rna.us
March 14, 2003
Mr. Robert Monk
Director of Facilities
Peabody Essex Museum
East India Square
Salem, MA 01970-3783
Dear Mr. Monk:
This report is a follow up of the site visit conducted on February 24, 2003 of the Peabody Essex
Museum located in Salem. The purpose of the site visit was to survey the "Chinese House"
exhibit, however; at the time of the survey the "Chinese House" exhibit was under construction
and we were unable to view it. For this reason, we would like to see the exhibit prior to it
opening to the public. Please contact us so we can work out a date to view it. While we were
there, we were asked to look at the areas that were under major reconstruction. Present for the
survey were Andrew LaPoint and Charles Reardon, Salem Commission on Disabilities; Robert
Monk, Director of Facilities; and Jeffrey Dougan and Bruce Bruneau, Massachusetts Office on
Disability. Based on estimated building permit dates, as estimated by you, we have based our
report on the 1998 revision of the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board's rules and
regulation (AAB) and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act Architectural Design Standards
(ADAAG). The following items, in our opinion, do not comply with either the AAB and/or
ADAAG.
1)The boy's room, located on the 1"floor, near the elevator(door labeled D123A):
a) There is no visual alarm provided.
At a minimum, visual signal appliances shall be provided in buildings and facilities in each of
the following areas: restrooms and any other general usage areas (e.g. meeting rooms), hallways
and lobbies. (AAB 40.3) (ADAAG 4.28.1)
b) The control for the paper towel dispenser is located 62 inches off the floor.
Towel dispensers, drying devices, or other types of devices and dispensers shall have at least one
of each device mounted within the zone of reach. At least one of each device shall be located
within reach (Side approach= 54 inches max., Front approach=48 inches max.) of a person
using the accessible sink and shall comply with 521 CMR 39.5, Operation. See Fig. 30i. (AAB
30.12)(ADAAG 4.27.3)
CIWINDOWMTmporary lot=d FiIcAConoe .lE5\058VQ9S5 opmt of Site Visi[of 022403.doo
2
c) The paper towel dispenser is a protruding object.
Objects projecting from walls (for example, telephones) with their leading edges between 27
inches and 80 inches(27" and 80" =686mm and 2032mm) above the finished floor shall
protrude no more than four inches (4" = 102mm) into walks, halls, corridors, passageways, or
aisles and shall not have sharp or abrupt edges. See Fig. 20d. (AAB 20.6.1) (ADAAG 4.4.1)
d) The soap dispenser is located at a height of 55 inches off the floor and requires a
reach over the sink. (AAB 30.12) (ADAAG 4.27.3)
e) The lock on the restroom door requires pinching and twisting to operate.
Controls and operating mechanisms shall be operable with one hand and shall not require tight
grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist. The force required to activate controls shall be no
greater than 5 Ib. (AAB 39.5) (ADAAG 4.27.4)
2) The girl's room, located on the 1t floor, near the elevator(door labeled D122A):
a) There is no visual alarm provided. (AAB 40.3)(ADAAG 4.28.1)
b) The control for the paper towel dispenser is located 62 inches off the floor.
(AAB 30.12)(ADAAG 4.27.3)
c) The soap dispenser is located at a height of 55 inches off the floor and requires a
reach over the sink. (AAB 30.12) (ADAAG 4.27.3)
d) The lock on the restroom door requires pinching and twisting to operate.
(AAB 39.5) (ADAAG 4.27.4)
3) The women's room (door labeled DIVA), provides 8 stalls without any alternative stall
provided.
If toilet stalls are provided,then at least one shall be a standard accessible toilet stall. Where six
or more stalls are provided in a toilet room, at least one alternate accessible toilet stall (See Fig.
30c) shall be provided in addition to the standard accessible toilet stall. Accessible toilet stalls
shall be on an accessible route. (AAB 30.6)
36" min
916
19"
e
e
32"
\ 913 0
N
Alternate Aecasalble Well
(In addition to accessible Steil)
Figure 30c
3
4) There is an entrance to the China House, near the auditorium and door labeled L135B,
that will provide only stairs to access the China House. If the public will use this entrance,
then there needs to also be an accessible route for people who cannot traverse stairs at the
same location.
General: An accessible route shall provide a continuous unobstructed path connecting accessible
spaces and elements inside and outside a facility. Accessible routes may include but are not
limited to walks, halls, corridors, aisles, skywalks, and tunnels. Accessible routes may not
include stairs, steps, or escalators, even if the stairs and steps are required to be accessible under
521 CMR. (AAB 20.1)
5) Auditorium:
a) The accessible wheelchair spaces:
i) There are currently "readily removable" seats that will allow for 9
wheelchair spaces. There are no spaces provided currently.
Wheelchair spaces shall be an integral part of any fixed seating plan. (AAB 14.4) (ADAAG
4.33.3)
Placement of Accessible Seats: Readily removable seats may be installed in wheelchair spaces
when the spaces are not required to accommodate wheelchair users. (AAB 14.4.4) (ADAAG.
4.33.3)
NOTE: The above cited requirement means, that the 4 required wheelchair seating areas need to
be open and available to people who need them and not have the"readily removable" seats
installed until the auditorium is sold out. Since these seats should be the last to be sold, you can
re-install the seats as they are sold. If these seats are not sold, i.e. a free performance and people
may just show up for a performance without having to buy a ticket, then the 4 required spaces
should be left open, i.e. not have the"readily removable" seats installed.
NOTE: Since the path of travel to the accessible seating provided in the front of the auditorium
for someone who is unable to traverse stairs requires an escort, traversing down an elevator,
through a hallwayiboiler room and electrical rooms to the seats;we would recommend the 4
accessible seats be provided in the rear of the auditorium. Since you are required to provide 4
accessible seats (based on the auditorium seating capacity), the rear provides the most
independent access. Please be aware however,that the 4 accessible spaces require a companion
seat next to each space and require a 36-inch path of travel behind the spaces.
I—
4
6) The"Green Room (door labeled L038A) does not provide a seat in the accessible shower
stall.
Seat: A seat shall be provided in the 36 inch by 36 inch(36" by 36" =914mm by 914mm)
shower stalls and shall be as shown in Fig. 31c. The seat shall be on the wall opposite the
controls. (AAB 31.7.4) (ADAAG 4.20.3)
36"
914
During our visit we discussed
the galleries and exhibit areas.
e
For information about offering
8" accessible galleries and exhibits
you may consider contacting
VSA arts of Massachusetts at
617-350-7713. Other resources
' related to accessible galleries
112' MaX
13 lip and exhibits are ASTC's
Dimensions (a bi-monthly news
36" x 36' Shower Stall Elevation journal of the Association of
Figure 310 Science Technology Centers)
and Design for Accessibility: An Administrators Guide produced by the National Assembly of
State Art Agencies and the National Endowment for the Arts. VSA arts of Massachusetts should
be able to help you get these documents.
We appreciate the opportunity to survey the Peabody Essex Museum. We would also appreciate
the opportunity to look at the"China House"prior to it's opening to the public. Please contact
Bruce Bruneau to set up a survey. If there are any further questions regarding the above items,
please feel free to contact either Bruce Bruneau or myself.
Sincerely;
Jeffrey L. Dougan
Community Services Coordinator
Bruce Bruneau
Community Access Monitor Project Coordinator
Cc: Andrew LaPoint, Salem Commission on Disability
IIIIIlIf70, VIA,103 V ...... .llf -TO Q)tow oui
fllov, llslow ifIfAW
fA �,BARRACKS, 01
z 1<1
If...... Will oil ps"!I oil-To tW�cH P-Y Ay F-9 PROJECT NOR
IfP AA FA) I8ARRAC rll��Fvalwll�a u BASF ENT tfUP At-XIA(5 A,1�)�_:p I/M AT 10 bRILL SHED'D ILL SHED,BASEM" :,� A i�_r _oer �r6-TOW , MA-f�,'14' 1pll Ac r v ift��<ZfTl I-is ymWvs My Owl Her NA!.M�ylv Q Any e 14crC14A ui Oro till,15001B INK KI rim4�A I p4tMIS 1�sw_vw W UN U-
lnI4,0�MR MUWMI�W W
ILu :, I >
fL
f .4r 1�w WAL W cn
mmq W F, F-r-,H&,sp -ra I&W,rrzzm r lcc W
C/)lW
to App -ro CO
'TO FM 1014 II 'W
ra�JVA-rl0q WALLo� Nicol IIf3:IifffI &Ph.01 ell A- % v -oil W AIONA, kw. ro�M 1URALo PWQ��Idy .41 to pot 0, illANN AW sly VMVOf to 4 m , A,lAon ilk"I"I Iy "oil V�,r,r-AK LIP r:-XIMM QLAQ T r IM W L wAIRMO - Y,HEAOHOUSt�,,�, W Z>
0
al. ton My!bA%0...... _WJ fW�L&)P, t"',""� ' <own 0-e?:,�IIjig LLJ 0, Net Arqu. IAf,rx, woo i-ro r')<1s"nq�, IfofT M I 0. .... .. No;f7
U T 1 t; 2 'cWl
F�� Al N5_t?� CC;r-_r� 4_,TF� W I its? fs&% A, 4 a W[16K OVA 1 .0 AM fe4 0 f:�2 t fftu ui LL_
-L47 I00 A
fON N" � ,��' GROUND 0._,, BA8E1�ENT' FL00R ,PLA FLO ' R 'PLAN I I 1 6"�V-0" 14 ,10461 SALEM ARMORY,:'
I
__ _--_. _ _ __ _ . __ _—_. - _ r_s. __ _ — --_ — _ _ _ _ __ _ ___
O _
7 .
,.... - .
I
1 ,. .. *.
. r
, ,
} • , I I I t
\ .r.
:
1 .; ,I• ..
W
. I 1 . :
I .. 1' ,
,. . I I I I • I I I _ I
.
.,l ,
, ,: r
,. ,,. I ,..:., ., x „ tl:, , ,. m ,., r .:.
. I 1, r .., , ,f_" e .,n a. I .x ,
m- aI, , \
J ..._.. .e .. F:. , ,.a
5 e , ".
N., r e a
A, rr ._ ?...,.. e. ♦ , , ,
r 1� 4 d.. ...,
..ate ,„ ..., ,.:.: ,::. ..,m,.. , ,. _,
,,
t. ,^.. r a .,.. ,r ,. ,, ,
F,. .. ,_ .... r - ...I a
,d ...
, , a ,Il— .,5_r. ," . ,,. . ,J f
, @ , , s.,.a ., r S ..,,
a_. , ._. J ._n .cm .e
.,., ^rs ,.. , z.. , ,k.. ,e
,,r. :..,
" . , a F ,.,,... x a. .,.,,.4
.: , , S" '
5. 13 , I
.:I,., . .,.. rv, ,L_. t ,
11 I
o�T
.,. ",, _. -. a,:. « .fir. 5 ,...�:,: :w n , :: tAo ..
.r:.r, Ys e , ..e
,
e+: a , _,_ _tea' s..L.. a. , ..., _ _
,, .,:. ,.„ , , ,d ... ..,
a.,. , a^. r , 1,.... , .,
,.,.5 ,< ... , .. -ro. ...
5 Y. aAn. , , cm „ n. , r. , ,., x ,V ,_t ,
ry , , ., .,r '6 a.d - 11 .,,la ,,..:m r ar ry :.¢x ,.. , , ., ,k:,.:. 3
.�.., x , ,.. ..:, _r x,..m m v ars -...... re
.. - r. 1.
t r r
rt., _'f'S..5
, .k ak ..u+-.a '�'r,.... a r raa -�
r r'ui` , C 1,
. ¢, c 4 ,
N
. u, .
Z
.. o
i ,
IT I ;-
r
•
, 0d I
I,, ,. .,r _ to I
§. . ,
I r,::,,xr .,: , ...,Y
K, -1 1-1 v
a,Rt , .. U
.,... } , da::
T.,
r .. M...ar
':o-:, , iY
1. % u. - ..
#. F —
,A, r
� �.
---.
$ARRACKS,
-H Ull
,4 _.
'� I z
-- -. -_:__ __ . __- _. _ -: _ - -- __:_.:_.� . PROJECT
NORTH
.,
. ._. - ,..
1 ..?
,'. \ 7 : :
t
.
I � I I I � I I I . � I \ I I I I I 1, 11 I - I I � I I
.
i Tj 0 I
•� I t ` . ,
r 11
k -I -
�,
2 IN
y --- ____-- -- -= 4 �(ov >;xl.�uL H51 Ate E .
•
F l Y . . ,
:P z
A d.6*r` Wt .
I�
5�
�2lJG"(U .0 C1E _.
_ W
.
,. . n T- ..
,: r ..,.r , i, h k ., r
li I, - , , .c.. o, .., r _ , v
.::a ) b ..<. 7
a __ ,.v. , ._ y ::f.�
J ra, R F t
t _ ,I . ., c.,:..
�, w
,:,'^, x .,.. e .. ,.,s .: r�
_ ..I
,. , . x ... r.. ,_ , .,, �::.:,,
_ ,. T ?fit
iN YA 1
_ U: 5 W. N J��v t
1
t i N , - Ka�F P To �E� T�
i NAt%�n AR!'�
UJ n
1
-r +-hT. t
I o _
I (!7
H
1, �-
_ w O _
I'
to L a
1 ,
i
I• Z
W
_ _ ___.�.1_ _n. _ _ _ _ __ :::
0
>
:,r -
1 , _ r , r
r- z
v. .... r s u9' x �^__
_..- ...
. N
r _^a ,-r v I o
d, Y
, s,, Ea_� t.�
r .L � ,., �'k!fGLt .fes Q
1 Y. t
, ", . .:"4 ..1 - , .,.,:s, v T .. f V rrI � .. r.V�J VG/{.�.. 'Q
1 'fo, E p�Mov , M_ Icy+, srfw. } t7C
- / I i cn
I w
,a, r { r C7GN �7 t1G l MaKE W e F%, � f �
, ,, ..,, „ , L. t
LT �
t,.aw
. � a
Z Q
" . _ o
,.,,a r
O
' : 7 t ,. ..r' j
.V d;: .,.
& , I'll",",-,,�:.' O
,
O
. , ry
i" .. .. __._. ,_. /�y�
:1 I
. .,; , F dl ION �'. �•f C
._ 4f
p , n... + , , r. a , ,.
4 r , � . a
a' W
., n , _d x_ ''1' M i �/•� n
,4 r , ,: . L, . r r
Cc�l �
I
'fes
x r . , rv� , r , d , a
tri 2
1 .d>� , _A 5 �_______ �, !� NIA
\ r P H . Y
„ ,'
, J
, ,., ..
, <T r
r,
r ,
tr,, .
x . F.
rc ,,
_ `I w
a. _, _ r hd r�,
.._-., � _ � YL. CSN _
5 . N, r ,
C' �
a_ r . , a. .. 1 :
rCl' R,
,. y r d �'
a , .. x i P �
a, _.._ , .,.r _._._ A W
,... , ...,✓ r ,m C 4d,
r T �
C� G M4'C
cc
t ,
�, __ w •, : �.MAINI .Cs M4"�N LL L.i-4
a..
e a, t
„ r, .,
- � r tr ._
-._. , r ,.
5 A t >
x� ., is t !� I � "f+l
, � ,. _k TNG t'E'
,. ., , ui /�
:':
,. ...,.. .vR 2 n ,., a s n�
11 . .. .a ^,, ,,., ., w.. T.,.. r
ILI
a _r p
, 11 . x. , 11,
,.. . - I r ,
J ,
., Yr , a r
. � ti
,. 1 r
� I II Cn
i.0
I
_I
� I
1I IE f--
� I
I I
i -
E-Im flo 1 Cpm L�"-G-C!�t
11 � I , ,, l
i I
-- -_ -------- ---- --------_ _._ _.--------
II _ z
1I I I I 11 / � ,, i t �x15TtNC caN �'Rzt{�TiatJ
I :..
i Q
1 0 41 .1 ht
I { ( J
I I
I'
, ; ► a
__ I r —: — _ � _ l�•I�- YIN �N�:?FZUG?iaw
I
11 I' ( ?a t EM Ee
t �14 I —
, i
. I .
UJ /�, 1 1t.47K�N ! o
S�� ,C? Cs J
I rl ,,�I �.a. 7
t$, O w r
! I % 1{
I W J
t 1 �
-i Q tD
► w
- ..
� It ; ,
I
1
11 I 1 � o � r
, i
, ll
I 1
1
I I I o � o
JAM �. 'CIoN t -T
i I _ _. c
r
w
{ � t c
{
Y
{ ' � �R a �t LL �I Ji �
I :!
H
I (
y _ pt:�OR' "f0 'fNE•• �a'Lhh�7 aE I.JC+'-tJ� . KIiC'�h �,�t. w .;
- -r = O
I `° r
( Ft Gt O I? "T IM C3llk ,
I
I ? 1 UmY
j
r
,. (( [ r
�.
1 L I dR F�'.E
1 R1�. fZ W�1 N .G C?�
2. �� Wo. f ~o2Mt7 r
I I I �
ry M c
_I _
.. LI l.G�.�-l.. 'fes l'��'.b.L. � .. .� < <
W i'f4k Ala. ,bPf C,�-.1' LE r z �,
1 a
jj _ o
t �
L 3
o W, v r _ =
I�E Gd.P � t' �'f IaN �x l5"� I ; ., � U,. .�. E.,�t�'�
_ � N � � `l.�wt�, Com � � � . �'.. � � _- a
AA c- ry t a Q
II 1 Z
{ aN ref W , ? N kJ4'f) r
<_ oma
' I
C
_ T � � r� Ram t�CSS AFZE t�.ll� l Goii J tJ c?�N ¢ � ..
% 1 IIN I
_
,, \ Wh ,..L' . r
' : �11�'L �u�'Ni2bt, 7�. t1C-s ,� �?�, r p�'G. .L � o
1
I I o „
m
t.
r
t✓ t crr s1�-rt l� a o
_ _- I
_ � ,
++f - 1= i _
c c' c� R` ni�j4A 1
trY K ., I
.a
E E-,
`, t'f
" m
;; m
. ,
w
,:w
-�
�[ t� d 1i L� ti _
r
_ - _ w
„J F
Q ,
G N
,� J ha✓L
-- 1 � E
, , _ _. _ til �.
{ •
_ _
�l-t°I�a� Ll
. aR, r> f���Ft3�Sre.�l., r�R' 4U.. ,.� iNG
t..
h'I-�t"�,tNC..� IDR FZ�INfi�Gtf� •••-,
c. ,
_'.�f,,JG?U i"�1.
y c• Lr,Q : 9t
/ 002
✓M � t�lJ�tNC�, 'M L i a.1 Iti 1 GGr ls't"ktl 'f i o`1
t r
C , , X17 { 1,1N-
11 I _ 7 Wnwc c.4 -rn � t
,_
C
r
s
r
{
?aCEt7 D
h1 r �t.- ..,7
R` PLAN ,�
..:, i
ROOF . _
L , R F'LA �.
ECOND F 00
1 cc�:��'f r�r.��t ;v r��Ta l.,.� A. �., ��Iu c-v.
a. % ^^
1 M V
G' 17
_ c 4 1
< .� N . > ., ,� 10 6 ,
. o� N � tila r I GU ,..• I-�KC.�, � ��
W
, ,
GJ 'fa 4 � G"
I 11% .MS
� t
A M RM
_ SLE ARMORY
I11 11 �
c
I
.�
` -+ r
v a
I iI
7-1
,r.29713 in/t
A NAIL r OP
- ,r_w ri>sb ►+am oRsoa44. ,, . _, , /R4r.::REM OVE7a
To ow ormANM Are
DASHES 11 RFA
Tyl O,F40F'TtD 6S R`-AlA1iLC ` , . .. :�' :, `
` � l
W EE
.WfJt C . El E A VON
:TO �E RF
MDt1EO. :... WALL 7"D jet" i,&WD✓E4.
=aEE DEMOL /T/rJN ,pLA� XX
\
SsF-...DEMDL/T/ON. :PLAN A51A
^^ Ile
t0
Z 0
0 0
10 nE mu AA '�
N
nn _ m
U
,.
p _ , � o
wa,,H&-R \ �, 6K 12 31 r , .w W :
7 TNf,GGTs o. �
BRICK10
. r
If . r
ET9IL. q
}. mw ugE/4 rr $7PFF T.: ELF IIA710iV
E55 X Gt�RDE/V EL EURTI'DN -
• 3�4� - 1�UrI
i
i r�, �i x l2 x �lZ 2s W� Z
EXIST/NG BRNCE i'LEVANNT , z
.;
J
N ,
d 1 f 4 X 4 4 *h 0 � F-_ LL
�N Q0 .
_ -
�X/ST/NG ToW&P q o Q cc
Q
SUP/'7iPT P / <
CD
W
� us a
p
r.
z Q O
4, - -- - - TrlS z Q W
- _ - -
i`
3//6
\\\ 4 LocRr w w (U
• -_ • N • /
Q �
!. �LOCI�T/O�YS W,
} 'T54x,4X31/(e CONT,
I{
..Wei._ DED rV V e (E) r
i
STFNEO .`T4 S/DE WR'LL$
Z
U
Wle
m
LLl
LLJp}
< Z w
�P R, U Q a °z
l 2 x B x '4 .G d . �
�' �L4ED Ta T$4x4 ~ LL � cvn a
WAX #6% - f W$ E) w qtr
_ H4E"gD Not' s , PL PIU --''_�` 4x4x 6 w
V16 1!0' (E)2'x2' CaLuMNs �m
z_� -
K Q
�i r ,
K a
z �
-' w/247"f �, a octo
1 -r` EC71
CJ =No N'
C)j
•Q T
Q
m m
31fNCE & C-VR Teo" 1LU
-
1
8
1110 EXIMIAla BRACE: mrmi 'F,.l. c 5WH 4
�3E GL 6/�'NED � Ar/NT�'d vP z�/N4- RIeH �A'rNr ,
cool
_ ALL e0AIN, `.'511444, : aF �HEGK.F.1l.� /l/Yp
Or AmolpC56
,SARKIS ZEROUNIAN & ASSOCIATES
CI E___
1 7AA
.
85 RUANE ROAD -
!.WEST NEWTON,MASSACHL18UTTS 02165
10461 '
TEL.617-965-2319 SALEM ARMORY
j
i
fi
II
i
JI
PERMIT # -
DNlF!
DATE 155LrD
PERMIT T❑ ti Qp j 2
Robert Charles Group
67 College Avenue
Arlington, MA 02174 *617) 643-0615
March 6, 1991
Mr. William Luster, Director
Salem Redevelopment Authority
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
RE: Engineering Inspection
Head House/Salem Armory
Dear Mr. Luster:
In accordance with your request, the Robert Charles Group
has completed an independent engineering inspection of the
Head House portion of the Salem Armory located at Essex and
New Liberty Streets, Salem, Massachusetts.
We have reviewed documents compiled by representatives
of the Museums Cooperative and supplied by the Planning
Department relative to 15otential rehabilitation and
development of Head House portion of the Armory, thereby
ascertaining approximate time schedules one can expect prior
to potential developer construction schedules.
Several interior and exterior inspections were made of
the Armory structure, resulting in the narrative account of
our observations submitted herewith. In addition to
inspection observations, the writer submits certain
conclusions. and recommendations, which are based upon his best
engineering judgment.
In the event there are any questions, please notify my
Salem office at 745-0574, and I will meet with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,,
Charles F. Qulgley
Senior Partner ?AES "err
r° CH+P.LES F.
QUICI EY
9No' 353SC N
4'wF,Fr'ISTEP� 4�
Architects • Engineers JjlOMALEa6
� 4
BACKGROUND
This report was prepared at the request of the Salem
Redevelopment Authority as an independent analysis of
the structural integrity of the Head House portion of the
Salem Armory. The report identifies and documents, as
the result of visual inspections, the present condition
of the Armory situated on Essex and Brown Streets in
Salem, Massachusetts, particularly in connection with the
development proposal by the Museums Cooperative.
My review and examination included a review of
engineering and consultant reports made available by the
Planning Department relating to inspections and site
evaluations completed recently and made available to the
City. In addition to this detailed review, the site was
examined and investigated during the weeks of February
18 and February 25, 1991.
The following represents the findings and
conclusions of this examination and investigation.
Appropriate exhibits are part of this report. These
include by reference studies made available to me by the
City of Salem.
The past history of the Armory building includes a
significant and damaging fire that occurred. in February
of 1982, resulting in roof and multiple floor collapse
1
r
along with damage to structural elements of the building.
Since the fire, the structure has essentially been
exposed to the ravages of the elements, without any
appreciable protective procedures being implemented by
the owner of the property, who, as I understand it,
remains the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Present Condition
Attention is called to existing code violations and
non-compliance, which deal with the need for temporary
repairs and bracing. Code Section 836. 1 and Table 2103-
6 of the State Building Code indicates the procedures
which must be followed with specific regard to the
situation involving the Armory. These sections are
brought to your attention in connection with this report,
and perhaps should be made available to the State, since
it is presently the owner.
It is apparent from our detailed inspections that
very significant deterioration has taken place and is
continuing in the materials making up the subject Head
House masonry walls. Brick mortar is in poor condition
or in many cases missing in significant areas of exterior
wall surfaces. Cycles of freezing, thawing, and then
refreezing have set in motion a continuous process of
deterioration, which has reachedhaz=stage-
The Head House has been particularly affected by
2
this continuous process of deterioration. With the
narrow elongated window openings and other openings in
the structure, access for water infiltration and
saturation of all surrounding masonry has been readily
available. In effect, you have a sieve-like situation.
Much of a arent to the eye, but I do feel
that significant damage exists which is not readi
apparent.
The en-tire Head House structure as it stands is in
aCangerouss condition a , regardless of future use of
this structure, alleviating the condition wherein the
structure might collapse requires temporary action to at
least forestall any immediate problem. The estimated
cost of this required action is attached.
Alternatively, of course, if the Head House were to
be razed quickly, then it would not be necessary to
expend these funds.
On the basis of information available, it appears
that the Armory complex does show evidence of mortar
repair to the exterior surface. However, the most recent
repairs to mortar and brick were apparently done ten
years prior to the 1982 fire. Therefore, deterioration
throughout the entire complex is very serious. Similar
to apparent brick damage, when mortar joints have
deteriorated to the point of falling out and powdering,
the remaining mortar joints, though in place, are suspect
3
1
and may be seriously defective. Samples of the brick
mortar removed from the Head House were unsatisfactory
and crumbled to a powder with finger pressure, and in
certain instances the bond between the brick and mortar
had broken.
A it ; is apparent that
hat tHe- 3 for
s7faces, which were never built to accept exposure to
weather and damaging elements, have for the last ten
years been exposed as a result of the fire, and th a now
is a high percentage of voids in both izontal and
vertical mortar �jo�n-addition to the above damage,
the brick units are seriously damaged throughout all the
wall areas.
The interior side of the west wall and south wall
of the Head House, along with the dividing wall between
the Head House and Drill Shed, are in the same condition
as the east wall interior surface. The general condition
of the interior masonry surfaces is poor and possibly
dangerous. Dangerous is appropriate in describing a
condition which reduces the required structural integrity
of a wall system such as the existing Head House walls.
The interior Head House wall surfaces have in excess of
two hundred total and partial masonry penetrations
allowing internal water accumulation and saturation of
the softer back-up brick, mortar, . and voids within the
wall sections.
4
'J
The Armory masonry walls are typical of brick
masonry built in the past. Basically, the exterior skin
or wythe was a selected brick, hard-burned, dense and
generally water and weather resistant. The back-up brick
and remaining courses were constructed using a less
expensive brick called "salmons" . This back-up brick is
softer and is sensitive to the elements. When exposed
to the weather, the back-up material will disintegrate
rapidly, as a result of freeze-thaw cycles combined with
water saturation. Evidence of this phenomena is obvious
at the subject site. Upon inspection, it is noted that
spauling and brick disintegration is taking place. The
degree or extent of brick damage is difficult to
ascertain. Since spauling is apparent by visual
observation, however, it is reasonable to assume that
significant additional brick is damaged, but surfaces
have not yet fallen off. Locating the extent of damage
can only be done by physically testing the brick
throughout all wall areas.
Drill Shed
The Drill Shed area was not a part of scope of
services requested with the inspection of the Armory
site. However, certain observations made during my site
visits are as follows.
Exterior masonry is in need of repair and
5
J
repointing.
At the south end of the west wall, the masonry has
disintegrated on the right side of the overhead door
location. The masonry above the overhead door has bulged
out of wythe indicating that water has saturated and
frozen within the wall. The result is that the header
courses in the brick work have fractured. I would
recommend not using this overhead door entrance, since
the masonry may collapse on those opening the door which
causes vibration in the wall above.
There are areas of brick masonry in the parapet
areas in the north wall, which have become dislodged and
disintegrated. The building is in generally fair
condition. However, evidence of the brick masonry
failures on the west, north and east walls, which are
easily identified, indicates more extensive damage
exists, but is not apparent at the present time.
The interior portions of the building structure seem
to be in fair condition. The door opening in the south
dividing wall is allowing the elements to enter and
resulting damage is evident to the drill shed floor at
this location.
Immediate Cost Considerations
The present owners of the Head House structure must
perform the following work immediately in order to make
6
the existing walls safe and eliminate the present
dangerous condition.
1. Bracing (MASS. STATE CODE)
15 Structure Units @ $4, 000.00/Unit $ 60,000.00
2. Interior wythe brick masonry; remove and
replace deteriorated material or replace
missing material to meet code wall
thickness.
7, 000 square feet @ $25.00/square foot 175,000.00
3 . Parge interior exposed wall surfaces
(1/4" to 3/8" thick)
14 ,000 square feet @ $2 . 00/square foot 28,000.00
4. Required exterior wythe pointing
7, 000 square foot @ $10.00/square foot 70,000.00
5. Coping repairs - lump sum allowance 10,000.00
6. Throughwall openings, heads, sills
and jambs make water tight
Lump sum 1 12,000.00
7. Turrets located on the east and west
corners of south wall; replace
deteriorated masonry; analyze
adequacy of supporting steel beams.
Allowance 15.000.00
Subtotal $370,000.00
Neither the City of Salem nor the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts enjoys the time involved with usual
bureaucratic processes in this matter. The work outlined
above should proceed immediately on a design build
emergency basis.
The subtotal figure of $370,000. 00 would include all
labor, materials, engineering and profit for performing
the work necessary in stabilizing and making safe the
7
Head House structure at this writing.
It is important to point out that the Commonwealth
is unlikely to expend $370,000. 00 to protect this
deteriorated building. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that left in its present condition the
deterioration will worsen.
Basement Area and Drainage
There have been suggestions made regarding lowering
the basement floor of the Head House for various reasons.
Addressing the basement area, a review was made of
the management of ground water and recommendations
regarding the installation of a subsurface perforated
drainage system around the interior perimeter of the
building, including below spread footings, which may be
located within the confines of the Head House area. Any
approach such as has been suggested should be given
careful and conservative consideration. There are
conditions which could substantially affect the ground
water elevation around the New Liberty and Essex Street
neighborhood. Leaking storm drainage and sanitary sewer
systems along with leaking water distribution lines or
a possible water line break could seriously increase the
elevation of ground water around the Head House, the
relief of which could increase the ground water flow
under the building wall footings to the proposed drainage
8
, r
4
system which is at an elevation below adjacent to and on
the interior side of the Head House footings.
The writer would prefer a solution of installing the
ground water drainage system around the exterior
perimeter of the building at an elevation necessary for
ground water control in relation to the proposed basement
floor elevation. This solution of handling ground water
before it enters the building may be more expensive
initidlly; however, it may be, by far, the least
expensive ground water handling method in the long run:
Exterior perimeter drainage installation including
but not limited to, dewatering sheathing, shoring,
piping, appurtenant structures, replacement of disturbed
surfaces, excavating and backfilling. Four Hundred (400)
linear feet more or less at $200. 00/linear foot equals
$80, 000. 00
Premium Development Cost Consideration
A development program within the existing Head House
footprint may produce approximately thirty thousand
(30, 000) gross square feet of rentable area, including
the existing basement.
The Museums' desire to construct an auditorium adds
considerably to the complexity of the project, in view
of working within the confines of the existing Head House
9
structure, and reflects on the premium construction cost
significantly.
Basic construction cost for new commercial office
space would approximate one hundred (100) to one hundred
twenty-five (125) dollars per square foot. These are
examples of current costs for buildings in the three to
five story range, including quality materials and
finishes.
The Head House site is very tight for mobilization
and construction purposes with the additional encumbrance
of working around and maintaining the existing walls.
A construction contractor would be required to add twelve
(12) to fifteen (15) percent to normal construction costs
to adequately provide for restraints at this location.
Normal Construction Costs:
$115. 00/square foot
times 30, 000 square feet $3 , 450, 000. 00
Add 13 1/2% Premium Cost 466, 000. 00
Subtotal $3 ,916, 000. 0.0
Add Immediate Cost Consideration
(page 7) 370,000.00
Perimeter Drain (page 9) 80,000. 00
Auditorium 1, 045, 000.00
Full State Theatre 600, 000.00
Subtotal $6, 011, 000. 00
A/E Inspection, Testing Soils
etc at 12% 721,320. 00
10
Hard Costs $6,732 ,320. 00
for 30, 000 square feet at $224 .40/square foot
Architecturally and ideally, a new structure,
compatible with the surrounding area, would be not only
more cost-effective, but also more functional in today's
market.
The writer must also point out that demolition of
the existing structure and new construction will be more
expeditious than renovation of the existing structure.
The Essex Street facade can, as an engineering
concept, be salvaged, and architecturally can be included
as an integral part of the final solution. However, I
must again point out that repair of that portion of the
Head House should be performed forthwith. While the cost
of retaining the front facade has not been projected
because of various unknowns, and would certainly be more
than the square foot cost of new construction, I believe
it would be significantly less than the $224. 00 per
square foot projection above described.
The difference in cost of developing this area with
the existing structure, as noted, would be almost twice
the square foot cost of providing a new facility to
replace the existing one. This one hundred percent
premium cost is extremely difficult to justify when the
desired interior functional space may not or cannot be
accommodated because of the existing facade.
11
t
In discussing this matter with the architectural
component of our company, we make the following
observation. This site, developed properly, could be one
of the premiere sites of the City. It is important to
bear in mind that any building that has as its function
serving tourists, museum patrons, and some commercial
uses must have an inviting atmosphere. Therefore, the
design of renovation to the existing building or a new
building must consider the necessity that the building
be inviting to visitors and tourists.
The following professionals and sub-professional of
the Robert Charles Group participated in the review,
inspection and preparation of this report:
Charles F. Quigley, P.E. , Project Manager/Senior Partner
Robert G. Venne, P.E. , Senior Partner
Douglas Haring, A.I.A. , Senior Partner
Charles F. Quigley III, E. I. T.
Donald Crupi, Senior Cost Control/Estimator.
�,
espectfully submitted,
cHARLES F, y� L
QUIGLEY�_' `" les F'. Quigley, P.E.
No.8566 or Partner
C�gT6P� � ert Charles Group
dlMAL
12