Louisville Water Company Building Promoting a Healthy Community Charrette Results: June 19, 2015
A Strategy for Preservation & Adaptive Reuse
Louisville Water Co. Building In preparation for the Omni development in 2016, Metro is in the process of clearing the site. Currently, the future of the Water Company Building on South 3rd Street is in question. On June 19, a charrette was hosted by the Preservation Green Lab to explore options of the future of this building. These are the results.
The Charrette Why a charrette?
To demonstrate the variety of viable options that can be discovered in an intense, problem-‐solving workshop.
Mission of the Charrette ٳ
To save the Louisville Water Company Building
ٳ
To identify viable options for the relocation and reuse of the Water Company Building
ٳ
To establish a dialogue about how older buildings can be assets leveraged alongside new development downtown, contributing to the overall health and vitality of the community
ٳ
To engage in a conversation about a more transparent process for considering historic resources in the future
ٳ
To drive demand for urban design best practices that value human-‐scale development in the community
ٳ
To deliver visually effective products that will generate excitement among stakeholders
ٳ
To provide a model for responding to similar crisis situations across the country
The Process ٳ
Over 40 professionals participated in the all-‐day work session.
ٳ
Five teams of architects, developers, designers, preservationists, and real estate and financing experts worked to explore different sites and discover new approaches.
The Process ٳ
Four teams considered receiving sites determined by
the Green Lab in conjunction with local partners and Metro. ٳ
Sites were vetted to be viable based on vetted opportunity for financing, access by the moving company, and market supported development potential.
ٳ
Two sites are Metro-‐owned, two will be privately held
as of January 1, 2016. ٳ
A fifth team proposed keeping the building in place
Guiding Principles ٳ
ٳ
Preservation means: ٳ
Using historic properties
ٳ
Accommodating change
ٳ
Maintaining key character-‐defining features
Louisville deserves: ٳ
World-‐class design
ٳ
Targeted new investment
ٳ
Transparent development opportunities
Sustainability & Preservation
Each team considered how their concept contributes to sustainability and a healthy community.
The Water Co. Building
Chronology ٳ
1854-‐56 Louisville Water Company formed
ٳ
1856 Water facility constructed
ٳ
1860 Water tower began operation
ٳ
1860 Louisville Water builds first offices on Third Street
ٳ
1879 New Crescent Hill station gatehouse constructed
ٳ
1909 Old Pumping station ceases operation
ٳ
1910 New Water Company building Opened
ٳ
1998 Water Company leaves the building
Significance ٳ
The office building is associated with National Historic Landmarks that are renowned internationally.
ٳ
It conveys the administrative aspects of the engineering landmarks that survive
The Water Tower on River Road (NH L) Crescent Hill Gatehouse
Significance ٳ
The office building is associated with the Louisville Water Company during its period of significance
ٳ
It conveys the presence of the LWC in downtown
ٳ
Everyone paid their bill here. The original Water Company Building on 3rd St.
Options 1.
Move the entire building to another location
2.
Relocate the building's portico, façade and 25-‐feet side walls
3.
Move just the building's portico to public land
The city will provide about $1,000,000 to the preservation effort.
Options 2 & 3 are not considered appropriate preservation approaches and were not considered in the charrette.
Precedents ٳ
To set the stage for creative problem-‐solving, the group reviewed examples of other preservation-‐based approached to hotel development around the country.
The two-‐story building on the corner in view was preserved as part of the new Hotel Valencia in San Antonio.
The Omni Philadelphia
This Omni (tall brick building) is new, but the project includes a historic building (grey) that was developed into condos, which now share the ŚŽƚĞů͛Ɛ amenities.
Historic Omni Hotels
San Antonio
Pittsburgh
Boston
San Francisco
Detroit
New York
St. Louis
Constraints for this Project ٳ
ٳ
Limited time frame ٳ
The Mayor wants a solution by June 20
ٳ
Land is to be cleared for development by January 1, 2016
Physical barriers to transporting the building ٳ
ٳ
Easiest within approximately a 6 block radius
Overall development feasibility
The Downtown Area
ٳ
The five sites considered all fell within this area.
Sites
The Site Selection Process ٳ
Beginning with a laundry list of all the vacant space within a 6-‐7 block radius of the current site, the site selection criteria aided the host committee in designating a few of the sites feasible.
ٳ
Sites were then discussed with local partners and Metro to determine the best choice for focus during the charrette.
ٳ
An evaluation of each of these will be recorded.
ٳ
Note that the owners of these sites have not necessarily agreed to the use of their site, and mutually acceptable agreements would need to be achieved
Relocation Criteria ٳ
Sustainability Objectives The project demonstrates best practices in sustainable planning and design, including:
1.
2.
3.
a)
Cultural
b)
Economic
c)
Environmental
The project demonstrates the economic benefits of older fabric to vibrant cities.
The project contributes to a healthy community.
Relocation Criteria ٳ
ٳ
Economic Development Opportunities 1.
The building, in its new location, could help stimulate other investment and economic development in the area.
2.
The uses envisioned for the building complement others in the area.
Urban Design Objectives 1.
The building, in its new location, contributes to a pedestrian-‐friendly street edge.
2.
The building provides uses that will activate the street.
3.
The building is in scale and character with other buildings in its context.
Relocation Criteria ٳ
Preservation of the Historic Resource ٳ
Rehabilitation Standards:
ٳ
dŚĞ ^ĞĐƌĞƚĂƌLJ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ /ŶƚĞƌŝŽƌ͛Ɛ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ ĨŽƌ ZĞŚĂďŝůŝƚĂƚŝŽŶ will be applied, including: 1.
Key features will be preserved.
2.
Alterations and additions will be compatible.
Relocation Criteria ٳ
Preservation of the Historic ZĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ;ĐŽŶƚ͛ĚͿ
ٳ
Orientation:
ٳ
1.
The building will have an orientation similar to that seen historically.
2.
The setting is similar in character to that of the historic site.
General Environment: 1.
The vicinity is comparable to the historic location and is compatible with the property's significance.
2.
The site would provide new surroundings that would be compatible with the architectural aspects of the building or structure.
Relocation Criteria ٳ
General Requirements 1.
2.
3.
4.
The building will be secured to prevent damage while it remains on its existing site. The building will be documented on its existing site to a level that meets industry standards. Archaeological investigation will occur at the existing site prior to extensive site disturbance. A structural assessment will confirm that the building is suitable for moving.
Relocation Criteria ٳ
Technical Moving Considerations A professional moving company experienced in moving similar properties will be engaged to execute the move.
1.
2.
The moving path can be secured clear of obstacles.
3.
Timing for placing on a new foundation is appropriate. a)
The building can be safely stored on an interim site until a foundation can be constructed, or
b)
The building can remain on its existing foundation until a permanent foundation at the receiving site can be constructed.
Site 1: Green Space ٳ
Located at 1st and Muhammad Ali Blvd.
ٳ
Owned by Louisville Metro
ٳ
Adjacent to interstate right-‐of-‐way
Site 1: Green Space
ٳ
Near the medical center
ٳ
Also near the Brown School
ٳ
Uses related to medicine or the the school might be feasible here
Site 1: Green Space
ٳ
An illustrative plan showing the Louisville Water Company building on Site 1
ٳ
It would face Muhammad Ali Blvd.
Site 1: Green Space
ٳ
A few parking spaces would be located in the rear
ٳ
The site is "tight" in terms of locating the building, but it could work
Site 1: Green Space ٳ
The building could help create a link between the medical center and downtown
ٳ
Development costs are not likely to be feasible as a private venture without assistance
Site 1: Green Space ٳ
Basic Concept ٳ
Site Organization & Building Orientation ٳ
ٳ
ٳ
Front facing along Muhammad Ali, only real choice due to the size of the lot.
Relationship to Context ٳ
Aligned with the building on opposite side of 1st Street.
ٳ
͞<Ŷŝƚ͟ medical center with downtown
Other Improvements (additions, new construction, site work) ٳ
ADA accessible ramp in rear, small parking area at the rear, low-‐ impact design features, remove vault, enhance existing transit stop.
Site 1: Green Space ٳ
Land Use ٳ
ٳ
ٳ
Educational or medical office space
Community Benefit ٳ
Improve urban experience near overpass
ٳ
Gateway to downtown
ٳ
Low Impact Development (LID) demonstration
Remaining Issues ٳ
Additional parking
ٳ
Parking entry distribution from on-‐ramp
ٳ
Site drainage
Site 1: Green Space ٳ
Next Steps (30 days) ٳ
Engage health care developers
ٳ
Engage hospitals / clinics regarding expansion needs
ٳ
Engage Brown School regarding potential interest or concerns
ٳ
Determine moving route
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
The Oddfellow building is assumed to remain in place with the transfer of land to Omni later this calendar year
ٳ
It would be part of Phase 2 Development for the Omni site
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
The southeast corner is an opportunity site
ٳ
Relocation would be easiest, with no street crossing
ٳ
The Odd Fellows is designed to be seen from the front, and both sides, this would re-‐create the cluster of historic buildings
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
An alternative corner is at Muhammad Ali and 3rd
Site 2a: Oddfellows
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
This concept saves the office building AND the meter shop
ٳ
The office building would face 2nd St.
ٳ
A courtyard would be between the buildings
ٳ
This concept would reinforce the 2nd Street orientation of the Omni Hotel
Site 2a: Oddfellows
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
This concept considers the opportunity for a larger scale development on the southwest corner of the site (beyond the historic buildings)
Site 2a: Oddfellows
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
This concept helps to animate Muhammad Ali
ٳ
The cluster of historic buildings would create a "sense of ƉůĂĐĞ͞ ĂůŽŶŐ Ă ƐƚƌĞĞƚ ƚŚĂƚ ǁŝůů ďĞ ƚŚĞ ďŽƌĚĞƌ ŽĨ Ă ǀĞƌLJ ůĂƌŐĞ development.
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
Basic Concept ٳ
ٳ
Site Organization & Building Orientation ٳ
Group Main Building and Meter Shop Building to the north and east of the Odd Fellows Building.
ٳ
Align both buildings with Omni street wall along Second Street and Meter Building with Odd Fellows street wall along Ali.
ٳ
Front porch of Main Building and long side wall of Meter Building facing Second Street.
Relationship to Context ٳ
ƌĞĂƚĞƐ Ă ĐůƵƐƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐ ƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ŝŶ ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ tĂƚĞƌ ŽŵƉĂŶLJ͛Ɛ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐ campus configuration, keeping both relocated buildings on same native block
ٳ
Height ŽĨ ďŽƚŚ ƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƐŝŵŝůĂƌ ŝŶ ƐĐĂůĞ ƚŽ KŵŶŝ͛Ɛ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƐƚƌĞĞƚ-‐facing block along Second Street.
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
Basic Concept ;ĐŽŶƚ͛ĚͿ ٳ
Other Improvements (additions, new construction, site work) ٳ
New elevated (first-‐floor level) courtyard and infill construction between buildings with potential link to Omni development to west.
ٳ
Proposed potential configuration of/relationship to Omni plans indicated in drawn materials.
ٳ
Remaining 2/3 of phase two site accommodates parking and residential high rise.
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
Land Use ٳ
ٳ
2 Scenarios ٳ
Freestanding multi-‐use development occupying the three structures
ٳ
Public/guest amenities supporting Omni hotel and condominium
/Ŷ ĞŝƚŚĞƌ ƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ͕ DĂŝŶ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƐƵŝƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ Žƌ ͚ĂŶĐŚŽƌ͛ retail on 1st level; Meter Building suited to interior-‐facing retail or bar; Oddfellows and upper levels of each structure continuing as Omni amenity/support/office space use. Infill as support spaces and/or entry to Omni development to west.
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
Economics ٳ
ٳ
Financing Strategy ٳ
ŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚŝŶŐ ΨϮŵ ƚŽ ΨϮ͘ϱŵ ŝŶ ƌĞŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ ĐŽƐƚ͕ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ŝŶ KŵŶŝ͛Ɛ ĨĂĐŝůŝƚLJ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ cost.
ٳ
DŝŶŝŵŝnjĞƐ ĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞ ŽĨ KŵŶŝ͛Ɛ WŚϭ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ƐƚĂŐŝŶŐ ƐŝƚĞ ĂŶĚ WŚϮ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
Pro Forma ٳ
Program pieces already planned for Omni (e.g., spa, salon, shops, business center, etc.) provided in renovated spaces instead of new construction, offsetting some of those costs. Keeps new construction programmatically/diagrammatically simple.
ٳ
Potential Omni development to the west could include: 22 floors along Third Street, 6 floors along Muhammad Ali, yielding 19,200sf townhomes, 2,100sf lobby/access, 8,400sf street front commercial, and 220,000sf residential/condominium.
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
ٳ
Community Benefits ٳ
Best use of Metro funding, because limiting move cost by keeping structures on the same block.
ٳ
Saving two unique and generally-‐recognized structures that citizens are used to seeing together.
ٳ
Re-‐establishment of street front building line along pedestrian path, integrating buildings with a fine-‐grained level of architectural detail
ٳ
Relocation of buildings to said corner complements existing significant corner buildings to east and southeast.
Remaining Issues ٳ
Omni buy-‐in
Site 2a: Oddfellows ٳ
Next Steps (30 days) ٳ
ٳ
Stabilization of existing structures, especially roof integrity.
Next Steps (90 days) ٳ
Removal of adjacent structures to determine exterior wall condition.
ٳ
Discussions with Omni about reorientation of ground plan to provide parking access and services off of alley instead of Third Street, in order to mitigate impact on pedestrian comfort/activity along Third.
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
The Pendennis Club owns a parking lot adjacent to the building
ٳ
A revenue generating approach would be needed to entice Pendennis into considering this development.
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
Two options were developed for this site
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
A one-‐story building with parking abutting the site
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
ٳ
In this concept, the Water Company Building is the "front door" to a boutique hotel, with a new parking structure to the west
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
ٳ
A drop-‐off area would be shared by the hotel and the Pendennis Club
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
ٳ
This option does not include the parking building
ٳ
Parking would be beneath the hotel
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot
ٳ
The Water Company Building would be located closer to the street
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
Basic Concept ٳ
Site Organization & Building Orientation ٳ
ٳ
Relationship to Context ٳ
ٳ
Filling the second street frontage of the block between M. Ali Blvd and Guthrie, orienting to M. Ali Blvd.
Continues the condition of grand buildings established by Pendennis ʹ DŽŶƵŵĞŶƚĂůŝƚLJ͘ ͞EĞĞĚ ƚŽ ďĞ ƐĞĞŶ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ƌŽƵŶĚ͘͟
Other Improvements (additions, new construction, site work) ٳ
Parking structure and a 100 room boutique hotel, to which the building will serve as a an entry way. Coffee shop, lobby, etc.
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
Land Use ٳ
ٳ
Boutique hotel space ʹ boutique hotel lobby, coffee, amenities, meeting rooms ʹ backing up to the addition of new rooms.
Economics ٳ
Land lease the entire parking lot from the Pendennis ʹ giving a long-‐ term source of income with no operation expenses ʹ also have a cross-‐marketing agreement with the development that would share services between the Pendennis and the hotel (example: hotel providing rooms for events and Pendennis providing social space). Parking garage might be financed by the parking authority ʹ would decrease costs associated with creation.
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
Community Benefit ٳ
Tax Credit campaign launch ʹ opportunity to strengthen coalition for the KY HTC, would provide up to 15% of the cost of the project.
ٳ
Urban Design: Continues the street wall of 2nd Street established by the Omni project ʹ delivering continuity.
ٳ
Sustains the historic institution of the Pendennis club.
ٳ
Access to unique event space, different hotel rooms, etc.
Site 2b: Pendennis Lot ٳ
ٳ
Remaining Issues ٳ
Willing partner in the Pendennis ʹ ability to accept arrangements.
ٳ
Developer ʹ seek a small scale boutique hotelier that has already been in contact with the Metro. (Connecting the right developer to the opportunity).
Next Steps (30 days) ٳ
Reach out to Pendennis with the idea, connect small-‐scale hoteliers to the Pendennis.
Site 3: Founder's Square
Site 3: Founder's Square
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
This site is located at Muhammad Ali and 5th St.
ٳ
It is a Metro-‐owned property
ٳ
City offices are adjacent to it
ٳ
(It is not a city park)
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
Basic Concept ٳ
Site Organization & Building Orientation ٳ
ٳ
Relationship to Context ٳ
ٳ
Originally built in the round ʹ all sides were meant to be seen, so keep them that way. Center the building in the park, with connection to the Office Building, park-‐ like setting. Retains the park space that is there, makes it more functional. Makes it stronger.
Built in the round
Other Improvements (additions, new construction, site work) ٳ
Outdoors being the focal point ʹ using the exterior of the building to create a continuity between the building and the parkland.
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
Land Use ٳ
ٳ
Event and meeting rooms, commercial office space.
Economics ٳ
Developer could utilize rehab tax credits for the existing structure, leverage the cheap / free land from the city.
ٳ
Conventional lending for development itself.
ٳ
Private nonprofit would take ownership of land / building, Metro would pay to move it and set the foundation. Private nonprofit would orchestrate.
ٳ
Eligibility for tax credits, rehab credits, etc.
ٳ
Valuable land offered at a cheap price. Market might have to determine the best use.
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
ٳ
ٳ
Community Benefits ٳ
Extends the active revitalization of downtown beyond 4th Street.
ٳ
Opportunity to provide something interesting in an area of downtown that needs it.
ٳ
Could create development activity that could positively impact the armory / developer interest in the armory.
Remaining Issues ٳ
Land acquisition ʹ is Metro willing to donate land?
ٳ
Eligibility for tax credits, rehab credits, etc.
ٳ
Move route and associated costs.
Next Steps (30 days) ٳ
Discuss land opportunity with Metro, get a bid for the move.
Site 3: Founder's Square
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
This concept envisions a public-‐oriented use
ٳ
Two alternative concepts were developed
Site 3: Founder's Square
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
In this concept, the building would be a new entrance to city offices, and an "events space" for wedding receptions and other celebrations
Site 3: Founder's Square ٳ
In the second concept, the building would anchor the corner, and leave room for other commercial development.
ٳ
A smaller plaza could be used for outdoor events
Site 4: Existing Location
Site 4: Existing Location ٳ
The current design for the Omni Hotel leaves 3rd Street as a "blank wall."
ٳ
This concept keeps the historic buildings in place to help animate this block face
Site 4: Existing Location
ٳ
This concept rearranges the parking structure for the Omni project
Site 4: Existing Location
ٳ
Parking would be arranged underground
Site 4: Existing Location
ٳ
An alternative solution would rotate the two buildings to face Muhammad Ali, as part of "Phase 2" of the Omni Project.
Site 4: Existing Location ٳ
Basic Concept ٳ
Site Organization & Building Orientation ٳ
ٳ
Keep WCB in original footprint, including both structures, original and addition
Land Use ٳ
Use Water Company Building ĂŶĚ Ă ƉĂƌƚ ŽĨ KŵŶŝ͛Ɛ ĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ programming, grocery, restaurant, bourbon experience. Keeping WCB animated.
Site 4: Existing Location ٳ
ٳ
Economics ٳ
Healthier, cheaper to keep Water Company Building in place, greener, more compassionate, more beautiful, human scale, local history, national history, landmarks are part of the story, more safe.
ٳ
Get funding from MSD for water mitigation, office rent in Water Company Building for second story
ٳ
Further design of cost benefit analysis to expand and include healthy.
Community Benefits ٳ
Urban scale development, sustainable development, better for traffic patterns.
Site 4: Existing Location ٳ
Remaining Issues (with current Omni design)
Lighting and sun access, solar for neighbors. LEED certified plans for platinum Open discussion for serious redesign discussions and considerations N eed to create and EcoDistrict
Façade should perform and enhance health of citizens ± current design is detrimental to our health. What are the shading impacts of design on community? Want to serve as national significant
Create energy
example of ecologically, architecturally
Zero w aste
sustainable urban design.
M itigate storm w ater (potential to earn N eed DDRO process to pre date signed $) Serve purposes beyond Omni
contracts.
Site 4: Existing Location ٳ
Next Steps (30 days) ٳ
Deadline needs to be extended
ٳ
Open and collaborative effort with Omni and Metro with community to re-‐open the design process.
ٳ
Need spokesperson to meet with Omni and Metro.
ٳ
Request Omni to propose an award-‐winning sustainable design.
Observations ٳ
There are SEVERAL viable options for preserving the Water Company Building.
ٳ
The Water Company Building could be an important asset in a variety of scenarios
Lessons from this Process ٳ
There is no public policy about how to address historically significant properties
ٳ
A process such as this (the charrette) should be used at the initiation of a project that affects the city
ٳ
It should be engaging for the community
Next Steps 1.
2.
Stabilize the building & dry it out Continue to refine the concepts
3.
Engage property owners
4.
Partner with Metro to find a mutually-‐beneficial solution
Next Steps ٳ
Preservation Green Lab staff welcome feedback from Metro on these options and others that might be beneficial.
ٳ
Development partners for each site could be found quickly and easily.
ٳ
We look forward to continuing this conversation.
Participants Over 40 people contributed to this process as either design participants or incredibly important resource people. Barry Alberts Anne Arensberg Cliff Ashburner Bob Bavandas Edie Bingham Jessica Brown Brent Bucknam Charles Cash Diane Comer Laura Ferguson Rebecca Fleischaker Gordon Garner
Cynthia Johnson Valle Jones Branden Klayko Ed Krebs Martina Kunnecke Angela Leet Joanna Lynch Kathleen Lyons Rebecca Matheny Jeff McKenzie Norma Northern Joe Pierson Keith Runyon
Meme Runyon Katy Schneider Greg Sekula Nathan Smith Claude Stephens Tom Stephens Mark Trier Steven Ward Bill Weyland Eric Williams Ray Yeager Marianne Zickuhr
Contacts Jim Lindberg | SENIOR DIRECTOR, PRESERVATION GREEN LAB
P 303.623.1504, ext 42230 | M 303.653.3465 Email: jlindberg@savingplaces.org
Margaret O'Neal | SENIOR MANAGER, PRESERVATION GREEN LAB P 202.588.6118 | M 202.870.8096 Email: moneal@savingplaces.org
Charles Cash, AIA | URBAN 1, LLC P 502.744.0656 Email: charles@charlescashaia.org
Thank You
This process w as made possible by generous support from the Ow sley Brow n II Family Foundation as w ell as substantial help from Preservation Louisville, and the Urban Design Studio of the University of Louisville.