1060 Magazine St.

Description: Review of exterior changes since previous approval for the new construction of a 34,854 SF two-story museum and storage building on a vacant lot.

Previous ARC & CMM Recommendations & Actions: 

11/14/23: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval with the final details to be worked out at the Staff level. The ARC also agreed that:

• The revisions made since the previous review have improved the overall design. 

• The additional vertical muntin at the 1st and 2nd floor windows helps to make them all more cohesive and appears to have resolved the previous proportionality issue.

• The proposed seamless muntin with no exterior cap could also be expressed at the exterior like a more typical window division and may help further unify the windows. 

• The raised area of parapet above the left-side exhibit entry door appears too residential in character and should be eliminated so the parapet is a consistent height at this area.

• The applicant should consider revising the two narrow windows shown above the left-side exhibit entry door to match the adjacent larger, rectangular windows, as this may improve the overall façade composition and may be easier to construct. 

• If exterior signage is desired, the location and type should be considered and integrated into the overall building design now.

11/02/23: The City Council votes to overrule HDLC no-action (defacto denial) and to approve demolition to grade and new construction. 

10/04/23: While considering the proposed demolition and new construction, the Commission was unable to reach a majority decision, resulting in no action being taken on the application. The Commission’s lack of action is considered a de-facto denial, which can be appealed to the City Council.

09/19/23: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval with the final details to return for additional ARC review once further developed. The ARC also agreed that:

• The use of differentiated brick colors and bonds creates an interesting composition, successfully breaks up the façade, reflects the interior program, and appropriately relates the overall scale of the building to its surrounding historic context.

• The larger window openings shown as pilaster-to-pilaster in Option 1 are preferred because the proportions work better with the façade composition and appear more contemporary compared to the smaller punched-type openings in Option 2.

• Windows shown in Option 1 without mullions are preferred, however, some may be necessary to achieve glass panel sizes that can be impact rated. The ARC recommended the applicant consider eliminating the vertical muntins at the 2nd floor and from above the canopy at the 1st floor, so they appear less traditional. They also noted that a horizontally-oriented muntin aligned with the canopy could be utilized to reduce the overall glass panel sizes. 

• The tall and narrow windows at the left of the 2nd floor should be reconsidered so they better relate to the overall facade composition and adjacent openings. The narrow windows shown in Option 1 are less successful than Option 2 because the proportions are too small, the ratio of window to wall is too low, and the relationship of the openings to the surrounding recessed area between pilasters is not as successful.

• The proposed window film is not necessary to create the effect of layering in the façade and clear glass is typically the most appropriate option for glazing within local historic districts.

• The proposed metal canopy is an interesting façade element, and the detailing appears to be appropriate. 

• A context drawing should be included for the next review showing the proposed building at-scale with the surrounding existing buildings on the block face.

Context Photos:

Current Drawings:

Previous Drawings - 11/14/2023:

Previous Drawings - 09/19/2023:

Street View: