2343 Prytania St, 1531 First St.

Description: Review of exterior changes since previous approval and final detail review of minimally visible gymnasium access stair as part of a previously approved new construction of a 23, 535 SF multi-story gymnasium building including new construction of a 1,370 SF two-story addition fronting Prytania Street and located within the Louise S McGehee School campus.

Previous ARC & Commission Recommendations & Actions: 

06/05/25: The Commission voted to grant conceptual approval with the final details of the gymnasium access stair to return for additional ARC review once further developed.

05/20/25: The ARC voted to recommend conceptual approval of the gymnasium and entry lobby with the final details of the gymnasium access stair to return for additional ARC review once further developed. The ARC also agreed that:

• Façade option 2 showing rectangular openings/recesses is preferred over the round top arched openings because the they do not adequately relate to or complement the segmental arch windows seen at the adjacent Bradish Johnson house, appear too classically inspired for the proposed form/massing of this new construction, and because the rectangular openings relate better to the proposed architectural language of the entry lobby addition along Prytania Street.

• The use of false/spandrel windows to form the major patterning and predominant materiality of the front elevation recesses does not yet appear to be successful because they may be too disingenuous in terms of the relationship between the exterior appearance and interior program. Additionally, there may be other strategies or materials that are more appropriate for the surrounding historic context,  and these should be further studied and refined.

  • • The spandrel panels should be replaced with brick inlay as this material may appear more intentional, more integrated with the overall design, introduce additional material interest and texture, and may also help to reduce overall costs.

    • The central dividing mullion should also be removed from the brick infill areas.

• The recessed infill areas at the left and right-hand side of the front elevation should also utilize a brick inlay rather than the proposed stucco treatment.

• The thickness of the horizontal band of brick wall directly above the top floor window openings should be increased slightly.

• The access stair rendering shown on Page 11 was the most successful in terms of how it is integrated into the proposed new gymnasium building, as seen from the interior courtyard.

• Overall, the access stair should be visually lighter and more subservient to the main gymnasium building, and the applicant should consider alternative material options and opening treatments to further differentiate the two. 

  • • Given the minimal visibility of the new access stair at either the left-side or rear of the building, the ARC agreed that either location could be acceptable. Additionally, several screening options may be considered appropriate, and the applicant is encouraged to explore the most cost-effective solutions. 

04/22/25: Due to a lack of quorum, the ARC could not make a motion to recommend to the Commission at this meeting. As such, the following recommendations must be ratified at the following ARC meeting. The ARC members present agreed that:

Gymnasium:

• The building appears to successfully read visually as a gymnasium rather than attempting to conceal or obscure its program and use, and the scale of the proposed building appears appropriate for the existing surrounding context. 

• The proposed materiality appears appropriate, however, there was some concern that the general motif or arched reveals and openings, as applied to the entirety of the exterior, may be pushing up against the needs of the interior program. 

  • • For example, portions of the arched openings have solid wall infill at the exterior due to interior program needs, and the overall exterior design and articulation could be further studied and refined to generate better relationships between the interior spaces and the exterior architectural expression.

    • The continuity of the design around the building is appreciated, however, the proposed arches do not appear to relate to the surrounding historic context and should be reconsidered and further refined.  

    • Additionally, side elevations can potentially appear differently to better reflect the interior program and space needs while maintaining general visual continuity in the exterior architectural expression, detailing, materials, etc. 

• The ARC noted that the gymnasium program has unique needs for natural and artificial lighting, and that views to the inside from the exterior also need to be controlled. However, the exterior appearance would benefit from additional glazing or spandrel panels, closer to what is depicted in façade Option 2.

• The overall design appears to reflect a pared-down version of a historic building and may be reading too flat materially and visually. For example, there is much more detail, depth of reveal, shadow lines, etc. shown in the inspiration images than has been incorporated into the façade. The applicant should continue to study and refine the façade design and detailing so that more embellishment and articulation at the various changes of plain are incorporated.

  • • Additional façade sections and details should be included for the next review.

• The monumental stair does not yet appear to be integrated and compatible with the gymnasium building massing, materiality, and detailing. The applicant should reconsider the intent, location, and materiality of the stair, such as relocating it around the building corner where it could be more of a campus element, provide more sense of entry, and have less visibility from the surrounding streets. Additionally, because it is a new and contemporary element, the ARC did not recommend using historically inspired strategies such as wood louvered shutter screens, etc. 

Entry Lobby:

• The design, details, and materiality of the addition appear appropriate, and the ARC appreciated the visual interest provided through the architectural language, pilasters, window details, reveals, shadow lines, etc. 

  • • The ARC recommended the applicant consider utilizing a similar architectural vocabulary at the gymnasium building, as this could help the applicant to reconsider the proposed arches, so the two new structures share a common architectural language, and so there is more of a cohesive design approach across the campus. 

• The removal of the existing lower storefront glazing at the right-side elevation is appropriate.

Context Photos:

Current Drawings:

Previous Drawings - 05/20/25:

Previously Reviewed Drawings - 04/22/25:

Sanborn Maps:

Street View:

Public Comments:

Received Previously - 04/22/25: