I know this isn't the type of blog where I am supposed to bitch about how I am feeling, but I am going to anyway. I am frustrated by an email I got from Landmarks' this evening. The email and my response are below:

Shahn,
The staff reviewed the project last Thursday in prep for the Jan. 10th public hearing. The general feeling was that the design (bulk, size in relation to the historic house, height) is something that the commissioners might not approve of; and that if this does go to a hearing on the 10th, we'll need the drawings you and I spoke of / emailed about, soon. My director has suggested that we schedule a meeting to go over design issues before the 10th. I'd hate to see this go before the commissioners just to be rejected and then have to go back a second time. Generally, our goal is to get the kinks worked out of a design before it even reaches the commissioners, to lessen the chances of rejection. Try to come up with some dates you and your architect can come in so we can go over what we have so far and what if anything can be tweaked. I’m in this week so far – carpooling- but I think a meeting during the period of the strike is probably not going to happen as you, and others of our staff who need to attend, might have problems making it in. Let’s look at doing something next week, if possible.

- Nice Lady From Landmarks'

Nice Lady From Landmarks',
I hope to get those other drawings to you in the next couple of days. My architect is sometimes slow and often doesn't get the drawings right the first time (or the third for that matter).

I am apprehensive about meeting with the committee as it sounds to me that my desires for this house will be opposed from the outset simply because I want to change a 3500 square foot house into a 5500 square foot one. I had hoped that they would be as excited as I am about the restoration of the historical character of this house. Is it generally their knee-jerk reaction to downsize projects even though they are significantly below the as-of-right buildable floor area ratio? I am hoping the committee will see this design as being complementary to the original building since the existing building will remain intact and the majority of changes are to the rear. The plans call for three sides of the building to be restored as closely as possible to the original condition and the new parts to tie seamlessly into it. It has been my understanding that Landmarks' main goal is to keep historic buildings intact, and I had hoped that they would feel that this design does that.

Are there any particular changes to the design that might help get them through the committee? Does the fact that the expansion in no way detracts from the historical building hold any weight with them? The height of the extension will be the same as the existing house, and will not be visible from the street. The bulk is smaller than the existing building and the size difference will only be noticible from one side, and then only when you are on the property or nearly on it. I want to try and make plans that the committe will approve, but there is an economy of scale when doing a renovating of this magnitude and the additional size helps justify the cost. More importantly, this is my home and I have put a lot of thought into coming up with a design that will accomodate me now and fifty years from now.

-Shahn Christian Andersen
"So let it be written, so let it be done"