Archive
Reasons for razing annex listed
Editor's note: This letter to State Sen. George Edwards and Delegate LeRoy Myers was released to the Times-News for publication:
I am in receipt of your letter requesting an update on the status of the Footer Dye Works building and the attached "Sawtooth Annex." One possible misunderstanding in Mr. Macy's letter ("Historic local structure being threatened," Jan. 27 Times-News) concerns the extent of the demolition that is planned. Only the annex is to be taken down. The four-story main building is to be restored. The annex was added to the Footer building and is a separate structure.
The decision to take the annex down was based on three reasons:
1. Structurally, the building cannot be preserved. An independent analysis was conducted by Independent Consultants and Engineers Inc. of Severn, Md., at the time of the acquisition of the entire Footer complex and concluded that the building could not be preserved.
Their analysis revealed that out of 125 major structural components, approximately 85 were found to be of a condition rating No. 1 (Poor Condition - Component not acceptable at the time of inspection and requires immediate repair/renova-tion/modification. Component is required to be part of proposed action plan). This conclusion was confirmed by the Maryland Historical Trust, which approved the demolition.
To stabilize the annex would have been cost prohibitive ($627,632 based on the 1996 cost estimates) and unjustifiable, and to rebuild the annex is not acceptable to the trust.
2. The ultimate financial plan for the entire Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority is to become self-sufficient. State subsidies will be discontinued as the rentals from the Marriott and the restaurants come on line.
Of course these facilities require parking space. The amount of space is quantifiable, one space per hotel room and 75 spaces for every 100 restaurant seats. We have a 108 room hotel and a potential for two 100 seat restaurants. This does not include space for service and staff personnel.
I personally consulted SPECS Engineering, who designed the parking lot plan, and was told that the Annex had to come down to satisfy parking requirements. I might add that several of our Board members, including myself, were disappointed with the engineer's conclusion, as we are strong preservation advocates. However, we are committed to the project, and feel that the parking space is critical.
3. The developer, Trestle Development, LLC was the only developer to respond to the Authority's Request for Proposals. The developer was told at the beginning of the project that the sawtooth portion of the complex would be demolished, and plans have consistently revolved around that assumption, in order for necessary parking space to be provided. The Authority has abided by that decision.
I have to add that the time-line for our conversion from State dependency to the private enterprise over-ride, which is based on the gross sales of the Trestle Development, LLC company has been severely jeopardized by the premature termination of funding by the state, which now places us in an extremely critical position. The hotel is scheduled for a spring 2009 opening. The restaurants have not been advertised yet.
The delay is intentional. Trestle Development, LLC has requested that the solicitation of the restaurants be delayed until the hotel is begun, thinking that the project will be much more attractive to a quality restaurant with the construction under way and visible.
Hopefully this will provide you with the insight you need. I would be happy to discuss this further, at your convenience.
Howard Buchanan, chairman
Canal Place Preservation and Development Authority
