Westport Alliance for Saugatuck

Hamlet Application - ARB Member David Halpern Comments on June 2, 2025 revised submission [link] [& ARB Chair Letter]

To: P&Z Commission

June 10, 2025

The proposed architectural modifications made to the hotel buildings M, L & K; the enlarged river access plaza and the modifications made to the residental building D are appreicated and responsive to some of the comments discussed during the April 22 ARB meeting.  However, overall the building's heights and development density, along with reyling on a jumble of questionable styles on the residentsal side, have not substantially changed.

The submitted documentation remains incomplete in order to fully evaluate the impact of the Hamlet design on the full context of the site.  Previously the ARB requested site elevations along the streets showing the existing buildings, the new buildings and cut through the I-95 bridge.  These were partially provided In the April 22 meeting, but now need to be updated with the June 2 revisions and include reference to the bridge.  To allow the public to full understand the design, I would also recommend the P&Z Commission suggest the Hamlet team update the previous renderings based on the revised design and develop a 3-D animation walk through or site model.

Although the project may be compliant with the P&Z height and FAR requirements, the massing, materiality and detailing represents an URBAN solution more appropriate for a New England city like South Norwalk, New London, Portsmouth or Portland.  The modifications using wood siding and roof from and massing changes for the hotel buildings are an improvement here from the previous design, but the 5 story building height still seems excessive and inconsistent with a New England Coastal Village Aesthetic, which I understand is an intent stated in the relevant P&Z amendment.  The use of the stone arcade at the base of these buildings is successful, but I would delete the arched windwos along the ground flood that seem superfluous.

The redesign of Building D, replacing brick with wood siding and eleting the replication of the existing retail structures adopting a more homogenous retail expression are all positive moves.  The reducion of 2' in total buildings height is minor in its architectural impact, and would be more successful in reducing the bulk and shadows are more pronounced set backs of the 4th and 5th floors along Riverside and Railroad Place.

I was disappointed that similar considerations and revisions to the residential building A, B & E were not proposed.  My objections raised during the April 22 meeting remain.  I don't know the history behind the P&Z approval of 21 Charles Street but the architecture and height in particular are an anomaly for Saugatuck and shoudn't be considered a precedent for future buildings.

The style of the 5 residential five story buidlings are intentionally disparate architectural expressions exaggerating the urban feel and theatrical appearance within a small Saugatuck block.  With the exception of Building C, the designs are neither historically correct nor successful contemporary interpretations of the traditional NE architecture.  Adopting a more homogenous exterior expression for the residential buildings along the lines of Building C would help here.

Building A's facade is a streamlined interpretation of a nineteenth century cast iron facade common in urban areas such as South Norwalk or lower Manhattan, but feels completely out of place in Saugatuck.

The massing of Building B Imposes a 5 story brick urban wall along Riverside and Charles Street.  Deep 4th and 5th floor setback and reducing the brick and cornice ornamentation would be more appropriate.

The Building E residents in the style of beaux arts classicism.  This typology is seen In New England cities and towns often as banks, libraries and other public buildings intended to reflect a sense of gravitas.  Its function as a 5-story residents desiguised as a 3-story classical structure is inappropriate and creates awkward shaped residengs windows within the units.

The Architect is playing fast and loose here with architectural styles.  When the above Is combined and viewed as a residential complex, the design lacks Integrity and feels more like the back lot of Universal Studios.

I hope the Hamlet Team will reconsider meeting again wtih teh ARB.  As an iterative process has been essential to achieive alignment between the Hamlet team, the P&Z Commission and the Public's concerns, so should that process be followed with the ARB to help deliver the most suitable architecture for Westport.

Respectfully Submitted

David Halpern