Skip to content

Letter to the Editor - Jan. 18th, 2016

Dear Editor: I was quite surprised when I attended the poorly advertised open house about the plans for the Maple Acre Library. Of the three questions on the form we were given only one was about the actual design.

Dear Editor:

I was quite surprised when I attended the poorly advertised open house about the plans for the Maple Acre Library.  Of the three questions on the form we were given only one was about the actual design. That question is “Tell us what you like about the design, floor plan and layout.  What design option (A or B) would you prefer? Why?”

Personally I didn’t see them as two separate plans but one plan with slight differences in the front window treatment.

I was disappointed as the expansion was not an “addition”, but a separate building, with a link between them as we now have. The four foot gap between them is great for heat loss, collecting windblown leaves and litter.

The flat roof design makes no sense to me as that style has always been notorious for leaking.  While the architect did explain to me that buildings need maintenance, I wonder why we would chose a roof that has a short life span and the highest maintenance.

It is my opinion that the design process be revisited, taking into consideration the urban design guidelines endorsed by the Town of Pelham. A new RFP be drafted, endorsed by the Advisory Committee, taking into account the feasibility of connecting the two buildings and the materials to build a low maintenance long lasting structure.

The possibility of needing an easement on the west side needs to be addressed as well, as that could have an impact on the design and materials used.

Nowhere in the “how might we” process was there reference to a modern building, but to a building that would fit in and enhance the current structure.  A design that is “sympathetic and subordinate to the heritage aspect of the building”.

Thank you,

Marianne Stewart