PAC*SJ's comments detailing the Significant Impacts
that will occur if the Montgomery Hotel is moved
Preservation Action Council
August 1999
The city is proposing to move the Montgomery Hotel to save it from demolition when the Fairmont Expansion project is built. Throughout the original project approval process, PACSJ supported alternatives to the demolition of the Montgomery Hotel. The current proposal to move the hotel is new and has moved rapidly through the city approval process. PACSJ is still learning fully about the move and its impacts. We realize that we need to take a position so the city knows what the views of the preservation community are on the move proposal. Furthermore we are in litigation over the demolition of the hotel and any alternative would need to be evaluated as a possible settlement to this litigation. PACSJ is an interested party and has legal standing in this matter.
We are pleased with the city's efforts to save the building. However the city's work in the preservation area has historically been plagued with lack of consultation with appropriate groups and agencies. While the new administration is striving to change this, the current preservation effort may be suffering from this endemic institutional behavior. Nevertheless we have approached this matter with an open mind. Below are our thoughts on the issues involved with saving the hotel by moving it to a new site.
Interestingly and unfortunately, much of the interior detail inside the Montgomery Hotel is made from cast plaster. It has suffered much from the long-term lack of maintenance. Water has seeped down to the ground floor from the roof, three floors up. Also in the course of previous use and remodeling, many elements from the ground floor have been removed or damaged. However, there are many elements that are still intact. Importantly, enough representative elements remain to recreate or restore much of what has been damaged or removed.
Without a doubt the best preserved and most interesting part of the building is the annex containing the ballroom. This room is almost completely intact. The most significant damage to this room actually just occurred during the recent "soft demolition" intended to uncover hidden historic fabric.
A majority of the damage due to neglect has occurred since the city purchased the building from HUD. While the city initially was going to make the building a major element in the renovated downtown, after it quietly decided on demolition, the building was left derelict for many years resulting in significant damage. This has resulted in large amounts of bird feces in the upper floors and significant water damage.
Preservationists in San Jose have developed a sensitivitiy over the years to recommending solutions which could turn out to be prohibitively expensive or unworkable. After being pilloried about the high cost of the Fallon House renovation, which we were not party to, we are reluctant to endorse any potentially high price option for preservation project. This is not to be confused with our willingness to significant funding for sensible and prudent preservation projects.
Recently we have seen this Council reject funding on projects with popular support because the proposed costs were deemed too high.
Whether or not we advocate relocation, the high cost of such a project could be invoked at future occasions when funds for preservation are requested. Even when preservation has a high cost, it can be justified. But spending significant money to diminish historic integrity has to be viewed with great caution.
We learned two week ago that the move will leave behind or destroy everything below the ceiling of the ground floor. Thus virtually everything below this line will have to be replaced. To further complicate this, the whole of the interior was built using plaster. None of it can be saved and re-used after the move. Of course we acknowledge that even if the building were not moved, portions of the remaining plaster will need replacement due to water damage. But, tile and mosaic floors will also be left behind and lost as a result of the move.
Replacing these lost items will necessarily add to the cost of rehabilitation. If these items are left to the new user of the building it will make finding such a user even more difficult. The alternative is to have the city offset or subsidize these rehabilitation costs, but in doing so it incurs yet higher costs. The current move proposal does not include this funding.>
Without a doubt the building will require seismic work whether or not it is moved. It may be easier to perform the necessary upgrades if the building is moved. Apparently the columns that are being removed are half as strong as todayís standards. Also the elimination of the basement will make bracing on the ground floor easier. However see the section below with regards to situating the building without a basement.
Yet the plans for the seismic work are preliminary at best. We would be hopeful that with some consideration, the in-place seismic work could be done efficaciously. After all if you can replace the posts to move the building, you can replace them and not move the building.
Timeline
| Date | Event or Document |
| June 23 | DDA modification hearing |
| June 25 | Date on EIR addendum |
| June 29 | Council vote on DDA |
| July 30 | Request for Packet by PACSJ; First verbal notice of impacts from move |
| July 3 | Date on "Letter of Transmittal" to PACSJ with EIR and staff report for Landmarks Hearing |
| August 4 | Landmarks hearing |
| August 11 | Work underway on Montgomery |
| August 11 | Planning hearing on modified CUP |
PACSJ was not provided the Amended EIR with the project specifics and impacts in timely manner. The Landmarks Hearing was less than one week after we were sent the EIR information. In any event the EIR was only finished a few days before the Council vote on the DDA, and astoundingly after the staff report was completed. Even though this project has lesser impacts than the originally approved project, a new Statement of Overriding Consideration should be prepared, because this project still has significant impacts.
Saving the mosaics, tile and remaining internal features should be required. This is actually essential to meeting item 42c of CUP approved by the Planning Commission on 8/11/99.
We lost Costa Hall for 20 parking spaces. The justification for the Jose demolition was the need for more parking. Clearly parking is very important in the minds of many downtown residents and business people. Every opportunity to create additional parking should be utilized, especially so future parking needs do not jeopardize additional historic buildings.
To run a hotel in the rehabilitated Montgomery will require service and support space. We want to be sure that the building can be feasibly used as a hotel. By eliminating a basement from the plans, a viable hotel use may be ruled out. At the very least gather requirements from potential users to assess the impact of not having a basement to their plans.
In any move scenario the Annex, containing the Ballroom is totally lost. This is an interesting and nearly completely intact part of the building which relates to a period likely to be associated with the buildingís significance. Its loss is a severe and significant problem.
The budget for the relocation does not include funds for replacing or replicating interior architectural elements that will be lost in the move process.
Without a doubt the most serious issue, and the one which we have reiterated since the day we learned of the move proposal, is the negative effect of moving the building from its original location. There are aesthetic and measurable impacts from doing this.
In downtown San Jose today there are a handful of remaining buildings that are excellent examples of the city's past. In addition to the Montgomery, the Twohy building is among the finest. Fortunately the Twohy has been recognized as such and treated well as a result. The juxtaposition of the Montgomery to the Twohy is especially rewarding. Despite that literally block after block of potentially significant buildings have been demolished in the last three decades, we are given two wonderful buildings facing each other and creating a unique streetscape.
After listening to an RDA architect at a public hearing justify an undesirable project by saying that the streetscape created by two opposing building is sacrosanct, it is hard accept separating these two buildings. After the move the Montgomery will face a parking lot.
The Paseo de San Antonio is one of the finest pedestrian spaces in the new downtown. It forms a nearly unbroken chain of accessible pedestrian spaces that move from Market Street to the University. Its charm and character contribute significantly to downtown. The Montgomery is part and parcel of this streetscape. The towering Fairmont expansion will alter the Paseo and reduce its pedestrian appeal. Today one can stand and view the faces of the Twohy and Montgomery at once. Because it only presents a short section of tall frontage on the Paseo the existing Fairmont does not detract from the pedestrian scale. Yet the new tower will run the length of the block at 13 stories.
From a preservation standpoint, moving a building reduces its value. Historic evaluations score buildings on the basis of their location on their original location. As noted in the ARG report, moving this building will reduce its eligibility for the National Register. With the loss of National Register Status goes significant tax credits for the future tenant undertaking the rehabilitation. These tax credits can amount to 20% of the cost of rehabilitation.
While pedestrians have good reason to stroll along the Paseo, the new walkway to the side and rear of the relocated Montgomery will have far fewer passers-by. Furthermore the opening of the new walkway will face the blank face of the UA Pavilion's cinder-block wall.
Configuration of walkway as proposed will add constraints to the future block 8 development. It does not make sense to have a dead end at the back of the senior housing. Therefore a walkway will have to be planned into the design.
The Original EIR for the project identified several alternatives.
One was to use the Fairmont and build a smaller building next to it. This would allow additional hotel rooms in proximity to be served by the infrastructure in the Fairmont. Was this alternative project denied in part becaus of inadequate parking? What about underground access to Proposed expansion, was this in the EIR?
The block containing this project is not well utilized. Perhaps a complete re-analysis of the block and its plan is required. This way future development can be better understood. Otherwise the stepwise and piecemeal approach that has led us to the present situation will continue.
After reviewing all the information available, it is clear there are significant impacts and risks associated with the relocation. Even though there are other factors affecting the decision to relocate the building or leave it at its present location, incorporating the building into a Fairmont expansion still appears to be best solution. Certainly if this alternative was rejected because it did not provide parking, it can be revisited in light of the cityís willingness to sacrifice parking to make the move possible.