MASS Design has researched possible restrictions due to the historic nature of King’s Chapel and concludes there is no impediment to proceeding.
a. Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC). King's Chapel does not have historic designation with the BLC. It is not listed on their historic register.
b. The Memorial Project will not be subject to any state-level review process with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), which is the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in MA. Sam Perry and John Bowman both report that the MHC easement in place earlier lapsed before the pandemic. King’s Chapel is listed as a MA Archaeological/Historic Landmark (“MA/HL,” 1966). However, only projects that require funding, licenses, or permits from a state agency must be reviewed by MHC in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9, sections 26- 27C. To date, we are not aware of any state funds being leveraged for this project, nor will any state licenses or permits be required for the work as planned. More information is available from the State of MA website.
c. The Memorial Project will not be subject to a review process with any national-level agency or commission. King’s Chapel is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as an Individual Property (“NRIND,” 1960/74) and as a National Historic Landmark by the Department of the Interior (“NHL,” 1960/74). However, only projects requiring funding, licenses, or permits from federal agencies must be reviewed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. “Section 106 review,” follows a specific process guided by federal regulations to take into account the effects to historic properties and is undertaken by the State agencies (SHPO or MHC). There are no plans for federal funds to be leveraged for this project, nor will any licenses or permits from federal agencies be required for the work as currently planned. More information is available from the State of MA website. d. Beyond historic preservation regulations, there are no existing or planned zoning code obstructions to the Memorial Project. While the “character protection area” within the Ladder District, as proposed by the recent PLAN: Downtown, does include King’s Chapel, regulation pertaining to shadows only applies to buildings. We do not expect the sculpture to contradict any setbacks, especially since it is replacing a sculpture of similar scale. Once we have a design for the sculpture in place, the team will have to submit a site plan to the Parks Department for Design Review, as the church falls within the neighborhood of the Boston Common. This plan will be reviewed for any impact to shadows, grading, density, and overall interface with the public realm. Our team will work closely with Harmonia Rosales to ensure the design is in full compliance ahead of submission. e.Representations at Regulatory Agencies. As a final note, MASS Design assures the congregation that even if King’s Chapel were to fall into any of the regulatory scenarios listed above – such as in the case of securing a source of public funding – the required review processes would not by rule preclude the successful completion of the Memorial Project, as planned. MASS Design Group has successfully guided many clients through historic review, as in the case of The Embrace on the Boston Common. We are confident that this project aligns well with the direction of design in the city to encourage heterogeneity and the expression of diverse identities and narratives, and that the memorial will be a welcome addition to the Boston landscape. 2. Integrity of Sanctuary Ceiling to Sustain the Mural The integrity of the ceiling is also critical, and a very reasonable concern given past failures. The history of the ceiling is long and detailed, but its present condition is simpler to understand: the excellent 2020 ceiling restoration, undertaken at the direction of the Trustees, created a robust and smooth plaster surface that has a continuous mechanical connection to the major structural trusses in the attic. This is accomplished with the addition of fiberglass mesh embedded in veneer plaster, plaster buttons at the surface of this mesh, threaded fasteners, and galvanized metal hangers in the attic. Chris Scovel of MASS has reviewed documentation on the ceiling and has benefited in this work from consultation with Sam Perry and Miguel Gomez-Ibanez. He has spoken with the engineers for the 2020 work (Simpson Gumpertz & Heger), the contractor for the 2020 work (Canning & Co.) and the anticipated contractor for the mural installation (EverGreene). These three companies are all highly experienced in this very particular type of work. These experts fully agree that the proposal to apply a painted canvas to portions of the ceiling with a clay-based adhesive (a time-tested process known as marouflage) will not compromise the structural integrity of the ceiling.For instance, David Riccio of Canning agreed that following the excellent work in 2020, the flat portion of the King's Chapel ceiling now has greater structural integrity and load bearing capacity than it has ever had in its life, including when it was newly constructed in 1754. Moreover, Canning often installs canvas on ceilings, so there is no reason to be concerned that the planned installation of painted canvas will compromise the ceiling or the 2020 work. Scovel’s conclusion following his investigation was that worries about the structural capacity of the ceiling “can be put to rest.”3. Impact of the mural on our music: the acoustics, the organ, and the inconvenience of scaffolding (At the Vestry meeting, in answer to a question from Sam, Joy read out loud the first italicized paragraph about acoustics. Chris Scovel wrote this but it was not shared with the Vestry because it arrived after the packet was finalized).
It is paramount that the acoustic quality of the sanctuary not be adversely affected by the mural. MASS Design has engaged Acentech as an acoustic consultant for the mural design and installation. The acoustician Bob Berens of Acentech has deep experience with major musical venues, including the BSO’s Symphony Hall. Bob has visited the sanctuary and offered an initial opinion that the mural will not affect the acoustics of the sanctuary either positively or negatively. Bob will be forwarding a preliminary letter explaining this next week. Going forward Acentech will (1) meet with knowledgeable church staff and members to understand the history of acoustic issue; (2) undertake an acoustic analyses of the sanctuary to establish an acoustic baseline; (3) prior to the production of the mural, analyze a small mural mock-up created by the artist in order to anticipate any acoustic impact; (4) if needed, make recommendations to and collaborate with the artist in the finalization of mural material and installation processes to mitigate any acoustic impact; (5) after the mural is installed, undertake a second acoustic analyses of the sanctuary to verify it’s acoustic quality. To avoid damage or inconvenience to the organ, the Committee has already discussed with the artist adjusting her design so work will not be needed over or behind the organ. As with previous ceiling work, temporary scaffolding will be set up which will create a difficulty for worshippers, staff, and visitors. Lessons learned from scaffolding in 2020 and beyond will help us minimize the impact on the organ and the musical life of the church. The same scaffolding contractor can be engaged so as to implement lessons learned from previous work. Problems that arose then regarding access to the organ, the draping of the organ, and the arrangement of the scaffolding will be reviewed. Sequencing of the mural installation may allow us to minimize the amount of time scaffolding intrudes upon the organ loft. The scaffolding at the organ loft might be installed after the mural in the remainder of the church is well underway, or is complete. Further, the artist anticipates that the mural will be installed at the more accessible ceiling areas at the sides and back of the organ, and that it will not be installed over the organ itself. We will work closely with those setting up the scaffolding to protect the organ, and access to the choir room, pews, aisles, chancel and reading desk. This will be a temporary disruption. The schedule is yet to be determined. 4. The architecture of the ceiling (from Chris – Joy did not include in packet to Vestry) Of course, the proposed mural is not a permanent change to the structure of the church, but as a trompe-l’oeil depiction of a balustrade with a sky beyond, it aims to change our perception of the space of the ceiling. This will be new to King’s Chapel, but it is far from unprecedented, and one might come to understand that the proposed trompe l’oeil mural resolves a problem Peter Harrison struggled with 337 years ago. “There is something quite wrong with Harrison’s scheme (for the interior of King’s Chapel). Because the main portion of the ceiling is flat and set off from the groin vaults in the lateral galleries by a bordering cornice, it seems to press down into the space of the room and therefore lacks altogether the lofty suspended quality of Gibb’s design (for St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, which Harrison used as his model).” Williams College history professor, William H. Pierson in American Buildings and Their Architects, Doubleday, 1942, as referenced by Todd Lee and Jim McNeeley in separate talks to the King’s Chapel congregation Where Peter Harrison’s King’s Chapel has a flat ceiling at its central nave, James Gibb’s St. Martin’s in the Fields has a long ornately decorated vault, covering the organ at one end and the chancel at the other. Comparing these two interiors, one cannot but consider that if not for budgetary or site limitations, Harrison might have provided a vaulted ceiling for King’s Chapel like the one on Gibb’s church. Instead Harrison provided a flat ceiling, which in the parlance of contemporary architects is “anti-tectonic,” meaning it does not appear to have any structural rationale. Unlike the groin vaults above King’s Chapel’s galleries, which appear to carry the weight above by curving downward to land on columns and pilasters, the flat central ceiling has no structural rationale. The large central field is suspended without explanation, and the adjacent vaults appear to bear against a rather thin crown molding. The mural proposes a kind of solution to this problem. Since there is no vaulted ceiling, then the flat one can be further de-materialized and become sky. The thin crown molding can be visually reinforced with trompe-l’oeil architecture that resembles the entablature with modillions at the upper level of Harrison’s Touro Synagogue. This transformation of the King’s Chapel's flat ceiling extends further the recent c.1957 idea of painting the central flat portion of the ceiling sky blue. Ornamented neo-Palladian ceilings, such as at St. Martin’s in the Field, were widely known and served as precedents for Peter Harrison, but actual trompe l’oeil ceilings were certainly also known by him. In fact, Palladio himself offers the example at his Teatro Olimpico in Venice which, as an interior in the sixteenth century, simulated an antique Roman outdoor theater by painting sky and clouds on the flat ceiling above the semi-circular seating. Harrison would have been well aware of these Palladian and neo-Palladian precedents of vaults and trompe l’oeil ceilings. These examples cannot tell us what Harrison might have designed in the 1750s with a larger site and budget, but understanding Harrison’s references enriches the context in which we can understand the proposed mural and its significance within the church's history.