THE ARCHITECT AS DEVELOPER:

UNION STATION IN NEW LONDON

Our work in New London, Connecticut

began in the fall of 1973, as any other
project might, with a call asking what could
be done to help preserve a grand old railroad station in danger of being destroyed
through current renewal plans. The station,
as it turned out, was H H Richardson's last
work, completed in 1887 after his death.
There was a great deal of sentiment in the
town for tearing the building down-perhaps due as much to the fact that it had
been built originally by the railroads on this
site against the wishes of the townspeople
as to the fact that it was in poor repair,
badly maintained and greatly underurilized.
At this point, the challenge appeared to be
how to demonstrate to the town, and the
Redevelopment Agency specifically, that
this building might work again as a viable
part of the community.
Simply stated, this was only a feasibility
study. It was unique in that it was not done
for a client who intended to act on it, but
rather for presentation to a general public
who would most certainly expect that the
proof of the project's viability would be

Before . . .

ity for the role of developer at all? I believe

the answer is simple. If the architect can
indeed be responsive to the needs of the
developer, the architect can bring his expertise into the valid actions of developer
decisions. He will then have achieved the
most meaningful input possible within the
scope of the total project. Let's follow this
process through the New London project.

determined by the acceptance of our report

by some as yet unknown developer who
would act to carry out the proposal. At this
point, we were in fact developers and didn't
know it, or should have been, because we
were required to supply the client input of
an imaginary developer and test our own
solutions against this input.
To describe the architect as developer is not
to conjure up a new and separate identity
but rather to describe a team on which the
architect simply functions in more than one
role: as architect and also as developer. In
general, this means shifting back and forth
from the role of the architect with prime
responsibility to the role of the developer
with prime responsibility. At each step, the
crucial element is the input of the other role
which, although secondary, is essential.
Indeed, to assure success, there must be a
clear understanding that each role is independent and that the role of primary responsibility must be open to but not compromised by secondary input.
Why then, one may ask, would the
architect choose to take on the responsibil-

exterior wail convened from office 10 corridor

... after.

The initial feasibility study developed a

program for use of the station and tested it
within the available space. In the case of
New London, the program was simple. The
purpose was to maintain AMTRAK service
to the station and at the same time, develop
additional areas for rental income that
would justify the full restoration of the total
building. As in many similar situations, the
requirement was to maximize the potential
rentable area against the initial basic construction cost so that a reasonable dollar per
square foot figure in both construction and
income could be achieved. AMTRAK's
needs generated use for approximately onethird of the station, somewhat less than the
existing first floor. A way was sought to
maximize the use of the first floor space
and bring additional life and character to
the space. A restaurant appeared to offer
the most potential but would require more
space than remained. Here the expertise of
the architect was required to develop a plan
that divided the major first floor space
between AMTRAK and a restaurant. The
first floor was opened to the lower level to
allow additional waiting space for AMTRAK and a mezzanine space was added in
the restaurant half to provide the necessary
area for reasonable restaurant use. In this
case, not only was marginal space (the
basement) developed as prime tenant area
but additional space (the mezzanine) was
created. The second floor had always been
office space; it seemed reasonable to continue the use and a proposal for possible
future use of the attic for office expansion
was developed. Thus the architect had
provided the initial ingredient for developer success, he had maximized the potential use of the building.
But the challenge of New London was to
prepare and present a feasibility study not
only in spatial and architectural terms but
also in a manner that would speak directly
to the developer. This required not only a
projection of known costs for the project as
proposed, but also the presentation of the
potential income that could be generated
for that cost and the necessary expenses to
operate the project within the limitations of
financial feasibility. To that end, we initially
consulted with both economic and marketing consultants as well as contractors so
that the total data presented was as realistic
as possible. Our work, which had begun in
the fall of 1973, was presented to the New
London Redevelopment Agency in January
of 1974 and we waited for the developers to
rush in and vie for the opportunity to
develop this project further. Very simply,
that did not happen. Just as with any

architect/client relationship, there must

necessarily be tremendous trust between
architect and developer. Looking back now,
it appears obvious that at that point in time
and given the local sentiment toward the
building, it was not possible for that trust to
develop.

During this time, the developer role was

clearly the responsible one. The value of the
architect to this part of the development
phase was not in the decision role but in the
support role. Here, he was able to convey
the ideas of space and program relation that
established credibility with both tenant and
financing institutions. Together the closing
was achieved.

George M Notter, Jr is a principal of Anderson

Nolter Associates, Inc of Boston. This firm has
in recent years turned recycling into a New
England art form. He is currently President of
the Boston Society of Architects.

Forming The Development Team

So it was that early in 1974 we determined
that if this particular solution was to be developed, we would have to form a team and
present a specific proposal to the Redevelopment Agency to develop Union Station.
We spoke with local investors and our
contractor; together we decided to pursue
this course, and we took another look at the
total project. The initial step was to verify
again the marketing assumptions. We had
originally evaluated the economic viability
of the project with our real estate and
marketing consultant through the aid of a
National Trust Consultant Services Grant.
Our consultant had applied what he considered the three essential elements of project feasibility: (1) Location, (2) Location
and (3) ... Location. He cast our lot when
he summarized our position: "If I were to
pick one spot in New London with the most
potential," he said, "it would be here."
We next considered our cost projections
with our contractor and made an evaluation
of our projected income and expenses to
determine the amount of money that should
be available to pay interest on a mortgage:
the debt service. We then considered the
income sources that might be available to
the project in terms of grants, renewal
funding, loans, etc; assumed a mortgage of
approximately 70% of project costs; and, by
comparing these income sources to project
costs, determined a minimum and maximum equity position that would be required. With agreement on these assumptions by the development team, a formal
presentation with a request for developer
designation was made to the Redevelopment Agency on April 3, 1974. The architect's input obviously generates the construction cost. It is the relationship berwen
the construction dollar and the other development expenses that defines the architect/
developer relationship. Too often, the
architect does not control this number; and
more often than not, the developer looks to
the construction cost as the area to cut when
other development costs grow.

Construction
Construction began in October of 1975.
This is the point that is most important in
terms of the combined roles. The architect
must now proceed to get the job done with
his plans and the contractor in the best
possible way. The developer, on the other
hand, must see that the total project moves
forward not only economically but also in a
timely manner, and he must ensure that the
final product is rentable in support of the
costs required to achieve the finished space.
The interchange between the two roles is
crucial. To the degree the architect can
apply his imagination to solutions within
developer constraints, the project as conceived is supported. On the other hand, to
the degree the developer can be responsive
to changing opportunities that allow upgrading of the finished project, rentability
should be maximized and the project's
success enhanced.
For example, the major hole connecting
the lower level to the main level of AMTRAK space required maximum visibility
with a minimum expenditure. After much
thought of glass and wood railings, a final
solution was achieved by the architect using
simple wall construction which repeated
the motif of the existing wainscotting,
which strengthened the integration of the
two spaces without additional cost. In
another case, when a potential tenant suddenly appeared in early April of 1976 with
the requirement to move in on the first of
May, decisions were required by the developer within one week's time which enlarged the scope of the project, evaluated

the increased rental required, and confirmed the time factors to assure a cost
effective decision that encompassed all of
the major aspects of this complicated decision. These two instances illustrate an
acceptance of responsibility by both the
architect and the developer for their own
areas of expertise and an understanding
of the interaction between these two areas.
This is the basis for the shared responsiveness so crucial to final success.
On July 29, 1976, AMTRAK formally
opened its new space. Construction was
completed in October 1976, and final tenanting should be achieved by the first of
the year. The New London Day, the local
newspaper, took a full page in a supplement
published for the opening to say "We were
wrong! But we changed our mind" and
referred to their editorial of May, 1971,
advocating the demolition of the station
and their editorial of June, 1975, supporting
our plans for renovation-a key support in
our struggle for designation. They conclude
by saying, "The Day congratulates Ander10n Notter and the Union Railroad Station
Trust for their foresight in saving this
venerable building which becomes more
attractive with each passing day. It joins all
of those who use Union Station in saying
thanks for giving us a railroad station we
can be proud of."

Developer Designation
That period, from April 3, 1974, when our
proposal was first submitted, to October 3,
1975, when final agreements were signed,
was hell. Even by developer standards, this
time period seems excessive. Every aspect
of the development process was challenged:
economics, tenants, preservation, financing.
But the process itself was classic; it was
truly a period of persuasion.

Before . . .

AMTRAK interior with lower level access

... after.