Interaction between architects end design review boards dose not have to be an adversary relationship. That it is viewed as such is due more to the expectations end attitudes of architects than those of review boards. Architects tend to anticipate either total approval, in the best case, or confrontation, in the worst; boards come to the table anticipating cooperation at beat and compromise et worst. There is an almost universal irritation on the part of architects with the necessity of coming before e review board in the first place. The board is seen as a group of muddling meddlers, unqualified to comment on, much less to criticize a work of artistic inspiration. At the very least, it is a third entity with which to deal, when dealing with the client is difficult enough. Nevertheless, a number of years on the Architectural Board of Review in Hudson, Ohio, has taught me that interaction between architects end architectural boards can be both creative and beneficial. depending on the attitudes which each brings to the relationship.

Hudson is a small town between Cleveland and Akron, which retains a surprising amount of the New England character bequeathed to it by its Connecticut founders in the early 19th century. Hudson's central core surrounding the village green was Ohio's first National Register Historic District. Until recently, farms edged the town's perimeters, but now it has become more an exurban bedroom community.

The Village of Hudson has had an Architectural Hoard since 1982. It is charged with consideration of plans for new structures, as well as additions, alterations, fences and signs. That consideration is perhaps only secondarily to assess plans as individual projects. Much more important is the charge to review plane as they relate to and impact on the character of the village as a whole.

Although there are strict standards when altering older buildings in the Historic District, contemporary architecture for new structures is not discouraged. It is merely that designing a contemporary building that fits into the 19th century character and residential scale of the village is more difficult. Indeed, moat architects opt out and prefer to spit back imitations and derivatives. Architects who understand the board's view of its charge from the village, who make an honest attempt to study the village rather than designing a building as if it had no neighbors end no responsibility to the community find enthusiastic cooperation when they come to the review table. If, in addition, the architect spends the extra time and effort to come to the board with preliminary drawings, and if the client is included at this initial stage, the interaction is most likely to be both pleasant and profitable.

The client's input is important. Although the inspiration may be the architect's, it is the client who will have to live in, work in, or administer the result. It is he who will have to get along with the neighbors or make his living in the community. So the client is likely to accept the relationship of his building to its surroundings, serving the interests of the board. On the other hand, the client's interests are sometimes served by the identification, in this initial meeting, of problems or features which had escaped him.It is not easy to project a threedimensional actuality from plans and elevations, particularly if this is a first experience. He may not have realized that his addition will mean an old oak will have to go or that the master bedroomwiththe abundance of wall space he had required will be a dark tunnel, or that, in climate noted for its cold end cloudy winters, the only kitchen window faces north. Too often a client has not made his real concerns clear. Sometimes it seems to be only in the atmosphere of a three-way conversation-Hoard, client and architect-that the client dares to differ with his own architect.

Two Case Studies
Recently plans were brought in for major alterations and additions to an existing house. The building was approximately twenty years old, roughly "colonial" and stood in a neighborhood of similar houses. The plane included a tower over the front entrance, the use of four different exterior building materials in an avowed attempt to evoke the image of an English cottage, and a wide stone chimney facing the street with a stainedglass window at its heart. The tower seemed to make the building too high in relation to its neighbors; the different building materials jarred with the relative simplicity of the "colonial" houses around it; the gimmick of the chimney seemed entirely out of keep with the character of a simple age.

The Board's first view of the plans was with the architect alone. He insisted that this was what his client wanted. A three-way meeting, including the client, was arranged end surprising things happened. It turned out that the client had actually preferred an alternate sketch with a greatly modified tower, but in his words, "Our architect thought the other was beat." The client was quickly able to see the board's concern about the multiplicity of building materials and agreed to be lees exuberant about their use. And, when asked why a family which collected restrained Federal furniture wanted to have a stained-glass window in the center of their chimney, the client replied that it was their architect's idea; they just wanted to have a fireplace in the den. Perhaps their reluctance to express their own ideas and opinions was due to an uncertainty about their own tastes, particularly vis-a-vis those of an artist and professional. Sometimes it takes a third party to give the client confidence.

It would have been better, however, if this three-way conference had taken place at a much earlier point in the design process-c point at which less time, money and ego were likely to be involved. A preliminery conference at this stage gives the and the opportunity top oint out some very basic concepts, which are impossible to include when herd-line drawings are completed Nineteenth century buildings in Hudson, for instance, were designed to fit the topography and shape of the lot. If the lot were 90 feet wide and 150 feet long, the building wee apt to be longer than it was wide. Once a five-bay "Colonial" with attached garage has been designed for the lot, it is too late to suggest that it misses the concept.

One example of the happy results of a preliminary conference between architect and architectual board in Hudson involved the rehabilitation of the village's 1878 Town Hall.

Early in 1978, both the village and township of Hudson passed a bond issue to enablethem jointly to buy a wedgesheped piece of land near the village green which had bean abandoned by the Penn-Central Railroad. The plan included removing the fire station from one corner of the green to the new land end enlarging it, the construction of a flood-control lake on the property and the building of a new community center on its banks. Part and parcel of this was the refurbishing of the former Town Hall, facing the green, which hadmost recently been used as police headquarters and a few township offices. The large upstairs room which had originally been the public meeting room was be ing used as a theatre, while the Council end other public bodies met across the green in a large, rented chamber above a block of stores. The idea wee to restore the Town Hell to its orginel function of meeting place for town bodies end offices for town officials. However, at the preliminary meeting between the architectural board end the architects hired by the village, it was clear that no consideration had been given to the architectural restoration of the building itself.

The plans celled for the upstairs theatre room to be divided into offices, while wells were to be removed on the first floor to provide a Council room. A new entrance at the side would give access both to the offices and the Council chambers. The original front entrance, then, became only secondary, used for night access to the Council chambers and to meet the fire code regulations. This front entrance opened on a small vestibule with twin staircases leading right and left to the second floor theatre room. Since only one stair was required by the code, the architects' plan called for the removal of one of the twin staircases, to be replaced by a glassed shaft where plants would be hung.

When the board asked why it was necessary to remove an original staircase, the architects reacted with surprise. The twin staircases rose against the front building wall end, at one juncture, ran across two major windows. The architects had assumed the stairs were later additions.

The first order of business was then to take them on a tour of 19th century public buildings in town, stopping particularly et the Chapel of Western Reserve Academy, built as part of Western Reserve College in 1834. The central door of the Greek Revival building enters onto a vestibule with twin staircases leading, left and right, to the sanctuary on the second floor. At one point, the stairs both run directly in front of two large windows. Although the Town Hall was almost fifty years later, it was obvious that the two local builders credited with its design were greatly influenced by the Chapel, which, as the College's moat revered building, was surely one of the town's moat roapeclad. A few moments in the simple, New England elegance of the sanctuary and it was not difficult to persuade the architects to reconsider their plane for the Town Hall.

The next sketches showed the Council chamber on the second floor, where it had orginally been located. Both stairs were retained and, by the removal of two closets built under them, their original upward sweep was restored. By this time, the erchitecta had become enthusiastic. They found ways to save the pressed metal ceiling in the Council room. They asked the board to investigate period paint colors and suppliers for reproduction hardware. They specified reproduction electrical fixtures.

By the time the architects and the architectural board had finished working together an the Town Hall, there was an amiable end profitable working relation. When the plane for the enlargement of the fire station and for the new Community Center came in, there was a remar&able cooperation, and when an objection was raised over one or two features by other village bodies, the board went to bat in support of the architect's plane. At this point, they understood the board's objectives, end the board understood theirs.

That this interaction is a success story is largely due to the fact that, although plans and elevations had been drawn at the time of the first meeting, the process had not gone so far that it could not be reversed. In a sense, too, the client wee present and vocal-since the client was the Vlllegeil'ownahip of Hudson end the architectural board is an arm of the village. Hut moat importantly, after the tour of public buildings he architects took the time to study the village itself and related their subsequent plans to it. The board then became an ally, and the interaction was not one of confrontation, but of cooperation.