Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission.
Summary
Meeting basics
- Body: Central Business District Historic District Landmarks Commission (CBD HDLC) / CLG reviews
- Date/time: November 4, 2026, start 10:00 AM, roughly 23 minutes
- Attendance: Present – Gregory Curtis, Seamus McGuire, Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre, Tim Spratt. Absent – John Boyd; Witten Payne appeared to be absent per roll notes. Five members constitute the forum.
Actions approved earlier in the meeting
- Minutes from September 2, 2026, approved unanimously (Gregory Curtis motion; Tim Spratt second).
- 2027 meeting dates and deadlines approved unanimously (Bradley Becknell motion; Gregory Curtis second).
Agenda item: National Register nomination for 601 Loyola Avenue (Hyatt Regency)
- Context: CLG review; nomination prepared by Southkick Rolf Preservation Works; staff review presented; consultant nomination considered by the commission.
- Staff/consultant position (as presented by Eleanor): Hyatt Regency is a prominent postmodern hotel with notable design elements and post-Katrina changes. Staff agrees the building has significance in sports/hospitality history but does not believe it rises to NRHP listing, citing post-Katrina alterations and changes to its relationship with the Superdome that affect integrity. Conclusion: not recommended for NRHP listing.
- Commission discussion and motion: Gregory Curtis moved to approve the staff’s recommendation to list (i.e., to support the nomination to list); Tim Spratt seconded.
- Vote: 4 members present voted. Yes: Tim Spratt, Gregory Curtis. No: Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre. Result: 2–2 tie; no action to forward a nomination to the State Historic Preservation Officer. The chair did not cast a deciding vote.
- Outcome: No-action decision on the CLG review for 601 Loyola Avenue; the commission did not forward a nomination recommendation to NRHP at this time.
Agenda item: Lower CBD period of significance adjustment for 935 Grabier Street (Chevron Place discussion)
- Purpose: Consider extending the Lower CBD historic district’s period of significance to include Chevron Place as a contributing resource, thereby making it eligible for tax credits.
- NRHP nomination context (as discussed): Chevron Place emphasizes oil/gas industry activity and offshore operations; significance suggested under Criterion A (Commerce/Industry). District context notes current period (1830–1964) and prior amendments reflecting mid-century resources.
- Staff position (as presented by Eleanor): While Chevron Place reflects the oil/gas era, extending the district’s period to include a building dating from 1981 is deemed inappropriate at this time. Staff suggests a thematic nomination covering oil and gas-related towers built during a broader period would be more appropriate than extending the district’s period for a single building. Caution that expanding the period could dilute NRHP criteria and blur what is technically significant.
- Commission posture: Staff presented a clear position not supporting the extension of the district’s period of significance for Chevron Place.
- Action status: Item open for discussion; no final vote or formal recommendation documented in the provided material. The summary notes the discussion ends with the staff’s conclusion, indicating an unresolved decision pending further action or a formal vote.
- Note on discrepancy: A second, separate summary presents a different outcome (see “Unresolved issues” below). The two sources conflict on whether a final vote occurred.
Speakers and notable contributions
- Eleanor (HDLC staff) served as presenter for CLG review items and cited nomination language and staff conclusions.
- Commission members contributing to Hyatt Regency discussion: Gregory Curtis, Tim Spratt, Bradley Becknell, Daryl DeMestre. Tim Spratt and Gregory Curtis expressed support for listing in the floor discussion, but the final vote was 2–2.
- For the Chevron Place discussion: staff presented; no named external speakers identified beyond staff in the provided material.
- No final action recorded for Chevron Place item in the primary narrative. A separate item attributes a final 4–0 vote denying the extension, which conflicts with the current narrative.
Unresolved issues and next steps
- 601 Loyola Avenue (Hyatt Regency): No-action result due to 2–2 tie; the commission did not forward a nomination to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Possible future reconsideration or alternative actions per agency procedures.
935 Grabier Street (Chevron Place)
- the excerpt (narrative): Item remains unresolved with no final vote documented; staff recommended against extending the period; discussion closed without action.
- the excerpt (concise summary): Reports a 4–0 vote denying the expansion, maintaining the current period (1830–1964).
The two sources conflict. Either way, the matter did not yield a forward recommendation in the primary narrative, but the excerpt presents a final action.
Other items
- Consent agenda: 814 Canal Street – approved unanimously.
- Ratification of ARC committee and staff actions since Sep 2, 2026 – approved unanimously.
- Budget update: Presented as information; no action taken at this meeting; potential staff reductions discussed by staff.
- Adjournment: Unanimous.
Notes
- The meeting emphasis is on CLG processes and NRHP considerations; staff recommendations guided but did not make final NRHP decisions in the Oxford narrative.
- The 2027 meeting dates were approved; minutes were approved.
Summary of clear, uncontested outcomes
- Minutes from Sept 2, 2026 approved unanimously.
- 2027 meeting dates and deadlines approved unanimously.
- 814 Canal Street approved on consent (unanimous).
- ARC actions ratified (unanimous).
- Budget update provided (informational; no action taken).
- Meeting adjourned unanimously.
Unresolved outcome — The Chevron Place item (935 Grabier Street) has conflicting reported outcomes between the two excerpts
- the excerpt: No final vote recorded; unresolved.
- the excerpt: A 4–0 vote denying the expansion (i.e., maintaining the current period).
Transcript
Transcripts may contain automated transcription errors. Verify important details against the official recording.
Roll Call
All right, good morning, everybody. Today is the Wednesday, November 4th, CBD HDLC Commission Meeting. If we can get a roll call, please, Eleanor. Roll call. John Boyd, absent. Gregory Curtis, present. Seamus McGuire, present. Bradley Becknell, present. Daryl Domestri, present. Tim Spratt, present. Witten Payne, present. We have, I mean, Witten Payne, absent. Thank you. We have one, two, three, four, five members constituting the forum. Thank you very much.
Minutes Approval (Sept 2, 2026)
Up first on today's agenda, we have the minutes of the Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 meeting. Has everybody had a chance to review those minutes? And if so, if we could get a motion to approve. We have a move from Gregory on the floor to approve the minutes. And a second from Tim. All in favor to approve. And any opposed? I see none. That motion passes unanimously. We had a motion from Gregory and a second from Tim.
2027 Meeting Dates and Deadlines
Up next on today's agenda, we have the 2027 meeting dates and deadlines. Did y'all want to speak toward that? These are the proposed meeting dates and deadlines for 2027. Luckily, we were able to secure the council chamber for the majority of our commission meetings, so that's great news for us. Great, thank you. And if we can get a motion to approve the 2027 meeting dates and deadlines. Bradley, with a motion on the floor and a second from Gregory, all in favor. All in favor, Darrell. All right. Any opposed? I'm seeing none. The 2027 meeting dates and deadlines have approved unanimously.
CLG Review: 601 Loyola Avenue (Hyatt Regency)
City of New Orleans is a certified local government, a CLG, recognized by the National Park Service for adhering to historic district regulatory agency best practices. One of the responsibilities of a CLG is to review nominations to the National Register of Historic Places in Orleans Parish and make a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. The following is excerpted from the National Register nomination form prepared by Southkick Rolf Preservation Works. The entirety of the report and photos of the subject property may be found below. This National Register nomination is for 601 Loyola Avenue, also known as the Hyatt Regency. The Hyatt is a 31 level hotel located on Loyola Avenue in New Orleans' dense Central Business District commercial neighborhood. The building is a conglomeration of several different massings, which occupy two parcels of land at 601 Loyola Avenue and 500 Voyager Plaza. Designed by Welton Beckett and Associates of Los Angeles and Curtis and Davis of New Orleans, construction began in 1974 and the hotel opened for business in 1976. The building is in the postmodern style. Some of the elevations reflect elements of the international and brutalist styles, while others reflect a more corporate contemporary style. The exterior materials are primary steel, glass, cement, stucco. After Hurricane Katrina damaged it in 2005, the hotel was renovated and reopened in 2011. The Hyatt remains a highly visible postmodern structure in New Orleans' Central Business District as an iconic part of the city's skyline. Its distinctive sweeping X-shaped central tower, topped by an octagonal penthouse, is easily identifiable by residents and visitors alike. Despite a renovation to the lobby at the Loyola Avenue entrance and conversion of the Port Cochere to exhibition halls on the west side of the building, the Hyatt Regency New Orleans retains its integrity and is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. That is the consultant's opinion. Having read the National Register report, the HDLC staff concurs that the Hyatt Regency Hotel has played a significant role in the sports and hospitality industries since its completion in 1976. While aspects of the original design remain, it does not stand out as one of the better examples of Welton Beckett and Associates or Curtis and Davis' bodies of work. In addition, we feel the alterations made following Hurricane Katrina severed its spatial relationship to the Superdome, which was one of the more interesting aspects of the original design. As such, staff does not recommend that the Hyatt Regency be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The reason why these reviews come to you is because the State Historic Preservation Office is looking to the local leaders who know more about the fabric of New Orleans to weigh in on whether or not these buildings meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. What we send back to the State Historic Preservation Office is a letter that contains your recommendation either for listing or against listing. I do not believe it is located in the Historic Districts. Typically, if a building isn't a qualifying building in a National Register District for tax credits, owners will engage consultants to develop a report and propose nomination of that building to make it eligible for tax credits, typically because they want to do a rehabilitation of the building. That building typically would qualify for the National Register? There are other buildings of this era that have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places, typically because of their architectural significance, either related to the architecture firm or individual associated with the design. We did not feel as though this building rose to that level. They have their own public hearing where they weigh the pros and cons of the proposed listing on the National Register and they take this commission's recommendation into account. I will say there are examples where, for instance, when it has come to the New Orleans HDLC, they maybe recommend against, but then the state will move it forward. Any other questions or comments? I'll rely on one of you to make a motion on the floor whether to recommend or not recommend. I am leaning toward making the recommendation. Actually, since it's not, we don't have the final say, but I'm just, this one's got me in the crosshairs a little bit. As I understand it, the staff is not recommending because it's not the best example of this architect? It's not the best example of their work and there's been alterations to the original design since 1970. Especially after the hurricane. Those alterations were because of the hurricane. Not directly. Not directly, probably. It's for business. Okay, and the alterations were approved by this body or we didn't have any say so? No, it is not under the jurisdiction of the agency. Okay, all right. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the recommendation. Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Gregory to approve the recommendation for the CLG review of 601 Loyola Avenue. Is there a second? Sorry, approve the recommendation of the staff? No, it sounds like he's approving the recommendation from the consultant, Southcake Rolfe. So it's basically a recommendation that this property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places? That's correct. To support the nomination? That's correct. Is there a second on the floor for that? I'm seeing none. All right. Would anyone else prefer to make a recommendation? I'll second it. You'll second, Tim? Yeah. Okay, we have a second from Tim. All in favor to support the motion which is recommending the consultant's nomination to put the High Regency New Orleans Building on the Historic Registry? Bradley and Daryl? All in favor, please raise your hand. I'm seeing none. So, Tim Spratt, yes. Gregory Curtis, yes. Bradley Bicknell? No. And Daryl DeMestre? No. No.
No. So, that would be two to two. It doesn't matter if the chair votes. We need four votes to move the recommendation forward. Understood. So, did that just fail? Yes. So, it would be a no-action vote. Understood. Thank you, gentlemen. So the CLG review of 601 Loyola Avenue has ended in a no-action vote, 2-2.
CLG Review: 935 Grabier Street (Lower CBD Period of Significance Adjustment)
Up next we have the CLG review of the lower CBD period of significance adjustment, 935 Grabier Street. Can you hear the presentation on that? Yes. So this one's a little different in that it's requesting that the period of significance for an existing historic district be extended to allow a certain building to be included as a contributing rated building in that district and thus eligible for tax credits. This is a quote from the National Register Nomination Report. Chevron Place is directly linked to a broad historical patterns of industrial development that had lasting effects on regional and national energy production. Its role in consolidating and directing Chevron's Gulf of Mexico operations during the critical period of offshore expansion establishes its individual significance under Criterion A Commerce and Industry. The building's continued integrity of location, design, feeling, and association allow it to clearly convey this historic function and distinguish it from other resources within the district that do not share this level of industry-specific association. Chevron Place reflects New Orleans' longstanding role as the principal administrative center of the offshore oil and gas industry. The lower CBD historic district in New Orleans, Louisiana was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1991, recognizing the district's exceptional collection of antebellum, recreation archival, and Italian commercial architecture, as well as its early skyscrapers and major bank towers from the 20th century. In 2006, the boundaries were expanded and the period of significance was extended to 1956 to include mid-century modern resources, reflecting the rise in the international style and the city's post-war economic boom. A further update in 2014 extended the period of significance to 1964, incorporating additional mid-century modern and new formalist buildings, such as high-rise office towers and civic structures associated with the development of the Civic Center. Today, the lower CBD represents Louisiana's most comprehensive collection of commercial architecture, ranging from the early 19th century masonry buildings to mid-century modernist skyscrapers. The current period of significance for the lower CBD is 1830 to 1964. Staff concurs that as a group, the commercial towers constructed in response to the rapid oil and gas industry growth in both the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans, extending the period of significance of the lower CBD to include a single building dating from 1981 is inappropriate at this time. A thematic nomination that identifies and includes all of the oil and gas industry-related towers constructed in downtown New Orleans during a specific time period would make a stronger case for the economic significance of the structures to both local and state history. And I will forward to the photographs of Chevron Place. Again, the staff doesn't feel that this, as an architectural element, rises to the level of listing on the National Register of Historic Places in terms of its architect and date of construction. And in terms of a thematic nomination, there was a boom and a direct response in terms of the building of towers to house the oil and gas industry. And while we recognize that that is thematically important under the criterion that they are arguing, we don't feel at this time it's appropriate to extend the period of significance of an entire district just to add one building to the register so that it can take advantage of tax credits. It feels as though it's diluting the criteria of the National Register in order to take advantage of tax credits. And if everything's included, then what is actually significant and what isn't? And it starts to blur the lines, which is why the staff feels as though this doesn't meet the criteria to justify an extension of the period of significance. Thank you, Eleanor. Thank you. Commissioners, do you all have any questions or comments? And would you all like to put a motion on the floor? I'll make a motion to accept staff recommendation to deny it. We have a motion on the floor from Bradley to recommend staff's recommendation to deny adjusting the period of significance for this particular building. Is there a second? Can I just ask a question? Or are we outside of comment? I think we're outside of that, since there's a motion on the floor. Okay. Have you placed a second? We have not placed a second yet. There's no second. Once there's a second, you can have a discussion. Okay. Is there a second from Bradley's recommendation? Could you repeat that again? Once there's a second, you can do what? Discuss. Once there's a motion and a second on the floor, you can have discussion. We currently only have a motion. All right. We have a second. From Daryl? All in favor or discussion? Increasing the period of significance. Is the period of significance something that is set by the National Park Service or the registry? I guess, what authority do we have to increase the period of significance? Individuals can request and make an argument to have a period of significance expanded, which is what has happened to this district on two occasions. It was extended to include mid-century modern buildings, and then it was extended again to include additional buildings that had reached 50 years old and had attained a significance architecturally that justified the extension of the period of significance. Someone made that argument and was successful, so now an additional person is making the argument that it once again be extended so that this one building will be included. Currently, it's 1830-1964, and they would like it to be, I believe, 1830-1982. We just don't feel that the argument that's made in the nomination form justifies that extension. Got it. Particularly since this is for this one building.
I think that's the point that's made in the report, that if this was a broader request for extending the period of significance to include the other examples that were part of this offshore oil boom, that would be something that is perhaps more appropriate. But just to include this one building to take advantage of tax credits, we don't feel that it is appropriate. Brian and Eleanor? Tim, did that answer your question? Yep. All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor to approve staff's recommendation? All right, I'm seeing both Tim and Gregory approve. That is a four. Any opposed? I second. He seconded. So we have a motion and a second, and then we have two in favor. Any opposed? Everybody can vote. Sure. Showing your hands, so it's very clear that you're voting in favor. Okay, great. In favor of staff's recommendation. All opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. It was a 4-0 vote.
Consent Agenda: 814 Canal Street
Last we have on our consent agenda. That is 814 Canal Street. The applicant is Alexander Adamic at 814 Canal LLC. Are there any public comments today? I'm seeing none. And this is an in globo item. If we'd like to approve of the consent agenda item, 814 Canal Street. Make a motion to approve. Thank you, Gregory. And I'm seeing a second on the floor to approve. Bradley has a second to approve the consent agenda item. All in favor? And any opposed? I'm seeing none. That is a unanimous vote to approve.
ARC Actions Ratification
Last we have the ratification of the ARC committee and staff actions since the Wednesday, September 2, 2026 meeting. Make a motion to ratify the architectural review committee and staff actions since the September 2 meeting. Thank you, Gregory. And is there a second on the floor? Tim with a second. All in favor to approve the ratification of the ARC? And any opposed? I'm seeing none. That motion passes unanimously.
HDLC Reports and Communications
HDLC reports and communications. Anyone? I hadn't planned to do a report. I just thought it would be worth mentioning we did have our budget hearing last week. Oh, that's right. And presented our budget to council. So just be aware of the budget as it gets approved by council. We are currently, there's a proposal for a reduction in staff, but that may or may not happen. Understood. Just be aware. Thank you, Brian. And get a motion to dismiss or adjourn. Thank you, Bradley. And a second from Tim. I'm sorry, Darrell. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you all for coming. The CLG reviews are fun. Thank you all for that.
Adjournment
get a motion to dismiss or adjourn. Thank you, Bradley. And a second from Tim. I'm sorry, Darrell. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you all for coming. The CLG reviews are fun. Thank you all for that.