For years, ACORN worked long and hard to find a buyer who would rebuild the house. Over time, the house continued to de-stabilize, as did an adjacent retaining wall shared by another property owner.

A developer/buyer was secured finally, but by spring of 2008, estimates for restoration of the structure and the retaining wall put the sales price of the restored house close to $300k…and not too many folks could reason a house on that corner, in this market, selling for that amount.

So, as the roof caved in, and the structure swayed, the owner, with ACORN’s approval, removed as much of the interior and exterior architectural features as could be salvaged. These items are now in storage.

The agreement between ACORN & the owner, as we understand it, is to rebuild a house of very similar design, 3 stories, with the same footprint of the original structure (tho honestly, i think the back “addition” will be a little bit bigger.)

The salvaged architectural features will be used in the construction of the new house.

Eric

Old news here but wanted to pass along that apparently I have been looking at abbreviated versions of the Church Hill North Historical district designation. I found the 50+ page version and see that there is an inventory of houses/buildings BUT all have c. (circa) dates. These dates are way off on many of the houses and others pretty “close”. Only a few seem to have exact dates and still have c. in front of it. Looks like no one did actual hard research to zero in more precisely?

Eric

However, the UH summary is backed up by a building-by-building inventory (just like the new Fairmount district nomination.)

Do you have a complete copy of the CHNorth nomination?

I’m a little tardy with this comment, but I think your assessment of us young folk and our willingness to love old architecture and get our hands dirty dealing with the many issues of these places is a tad off. My husband and I own a 1905 house (maybe older, as you already pointed out those 1900-1915 dates are not always accurate) that was renovated/ rehabbed prior to our purchase. Many features remain in place (beautiful old floors, pocket doors, large windows, etc), while other things have been modernized (ceramic tile in the laundry and kitchen, non-obtrusive storm windows throughout, a rear balcony). We LOVE this house, but it has had many problems from the roof to the basement. My husband has been up a 30 foot ladder doing brick repointing, we’ve spent many hours on the roof, have been in tiny crawl spaces and know just about every square inch of this place intimately. We had more repairs and issues in the first two years than I ever would have imagined and learned how to fix a variety of stuff we knew only a little about before. And while some of that was stressful as we worked through it, ultimately it just made us love our house even more. We wouldn’t trade our old house or our old neighborhood for anything. And we are NOT alone. I can quickly think of at least 6 other young couples that own equally old homes within a few blocks from us. All are living in their first owned home. All love our old neighborhood and their old homes. None of us are ignorant to the increased amount of work these houses take over cookie-cutter ready made places in the suburbs. We prefer this. Maybe the part of Church Hill you live in is a little more established and pricier, and therefore you aren’t seeing the young couples move in like I am in my part of town. And please don’t tell me our houses aren’t really “historic” or acceptably old enough because they aren’t as old as your “oldest house in North Church Hill.” Houses that are from the early 1900′s are indeed “old” and are indeed “historic” and are indeed worth saving every time possible. But I digress. Point being, yeah, they are more work, but alot of us kids love them.

As far as keeping the inside of a house entirely historic, I don’t think this appeals to everyone. If that’s your bag, go for it. But putting modern amenities and cosmetic features in an old house does not negate its historic nature, nor is it unethical. I could argue that caring more about what your windows look like from the front rather than conserving energy is unethical. The interiors of historic homes come in all different shapes and sizes: entirely true to original to entirely modern and unique. It’s a person’s home and they are entitled to create the interior space that makes them happy, even in neighborhoods that are designated Old and Historic. I agree with the comments above that remind us that we live in houses, not museums. For most, there needs to be a level of functionality and convenience that did not exist in 1905 (or 1814).

I figured 27th was always pretty flat even though our front porch is about 6 feet above street level (a little steep I thought). And saw on the 1867 maps that one hill ended where the Hill Cafe is now (Broad did not run straight trough then) and the hill at Jefferson ran all the way to 25th and Leigh Street. The landscape sure was different then!

Eric

In the same way, I’m willing to continue the tradition of improving the home, even if sacrificing some (but not all!) of the history is necessary, for the sake of minimizing my carbon footprint and financial burden. That’s all. I’m appreciative of preservationists and the work they’ve done educating us on our homes’ and neighborhoods’ histories.

Eric

Eric

Cagitate… I am not opposed to wiring, insulation, etc… upgrades. I think you (and others) are missing the point. We are talking about keeping the cosmetic look historically accurate both inside and out. Not what lies behind walls and beneath floors. It is practical and safe to update those areas and that isn’t what we are talking about here.

jami… even though we own the oldest house in Church Hill… it too has storm windows but only on the side and back of the house. You can see the correct windows behind them and that is what matters because storm windows can be removed if need be. I am opposed though to them on the front of houses and despise A/C units hanging out of front windows!

We were not the ones who restored our house done in 1986 (we bought it in 1999) so the storm windows were already there. If/when we can buy back the North wing of the house and can make the entire structure one again, there will be several cosmetic changes to bring it back to its original 1812 look. One was done just this past fall… put a $50,000 roof on the main section and south wing. There was old ratty tin roofing on it but this house as well as others of the era had wood shingled roofs. Wood is not a very good choice these days as it is expensive and doesn’t last so we went with a small pattern dark color slate that looks like small weathered wooden shingle design from street level making it more authentic (and more energy efficient too) :-)

Eric

However, I just want to say that I find the attitude that authenticity should be the highest value problematic. Climate change (sorry to introduce a polarizing political topic) and responsible use of my money (giving to charities for people who have NO homes,for example)dictate that I balance my concerns for authenticity with energy efficiency and overall social welfare.

I appreciate the preservationists who’ve worked to keep this neighborhood intact. But I also appreciate updated safer wiring, insulation, and other non-historic improvements to our home. If we’re going for authenticity, let’s ban cars from the neighborhood! Surely the neighborhood streets weren’t designed for automobiles, and the number of houses obscured by parked cars is distressing. That’s a choice I’d like to see more of us make.

Bill… I know N 27th has always been there and never looked to have been on a hill slope but between them yet our house seems to be “raised” as part of the basement is exposed but the land grades upward from the street and ends up about where it should in the back of the house. Do you know if North 27th was graded coming off of Broad Street – first couple of blocks? What throws your claim of 1870s-1880s leveling off is that the house next door only feet away was built in 1835 yet is pretty much level front and back yard.

From what I can see with the Mosby Street house which I thought for sure would end up torn down, looks great but can’t see the inside to make a final judgment.

Eric

Eric

Eric

Eric

As far as insulating goes, the blown in type is usually your only option unless you want to peel all your siding or gut your plaster. For masonry, there’s really no option but to frame out the interior walls and add it between studs. If you prefer plaster over drywall, I work with a guy that does a great job, all old school technique.

One thing I consider with renovation is that these are houses we’re talking about, not relics in a museum. We’ve added plumbing and electricity to them, so change isn’t always for the worse. Houses are supposed to change over time to keep them livable, otherwise what’s the point.

As for 4-corner Charlie’s… I am still working on that. Charlie still owns one of the buildings and lives in it so nothing we can do there. The other three buildings are owned by the Murray’s with brother Patrick owning 401 I am feverously trying to save while sister Sandra owns the other two. One she had an antique store in it for a short time and renovated the upstairs as apartments but I haven’t seen it’s condition myself. Know it wasn’t done “professionally”. The odd store at 325 N 27th was a restaurant years ago and still has the rusted “27th Street Inn” neon sign casing on the building that now is separating the brick facade. None of the buildings other than 401 are really old. Think the one Charlie lives in was originally a Nolde’s Bread outlet store? The 401 building was part of the property owned by Capt. Charles Wills who built our house and part of that 400 block. He had a carriage house facing Clay Street which was converted into a small house early on in the 1820s – long gone.

Eric

As for windows, just make sure they are caulked, primed, painted and weather sealed (weather strips). It is about the best you can do except you may want to add a solid Plexiglas sheet to cover the windows during the winter months or use polyurethane sheets tacked to the frame (old school methods but they work). And of course make sure heat and air vents don’t force air behind curtains or are obstructed with furniture over them.

Eric

You can also Google to find wooden replacement windows but possibly someone here may have knowledge and can chime in?

Eric

Those old windows are leaky!! And behind those plaster walls is NO insulation. Any thoughts on how to mitigate the very negative energy usage of historic homes with the desire to preserve?

OK, the structure doesn’t look so pretty right now, but it’s gonna be ok. We dodged a bullet on Cedar this week.

Now we can focus on the infamous “4 corners” in Church Hill North and save those magnificent commercial structures @ 27th & Marshall.

Maybe I sorta think that people tend to be stingy with compliments, and read more in sometimes – for the positive.

Thank you for clarifying. Sure didn’t mean to put words in anyone’s mouth.

Are you saying that 2116 Cedar (tall house) may not be “safe” from demolition as opposed to someone earlier saying that the owners are gearing up for restoration?

Eric

I think you are on to something.

Everyone has their own idea of what their ‘historic’ home should look and feel like. That’s great! Go for it!

But like anything – Buyer Be Ware!:)
Check with the BBB when consulting contractors.
Check out your neighbors houses and found out who did what.
Check out more than one neighbors house.
Ask for referrals. Make sure you are working with people that are familiar with old homes. They are a special task and should be handled with care by people with the experience ***AND RESPECT*** of old homes under their belts.

I’m all for saving the historic bits of Richmond in lieu of demolishing them. Flavor, Character & Flair is what Richmond has to offer to new comers and old richmonders alike. A totally unique experience in neighborhoods. Just so happy to hear so many old and new neighbors care so much.

The “Tall House” has been under contract several different times over the years. The 1st time that I know of was 2004 and I had an investor that had already completed several other total restoration hms on The Hill. At the time it had been slated for demo by the city. We spoke with the city (Barbara something at the time) to get them to drop the slated demo. Put it under contract and then fought for approx 6 months, if memory serves me, to get it to closing. Fighting with the deceased owners attorneys’, liens and city tape my investor finally and heart brokenly had to walk away (and thank goodness did not loose heart in lovely old Church Hill) and move on to other projects.

I moved to Church Hill and started doing Real Estate in 2003. Fell in love with the Historic nature of this city and wanted to be part of “saving” what was left to be saved. Since then I’ve learned from countless investors, renovators, sellers, & buyers on the hill just how bad a home can look and still return to it’s former glory! I’m glad to read that these Cedar st. hms will not be demo’ed at this time. They may look bad folks, but usually they can be saved. They’ve made it this far and this long with little love and maintainance. Let’s just hope that whoever gets their hands on it do a good job. Keeping with the historic feel of this awesome neighborhood.

Thanks for sharing the perseverence of yours.

Doesn’t one (or only?) owner of Clayton Investment live in a wonderful little house overlooking Chimborazo Park & The River? It’s a shame if what is said is true and they only care about their little piece of the neighborhood not the overall effect that their abandoned homes have on the total community.

What I am seeing thus far is a 3-way split.

1) Those who think historic houses are restored too historically for modern tastes.

2) Those who think historic houses have been “raped” and interiors and not accurate enough.

3) Those who think that historic houses are done too cheaply for buyers.

first off… if the quality is an issue then I would say “do it yourself”.

OK.. given this scenario. If you come across a house for $X (I’ll let you decide what you pay) but needs a minimum of $100,000 worth of work to restore it to the way it was new, what would be your plan of action?

And don’t say consult a contractor off the bat because most don’t have a clue as to how to do proper restorations nor how the house looked 100+ years ago (multiple alterations may have taken place over the years). And know from fact that some of the local “restoration” contractors cut corners – have seen them, known about it as well (been there, done that).

Eric

Please keep your eye on the restoration being done by my client Hollister Lindley, at 2002 Princess Anne, the old nursing home. I helped her buy this property a month or two ago, and as an old house person, she is absolutely dedicated to restoring it properly. This is not her first rodeo with old homes, by a long shot, and she has had a myriad of consultants in already, with more to come.

She did an Open House on Sunday to invite friends and neighbors in, and share her plans with them. I am so sorry that I didn’t think to post that invite here. I am sure she would have welcomed all of you there.

The finished product promises to be phenomenal.

Also, perfect blond oak floors, chimneys void of their plaster coverings, Pella windows, etc… is not “proper”. I may be stereotyping but that is what I have seen so far and can only go by that.

Eric

While I hear what you are saying, I think that those issues are seperate from the point I was making. I was speaking of for-profit investors, not folks who may have bought in CH in anticipation of the train station, etc. -the promise of a true Urban Center being located right down the street.

Which does not necessarily make your points untrue. At all. I’m just saying that maybe your observations are ANDs, and not BUTs.

Let me respond using an analogy here. I also belong to various DVD movie forums – some with studio execs on board. One deals with older horror and sci-fi movies dating back to pre 1950s. Sometimes our views and interests expressed there makes a difference as to what gets released, most times it doesn’t loosing out to the mass desires (and $$$ involved).

Ask your average 20-something about black and white movies and they will respond that they don’t watch them as anything in black and white is boring. They grew up in a different era and those who do remember and/or appreciate the older movies are either becoming disinterested as time progresses or dying off. The crowds following have no interest in them wanting something more hip and modern. Use that thinking with houses and we are back “spot on” with what you said. I think this is a core problem with houses built before 1930… do you think?

They “may” like the older exterior look but want it completely updated inside. I know, our neighbors across the street which we love have done just that. The exterior is proper but the interior isn’t. They bought another house which was restored a couple years back and now making changes to it. One that comes to mind is the person who done the restoration used antique furniture cabinets to house bathroom sinks – something done in the Edwardian era but they don’t like it so redoing it more traditional. You see… case in point. And oh, by the way… the contractors did cut corners and so other necessary repairs are needed. It looked good on the surface “for a while” and that takes me back to people buying into responsibility with older homes.

Eric

The ones that sell are the nice ones.

Eric, you are clueless.

Shannon… I think this was the time where we were served a bill of goods by the government. Remeber all of the millions spent on the Main Street train station to replace the one at Staples Mill and have regular daily passenger service out of it? Then at the last minute the government pulled the plug and said that it would only be a whistle-stop? Also the Maglev project was happening then abandoned. This would have given those working in DC a chance to buy cheaper in our area and get to work in 45-minutes. There was a renovation and restoration boon that took place which left a lot of empty condos because of of the about face.

Eric