Thanks for the heads-up.

Below is a link to an NYC architect’s blog site. He makes some very valid points about architecture and a “sense of place” and uses the Ayn Rand novel/movie, Fountainhead to make his point.

Good reading!

http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/

wake up people.

today is now. tomorrow is the day after now.

do you like now?

CAR at this juncture is pretty much a joke and needs reconstructed itself and they too oppose “structure” of guidelines unlike other historical cities so they can be lax in their decisions.

Eric

This is new infill and many improper materials used on the facade, including vinyl siding, asphalt roof, and inappropriate front door and fixtures.

It seems that every department in the city dropped the ball on this house. I’d really like an explanation from the CAR, particularly Jean Wight about this property.

So much for CAR members expertise and enforcement of guidelines.

Sounds like you bought the house from the contractor, and that you did not have the contractor build it for you. Right?

I would suggest calling 12 On Your Side, the consumer advocate news segment on Channel 12.

I’d like to talk to you too. Contact me at 649-1913 or laura@mysterydinner.com

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/home/2008-03-06-at-home-savannah_N.htm

Still, sounds like the inspection process fell short, and time for a lawyer. Maybe?

So sorry about your house. The CAR only makes decisions on properties in the City Old & Historic Districts. Your house is not in one of these districts, so they could not assist you.

Have you contacted a lawyer to help you with your problem?

http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/comehome/Norfolk_Pattern_Book/index.html

I think something like this would work very well in Richmond and help to take away the inconsistencies and ambiguity within the CAR and it’s guidelines.

Urban Development? You make us sound like we are a housing project in Chicago? Historic Church Hill is not “urban” in any sense and should not be seen that way. Nor should “history” and “evolution” be connected. Would you place a fig leaf over the statue of David? Add arms to Venus de Milo? Make Mona Lisa skinny? All because of what is the current trends? NO… history and historical are the key words and both should be respected as such. Church Hill is unique as being one of the oldest communities in the United States and you can’t tell me that there were many houses built past 1900 as property was saturated by that point. So as part of preservation guidelines one should take into consideration that if a parcel of land becomes open that whatever is built on it should not reflect design cues from anything newer than 1900 -or- whatever is on that block be it 1890s, 1860s, 1840s etc… With structures already there they should be “restored” and the interiors as well maintained as close to floor plan and ornamentation as possible (minus modern convenience updates of course). New structures can have an option to do what they wish inside but maintain a exterior facade that does not look out of place (era) with that block. Case in point – the carport at 501 27th. It isn’t enough to say that the materials are correct and design features too but you need to look at the whole picture and note that it is a “carport” and there weren’t cars let alone carports in the 1800s. So that “structure” is incorrect not only for the house or block but the whole neighborhood. It is things like this that raises brows and wonder if CAR is following stringent guidelines like other historical cities across the country?

Then there was the vocalization of your personal beliefs (which you have the right) but should have been more diplomatic when it came to a problem related to your job and not aired publically no matter what your beliefs. I think they saw you as a representative of CAR and making a case against the rules and blasting someone for seeing differently? But in any event, the guidelines do need revised and to conform more towards what other historic cities do to maintain historical accuracy and overall look of the neighborhood from an outsider’s standpoint and CAR open to the community they serve, not shut us out.

Eric

Well said. I’m astonished that Laura Daab contacted CAR to demand you be removed from the board. Well ….. maybe not. Although Laura has contributed time and effort to the Hill doing good work, she often trips herself up by her personnal angst mixed with some envy (“Graceland”). I was also saddened at her taking her reaction to the new house across from her to a public forum which did come off as a personnal attack on the owner.

Thanks for your response. D

I find many great qualities in the Daabs, and will continue to do so (and hope to continue to know them as friends) but find this has not been their greatest hour.

When sworn to the service of the Commission, I never in any way abdicated my own personal right to opinion, as a citizen, in a public forum. Indeed, one of the enlightened aspects of appointment to the CAR is that it includes both dedicated and citizen seats appointed by Council, but independent of the politics that might cause mischief should one citizen try to use their bully pulpit to coerce the analysis of review that reaches city-wide to over 3,000 properties.

Some points of clarification are in order:
1.When I last posted, I stated clearly that I stand by my own words. Please, readers, do not give substance to any one else presenting to speak for me as to my thoughts or motivations on any other issues or properties than that presented.
I am perfectly capable to speak for myself.

2.. It astounds me that anyone could seek to discredit our dedication to historic preservation and the good of the City in the wider sense by intimating that our struggles have been any the less just because we have worked so hard to save a threatened property on East Grace Street. After 5 years we have only just now attained the use of ovens in our own home, and unpacked the last box. Yes, it is “Graceland”, but only by the “grace of God” and not by any easy social class sort of attainment. I will be very happy when I can again open a kitchen garden to the children of Bellevue school, and move forward with the plans we had to do special programs for them in our home, just across the street.

Citizen appointee: Yes, I hold a citizen seat on the CAR. Formerly, I was appointed as HRF’s dedicated seat. I resigned around the time that my ceiling fell in. 4 1/2 years of property reviews and continuing education. Long sessions from 3 to evening hours touching on every neighborhood. It was good to have a break.

But then I was asked to put forward my name again. They needed someone with experience and a legal background. I had 4+ years of experience, lived through the whole experience of rehab in an Historic District, and also had a Juris Doctorate under my belt to assist in due process and a fair hearing under the law. Also to assist City Council in understanding the rights of appeal.

It has been argued by some that I should not be on the CAR. I take that as a “given” with the job. I firmly believe in due process and fair procedure from start to finish. I do not believe in post hoc public lynchings of applicant’s projects by posting their homes and citing them as “ugly”.

The process is there for one and all. If anyone has a beef with the ultimate CAR decision, they have the full rights of appeal by stating how the CAR has erred within the time to appeal, and not after an applicant has spent time energy and money to complete their project. Without such a framework, who could ever build anything?

Part of my absence has been to visit and collect materials in Oxford and at Westminster Abbey on infill construction, paint colors, etc. I came back with some very interesting materials. While it has been done almost annually, it is hoped that the CAR will be able to again draw upon professionals in the field to look at appropriate evolutions of urban environments. No one need feel “right” or “wrong” – in fact the greatest threat to “getting it right” is to come into a discussion with a closed mind.

It is good to have a discussion, and on all our heads it is a loss to assume we have nothing to learn or share. I am now into my 6th year or so of looking at architecture city wide, and have found it useful to see how other cities with historic stock carry the conversation.

With this spirit in mind, please judge me by my own words and intent.

Jean Wight

I don’t know if you are for or against the house on short 30th. Or what your point was about the dog and the gun. What was your point, or did you have one to begin with?

Laura is a bright women often taking on good causes. But, she often goes too far and ends up ranting. Shoots herself in the foot and loses the respect she would otherwise enjoy.

Speaking of shooting … I’ve heard of this guy and dog and know of a couple of people who are prepared to shoot it if needed.

CAR needs to stop using “double standards” when it comes to enforcing their own published rules.

Eric

“One thing to keep in mind is that all of the new “historically accurate” homes are mere facades, they are not historically accurate at all except in terms of surface details, the term itself is a lie when applied to new construction.”

That is the whole essence of the infill issue. We don’t care if it has balsa wood frames, paper-maché walls, or rubber floors inside as long as the “facade” matches what is on the block. That is for “new” construction.

To me CAR focuses too much on the “materials” and not enough on “design”.

Eric

Let’s have some standards here, for pete’s sake! He ripped off the portico and threw it in his shed, then replaced the dental molding with diamonds. Diamonds? I know dental molding is expensive, not for a true renovator, but for a house-flipper it is. Then the beautiful corbels, carved from the center of a tree, came off of the roof to be replaced by puny brackets. Again, a true renovator wouldn’t have even imagined doing such a thing. And this guy get nominated by ACORN for the rape-job he did on the poor house? It was clear to me at that point that ACORN serves itself and no other. Personally, I think the house had more character when it was about to fall down. At least one could genuinely enjoy the soul of the structure, less it’s shell.

I think the laborers he hires are jerks, too. One owns a pit bull that he allows to go off leash (dumb idea) and who I’ve had to call the police on twice. One time I was on the side of my house and the pit bull ran after me to attack me. The jerk just laughed with his friend. Then said he didn’t care if I called the police because I didn’t know where he lived. Wrong. Trust me, you will never be more scared in your life than when a pit bull is coming your way, and the owner is doing nothing to stop it. The whole experience reminded me of the famous clip on COPS when the animal control officer was being attached on tape, and its fat own was doing nothing to stop it.

Plus, at night, you can see the uneven spray job under the streetlight.

Interesting that Jean Wight, of the current CAR board hates the short 30th Street house, yet thinks that the house across from me is O.K. I guess she’s the “self appointed, non-architect, arbitrator of taste” that we are not supposed to question.

I still contend that the CAR makes very subjective, interpreted decisions when it comes to approving in-fill design, and those interpretations change as frequently as the turnover within the CAR board.

You’re comment is really good, and on many levels I would agree with you if the theory of what you say would actually be realized in practice, but all too often it isn’t, especially in Church Hill.

Some of the CH residents who are most vocal in support of historic preservation are also some of the greatest offenders of historic style, craftsmanship, and not to mention civility. If one’s love for historic preservation is genuine, then yellow and red suburban sunroom additions are simply unacceptable, even if they are located in a back yard. And btw, I don’t exactly recall sliding glass doors in any of the reference books from architectural history class.

I could go on about a choice “renovator” in the neighborhood too—more like greedy house-flipper—but I simply have better things to do.

Some of you keep talking about rules, rules, rules. But if you truly respect and love these old houses, and have goodness in your heart, you don’t need CAR overseeing your proposals. Instead, you will strive to do right by the souls that built the house and honor them, rather than look for ways to get around the rules, or simply follow them. I, myself, don’t need rules, because I have principles instead.

(I pulled a sentence from this comment. You got too personal there, Ruth. – john m)

Eric

This thing with “carports” being approved in Church Hill that reeks of suburbia and was never a part of the original Church Hill look, is something that needs to be addressed and re-thought out especially if CAR approved it! A carriage house style garage, yes… more appropriate. Carports from the 1950s, no… not a good idea and is too much of a compromise that allows even more inapproporiate architecture into the mix over time. Let one thing slip buy… you have to with another, then another, and yet another and then you have no control and defeat your purpose of guidelines.

Eric

They can all come down to the dog park tomorrow morning and at least wield hammers to get their aggression out, :). Productive anger management we’ll call it!

To answer you question about Wanda’s carport, I don’t think that it is inappropriate for her house.

First of all, the CAR allows carports up here, that’s a done deal, for now. Secondly, the shape of the roof line follows the peaked pattern of her house. Thirdly, the materials she used are acceptable. The hardiplank matches that of the small addition off the back of her house and the roof is METAL, not asphalt.

And yes, the guidelines are worth it, they just need some tweaking and adherence to them by the CAR.

I got it finally….

I understand why I never seem to agree with your views. I basically think that things here on the Hill are good and getting better (in large part due to our vociferously involved neighbors) while you think “we need to put a stopping point somewhere to keep it from getting any worse”.

I understand where you are coming from now.

I was not a part of this forum when the carport was built at 501 N 27th but I am not saying I agree that it should have been built in that style either. It is out of place in the neighborhood but understand it was approved prior to the designation so was allowed. At least it is partly obscured by a fence.

BTW… there were cars in Richmond prior to 1905 as the buildings that Pritchard Bros owns now were parking garages with the section closer to 28th was originally a cigar factory converted to a 60 car garage.

Eric

Church Hill had its opportunities during the 1980s and flaring up again more recently but during the earlier time, many houses started to open up because the owners died off or became too old to maintain them so became vacant and abandoned. Then developers and contractors started buying them up on the cheap to restore. That is still ongoing but can only think gentrification can only help Church Hill rather than hurt it?

For those who can’t afford it on their own to fix up houses, there is various funding available in the form of grants, tax credits, and tax abatement. Look at this link from a different topic on the CHPN board:

http://chpn.net/news/2008/05/19/grants-tax-credits-tax-abatement-etc-et-al/

Comments?

Steve

Eric

Eric

Eric

Broad Street is a different situation as Marshall Street is having a variety of commercial and residential building but keep in mind that the “commercial” building filling in or replacing houses torn down to make way for them was during a boom during the 1880s-1890s when the trolley system ran down those streets and people used them to do their shopping. There was no less than 6 businesses in the 2700 block of Marshall in 1925 ranging from shoe repair, auto supply, barber, alterations, dry goods, etc… all now gone and dilapidate building where some stood (blight).

Eric

Again, I can understand what you are saying and yes, in a “regular” neighborhood your theory works and is welcome. But we have a unique situation here living in one of the oldest communities in the country, on the historical registry, and also unique to have such a high number of 19th century homes in a compact area. With all of that people should be proud to be a part of that and want to keep things looking historically correct – including in fills. To make sure things don’t go crazy with new construction and/or refacing older homes to modernize them, there need to be a set of rules and guidelines in place that are enforced.

People buy condos every day and love them but they also have associations that dictate what can and can’t be done accepting it without any complaints. What is the difference with a historic district? That is the whole gist of the topic.

Eric

Eric