new construction at 2104-2106 Cedar Street
Back in April it looked like the double house at 2104-2106 Cedar Street might be saved but that was not to be.
The house was demolished and new construction is going up on the foundation of the old structure. Has anyone seen any plans for this?
<
Looks better already, anyone know if it’s a Better Housing Coalition project? BTW, for anyone doing renovation, check out Ecologic (they advertise on this site). I went in the other day to see what they carried and really liked what I saw, especially for floors.
Nope, no BHC or ACORN involved in this.
And Ramzi, I beg to differ. Check out how the new construction has altered the original door/window proportions (and number) in relationship to the prior structure. Tsk, tsk.
Today I spoke to a neighbor who lives nearby this new construction. She and others surrounding it are concerned b/c there there aren’t any openings cut in the plywood for a back or side door on the first floor.
I assured her that building/fire code requires at least 2 points of egress/access.
I am glad I got pics of this house.
That appears to be an issue concerning new construction… the windows. They seem to use off the rack sashes rather than original Victorian size windows (walk-throughs) or the longer size ones. Why?
#4-That’s an easy one: $$$$
#5… we know that is common sense but it is also cheating and making the overall look “cheap” and not correct to the period the house is being built represents.
Custom made windows can be constructed and last as long if not longer than off the rack and probably cost about as much if you find the right person to do them. Just a little leg work and not take the lazy and easy way out. This has been touched upon in various other threads especially by those who have purchased houses that have incorrect windows and want to put the right ones in.
Eric
Just a few of weeks ago they had a framework constructed on the facade that preserved the original eaves, cornices and portions of the porch. What happened? I am hoping they are still planning to integrate those pieces into the final design.
Eric, the issue of “cheating” is irrelevant b/c there is no City Old & Historic District (zoning ordinance) in effect in Union Hill.
Currently, homeowners can do whatever they like, without any oversight from the Comission of Architectural Review/Department of Community Development/Historic Preservation Division, as long as it meets building code.
Mark, I recall the former framing and details you mention. Obviously, the homeowner had a reason to change their plans. What started as a restoration is ending with new construction. That framework you are referring to vanished just prior to the new framing/walls you see going up now.
It’s more than the issue of windows, Eric. It is about restoring blighted properties and hopefully providing affordable housing.
That bottom line “common sense” is what drives the banks that loan the money, the construction company that builds the house, the mortgage lender, and the eventual homeowner. Every builder knows restoration is way more costly than new construction.
Time is money. Trying to save both is neither easy nor “lazy”. It’s just business.
If the builder is doing this project on spec, and in this economic climate, well, God bless ‘em.
That said, I appreciate the pride you have in your community and your keen interest in saving historic properties.
Sometimes, reality just bites.
right. How dare they fix a building that was falling down?
I’d really like to know why folks who seem to nay say preservation live in our historic community? Was it cheaper than anywhere else? Was it the closest neighborhood to your favorite bars?
I’d really like to know because it floors me that folks just don’t care that these buildings are gone for good and that it doesn’t matter.
Hillkid makes a good point. It’s odd how many people on this site express frustration and displeasure toward the preservation minded residents of this community. The details matter, and they do not have to cost more. http://chpn.net/news/2008/07/16/2-houses-for-pink-street/
Mark, can anyone prove your point with real data?
You said,”The details matter, and they do not have to cost more.” I am not saying details don’t matter.
Without proof of “it doesn’t have to cost more”, there is no merit to your statement. It’s becoming a tiresome mantra posted frequently on this website by others as well.
I would just like to see the proof on a spread sheet, factoring in every item my banker or potential investors would require to fund such a project.
Although it sounds like I am attacking your opinion, I am not. I am sincerely and personally interested in how it can be done.
Mark links to a post about 2 new BHC houses that are just about finished on Pink Street. These look good and will be sold as affordable housing. They have managed to really step their game up over the past 12 years and have kept their costs and selling prices down.
As for private renovations/new construction in the area, it seems that that the houses that strive for a little something end up selling much faster. Maybe this is how details “don’t have to cost more” to developers, they make it up in the end.
There are houses on 23rd and 24th that were for sale and are now up for rent or rent-to-own, and others in the same area that sold in only 5 or 6 weeks. What is the real cost, then?
BHC is subsidised by donations and government grants, so pull that one from the eqation. Plus, I don’t think they ever (or rarely) build in a city designated historic district, so they don’t have to go through the time consuming and thus costly CAR process. Their building lots are given to them by the city. Can’t compare apples to oranges.
I can’t address the homes you mentioned in your third paragraph, except to offer a house as a rent or rent to own is usually a last ditch effort to recoup capital and keep a loan afloat when a property doesn’t sell.
What really bothers me, I guess, is I have crunched numbers to crumbles, and I can’t justify the costs I mentioned (plus the ones left unstated) in my #13 comment.
Hopefully, the economic climate will change (and it will have to do so on many levels). At that time, maybe these distressed properties will be “flying off the shelves”, so to speak, and we can continue building, revitalizing, and rehabbing in our historic areas for the benefit of all who call it “home”.
or, equation, even
While it is true that BHC hooks up buyers with grants, they have to work to keep costs down to make this work. Look at their recent construction as an example of making good decision on what are important details to incorporate.
The houses on Cedar Street and that one on M Street are in the exact same neighborhood as the BHC houses on Pink, and under the exact same designation as the that whole block on 26th and O Street.
CAR is a whole ‘nuther conversation around here…
My point was that an attempt to cheap out up front results in a less desirable house which it seems takes longer to sell (all the while bills still have to be paid. My take is that it costs less, ultimately, to build/renovate to a certain level as the property will sell more quickly at a the necessary price for the developer to make a profit.
John made the cost argument for me, although I must confess that I actually meant to say “much more” instead of simply “more”. There is also an argument to be made to how a proper renovation contributes to the desirability of the immediate neighborhood, which, of course, is also reflected in the price and value of the home. The Pink Street houses can serve as decent models for the new construction on Cedar Street, but there is no question in my mind that the destruction of the old structures results in a long term net loss for the neighborhood.
I would like to add some personal observations that have held true over the years. My bf and I started buying and restoring old, dilapidated homes in Church Hill and Richmond about 12 years ago. We have bought and sold many homes over the years and have learned some very valuable lessons.
As my bf says…”the good stuff always will sell”. So far, he’s largely correct. We consider ourselves urban pioneers in Church Hill. The first property that we restored/renovated was in the St John’s area and the rest of the block was in shambles. Most of the homes on the block were vacant and boarded up…the others that remained were in terrible shape. We completed an upscale restoration complete with great curb appeal, a designer kitchen, fantastic bathrooms and great quality finishes throughout. Realtors and business associates alike told us that we were crazy for putting so much money into a marginal area. This property fell into the “best house on the block/STREET” scenario. I have to admit, there were times that we second guessed our decision and felt that we were making a big mistake.
Here’s what later happened…one by one, other properties surrounding this house were renovated at significant cost. This house really was the benchmark for the other homes in the area. It wasn’t too long before this house was no longer…the best on the block. Quality renovation with respect to the structure’s roots and surrounding area always pays off in the end. Although we spent a fortune on this house during renovation, it paid off handsomely when the house sold…in 3 days with multiple offers.
In Church Hill, there was a lot of restoration activity…some great, some marginal, and a lot that is just plain bad. We have found that when done properly, the properties always sell quickly and at a premium. (there are exceptions…can’t overcome a bad “neighbor” that is not going away).
In North Church Hill, there is an opportunity for investors to establish benchmark homes in order to step up the values. I have to agree that scale, proportion, materials, ornamentation , etc. are critical elements that need to be addressed in any restoration. By cutting corners and cheaping out, you will establish the benchmark of other projects in the area with simply marginal results and ROI.
“The Economics of Historic Preservation” by Donovan D. Rypkema is recommended reading for those who want proof that architecturally-respectful restorations are more cost-effective for the property owner AND the community. You can by it on Amazon.
#17-Let’s see, BHC pays no corporate taxes, they are subsidized, and yet they still have to work hard to make an affordable/historic home work (by work, I am assuming you mean sell at an affordable price without losing profit)??? If that is true, something very fishy is going on at BHC, which I doubt. Either way, you can’t compare a tax exempt organization (especially one with a portfolio the size of BHC)with private enterprise.
#20-I don’t need to read a book to know that “architecturally-respectful” restoration can be done cost effectively. The argument on several threads here has always been rehabbing to the “historically accurate”.
I do appreciate the heads up on the book. Many thanks for the info.I will check it out.
The initial point was that, like any organization seeking to hit a certain price point, they have to be mindful of their expenses. This is the simple comparison.
John, the only level that comparison is viable is on a simple level. Also, the grants they receive are not the same ones given to a potential homebuyer. Homebuyer grants are just that, granted to the homebuyer. HUD grants to the tax exempt organization are totally seperate and apart.
today reveals a new roof line and a mansard front. there go the corbels…
this new facade is a significant departure from the previously standing structure. geezz…if we were a city O&H, i’m pretty certain the builder & CAR could have come to an agreement that would have made the builder and CAR happy (not to mention other nearby property owners.)
it seems like such a simple thing: to maintain the original lines of the original structure facade (italianate).
what advantage does the structure get with this new roof design? some sort of structural or energy-saving benefit?
What is also strange is that the apprasor’s list shows 2 different owners for 2104 and 2106 but the building permits also show different “owners?” yet the same contractor – Condor Construction. Does anyone know anything about them?
Eric
Why are contractors changing the rooflines or the entire building period (era) style lately? Why not work with the original design?
Everything about this house makes me sick to my stomach. The revised facade, the altered roofline, the crappy inappropriate windows and the cheap-ass pre-hung doors.
Might as well been built in a new subdivision in Dinwidde Co.
What an insult to Cedar Street. And what a horrifying travesty to what was just earlier this year a completely intact block of original structures in Union Hill. Gone forever.
Oh, and believe me, there is no “deep sad story of hard times and a devoted neighbor” in this case. Simply an outside developer making a fast buck at our long term expense.
Well said UnionHill RVA.
Does that really matter? Is there a double standard for new in-fill in our community?
The preservationists in our community are constantly ostracized for trying to argue the merits of appropriate development, in-fill and renovation, only to be publicly admonished for being bad neighbors. What about the neighbors/developers building this stuff?
No wonder folks go on this blog anonymously to post their displeasure at these types of buildings.
It’s easy to be vulgar, obscene and grotesque like buddy corbett. (Honestly, gray, I fail to see how he is “a hoot.”) Or to act like the “goody-goody”, “love everyone” neighbor by saying that preservation takes a back seat to renegade neighbors cutting corners for self interest.
It takes a lot of courage for folks to fight this type of development and try to preserve our community the way it should be, and take lots of abuse in doing so.
#28 post would take a lot of heat if that person used their real name, and I think that’s a shame. It’s a shame that folks have to be closet preservationists.
That’s why I don’t post my real name. What’s everyone else’s reason?
By “closet preservationists” I mean, on this blog. Many of the anonymous folks on this blog are very active publicly in preservation efforts, so let’s not go there with the attacks. Sometimes one needs to be a self-preservationist.
To the pic above… Y U C K!!!!!!!!
I haven’t seen this location. Is the current setback the same as the building prior? It looks awfully close to the sidewalk. Is there enough room for a stoop or porch outside the front doors? From the photo, it does look out of place against the house next door.
the reason you dont post under your real name is you have no courage of conviction. like all cowards you are contemptible . why would you bring me up when i havent posted on this thread?geez, what a little wuss. oh and yeah how long is the webguy mr murden gonna allow anonymous attack posts? blog undercover if you choose but once you wax vicious…..own it. oh thats right you are a mouthy geek whos scared to face up to his peers. buddycorbett
Kelly/post 33: The only thing original to this current house is the foundation.
The original foundation always was much closer to the sidewalk than the house next door.
The original house at this address had a front porch running along the front of the house. The porch was shallow in depth, but was a nice welcoming point to the modest structure that once stood here.
There is still room to place a front porch on the house and line up with the original footprint.
Thanks. Maybe once it is trimmed out…it will look more harmonious with the rest of the block? Any ideas what the siding material will be? The absence of windows on the 2nd level above the front door is perplexing…What harm would it cause to an interior layout for them to be included?
buddycorbett:
I fail to see how posting your real name justifies your foul, rude, derelict behavior on this blog. Only solidifies you as the neighborhood pariah.
I can own that any way I choose, anonymous or otherwise.
the point made in post 11 seems to be that anyone who disagrees with rabid preoccupation over historical preservation is either a cheapskate or a drunk”was it cheaper than anywhere else? was it the closest neighborhood to your favorite bar?” this conflating of your opponents with bad morals is typical of sanctimonious knowitalls with no real substance to their arguments. awww you have to talk trash anonymously because otherwise you might be persecuted for your upright moral stance regarding your hysterical historical beliefs. dont flatter yourself . you dont publish your real name because you dont really believe yourself and who could blame you? as far as being a pariah….hadnt really noticed but thanks for the input.buddycorbett
Buddy…
I was hoping to avoid this argument but believe I know who hillkid is and understand why they don’t publish their real name as some of us have been “targeted”.
And what does someone being a drunk have to do with proper architectural designs?
I understand that this duplex was approved and being built in an area that has no O&H rules so just about anything goes. Once Union Hill is officially approved then locals will have substance to back up their arguments about correct in fills and preservation. Unfortunately this block fell short of the designation.
That said, the look so far doesn’t look too awfully bad except I know one contractor tried vindicating themselves about windows and doors because the ones left behind were metal and not original. Here you have a different contractor doing just the opposite and buying metal prefabs on the cheap at Lowe’s. The doors are Colonial Revival that has been around ages but clearly **do not** belong on either a Victorian or Empire style house. The windows are too small and it is too early to see how they will approach the soffit treatment or mansard tiling – or even the porch? But it isn’t too late to make the proper changes “before” it happens.
Has anyone seen the architectual plans?
Was this house approved by C.A.R.? And its material lists?
Eric
The CAR only has approval power over houses in a City Old and Historic District.
Winston…
Then I guess there isn’t anything that can be done about the outcome of this particular building other than the hope that the contractor and owner has to do better next time and has some sensibility and respect for the neighborhood this time.
Eric
That’s about it in a nutshell. Encourage your friends that live in Union Hill to support and vote for the City designation.
Any new pics to post on this? Progress?
Was this ever finished?
Still sitting these months later:
i’d heard that they ran out of money and the places have already been foreclosed. not sure of the veracity of the statement though.
actually, that’s the finished product. it’s the newest in post-modern urban architecture. the tenuousness between ruin and livability is breathtaking, don’t you think?
They just need windows above the doors…
Guess nothing else still hasn’t happened to this house a year later? Any status on it?
The current owner is shown as: Tower Building Properties, LLC c/o Stacy Martin. All permits issued in 2008 have expired and the contractor was Condor Construction & Dev., LLC in Mechanicsville.
Same type of situation with that yellow multi-unit that has been sitting unfinished and looks like it can’t pass inspection (owner Titus T. Jones) near Fairfield and Mechanicsville Tpk.?