before & after on M Street
This plain but interesting house was gutted to two walls and part of a foundation, and then rebuilt larger and strabismal.
This plain but interesting house was gutted to two walls and part of a foundation, and then rebuilt larger and strabismal.
Well, its a plus, in that a vacant house was transformed to a house that may give life and activity to the area. However, it had great proportions and balance before – can’t say the same for the “after” version. Seems like since they were re-doing it all anyway, it would have been simple to replicate the window and door spacing, the window sizes, and the roofline (I just noticed that they did away with the eaves on the side elevations of the house). What a shame, and what a lost opportunity.
Geezzz.. it looks horrible. Has no “Victorian” flavor at all. In fact, looks like a kids toy or a cardboard gingerbread house. Has the wrong windows and are set too far apart, the wrong proch roof, and zero detail work. Extremely bland.
Steven & Brandon…do you live in Union Hill? If you do, are you supportive of the area becoming a City Old & Historic District?
In such a district (e.g. Church Hill North and St. Johns District,) the suggestions you make above would have been in line with those of the City’s Division of Historic Preservation and the Commission of Architectural Review. These two entities oversee restoration and new construction in City Old & Historic Districts.
If you’d like to get involved in the Union Hill Historic District Initiative, we’d love to have your help. Please send an email at elaine@churchhillphoto.com.
It is truly unbelievable to me all of the nay saying people who post on this blog. How anyone in their right mind can look at these two pictures and say they prefer the architectural elements of the “before†and degrade the “after†is astonishing. As a resident of M Street I can assure you that we are happier with the house as it stands now. It absolutely kills me how people in this neighborhood are so willing to let the perfect stand in the way of the good and then complain that no one wants to invest in the Hill.
No one is saying it doesn’t look better. But it still looks bad. A few simple changes to the design would do wonders. I don’t understand how any builder wouldn’t recognize that the placement of the windows and the shape of the porch roof is all wrong. Having these right wouldn’t even cost more money.
But the lack of certain details and use of shingles for the front shows they cut corners to lower the cost.
Maybe they cut costs on hiring an architect too?
I don’t know who renovated this building but it most likely was an independent who has no skills restoring old architecture. Like ‘J’ said, a few changes would have done wonders in making it blend in and more correct to era supposedly represented. What they did was cut too many corners.
Yes, a “newer” building is better than blight BUT you can also do a restoration properly if you tackle it at all.
And for the windows… whoever heard of placing windows in the corner of a room instead of the center of the wall where they are supposed to be? (2nd floor).
The developer/contractor was Jewel, Inc. While I admire their investment in the neighborhood, I usually find a lot to be desired in their final product. This renovation being a fine example.
Take a look at the duplex they renovated at the southeast corner of 26th & East Leigh Street for example. It too has lackluster windows and doors with absolutely no adornment to the windows or roof line. The result is a bland and boring renovation. With a little more detail and thought, these renovations could have been taken to the next level.
I have to agree with you, “j” and Eric, on this one. Even to my admittedly untrained eye, the upper windows look way too short, and misplaced. The single window size on the first floor porch should have been duplicated, and in this case, surely less expensive than the ugly double.
which website is this??? Architects.com? Wow…yeah,tho i walk a mile … judge not…ok, now…ummmm, let me check…where would I rather live…or, which house would I rather be next to…in the ****hole before or the quite comfortable and attractive home that sits there now??? Perhaps standards deviate considerably and with those standards, so does the intellect.
Honestly, I’d prefer to live next to the former version of the house. The current version has to be more comfortable and efficient to live in, though.
The falling apart houses in the area hark back to a previous era and offer the promise of a real nice restoration. These ticky tacky plain vinyl houses don’t really offer anything other than what they are and will look like real shit in 10 years.
You seem to be unfamiliar of that of which you speak. Hardi-plank is not vinyl.
I like the “onomopateia” in “ticky tacky plain vinyl”, though…it’s quite catchy…von hier wuenschen wir Euch alles Gute o/o
The renovation of the structure at 26th and Leigh Streets, located in a City Historic District, was done in accordance with the guidelines established by CAR (Commission of Architectural Review). Because there was no prior evidence of any other adornments, the décor was limited to what you see. We definitely wanted to put corbels around the entire roofline and do more to give the building a more pleasant visual appeal. If anyone has any suggestions to improve 26th and Leigh, which can be approved by CAR, please let us know as we will gladly attempt to improve its “blandnessâ€.
The house located at 2105 M Street when purchased had very little, if any, historic fabric. The windows and doors were not original to the structure. The renovation may not be 100% historic or perfect, but is certainly an improvement to what was there.
We have worked hard to improve the Union Hill neighborhood. We’ve renovated several houses historically in the immediate area 510, 512, 612, 614 and 614 ½ N. 23rd and returned them to their former historic beauty.
Presently, under the Department of Historic Resources guidelines, we are renovating 1925 and 1927 Carrington, 706 N. 24th Street, and 907 N. 27th Street.
Jewels, Inc. works hard and is very proud of our accomplishments. Your neighborly support would be appreciated.
Just saw a HGTV episode that said… if you have architectural elements on the house, USE it to your advantage, because it will brings back more than twice of your cost. Or you can do what this builder did and put in a minimum amount of $$ and turn it over for a quick profit. I guess both can be considered an investment, depending which side your on.
OMG KILL IT!!! Turn it back into what it was! Where the heck do people get their architectural sense?
Tom O’Kelly:
What were you thinking about?! Come on dude, if you are going to renovate en masse in one of the last neighborhoods in the US that has vast antebellum housing stock, please use more care.
How can you accompany a group of preservation activists for a meeting with Council Members to promote preservation and CAR reform, and then do this?
You have been a proponent of pattern books, and yet, this would never be in any pattern book for a neighborhood like ours.
Seriously dude, have you lost your mind?
I emailed Tom and asked him what was going on here? I am posting his reply which I don’t think he will mind but I also don’t agree with his thinking:
(edited by john m: don’t post quotes from other folks’ email without their permission)
So there you have it. To me it sounds like a person who has no respect for historic neighborhoods. The original house may not have had a lot going for it other than “age” but on the other hand is the entire block/neighborhood that way? And if not, why couldn’t a house be replicated that shows on the facade some historic blending? Remember, facade means face” and it is the face you see first – first impressions. Do what you like to the interiors on these fill-ins (which it became) but try to keep within Old and Historic and CAR guidelines. A contractor who only thinks bottom line isn’t dedicated to preserving the historic fabric of Church Hill. It isn’t always about the $$$ (see the thread on “new construction at 2104-2106 Cedar Street†for similar comments and concern)
Eric
I voiced additional concerns to Tom and he rebounded back with bottom line economics concerning this building. It is not protected by historic designations as with other areas and he cited the building had no ornamentation to begin with. But he chose to completely redesign the house to a different style and profile and in turn I pointed him to various houses done by The Better Housing Coalition such as 1119, 1124, and 1201 N 24th Street. All in the same style he ended up with but done correctly. What is the difference between their building on a budget versus his?
Eric
Wow, Eric. Did you have builder’s permission to post his personal e-mail response to you?
I thought the builder was a big supporter of getting the O&HD to cover Union Hill, too, notwithstanding the debate on the curb appeal of this project. He’s also been recognized by the Assoc for the Conservation of Richmond Neighborhoods.
I figured that the email was short and to the point on his views so posted it. I made mention to him about our concerns and pointed him to the thread. His second email was more involved and did not post it but summarized. I too was a bit taken back by his responses because I felt he was an advocate of preservation no matter the costs. I guess he is feeling the pinch of the economic meltdown and wants to turn these buildings around quickly if the CAR is not involved. I know he was interested in the 401 N 27th building at one point and concerned that it was done right.
Eric
My concern is that he says the house has no historic fabric. That bothers me because it leads me to believe he isn’t looking at the neighborhood as a whole being historic and that a house under X-years old doesn’t count or matter?
Is that the ideology of most contractors today and what we are up against to help “preserve” the historic fabric of Church Hill and its surrounding neighborhoods?
Eric
I am appalled that you would post my private email without my permission, further you only posted the part you thought best.
We all have different views, I challenge each and every one of you to save a house, how we at Jewels Inc. General Contractors have saved many, some Historic and some not, while ya’ll just talk do do.
Tom O’Kelly
#22-”I challenge each and every one of you to save a house, how we at Jewels Inc. General Contractors have saved many, some Historic and some not,..”
I have, in this, and other cities, across the southeast.
That certainly was a childish response, Tom O’Kelly.
#22-”I challenge each and every one of you to save a house, how we at Jewels Inc. General Contractors have saved many, some Historic and some not,..”
Each and everyone of us? Are you that sure that none of us haven’t done what your company has done? Maybe not only in this city, but other places across the northeast and midwest as well?
Don’t take it personally, but you made a challenge. I felt compelled to respond.
Most of the builder’s other work would more than satisfy the objecting parties on this thread. In fact, he’s doing some very nice work now on 24th. His immediate neighbors admire and appreciate his work.
I think his point that he needed to keep his employees working is a fair one. Whether that outweighs the aesthetic concerns of the neighborhood, I don’t know. I’m not sure it was fair to post selected contents of his e-mail without asking him.
Instead of picking this property apart, perhaps we should focus energy on continuing support for the expanded O&HD intitiative. Too much personal negativity here could lose a few supporters of the intitiative, including the builder (who has supported the CAR).
I love the house on M. Historic or not it’s a definite improvement. Neighbor bashing does is not positive for any of us. Keep up the good work.
Tom… When I asked you the questions I mentioned concerns on the thread meaning I was seeking an answer to be able to take to the table. I posted your first email in its entirety so what did I “pick and choose” from it? Your second email was more detailed but the bottom line you were stressing was economics so that is what I relayed. Should I post that email in its entirety too so others can make the same assessment? The only other aspect you kept stressing is the fact that it had one bedroom and you raised the roof height to accommodate a second – which could have been build behind the first so the façade could be adjusted to a proper configuration. That is where licensed architects come in to preserve aesthetics while accommodating wanted changes.
I think you are taking this too personal as well or feeling guilty so acting defensive? All I know is what I see and what we are expecting.
Guess the next step like others have stressed is to get Union Hill “protected” so just any old thing isn’t quickly built and “picked apart” as some believe we are doing. Looks like the majority here are in favor of it being more historic rather than an improvement and as I mentioned before, the thread about the houses on Cedar street has a post by one person who believes in spending more on extensive restorations so it has a better chance of selling to the proper people that appreciate the work and historic aspect – so the neighborhood in general can also improve one house at a time. It isn’t always about catering to the lazy who want “low maintenance” housing or doing it quick and cheap. There should be some pride also involved in preserving our historic neighborhoods.
Eric
I support the O&HD initiative because I value the historic integrity of the neighborhood. However, I value my neighbors more so.
Tom Okelly and Jewels Inc. have done amazing work in Union Hill and Church Hill. They were here early- investing in and fixing up houses that nobody else wanted to tackle. They continue that work today, when many other investors and contractors have given up, abandoned projects and headed back to wherever they came from.
Tom Okelly is home. He lives right here in the neighborhood and has invested everything in revitalizing the area. I can call him at 3am if I have a personal or family emergency. He would give me the shirt off his back if he thought I needed it. He is that kind of person.
Any criticism of Jewels should be leveled in the context of all the other homes they have saved from the wrecking ball or demolition by neglect.
In these economic times, he continues to provide employment for his crew and continues to work to improve the neighborhood. Is he perfect? Me either.
I don’t think that we are neighbor bashing at all. Mr. Kelly has been very public and vocal about being a proponent of preservation and doing quality work that compliments our historic surroundings.
This “job” is just plain contrary to his public stance. I don’t think that the faltering economy is a good excuse.
For the folks who think that this house is perfectly fine, I’d like to ask you a question:
Why did you move into Church Hill? Was it cheaper housing? Is it in close proximity to your favorite bars/restaurants? Does preservation and the historic housing stock have any influence on your decision to live here?
I have to say that I am floored that folks would move into a very rare and important historic neighborhood like Church Hill and not see the value of preservation and compatible in-fill.
Bill… I have no personal vendetta against Tom and he was a supporter of trying to save the 401 N 27th building. Just that using the “current economic status” is a new cop out for many people when it comes to doing what should be the right thing. Yes, I am sure he has saved many houses and provided many homes but are they all historically accurate down to details? It is THAT aspect we are concerned about and though he argues that the “details” costs more, you can go green and recycle old details and refurbish them or make new ones from scratch rather than buy them. I have seen other contractors go dumpster diving looking for salvageable parts to strip, fix, and reuse. If a person is truly conscience of their surroundings then they will make the extra effort to conform to its ways. Maybe go to towns outside of Richmond and look for houses being torn down to collect parts to restore older homes instead of going to a local parts warehouse? If there is a will there is a way to save money – even if they are a contractor. That’s not constricting what is done on the inside or even the sides or back of a house. It is the front that people see and what counts first then all else secondary. I know that the CBH is funded but are their material lists more costly or the design conformities?
Thanks hillkid. I know we have our differences but you have just reiterated what I have been stating all along on all threads. You move into a historic neighborhood by choice and know what is involved. It is “historic” and should be preserved that way. Moving into a historic area takes on some extra responsibilities and if you don’t want them or agree to it, then move to the suburbs and build your ultra modern rancher but don’t destroy the fabric of our neighborhoods because of your indifference.
Eric
post number 16- you call out Tom O’Kelly by name, yet you weakly sign your post as hillkid. Have some integrity and character…if you are going to call someone out by name… atleast sign your own name to the post. It is easy to attack when you use multiple, artificial names to attack folks that are working, heart and soul, although not to your standards, to save our neighborhood.
Bill… no matter what you say, when dealing with historic and recognized areas there should be “standards” in place. Else wise we would quickly loose all shreds of anything historic about our neighborhoods. People just don’t get it what it means to live in such an area – or simply don’t care? Which is it? It is more than saving a couple select buildings but blocks of buildings and entire neighborhoods.
Eric
Mr. Conkle,
I am a bit surprised with your stance especially when I (we) thought you were a big supporter of restoration having owned and worked on many houses including the one at 801 N 24th. And your working for the VA Dept. of “Conservation” and Recreation.
big surprise. hillkiid the gutless anonymous bitch talking trash about a guy who actually does some good instead of hiding behind a ridiculous pseudonym. o kelly has more integrity in his pinky than you have in your whole shittalking body. i have said it before ,if a ridiculous reactionary dork like eric can own up to his repellent opinions why cant you?the answer of course is your lack of courage which is why you post from behind cover instead of addressing your neighbors inplain view. i know this hillkid is a teachers pet but comeon who wants to listen to this bullshit from a guy too gutless to take respnsobility for his opinions? hey murden before you edit or delete me try to remember that you told a real media outlet that you have only deleted ten to fifteen posts on your website . shit dude you have blocked that many of my posts alone. cherrypicking solicitations hamstings arguments and reveals you as a dilletante not the journalist you purport to be. yeah i know john start my own website.
Buddy… thanks for the backhanded compliment (I think)?
Eric
Steven, If you knew me, I don’t think my stance would be all that surprising. I am a big supporter of historic restoration and the establishment of an historic district for Union Hill.
However, I think that neighbors and neighborhood trump even that. I have learned that most issues go deeper and are more complex than a simple one sentence philosophy.
Sometimes you have to listen and understand that circumstances and individual perspectives may require and individual to be flexible and be willing to accept that there are sometimes more than one appropriate response to a challenge.
At the end of the day, we are all neighbors and very much so dependent upon eachother to grow our community. I’ll be happy to talk more about this if you’d like. My number is in the book.
However, I am surprised and don’t appreciate your attempt at mocking my profession and suggesting that my stance is somewhat contrary to the mission of my employer and then not sign your full name. I don’t get a charge out of defending my beliefs based on where I work.
“It is easy to attack when you use multiple, artificial names”
Nope, just hillkid, no other names.
Bill Conkle and buddy corbett:
So much for your integrity. What ever happened to refraining from the personal attacks?
I have no problem with your opinion about O’Kelly’s work on this house. Fine, but I don’t agree. Let’s keep it at that. You two are the ones making this personal.
Mr. Conkle, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. To support the O&H for UH and think that this kind of work is acceptable is hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways.
#33: Addressing Mr. O’Kelly is fair game. He is the owner of Jewel Contracting and he has won an ACORN award for preservation work. He has taken a public stance on preservation many times and likes to tell the public about how he has contributed to our neighborhood.
Bill, I was only using the “Conservation” stance related to your work to drive home a point about consciousness of what should be done versus what is being done. Like hillkid said, you can’t have it both ways. Living in a historic area is by choice and all neighbors should get along and support that choice, not go and do their own thing. Otherwise you will loose that uniqueness of being a “historic” area and “preserving” it rather than alter and destroy it. That is where rules and guidelines like other cities have should be in place and enforced. Ever heard of gentrification used in context with preservation? Gentrification (coined first in 1963 by Ruth Glass) actually means one thing but can be used out of context in the way you and others see it. The problem is that people have been left to do their own thing for too long and there has to be an end to it when it comes to Church Hill and its neighbors. Unification.
#13:
“The renovation of the structure at 26th and Leigh Streets, located in a City Historic District, was done in accordance with the guidelines established by CAR.”
This statement is misleading. While Jewel Inc. may have renovated this building with CAR guidelines in mind, it was not approved by the CAR, nor did it go through the CAR COA process. The O&H in Church Hill North was designated after work on this building began. All BZA and design permits were granted before the O&H was in place.
Hillkid – you should get your facts straight before posting false information on this site. The project at 26th and Leigh was purchased and the BZA hearing was held prior to the historic district being established. But you are INCORRECT that the permits and design did not fall under CAR. The O&H for North Church Hill was approved on May 27, 2007. The first permits for the project were not applied for until June of 2007. A CAR hearing was held on this project and the building plans were ABSOLUTELY approved by the Commission of Architectural Review, color approval and all. All of this information is verifiable on the City’s website. Your lies can be detrimental to our business and good reputation – yes, we have a good reputation. Our livelihood and that of our employees count on Jewels, Inc. to continue in business. Enough is enough!
Hey folks,
It seems like everything has been said here that was worth saying (and then some). I’m going to put a time-out on this one to allow everyone to cool off a bit.
[...] M Street. The dwellings at 2202 and 2204-2206 M Street have been demolished since 1990, and 2105 has been fairly drastically reconfigured. 2210-2212 M [...]