And I’m very fortunate to see it every morning I walk out my front door. If we can get those three abandoned ones by Bayou Properties further down the block rennovated, I’ll be even happier. Still, no negative vibes, the block has come a long way since I moved in almost three years ago. I do love my neighborhood.
We live in the house with the yellow wreath on the door. We’re coming up on the 1 year anniversary of being on 27th street and our third year here on the hill and we couldn’t be happier. We have great nieghbors. Elderhomes has plans for another house in the vacant lot beside the grey house. They have also tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to get Oliver Lawrence to sell them the property he owns toward the end of the block. I too love my neighborhood!
#5:
Thanks for pointing that out. One can apply for historic tax credits, follow the NPS standards (and the CAR) and construct properties that actually respect the historic fabric of the community.
This is not a lie (as in “false historicism”) or Disneyland, it’s good preservation stewardship.
It seems to me that the new homes are clear examples of dreaded “false historicism”. I doubt those designs would be approved by CAR if they were submitted today.
Yes they would. They approved the duplexes at 619-627 N 28TH ST that are slated to be built soon. There was a picture of them on this site somewhere, but I can’t find it now. The duplexes are Italianate double houses that mimic the other houses on the block almost verbatim. There is also the new in fill property at 21st and Marshall on the west side that was approved by CAR and built about 3-4 years ago. Again this is an Italianate home that replicates what was there before and the other houses on the block. According to some, these houses should not have been built because they are a lie, which I think is silly.
The problem is the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in the interpretation of the NPS standards and CAR guidelines. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the interpretations one way or the other. It’s a real head-scratcher sometimes trying to make sense of their decisions.
Laura, I absolutely agree with the no rhyme or reason statement, the language clearly states that infill construction must be contemporary, yet complementary, in design.
Actually, they changed the language in the guidelines under New Construction in-fill to eliminate the “contemporary” word and replace it with “differentiation.” They just haven’t changed it on the website yet. This change was made at June’s CAR hearing. It’ll probably take a while for them to change it. it took them a year or more to add the Church Hill North OHD to the website/Handbook.
The “differentiation” language matches up with the NPS standard #9 “The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
The language was changed because it is ridiculous, and wrong. Even the CAR realized that. The “contemporary” word had become a focal point and does not have anything to do with the other 108 pages of language in the Handbook.
People that interpret contemporary or differentiation as meaning modern would say that Colonial Williamsburg is a lie, and that the historic district should have been rebuilt with modern structures co-mingling with the originals. That’s ridiculous! It’s one of our country’s major cultural destinations and a great example of the importance of preserving our historic communities. I’d hate to see what would have happened to Colonial Williamsburg if the CAR had been responsible for adding infill and restoring it. It wouldn’t exist today, and that would have been a tremendous loss and deprived millions of people a window into our past.
People don’t visit Church Hill to see the new “modern” infill. They appreciate our historically preserved community and want to experience that. I don’t mind modern architecture at all, it just doesn’t belong in an Old & Historic District. There are plenty of places to build modern buildings. I think that it is being forced in OHD’s as a statement being made by some misguided folks who have perverted the original intent of the NPS/CAR standards.
Do you think that the new construction above is bad or inappropriate? If so, you seem to be the only one who thinks so. I thought that you were being sarcastic in comment #8, but having read your comment in #10, it seems that you are serious.
Since this is somewhat off topic, I’d be happy to continue the conversation with you personally. Contact me at laura@mysterydinner.com
Does anyone know of any companies that offer free redevelopment (remodeling) for currently lived in homes. Many of the houses on 35th street are run down and we have many elderly people, as well as, others who can not afford remodeling.
A very nice project by RRHA and ElderHomes.
Wow, what a difference. A wonderful transformation!
And I’m very fortunate to see it every morning I walk out my front door. If we can get those three abandoned ones by Bayou Properties further down the block rennovated, I’ll be even happier. Still, no negative vibes, the block has come a long way since I moved in almost three years ago. I do love my neighborhood.
I gather the one one the far end was demo’d and redone? Or did someone manage to scootch it over five or six feet?
The two on the far right in the current photo are both new construction.
We live in the house with the yellow wreath on the door. We’re coming up on the 1 year anniversary of being on 27th street and our third year here on the hill and we couldn’t be happier. We have great nieghbors. Elderhomes has plans for another house in the vacant lot beside the grey house. They have also tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to get Oliver Lawrence to sell them the property he owns toward the end of the block. I too love my neighborhood!
#5:
Thanks for pointing that out. One can apply for historic tax credits, follow the NPS standards (and the CAR) and construct properties that actually respect the historic fabric of the community.
This is not a lie (as in “false historicism”) or Disneyland, it’s good preservation stewardship.
It seems to me that the new homes are clear examples of dreaded “false historicism”. I doubt those designs would be approved by CAR if they were submitted today.
#8:
Yes they would. They approved the duplexes at 619-627 N 28TH ST that are slated to be built soon. There was a picture of them on this site somewhere, but I can’t find it now. The duplexes are Italianate double houses that mimic the other houses on the block almost verbatim. There is also the new in fill property at 21st and Marshall on the west side that was approved by CAR and built about 3-4 years ago. Again this is an Italianate home that replicates what was there before and the other houses on the block. According to some, these houses should not have been built because they are a lie, which I think is silly.
The problem is the obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in the interpretation of the NPS standards and CAR guidelines. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the interpretations one way or the other. It’s a real head-scratcher sometimes trying to make sense of their decisions.
Laura, I absolutely agree with the no rhyme or reason statement, the language clearly states that infill construction must be contemporary, yet complementary, in design.
#10:
Actually, they changed the language in the guidelines under New Construction in-fill to eliminate the “contemporary” word and replace it with “differentiation.” They just haven’t changed it on the website yet. This change was made at June’s CAR hearing. It’ll probably take a while for them to change it. it took them a year or more to add the Church Hill North OHD to the website/Handbook.
The “differentiation” language matches up with the NPS standard #9 “The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
The language was changed because it is ridiculous, and wrong. Even the CAR realized that. The “contemporary” word had become a focal point and does not have anything to do with the other 108 pages of language in the Handbook.
People that interpret contemporary or differentiation as meaning modern would say that Colonial Williamsburg is a lie, and that the historic district should have been rebuilt with modern structures co-mingling with the originals. That’s ridiculous! It’s one of our country’s major cultural destinations and a great example of the importance of preserving our historic communities. I’d hate to see what would have happened to Colonial Williamsburg if the CAR had been responsible for adding infill and restoring it. It wouldn’t exist today, and that would have been a tremendous loss and deprived millions of people a window into our past.
People don’t visit Church Hill to see the new “modern” infill. They appreciate our historically preserved community and want to experience that. I don’t mind modern architecture at all, it just doesn’t belong in an Old & Historic District. There are plenty of places to build modern buildings. I think that it is being forced in OHD’s as a statement being made by some misguided folks who have perverted the original intent of the NPS/CAR standards.
Do you think that the new construction above is bad or inappropriate? If so, you seem to be the only one who thinks so. I thought that you were being sarcastic in comment #8, but having read your comment in #10, it seems that you are serious.
Since this is somewhat off topic, I’d be happy to continue the conversation with you personally. Contact me at laura@mysterydinner.com
Does anyone know of any companies that offer free redevelopment (remodeling) for currently lived in homes. Many of the houses on 35th street are run down and we have many elderly people, as well as, others who can not afford remodeling.
Elderhomes
http://www.elderhomes.org/