Back to Cedar Street…
The new version of 2116 Cedar Street is coming along nicely; the other new construction down the block seems to have stalled.
TOP: new version (2009) / BELOW: original (2008)
Despite the efforts of many, the iconic house at 2116 Cedar Street was demolished in 2008. Before the house was taken down, however, a novel plan was put together to save as much of the original detail of the house as possible and rebuild a new version of the house on the lot.
they have really been working up a storm on this place. i can attest to it by the many very early wake-ups by the crews working on the place.
I happened to pass by a few weeks ago and, not being familiar with the history of the place, thought that it was a historic house that was being rehabilitated. Looks like its going to be pretty nice!
I want it!
other builders should should use this as an example of how to do it right! when it comes to new work it can still be done in the historic spirit and still be profitable .
rhock sthar!
Once again, we can thank David Herring and ACORN for insuring that this house is getting rebuilt in a way that delights everyone who sees it. The bonus is that many of the original interior architectural features were preserved and are being installed in the house.
@mark, I share your enthusiasm for the work they are doing. David Herring and others deserve MUCH credit for saving the architectural elements of the former structure and for agreeing to build a near replica of the original. Nonetheless, I’m afraid the cost may be prohibitive to selling the house on that block. Without the guarantees of an Old and Historic district, a potential buyer would be taking a huge risk that their home would be dragged down by shoddy infill and deteriorating structures.
Is this an example of “false historicism”?
#4:
Right on! Tell that to the CAR, and the new CAR task force while your at it.
#7: Even though I have mentioned in other threads that the CAR does let new infill reflect traditional styles, they would not have allowed this to be built because it replicates the original structure, and would be considered by them to be as #8 mentions “false historicism.” Why?
I argued this at the CAR hearing the other day. There is new infill slated for 600 N. 28th Street. It looks anything like what was there before and nothing like anything in the immediate area. Beyond the design problems, proposed infill is too tall, and too massive for the lot. If physical documentation is so important with the CAR when it comes to restoration of existing buildings, then why is it not important to consider physical documentation when replacing a building on an empty lot? There is plenty of pictures of the old corner store at 600 N. 28th, yet no consideration was taken to respect that or reference that.
We need to get away from the academic jerking off that happens with the CAR and to some extent the DHR with their historic tax credits, and get back to the original intent of preservation and restoration of our communities.
Most regular folks look at the new construction above and see a wonder reconstruction of the former building. You’ll find little argument among the residents to it’s “appropriateness.” However, there’s plenty of upheaval from residents when new, non-traditional infill is forced into our districts. And no, I’m not the only one. The Oakwoods argument was not just about height, massing and scale. It was about inappropriate design too.
Our communities should be preserved and restored. That is the original intent of the CAR and OHD’s. Somewhere along the line the intent was twisted to an agenda that is eroding our districts. Forcing disparate architecture into our communities changes the historic fabric of the community, one infill project at a time. That is not preservation or restoration.
Alao at the CAR meeting, there was a guy from Baskervill pitching an addition to the back of the building next to the Bath House at 18th and Broad. They want to take off the lovely porches and staircases in the back and add a big monolith box. The architect’s rationale for the design was that it referenced the modern additions slapped onto the back of the Synagogue condos. When one is allowed to start referencing other modern infill for new infill in our OHD’s then it is no longer an OHD, it’s just another neighborhood with no protections.
@8…no i don’t think it is b/c the house had gotten to such a un-repairable state with massive structural damage and weakened retaining walls. The only thing they could reasonably do was disassemble it, store what was reusable from the original building/site, and then build from a new foundation on the same foot print.
The fact that this project happened as continuous plan (from disassembly thru reassembly) using only the existing/original materials (not introducing salvage materials from other houses/sites) typically is ok with NPS and City O&H D guidlines.
Photographic evidence of the orignal structure and thruough documentation of the original stucture help it meet the NPS/City O&D Guidelines.
The “false historicism” argument usually applies to structures when there isn’t a photograph, drawing or discription of the structure as it was originally, and when salvage materials from other buildings/sites are used inappropriately or without evidence of appropriateness.
What are the “guarantees” of an Old & Historic District that would protect a potential buyer from “shoddy infill?” This “near replica of the original” would have been denounced by the CAR as an example of “false historicism.” Did City Old & Historic District designation prevent the recent infill disasters on North 28th, North 18th and 19th, and the 2000 block of East Broad? And let’s not forget the contemporary CAR-approved design for Oakwood Heights. CAR is biased against traditional architecture and has demonstrated repeatedly that it is more interested in mandating incompatible contemporary design than protecting the historic character of the OHDs. This nice new house at 2116 Cedar is a testament to why we’re better off without CAR “protection.”
#10:
Please see my remarks in #9 regarding the new proposed infill for 600 N. 28th St. There is physical documentation of the former corner store, yet no reference to that is being allowed by the CAR with the new infill.
#11:
I agree with you on everything except your last statement about being better off without the CAR. Yes there are some ridiculous philosophies being thrown around by CAR members, but the original intent of OHD’s and the CAR must be fought for and demanded. One can only do that by being a player and part of the system. You are one of those people who can make a difference and have your voice heard.
Webster, with an O&HD, your are “guaranteed” that all infill goes thru a vetting process that includes CITIZEN input in the CAR review.
The communities that are O&HD’s are “guaranteed” to be partners in the CAR infill review process.
The only real guarantee you have is an opportunity to have a voice in infil, and without the O&HD, you have NO VOICE in the infill.
Did you attend the CAR hearings for any of the “infill disasters” you mentioned above? Did you voice your concerns, give alternatives and get your neighbors involved?
As in all forms of legislation (in this case, zoning code,) there is flexibility. The people who are charged with upholding the legislation are interpreters who apply the code to each case that comes before them.
CAR personnel and the guidelines for O&HD’s change over time. I believe they both can be influenced (maybe not overnight) to adapt to citizen/popular opinion.
That’s what the City Council’s Task Force is supposed to be doing now. Looking for ways to change the process/guidelines for the better. Earlier this summer, the CAR hosted a public forum at the Firehouse Theatre, that was another good step in opening up the dialog for change.
In the case of 2116 Cedar, I believe CAR would have ok’d this project for the reasons I stated above in post #10.
Oh, I forgot to reply to the issue of architectural “evidence”.
Well, as I understand it, it’s up to property owner of the infill project to decide whether they want to use evidence of the original structure or not when designing the new building.
Also, the Cedar Street project didn’t accidentially burn down, creating a vacant lot. It was intentionally dismantled and rebuilt.
In this case, the property owner wanted to rebuild a structure that resembled the original. He/she could have just as easily built a Better Housing Coallition-type home that didn’t match the original design, and even brought the house forward on the lot, getting more square footage. They still would have made folks happy.
I think the nuance here is that in an O&HD, the property owner gets to present their “vision” for the infill, and then CAR/neighboring citizens comment.
#14;
It shouldn’t be up to the property owner to “decide” whether or not to use evidence of the original structure when replacing a building if in fact documented evidence of the previous structure exists. That’s part and parcel of preservation. The CAR needs to steward that intent, not ignore it and consciously defy it as they often do.
CAR staff gives some direction to applicants, but very little as they claim to not be a “design firm.” Yet,they make design decisions all the time, and many times discouraging traditional architecture. It’s just plain wrong.
Again, we’re just another neighborhood with no protections as long as this kind of mindset continues to dominate. The people of OHD’s have got to demand better from the CAR.
Laura, it sounds like you are making a recomendation to change or clarify current guidlines for O&HD.
There are many folks in our community that would agree with your position about using historical evidence for infill.
This is the kind of open dialog we, as a community, should continue to have with the CAR members and City staff, especially since infill is such a critical issue.
May I suggest that all who have both knowledge and interest contact the CAR Task Force (Bruce Tyler, Chair, Steve Taylor, staff)and ask to be involved?
That having been said, it appears to an outsider that, in a dynamic area, developed over several decades, one period is selected as “authentic” and the rest is disparaged.
I have heard it said before that, if you want accuracy, you need outhouses and slave quarters.
WHERE ARE THE HITCHING POSTS?
WHY DO THESE NEW-FANGLED “HISTORICALLY ACCURATE” HOUSES ALL HAVE MODERN CONVENIENCES SUCH AS GUTTERS, NOT TO SPEAK OF THEIR PORCH BALUSTRADES WITH SUCH TINY SPACES BETWEEN THE BALUSTERS? EVERYONE KNOWS THAT BACK IN OLDEN DAYS, PEOPLE DIDN’T LOVE THEIR BABIES ENOUGH TO THINK OF HAVING 4-INCH GAPS IN RAILINGS!!!! FALSENESS ABOUNDS!!!
ANOTHER THING: BACK IN DAYS OF YORE, EVERYONE WOULD GATHER THEIR WATER AT COMMUNITY PUMPS INSTEAD OF ARROGANTLY USING MODERN INDOOR PLUMBING, BUT THIS CRUCIAL FACT HAS BEEN IGNORED!!!!
PLEASE COMMENT AS TO WHY CAR HAS NOT ADDRESSED THESE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES THAT ARE CLEARLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN HEALTH CARE OR EDUCATION OR THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!
#13, you don’t need an OHD to have a “guaranteed” partnership or voice with CAR. Those are reserved for architects and developers who argue that the economic benefits of their projects trump aesthetic/historic considerations. Those are the same individuals appointed to the new CAR Task Force.
as for the other construction on cedar st, i heard that the contractors ran out of money to complete, i live on this block of cedar, and for a while the house which i guess is gonna be 2108, was being built pretty quickly and then they just stopped. but like i said the reason is only hearsay.