All new residential and commercial construction, whether in the form of additions or entire buildings, should be compatible with the historic features that characterize their setting and context. To protect the context of the surrounding historic district, new construction should reference the materials, features, size, scale, proportions, and massing of the existing historic building or buildings in its setting. However, compatibility does not mean duplicating the existing buildings or environment. In order to avoid creating a false sense of history, new construction should also be discernible from the old. Perhaps the best way to think about a compatible new building (or addition) is that it should be a good neighbor; one that enhances the character of the existing district and respects its historic context, rather than being an exact (and misleading) reproduction of another building.[sep] So what do you think? A post on IG led to some interesting debate. If you can’t access Instagram, some of the highlights below:
We love the diversity of this neighborhood house and all.
I’ll have to disagree there on that one. It’s NOT the modern whatever that makes this neighborhood. It’s the history and the historic houses that are over a hundred years old. It’s the stories they tell about our city and it’s past. Modern crap can’t do that. No offense. Historic is always better.
The east end needs rebuilding and infill, not just rehab. I’d rather people build modern houses with modern materials than older-style houses with brick and steel.
This city is very historic from the sidewalks to the houses, we need to keep it like that.
Completely disrupts the neighborhood. But there’s s—y ’90s suburban vinyl infill already. So I guess thanks CAR.*Title inspired by reddit/rva post