RECENT COMMENTS
invasion of the urban rancher
We’ve received a letter from a reader concerned about the degradation to the urban fabric in Union Hill and other areas that are not being held to meet a historical architectural standard. What can be done?
New on Cedar Street
Dear CHPN,
I’ve rented in Church Hill for years and recently purchased a house in Union Hill. My wife and I are excited about the ongoing revitalization of the neighborhood but are concerned that some of the new structures going up don’t seem to meet any sort of historic standard.
Although Union Hill has been recognized for it’s historic value on the state – and possibly national – levels, it evidently has not been designated as such by the city and is therefore not subject to the same building code regulations as its neighbor, Church Hill.
Any ideas as to who we might contact in order to petition for that designation – or at least for building code changes that would include guidelines for maintaining historical accuracy – would be greatly appreciated. The new houses undermine years of effort by so many to bring the neighborhood back to it’s antebellum splendor, and I would think that residents of nearby areas like Church Hill, Tobacco Row, Shockhoe Bottom / Slip, and even MCV / Court End /Jackson Ward, would all benefit by a properly revitalized Union Hill.
Any feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to post this message in your forum area for responses from your readers as well.
Thanks,
Kai Sommer
i have been watching and thinking along these lines for some time.
however, formal neighborhood restrictions, while having the desired effect of keeping new building in line with older structures, can actually become a nuisance.
imagine having to consult the restrictions guide before painting one’s home, because only certain colors are accepted. not being able to build a deck onto the rear of one’s home because it doesnt fit the restrictions. etc, etc.
these are things we in union hill must think about and discuss before seeking to place neighborhood historic restrictions on building.
Interesting, I sent a letter to Councilman Hilbert on the same topic this morning. Here it is:
Sir:
Having just witnessed this past week’s council proceedings on public access cable, I had a point to make with you.
The gentleman from Oregon Hill’s point with regard to city tax delinquency sales (and the time and relative quality of these infill developments) is one that I share, being a recent home purchaser in Union Hill. For the want of getting properties off the tax delinquency list, it appears Council is facilitating an equally damaging end that we will be forced to live with for decades to come: that is, the destruction of the architectural venacular of these communities.
It appears you have two rather divergent policies with regard to community revitalization in these very strategic neighborhoods (i.e. downtown adjacent with historic character). First, you forego 15 years of taxes to incentivize the historic restoration of existing homes: then, contrary to this goal, you sell lots to quick buck developers or longer term land speculators that either sit on lots, or throw up units that do not perscribe to the dominant historic venacular. Surely, these two policies, while offering some fiscal relief in the short term, have mid and long term ramifications that counteract each other.
As a recent home purchaser of a in-fill development that did go to great pains to fit into the community venacular (developed by Richmond Better Housing), I now get to walk around the block and see three units under construction that have little or no respect to the overall community context in terms of the design, materials, or quality of the construction. In fact, I have seen the same exact house bein tossed up on lots in Carver, south of Carytown, North Church Hill…etc…What do you think this is going to do to my investment? Or, more important to policy makers, the overall property tax potential of the neighborhood?
So, as one of the people on Council that seem to have a grasp of the broader policy context, I am asking you to develop a strategic plan for the re-population of our downtown adjacent communities. These policies need to include issues relating to job accessiblity, walkability, safety, aesthetics, quality of parks, etc.
A specific policy that could add this goal is to offer a similar tax abatement of purchasers of in-fill developments that meet some criteria for blending in with existing historic character. While not punishing investors that go for the quick buck/suburban, design route, a tax break will obviously be a major selling point for a higher quality housing design and a higher quality home. While I am not a fetishizer of historic properties, having bought a newly constructed home– there has to be some acknowedgement of the nature of the competitive advantage these communities hold for the city’s fiscal future. And clearly, vinyl sided, pitched room, asphalt shingled, cinder block showing-foundationed homes are not it.
Thank you.
Bob Stokes
I am intrigued by this letter. I am currently building a house in Church Hill that is very similar to this one. I was not aware that there was an opposition to the appearance.
I would love to say “OK, let’s change this”, however, cost comes into play. The real estate market is slowing down, and making is harder to sell a home in a reasonable time, so builders and rehabbers are having to decide where the money is most effectively spent.
We’re trying to keep the properties reasonably priced, while making them attractive to the buyers and to the community… And this is a difficult balance to keep. We are trying to add attractive siding options (hardiplank over vinyl), architectural interest (corbels, lintels, etc), and interior upgrades (hardwood, granite) while making the homes affordable enough to be attractive to the widest market.
Tax benefits (as Bob mentioned) would help, but not to a great extent. The city doesn’t charge a great deal of taxes to a builder/rehabber who holds the property for a short time, so that doesn’t include a great deal of savings. Further, who would decide what constitutes an acceptable design? Would a government employee decide which properties “look historic”?
And if these changes add to the cost of building, that cost must be passed to tbe buyer. Increased cost means less buyers, which makes building/rehabbing less attractive, and there will be less interest in the area, so less improvements.
I don’t have any answers, but would love to take part in any discussions!
Better Housing Coalition has been building affordable and upmarket housing in various parts of the neighborhood for a while. There presence is heavy in Fairmount, where you can track their progress towards better design and implementation in the more affordable houses. There are recent BHC houses on the 1100 and 1200 blocks of 24th street that blend in much better with the existing architecture in both style and scale.
City Old & Historic District status sure doesn’t hurt the area around St. John’s – or countless other distrticts, like the Fan. As far as learning how to make Union Hill one of these, Springview just became a City Old & Historic District. A conversation with that area’s neighborhood association about the process would probably be a great starting point.
To the developer’s statement(asking what City official decides what “historic” is)… actually a small panel of architects decide what “historic” is. They follow the guidelines from the district’s application… which guidelines the area residents themselves influence when they apply for the City Old & Historic District.
The area bounded by Jefferson Street, Jefferson Park, Mosby Street, Venable Street (or maybe Carrington) and 25th Street seems to make sense for one of these districts. That appears to be the footprint of the old antebellum town of Union Hill.
To those reidents interested – the Union Hill Neighborhood association never seems to meet. What would be the best forum for the neighborhood to seriously discuss this?
There is a task force currently in place to extend the St. John’s & Chimborazo Old & Historic Districts. We have been organized since November of ’05. Unfortunately, the boundaries being considered do not include Union Hill. The reason for this is, in order for this initiative to be successful, we needed to focus on realistic expectations, and not extend the boundaries too far. I have published a public notice in the CHA newsletter describing the initiative. It should be coming out in the next week or so – pick-up a copy. In the meantime, I will email the editor of this blog and see if they will publish the notice on this site. Ina addition, I have several city documents and outline the process and guidlines for O&D Districts. I also have the contact for the woman who headed the efforts in Springhill.
The bottom line is: you must have a mojority approval from the property owners in the proposed area to even be considered for a O&D District, and then you must jump through many city beareaucratic hoops and get the apporval of the planning commission, CAR and your Councilperson – not such an easy task.
In terms of changing zoning laws – almost impossible. What’s in place, stays in place, and there’s very little you can do about it. It takes an act of City Council to change zoning and to create/approve a historic overlay which we are trying to achieve North of Broad in Church Hill. Getting your area to have a historic overlay doesn’t necessarily change the zoning laws. What it does is make it more difficult for developers/residents to build inappropriate in-fill, or change structures inapropriately. It also helps regulate parking issues and certain other infastructure issues as well, like density.
I hope this gives some of you some insight, and I hope the editor will post the documents I mentioned above. If not, I will email copies to those interested. My email is info@mysterydinner.com
Laura — I’d love to post whatever you have.
see task force seeking to expand old & historic districts north of Broad Street for Laura’s documents and info.
What about the house at 3100 E. Marshall? Isn’t this house in the historic district? How can the owners be permitted to use replacement windows?
Leigh,
Someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but you can do a a lot of things if you are not getting historic preservation tax credits, like put in vinyl windows.
3100 E. Marshall appears to be in the proposed historic area, and not the current historic area.
The map on page 4 of the city master plan appendix 12 shows that the property in question is within the Saint John’s Church Old and Historic district.
http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/forms/docs/online/masterplan/12Appendix.pdf
Hope this helps…
I’ve put together a small photo essay about recent infill housing if anyone is interested.
Good gawd, John…your pictures make me want to cry!