RECENT COMMENTS
A proposal to revisit new construction in Old&Historic districts
Laura Daab is proposing that the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) change their guidelines concerning new construction in Old & Historic Districts (PDF) so that new homes would much more closely replicate historic existing structures on the block. Saying that CAR does a fairly good job with rulings on existing buildings, Daab states, “I think that they have a lot to learn (or should I say, unlearn) about in-fill and new construction.”
The current CAR design review guidelines (PDF) state that new construction should look new and not mimic existing historic structures.  At the same time, new structures must co-exist harmoniously and compliment the surrounding area. Where new structures incorporate a historic design, they also must display elements of modernity. Saying that, “In theory, this seems to make some sense, but in practice, it’s a nightmare,” Daab is calling for reforms on the current guidelines.
Pointing out that “everyone wants to live in O&H’s because of the existing historic character”, Daab is proposing that CAR change their guidelines concerning new construction so that look of new houses much more closely match the look of the still-existing houses in the immediate area.
Towards accomplishing these changes, Daab would like the residents of O&H’s in the city to organize and present the CAR with their opinions, concerns, complaints and suggestions and on how the CAR conducts their business.
In support of this proposal, she points to the work that Better Housing Coalition has done across the city and the recent work by RRHA in Carver – work outside of O&H districts and with designs that match and complement the historic housing. Further bolstering her argument is last year’s Golden Hammer for Best Infill Construction awarded by ACORN to 610 Idlewood in Oregon Hill, a house that “instantly blends with the surrounding character of the historic neighborhood”.
Contact Laura at laura@mysterydinner.com if you would like to participate.
I concur, I’d much rather see a home that closely replicates it nearby historic neighbors rather than a house that does not quite fit in with its twist of modernity. Take a look at the new house going up in the 500 block of North 28th Street. The shape and fenestration of the house is commendable. However, the “modern” windows they put in the past week look awful and completely out of character. Call me old fashioned, but I think new construction should be more consistent with its neighbors.
610 Idlewood is a copy just like the buildings on Main St. in Disney World or the ones you find in Williamsburg. Church Hill doesn’t want to become a tourist attraction of that kind. Think of architecture like you would art. Would you want a replica of a Rembrandt or a contemporary painting by an artist influenced by him like a Thomas Eakins or a Francis Bacon.
In areas of the east end with many vacant lots and blight, we should be attracting the great architects. Take a look at the San Francisco neighborhoods with a mix of the old and new.
I would be interested in Ed Slipek’s views on building in old neighborhoods.
I pulled a comment because I’m not comfortable with posting an email, in its entirety, on a 2nd hand basis. It seems like an entire email is probably not relevant, and so publishing the whole email borders on violating privacy issues. If you would like to refer to email that you have received relevant to a topic, feel free to summarize and even quote passages. If you have any comments or questions about this, please contact me directly at murden@gmail.com.
the email you pulled was a sent to those members of the Church Hill North Historic District Initiative. I think it’s important that it be open to the public while they decide if they wish to be involved with this issue.
But the message was not posted publicly or offically to something like the Church Hill North Historic District Initiative yahoo group. Post it there and I’ll link to it. I don’t want to hijack this topic, so please contact me directly at murden@gmail.com if you have any comments/questions. Thanks.
The email that I sent the CAR board members is the email to which “Lisa” is referring. It has been widely distributed throughout the neighborhood, and has now been posted on the CHNO&H yahoo group. I did not intentionally leave it off the yahoo group site, it was just an oversight. “Lisa” has been kind enough to do so. Take a look if you like.
I was out taking some pics earlier today to present my case for reform within the CAR. I will post later.
Additionally, if this topic takes flight, I would appreciate people taking aim at the topic itself and not me.
I will say that I have been a strong supporter of the CAR, and even advocated, in theory, the guidelines for building new construction/in-fill in O&H districts.
I have changed my mind dramatically, and no longer support the entirety of the guidelines for in-fill construction according to the CAR.
CHNO&H is a district with a tremendous amount of vacant lots, ripe for in-fill construction. This presents a challenge for the CAR and more importantly, for the residents of the community. I believe that being a good steward for one’s community is an ongoing, dynamic process – it simply never ends. I believe that the CAR is in need of reform and should have it’s own “design review” conducted by the community. I plan to work hard toward that end.
I respectfully disagree with”gray” and will make my arguments more clear in the near future.
For now, I’ve got some weekend home projects to finish! Oh! Oh! Call the CAR!
I’ve gotten the ok to post the email:
I would like to add that the “financial hardship” that the applicant claims for 512 N. 28th Street, in my opinion, is fallacious.
The house is a small mansion. I have a copy of the elevations and interior layout. The house will also have a very nice pergola and patio area in the back. Why couldn’t the applicant skip the patio and pergola for now and put in the metal roof. How about skimping on the interior a little bit? Believe me, the interior is pretty fancy.
I’m not dissing the applicant. She followed all the guidelines and CAR rulings to a tee as far as I know. I’m posing these questions to the CAR.
Well written, Laura.
Took a drive by today and was dismayed to see the roof. I’m really am shocked to see that CAR approved this in an O&H District. This is exactly what O&H status “should” protect against. I don’t really agree that copying existing structures is the answer either though. I love my house and many around it, in part because they are unique. I would not want to see a modern replica of any “real” old house in my neighborhood. There’s gotta be some happy medium between copying what’s already here and modern monstrosities. CAR is clearly not following its own standards and I agree that they need some help in more carefully and consistently making decisions regarding in-fill. I would be interested in being part of a group that has continuing dialog with them, if that happens.
Having endured the construction of the abomination on the 2800 block of E. Leigh out my bedroom window and the painful-to-watch renovation of 518 & 520, I’m glad I’m no longer on this block to witness another questionable bit of construction. I shudder to think what’s going to go up on the empty lot where 519 would be.
Regarding horrible infill construction: It has everything to do with cheap materials, unskilled workers, and an uninspired hack architect.
All that is listed above is exactly why we’re fighting to not have Oakwood Condominiums built at the very end of E. Marshall and Broad Streets. 33 condos that will have 1 bedroom “English basements” selling for $250,000. Or so they say. The project is LEED certified, will be self-maintaining and have a green roof but as we are well aware of, just because they say that’s how it will be doesn’t necessarily translate into what will actually happen once construction starts, they run out of money, etc.
And having to endure 3-4 years of construction on a street that can barely handle the traffic of its current residents is not something I want to go through.
I fail to understand the problem with requiring new construction to have facades sympathetic to what is already in existence. Otherwise, it seems to me that this rule invites and encourages modern, out of place construction like the proposed condos at the end of Marshall.
Facades should be in line with what is already in existence like a time line of great art but infill replicas, however well crafted, are meerly reproductions thus stale like a limited edition or gyclee print.
Regarding renovation and restoration of historic buildings: yes, by all means, save the original and what is missing replace like a great art conservationist would.
I have posted an update about 401 N 27th on the Neighbor vs Neighbor thread but have a question for this one…
As I understand, the building may have been sold to a family member and nothing will happen as usual. BUT since it is now in a new owner’s hands, doesn’t that mean whatever they do to the building now needs to be within the Church Hill North Historic guidlines? And “if” they start some sort of work, who will intercept to make sure they stay within them?
Eric
The problem with much of the modern details added onto structures is that it is exactly just that –an ugly ornament like a grey steel rod sticking out over a door for no reason. It wasn’t something arrived at or discovered in the process of creation. Look around town…everyone is tacking steel on to buildings and calling it modern. Reminds of the granite counter tops people tossed into kitchens thinking it would make it great.
Seems to be a trend with granite counter tops. We did the same recently as there were 2 inch thick butcher block counters that ended up staining over time. In any event, if one can maintain the walls, fireplaces, floors, moldings, etc inside but update other aspects “inside” that is fine. When you start changing architectural aspects on the exterior that everyone can see… this makes a difference and is a abomination.
Eric
Gray:
Even in all the great art museums of the world, they don’t group Rembrandt with Pollack, or Dali with DaVinci.
Periods and styles are groups together, separated from other periods and styles.
The same should be done in O&H communities.
Laura – though we agree on not building modern or cheap structures to replace older ones or on vacant lots, you have to take into consideration that many streets are eclectic in style because the houses were built at different times. Take my block for example. On my side of the street was only our house and the corner store at one time. Then more were added on the block in the 1830s, 1850s, 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. As the community grew, so did the block and the house style of that day filled in. Guess those who advocate building whatever can look at the past and see this has always been done. On the other hand we have a historical district and no new houses have been built since the 1890s or early 1900s other than fillers for those torn down. Today we should keep that into consideration and replicate the older architecture rather than replace it with a 2008 style modern house. Help keep the original 19th century “look” both individually and community wise.
Eric
As a resident at the end of E. Marshall Street, I understand how frustrating it is to live under the potential and/or real threat of ugly, inappropriate, development.
It has been my observation that the Guidelines call for architecture of time and place can be very confusing for the developer who must figure out what that means, a process than can involve repeatedly going back to the drawing board to get it right.
That said, I appreciate CAR’s willingness to think outside the box and follow what is currently considered appropriate for renovation/infill in historic districts.
And I also really appreciate their willingness to serve on this committee, as it can be very tense and political at times, given our community’s passion for our neighborhood. I believe this is a volunteer committee?
Lastly, I would like to point out that, in my experience, the O&H Design Guidelines do not incorporate a major component of the ordinance that created O&H districts – specifically, the enhancement of quality of life for residents – I think this whole section should be included in the beginning of the Guidelines so developers understand that negative impacts on the neighborhood are also unacceptable in O&H districts (see ordinance below).
According to Section 114-930.2, “The purpose of creating Old and Historic Districts is to provide a means by which the City Council may recognize and protect the historic, architectural, cultural and artistic heritage of the City of Richmond…through the identification, preservation and enhancement of buildings, structures, landscapes, settings, neighborhoods, sites and features with special historic, cultural, artistic and architectural significance. To achieve his general purpose the City of Richmond seeks to pursue the following specific purposes:…..(2) the promotion of harmony of style, form, color, proportion, texture and material between buildings of historic design and more modern design; (3) the recognition of appropriate settings and environments for historic districts, buildings, structures and sites; and (4) the enhancement of the quality of life for residents.â€
As you can see, the first several images are good examples of in-fill:
1) This is a Russell Jones house at the 300 block of N 21st. St
2) This is a BHC house built at the end of the Jefferson Mews block
3) This is Charlie Fields’ house in Union Hill.
4) I don’t know who did this, but it is in Union Hill.
5) BHC house near Church Hill Photography
All of these are really good examples of using period architecture that matches the architecture of the block. I see nothing Disney-like or “fake” Williamsburg about these expamples. If anything, I think it pays tribute to very good architectural design while blending with the original designs of the block that the buildings inhabit.
6) 512 N 28th Street front w/ ugly roof
7) 512 N 28th St. side and “modern design element” windows w/ugly
roof
8) Original architecture on 500 block of N 28th St
9) New in-fill at 3100 blk of E. Marshall
10) Detail of galvinzied stair rail and fuscia/magenta doors
11) Block face and architecture of 3100 blk of E. Marshall
As you can see, these new in-fill homes are not compatible in design or materials to the rest of the block that they inhabit. Notice the expanse of the roof at 512 and how visible the fake “slate” asphalt is. Also notice that the peaked roof and gable design do not follow through with the rest of the houses on the 500 blk. This design would be more suited to Woodland Heights neighborhood. This design is several decades newer that the 1850’s and 1860’s houses on the 500 blk of N. 28th.
3106-8 E. Marshall. PLEASE! This is in the Chimborazo O&H. Notice that the building does resemble a 1880’s Italianate double house and the height and set-back is correct, but it ends there. It looks like cheap married student housing when I was in college in the 70’s. Why the panels of hardiplank as opposed to siding? Notice the galvanized stair railing and the fuscia/magenta colored doors. The photo doesn’t really show the color, but I assure you, this is not a CAR color.
Both of these in-fill buildings were approved by the CAR. Why?
My point is that currently, CAR approved in-fill is very “interpretive.” There is a lot of leeway for discerning what modern design elements should be added to structures. There is also, in my opinion, a disconnect with basic appropriate architectural design as it fits onto the period of the block and the choice of materials and color. There seems to me to be many CAR violations in these structures, and yet, CAR approved them.
Wouldn’t it be better policy to follow the neighborhood footprint faithfully? The good in-fill examples I have shown do just that. There is really nothing to “interpret.” These are faithful architectural representations of the period on the blocks that these buildings inhabit.
Why would this not be good policy? Why is this not responsible and thoughtful preservation of our neighborhoods? Why is this “Disney – like?”
Personally, the bad infill examples look like “Deter-esque” “touch my monkey” design. Laughable!
It is clear, to me, that too much analysis and deliberation are going into the bad design.
“Gray” points out that “Facades should be in line with what is already in existence like a time line of great art but infill replicas, however well crafted, are merely reproductions thus stale like a limited edition or gyclee print.
Regarding renovation and restoration of historic buildings: yes, by all means, save the original and what is missing replace like a great art conservationist would.”
She also says ” Think of architecture like you would art. Would you want a replica of a Rembrandt or a contemporary painting by an artist influenced by him like a Thomas Eakins or a Francis Bacon.
“In areas of the east end with many vacant lots and blight, we should be attracting the great architects. Take a look at the San Francisco neighborhoods with a mix of the old and new.”
Sorry “Gray”, I don’t mean to attack you personally, but those are the most pretentious comments I think I have ever read about preservation. No wonder folks think preservation is elitist and academic. Come on, really?
Even if I felt that that thought pattern was legit, it is totally unrealistic. You also said “Regarding horrible infill construction: “It has everything to do with cheap materials, unskilled workers, and an uninspired hack architect.”
Well, most of the time in Church Hill, we are dealing with average materials, average workers, and an average architect. That’s just the way it is, and can’t be wished away with dreamy images of Rembrandt, Eakins or Bacon.
My recommendation seems to reflect the vast majority of folks on this thread and I believe, in the neighborhood. It is realistic, respectful of our historic community and just plain good preservation sense.
Let’s stop complicating things. Stop thinking too hard CAR board! Let’s pay homage to our historic neighborhoods by using the time-honored designs and architecture that we all love so much and are the very reason we live here in the first place.
Your group analogy is good and is important. But great artists produce their own work not mere replicas. Now if you want great replicas/reproductions of Rembrandt, etc., you can order them from China.
Back to a grouping…there would be a way to group Rembrandt with Pollack if need be, although it is a stretch and in art history a slight jump. Off the top of my head, I would hang Titian, Rembrandt landscape, Velasquez, Goya, Degas(maybe the pastels of women’s backs), Monet(water lillies), Surat, Lautrec, Turner, Eakins(again something with water and this might not fit but I’m in the mood for Eakins), Egon Schiele urban landscape, Klimit, Braque Mondrian, Rauschenburg , Rothko, Pollack….kind of fell apart here…but I can guarantee that I could hang just a Rembrandt and a Pollack into the same room and it would look fabulous!!!
Dali and DaVinci would fit together very well.
Reproductions and replicas are only good in tourist attractions, i.e., Universal Studios, Las Vegas, etc.
Laura, I understand your beef with the cheap asphalt slate but demanding that new infill construction copy historic structures is going a bit far. A better reform would be to have a good eye for architecture within CAR that could edit out gaudy designs and materials.
Laura… there are some other great examples in Jackson Ward with new construction. The best to me above is #2. The rest look fine but the windows were purchased “off the shelf” rather than custom made to the period such as walk through windows or multi pane sashes. #9 and 10 are W.T.F. are they think of???!!!
To me these still look a bit “off” as the windows don’t fit the era and the siding looks too perfect. The overall effect is blah. They didn’t use lasers or had guides to put siding up back then but eyed it so they are not exactly evenly spaced and the eye can detect those slight imperfections that give character. Vinyl siding looks to industrial and sterile… too perfect.
Eric
Laura, your photo examples are very good. Now I know more of where you are coming from. And some of that contemporary stuff looked pretty bad (I did say something about ugly ornaments above).
I’ve been involved in the arts since my teenage years and words like “replica” scare me. Your photos show something different than what you are asking CAR to do in regards to reform.
Here are guidelines from the CAR website regarding new construction that support my argument:
New Construction:
Materials, colors & details:
“Materials in new construction should be compatible with original materials used throughout the surrounding neighborhood.” In other words, NOT FAKE “SLATE” ASPHALT ON 512 N 28TH ST. 3106-8 E. MARSHALL DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA
“Paint colors used should be similar to the historically appropriate colors found in the immediate neighborhood and through the larger district.” I think that means NO MAGENTA SHOULD BE ON 3106-8 E. MARSHALL.
Form:
“New construction should use a building form compatible with that found elsewhere on the block.” “Building form refers to the specific combination of massing size symmetry and proportions, projections and roof shapes that lend identity to the structure.” 512 N 28TH DESIGN IS FROM A HOUSE SEVERAL BLOCKS AWAY, NOT “ELSEWHERE ON THE BLOCK.” WHERE IS 512’S ROOF SHAPE TAKEN FROM ON THE BLOCK?
Definitions:
“New compatible construction should be consistent with existing massing and fenestration patterns (door, window sizes & locations).” 512 N 28TH WINDOWS DO NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA. 3106-8 DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA.
Also with #9… where did this fake “crown molding” roof treatment come from? I see it on a lot of the drab and ugly pre-fab VCU buildings. I don’t recall actually seeing any building having this on it during the 19th century of any style architecture?
To me it is simply a cheap copout for stone mason work. If such craftsmen are extinct, you can at least create form molds with intricate designs and/or carvings and embellishments that replicate it rather than slap something that looks top heavy and sticks out like Dumbo ears on top of a building!
Eric
“Well, most of the time in Church Hill, we are dealing with average materials, average workers, and an average architect.” Add a good eye and inspiration and you’ve got something. I know a lot of really good local talent waiting to create or use their own designs and it doesn’t cost as much as people think.
I can’t tell about the “fake slate shingles” you are speaking about… photo is too small. But if it is standard 1950s asphalt shingles then it is out of character.
Now there are some things that need to be compromise on when it comes to practicality without sacrificing authenticity. Take for example our house built in 1812. According to the Mutual Assurance policy, it did not originally have a tin roof which was on it for many years. Instead it was a wood shingled roof. But today wood shingles are not practical nor economical. And we did not want the ugly and incorrect tin roof back on the house. So, we compromised and used a dark slate (not asphalt) with a small footprint that looks like weathered wood shingles from street side… $50k worth in fact and that doesn’t include the North wing. It replicates the original intended look without physically altering the roofline itself.
Eric
Laura, regarding “dreamy images of Rembrandt, Eakins or Bacon” Some of these folk were ordinary people having a beer in a neighborhood pub and selling work at affordable prices…and some gave it away. In this city, we have great artists doing the very same thing.
Gray… can you zero in more on what you are trying to say about Laura’s comments? They seem to stray off the path a bit and hard to follow. Laura is saying there are rules and regulations to follow to keep new construction esthetics in line with the surrounding architecture. You are saying something about “inspiration of design” by ordinary people. How do the two comments relate? Sounds like you are leaning more towards non confirmatory even if it is in black and white? I may be wrong so explain.
Eric
wow, has the CHPN blog become contentious, glad we didn’t move to CH after the last few weeks of reading posts.
Bye now!
Eric, You’re right my comments definitely stray and they weren’t posted in the order I submitted them or they popped up at the same time as Laura’s.
I agree with Laura about the ugly asphalt and it seems that CAR not only has not followed it’s own guidelines but has done so unfairly. I disagree with Laura’s proposed reform that would enforce new construction to replicate, match, or mimic even more so. Becoming to strict will squash possible inspiration and creativity and maybe new design that would fit in this historic neighborhood.
And yes some of the modern stuff thrown on particular homes are gaudy and yes some of the simple designs following CAR guidelines that Laura has shown us are nice. But we shouldn’t close the book on new additions and design. You never know when someone might come up with something good.
I guess I am more of a “by the book” person. That it has to be written in stone for me to follow and once done, don’t ever stray.
Gray, your being open to “new” designs frightens most of us like “replicate” does you. How can you have new and still be architecturally correct to fit the same piece of old cloth (the neighborhood)? Without some sort of rules to enforce (and most historical districts have them… take New Orleans French Quarter for example or even closer, Portsmouth) people will stray all over the place with designs. You won’t see anything out of the ordinary done at these other cities as there are set rules in place and there have for Church Hill as well over the years – just not strictly enforced until now.
That is where if you are not in a mind set to appreciate historical houses and accurately fix them up, then you are in the wrong neighborhood.
Eric
Wow! I knew that Church Hill was a great neighborhood in which to build my new home (512 N. 28th), but I am truly heartened by the amount of “passion†and interest the design of my home has generated in this forum. It shows me that my neighbors (whether I like it or agree with it or not) really have a deep concern for the quality of homes in our community. It’s the exact reason that after two loooong years of house hunting, I chose a Church Hill community.
I do want us all to be clear that there are two ideological forces at work here and you should think long and hard on your position before you post to a community forum such as this under the auspices of “doing what’s right†for the neighborhood. On the one hand, there is a historical preservationist argument to be made about the mandate of the CAR, its mission and purpose vs. a personal aesthetic argument which simply amounts to what one personally likes/dislikes.
For the historical preservationists among us, understand that CAR guidelines are as clear as mud. I did my very best to follow the guidelines as written. The guidelines state, in a nutshell, that the house should conform to the same mass, scale and sitings as other homes in the community (mine does) but possess obvious modern design elements (mine does). To that point, Saul and the members of the committee did exactly what they were charged to do in giving me a certificate of appropriateness. Any and every one of you had every right, every duty even, to stand in that boardroom on November 27, 2007 and object to any part of the design you felt went against the guidelines. None of you made objection. In fact, none of you COULD object because every mandate set forth in the guidelines was met. Mrs. Daab et al have every right to petition the CAR to change their guidelines. But be careful that in fighting for your “preservationist†cause you’re not subtly masking an ugly, elitist personal bias against your neighbors’ choices that happen to be different from the ones you would make.
I, for one, would love to have a standing seam metal roof on my house. Yet, despite Mrs. Daab’s characterizations of my home as a “mini mansion,†I am not a wealthy person. In costing the metal roof during the construction bid process, I was given prices that averaged about $20,000 MORE for a metal roof. Mrs. Daab’s home assessed for $204,000 this year. Would you spend 10% of the assessed value of your home on the roof cover alone? Probably not. Yet you and others take great delight in explaining to me what I could and could not afford. And let’s be clear…the “fake slate†description that Laura and Gray are using to describe the shingles is just plain wrong. I’m not the “faux†anything type. The roof cover is a 30 year high-definition architectural shingle. Again, anyone who attended the meeting in November or who has read the minutes knows it was not my first choice. But the deed is done now and I am confident that when siding and trim complete the house it will be appropriate (as determined by CAR) and gorgeous (as determined by me).
I CHOSE Church Hill. I chose it when my real estate agent and west-end living co-workers and the school district reports hinted that I shouldn’t. I chose it because I want to contribute to the slow and deliberate revitalization of a proud and historic neighborhood. I chose it to keep you Laura and you Gray from living next to empty and condemned crack-den houses or big ugly empty lots. I’m a good person. I pay my taxes. I cut my grass. It makes me sad to think that in a few months when the project is finished and I move in that there will be such contentious feelings towards me and my home by a few people who know nothing about me. But I take solace in knowing there are people like Andrew and Matt and Edith and Paula on the block who’ve welcomed me and home so warmly. It’s nice to know that some people understand what it means to be “neighborly.â€
Laura, post #22, picture #4, double houses on 22nd St in Union Hill were built by Richmond Better Housing Coalition…the one on the left is Bob Stoke’s old house, a great supporter of Historic Districts, now teaching urban planing at Temple in Philly.
Eric, for one I do appreciate historical houses and never once have I or anyone in my family advocated for tearing down anything –we have done the complete opposite and rallied to save everything from City Hall, Main St. Station, various warehouses and homes, fought the McD’s, you name it. My family has been living in Church Hill since 1965. My mother was considered a pioneer in this neighborhood. When you say, “That is where if you are not in a mind set to appreciate historical houses and accurately fix them up, then you are in the wrong neighborhood,” you couldn’t be more wrong. This neighborhood is more than just it’s architectual history. For some of us we have a childhood history here too. I remember buildings boarded up all around south of Broad. The building I’m in is from 1850 and when I was born I was brought here, I took care of my mother and she died here, and I also birthed a child in this very building on the hill. Eric, it seems you know a little history of Church Hill and it’s architecture but I’m living it.
My take with infill construction is slightly different from you but my appreciation for historical structure is not.
Eric, how long have you lived on the Hill? And where do you get off in telling someone “you are in the wrong neighborhood” to someone who has lived here longer than most on this blog and in the neighborhood?
Re: post 35–512 N. 28th Street
1) I believe that you bascally have the right to build any kind of house you want. I did not back CAR because it does not recognize modern architecture. We want to stay in Church Hill but likely won’t because we want to build a more modern home. If people thought out of the box, there could be a really interesting negotiation of the many small lots in Church Hill that need to be filled in. Architecturally interesting and green pre-fab Dwell style modern homes would be one way to approach that. As most of these lots are small, sometimes 20 feet wide (or less!), we need to figure out how to get these holes filled up and get people living in the neighborhood, instead of just letting the neighborhood stagnate in hopes of recreating the past.
2) That being said, the choices you made regarding the shingles and other elements of the house are rather ugly. You will have to live with the wrath of your neighbors, who I feel regard your choices as parsimonious and unfortunate.
Re: Post 38
You’re absolutely right. Everyone has a right to an opinion. Just understand that in batting around all of this language about how “ugly” the choice of roof is, you are creating an adversarial and unnecessarily contentious wedge between neighbors. Effectively you set up this US (the true bearers of the standards of sound architectural design) vs. THEM (the poor “unfortunate” slobs who want to put a vinyl double-wide right on E. Broad) environment.
It happens to be incredibly short-sighted and smacks in the face of community building and inclusion to use the language some of you have chosen.
Again, I don’t have a problem with people expressing their thoughts. I just wish people showed an equal or greater amount of interest in getting to know me as you have done in slamming my house.
EH:
I applaud your efforts to retain the historical accuracy of these houses and I am glad you fight this fight. However, I believe you have stepped over the line here.
Statements like “That is where if you are not in a mind set to appreciate historical houses and accurately fix them up, then you are in the wrong neighborhood†are not illustrative of our community as a whole and denote an intolerant and definitely un-neighborly attitude.
It makes me think of the British Empire during its heyday when it was busy colonizing vast areas of far away countries, usurping the land for its own purposes and disenfranchising the indigenous peoples and anyone else that disagreed with their particular way of life.
I did not come to church Hill to be a “colonistâ€, but instead to become a part of the community, a community that is diverse and derives its charm from this diversity.
tiny… I appreciate your comments as do Gray (freedom of speech) but I have not stepped over any lines. Church Hill is a “historic” district and should remain as such. Old homes to “restore” and new ones to build in the style of the 19th century (not 21st century). When I say that you are in the wrong neighborhood I am speaking of people who do not appreciate the old architecture and try to erase it from sight as though a house from the 1850s is the plague. My comment is for those who want to make changes and make things look “different” placing their own wedges within the community. If you want a faux Colonial or Victorian.. move to the West End and build it where such style houses are the norm. Old houses like antique furniture is not for everyone and unless you have an interest then a neighborhood like Church Hill is most likely not for you especially in this preservationist time. Also CH is not the center of the universe. there are plenty of other near by communities that will accept with open arms any modern type architecture. What could be more green than restoring what is already here? Just do it correctly while you are at it 🙂
Eric
I still disagree. Why do we keep telling people to move out if their views do not meet our expectations? Why, it has been suggested to you as well that you should move and find another neighborhood with ample parking and no bars? If it was out of line to suggest such a thing to you, it is just as out of line for you to suggest such a thing.
This is not a gated community, and with that comes plusses and minusses. Keeping fighting for historical accuracy, but gain some insight and tolerance of other’s views as this is a free country.
Tiny, I agree.
Ladonna, I was relying on post #7 where Laura described the material on your roof as asphalt slate which is usually considered unattractive. Outside of roofing material I made no statements regarding your house. My concern was with Laura’s push for even stricter guidelines prohibiting creativity in new infill construction when it seems CAR already has some issues following their current guidelines.
Ladonna, we’re not acting very neighborly on this blog and we have placed a higher priority on materials and buildings over the feelings of human beings and if I at all have hurt your feelings, I am sorry.
Ladonna:
I gladly welcome you to the neighborhood, and have stated repeatedly in my communications that I have no ill-will toward you. I know that you followed the letter of the law with the CAR.
My beef is with the CAR, and their willingness to be lenient and bend the rules when they feel like it. It is, afterall, admittedly, very interpretive what the CAR decides.
I’m sorry that you feel that I am being contentious toward you. That is not my aim. I have not had an opportunity to meet you because I have never seen you at the house. Otherwise I would have gladly come over to say hello. And yes, Matt, Sarah, Dickie, Sandra, Chantal Andrew, etc. are great neighbors and will be great neighbors. Jim and I feel that we are great neighbors also. Just ask everyone on the block.
But, we are also stewards of our community and have lived here for 15 years. We care deeply about our block and have been through quite a lot of changes up here as you can imagine.
To answer your question about about the metal roof. We had an addition put on several years ago, and we put a metal roof on to match the existing house. We made compensations to be able to afford it. Like you, we are not wealthy and need to watch our finances.
I do believe that where there is a will, there is a way. I don’t want to get into the financial hardship thing to much. I don’t know your situation. But, I think that it is clear that you are not hurting. That’s a fancy house you are building, and I feel that you could have made some concessions to keep the metal roof. CAR, however, made it easy for you to get out of your original commitment.
Also, I stated before. We did come down to the CAR staff offices and see your plans, and did talk at length to Saul about the design and materials. We were assured that a metal roof would be used and that no further design changes were requested or asked for by the CAR.
I have been to many CAR meetings over the years at a great time sacrifice. those meetings are inconveniently at 3:00 pm when I’m at work. Sometimes, I just can’t get off to go to the meetings. I felt sure that I’ didn’t need to. Wrong.
Also, communication is a two way street. You have seen my email in this thread, yet you haven’t contacted me to get to know me either. Before you write Jim and I off as bad neighbors, try to get to know us.
This isn’t fun for me. I worked towards preservation in our community for the past several years at great sacrifice sometimes, and contentiousness. I feel that this is important work and am willing to throw myself on the sword for it. Most of the time it is worth it.
I piss some folks off. I guess I’ve pissed you off. I’m sorry. I hope that we can be friendly neighbors despite our difference of opinion. I look forward to meeting you soon.
Here’s my email and home phone. Please give me a call. Jim and I look forward to it.
laura@mysterydinner.com
804-649-1913
tiny… no, it isn’t a gated community but at the same time there is a frame of mind that goes along with living in a historic district. I am not telling anyone to pack up their bags and go but telling anyone who may entertain the though of buying in such a community that there is some baggage that goes with it. The same goes with my other comments you are blasting me about.
Eric
Ladonna:
Check with the CAR. I was told by Jim Hill, secretary of the CAR, that your shingles are supposed to be a “high-quality slate-look asphalt.” That’s were I’m referencing the fake slate.
The bottom line is this…
That Church Hill is historic and should remain such as a “protected” community. This means rules and regulations should be in place as to what can and can’t be done. Other historic communities across the US have them, why not one of the oldest in the country… Church Hill?
That CAR has set up some guidelines and should be read “literally”, not up for various renditions to suit personal tastes and then enforced.
That CAR has dropped the ball and/or cast a blind eye concerning their own rules. Nothing new here as I was told similar rules were already in place in 1999 but no one could tell me who drew them up or enforced them and so weren’t.
Now we are advocating preservation and gentrifying of our community and we as a community should stick together and appreciate our unique architecture heritage that has been boasted around the world… not destroy it by peppering it with ultra modern or incorrect period house designs simply to fill in a space. The days of diversity are over when it comes to preservation. If people are going to insist going against the grain then what is the use of having rules to save our community? Like it or not, you took on certain responsibilities when you moved in this neighborhood. If you were born here than have a legacy to uphold.
If you can not appreciate the past and its history and respect its architecture then yes, this is not a perfect choice for you to buy into. Find an area that better suits your needs and visions to settle in and not destroy our past for future generations. Once it is gone it is gone forever. We are not a community of “tear it down and build new” in Church Hill… or at least we shouldn’t be. We have already lost too many homes to such shortsightedness.
That is all I will say on the matter. Hate me if you will, I don’t care. Living in the past, yes, as it should be in a “historic” community – hence the word “history” as part of historic. How hard is that concept to absorb into ones head?
Eric
Eric, I don’t think anyone on this blog is of the “tear it down and build new.” I know I’m not…look at all the problems it creates in a historic district. I like it when folk save anything standing like the facades of the “In Your Ear” row. The debate was about infill construction. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that replica’s look historic because they don’t. I’m with everyone here regarding infill homes working within the landscape of the block, we just differ slightly on what could or couldn’t work. I believe something more organic and slowly evolving could be more interesting than exact replicas.
Ladonna:
Once you’ve moved in you’ll come to realize that many (not all) of those who are the most vocal, and yes, sometimes disagreeable, are in the minority. The vast majority of those living in Church Hill have a live and let live attitude, are friendly and will welcome you. Most choose not to be members of the Church Hill Association or participate in their concerns. Don’t let any of this get you down. You’ll love it here.
Lisa, well put.
Re: 34
Ladonna:
That was a nicely written response. I, for one, think that your house is a nice addition. Furthermore, I find it very difficult to tell a difference between the picture of your house and that of #2 that is being praised.
Welcome to the neighborhood.
Gray… Laura gave some visual examples you cited as a better fit for fill ins as opposed to replicas. You have a slightly different vision. Can you give us some examples like she did so we can grasp what you are thinking about?
Here’s a really cool infill house in Canada–it’s in an older neighborhood but the way it uses the extremely small lot size is remarkable, and I think the contrast with the older architecture is very interesting.
http://www.futurehousenow.com/2007/06/urban-infill-magic-donald-chongs-galley.html
Clay, Eric might be having a heart attack right now.
Now that is absolutely ridiculous! And one extreme example of what we DO NOT want in Church Hill!!!
First place why does anyone “have to” build on such a small lot? Why can’t it be taken over by one or both owners of flanking houses to use as a common area, closed in yard, or off-street parking? We in Church Hill are not that over populated as to have to squeeze in a house where land was left over from various house rebuilding over the years. If you want to live in something that small why not buy one of the empty condos at Noldes? The interior has the same industrial look (which I hate).
Eric
What does the Church Hill Association have to do with this topic? I find that statement dismissive and very negative toward our community. While I don’t always agree with the CHA and have my own brawls with them, I continue to contribute and participate in their activities. The association does many great things for the community.
It’s fine to “live and let live” if that’s what you prefer – to sit quietly in the background and go with the flow for better or worse. But, to negatively characterize those of us that are very active in the community really doesn’t add any value to the conversation, and does a disservice to those that work very hard to make our neighborhood better.
What have you done latey “Lisa”, besides posting negative remarks about those that sincerely mean to do well? And, to concur with that negativity “tiny,” is hardly inclusive or tolerant of diversity in our community.
I’m challenging you comments and attitudes, not personally attacking you.
Aaarggh.
The context of old vs. new is relative, people!
My Church Hill house (1910-ish) was “modern” when it was built–it certainly doesn’t relate to EH’s home’s architecture (built in, everyone together now, 1812).
But now my home is considered “historic.”
I actually think that there SHOULD be an architectural review board, but I firmly believe that it should not be solely driven by aesthetic appearance or apppropriate use of moldings and cornices.
It needs to be partnered with an urban planning commission and show a commitment to a long-range vision of Richmond communities.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is a lot of bad archictecture out there, but there are also interesting ways to solve the urban infill problem that don’t follow the paradigm of historic accuracy. Clearly, this thread has shown that you can have design problems even if you follow the rules.
BUT:
NO ONE is going to buy a 20-foot wide lot in order to build a home modeled on historic precedents.
Believe me, it would be difficult to sell that idea.
The house being built on 28th street is sited on a rather large lot–unusually large. Take a drive in North Church Hill and Union Hill and you will see many of the far more common teeny tiny empty lots that are like so many missing teeth in the neighborhood.
Any home built on a lot that size which conforms to an Italianate or Queen Anne-style facade (just as examples of appropriate construction) would be very difficult to sell to a young family or even a childless couple that wanted a guest room and/or office.
Building on these small lots would be problematic. I’m not talking about some desire for a “mansion”–such a house could be maybe 1000 sq. feet which is a decent size–but it would be challenging to build and to live in because of the tight control of height, width, number of windows and window placement, etc. that go along with the blind commitment to historic quotation.
The constraints on building and new construction mean that few if any investors are going to take chances on development in Church Hill. The gaps in the landscape will remain unless people look ahead instead of looking back.
I’ve just received two excellent articles from a neighbor who supports my position. Here is an except from an article written by Calder Loth, who is a senior historian for the VaAPV:
“Architects associated with this new movement of classical and traditional design are perfectly capable of designing respectful additions to historic buildings. These same architects are perfectly capable of designing respectful and, may I say beautiful, infill buildings in historic precincts– buildings that sustain local traditions. The problem is that many bureaucrats and review boards don’t acknowledge or unable to judge the quality of much new traditional work. Worse, they continue to lump it with the cheap stuff–haughtily declaiming that any retro work can’t be serious. Real architecture, they yell, reflects the present, not the past—it must be of our time. ”
“In summary, the works of the new traditional architects demonstrate that it is possible to design informed and literate traditional-style additions and infill. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards need to acknowledge this and make clear that this approach is legitimate and of our time. The challenge is developing a strategy for making amendments. The question is: how do we start?”
The other article is a pattern book for neighborly houses written by the Habitat for Humanity. Here’s the link:
http://www.classicist.org/resources/habitat-pattern-book/
This illustrates that there are legitimate factions out there that agree with my POV.
Clay… yes, there are some very small lots and some were absorbed over the years into other house property. There was a small brick kitchen that sat between our house 407 and next door 405 (the kitchen belonged to 405) which was still there and being used as a residence in the 1930s. It was only 2 rooms and houses on the street still used outdoor toilets (either holes or flush but both outdoors). I am sure you will find that to be the case with many – smaller out buildings sat on that space which were torn down.
I understand where you are coming from Clay and not pretending to not understand the situation as I mentioned further up the thread. I know that when lets say, a house built in 1898 was constructed it too was out of place with other houses on the block which were built earlier. But on the other hand there needs to be a cutoff point and since in general main dwellings haven’t been built since about that time, the architectural style shouldn’t be any newer either for fill ins so they blend in.
Eric
I have been sitting back reading over these e-mails and I must say that I am appalled but hopeful at the same time. I have never seen such bold and blatant indecency and rudeness. I wonder if many of the people who posted on this site would walk up to an overweight person and offer them a Weight Watcher’s flier and tell them that they are fat and disgusting but have a nice day!!
It is certainly everyone’s right to have their own opinion about any subject matter; we even have the right to vocalize those opinions in a public forum such as this site – however, where is the human courtesy, kindness, and tact? This woman is going to be your neighbor. She is not some villainous investor or developer trying to ruin the historic value of your community.
If you don’t like Ladonna’s house plans because you don’t care for their aesthetic look or feel that the house will not harmoniously integrate with the historic look of the neighborhood, that is okay. However, to attack her style and taste in a public lynching and then to even have the audacity to presume to know her financial affairs is incredulous. You basically called her a liar.
(I pulled a paragraph out here. If you want to post something like that, please use your real name when you comment – john m)
Just like it would be ridiculous of me to make those statements about you and your husband and where you commit your time and money – I think it is ludicrous for you to spend someone else’s money for them or to decide what personal sacrifices they should make for the "community." Ladonna already sacrificed for the community by moving into a neighborhood that did not allow her to build whatever she wanted, however she wanted. Who knows – But for the complicated and moronic CAR guidelines in the first place – she might have built a house exactly like yours. So we all have to live with things we don’t like.
For those of you who welcomed Ladonna into the community, thanks for remembering the definition of neighborly!! For those of you with such negative commentary, I pray that you will be blessed today so that you can wake up tomorrow being nicer and more neighborly than you did today!
And Clay, it is a bit unfair to use our house as a benchmark example because it was unique. Richmond was small, Church Hill even smaller then and our house the only one on the block. Most people lived in 2 room cottages while our house was a mansion in its day and the owner had 9 slaves who lived in out buildings.
When lots started being sold houses sprouted up in waves and with each wave came new designs of the times (yes, gets back to what you are saying) but at a certain point the lots were all sold out and construction halted by early 1900s which gets back to what I am saying. You need to take into consideration “all” of the houses on the block and see which is the oldest and newest and try to find a style that fits between those eras. Placing a house that has only “hints” of 1800s and 1900s as well as 21st century will not work. It needs to be all or nothing at least on the outside.
You see where I am coming from?
Eric
OK. I’m trying to see where you are coming from.
I am open to feedback and do not think I have all the answers.
But I ask you seriously:
What do you suggest one does with a 16 x 100 foot lot?
Having to follow setback guidelines because it abuts property owned by another person?
The historic relevance you require is coming at a price–social and community development. Historic relevance should not be the ONLY factor in determining appropriate construction.
And, frankly, it puts up certain socio-economic barriers to renovating in Church Hill or building a house here, even though that may not be the intent.
Maybe we should build historically accurate slave quarters for everyone to live in. They were small enough.
Good Neighbor… I agree. But I can see where Laura is coming from too. I am not out to lambaste anyone and certainly not out to make enemies… not my nature no matter how I sound here. But it usually doesn’t cost any more to make design considerations when building a house and may even be cheaper in the long run than what she has configured? Who knows but at the same time CAR needs to look into their guidelines and off this blog a group of us heard from one of their representatives who admits there is some work needed and they can use input.
Eric
Clay, small lots like that should just be left alone. And what is wrong with weeding out bad elements with “restrictions”? That is called progress.
Eric
“And one extreme example of what we DO NOT want in Church Hill!!!”
Who is this “WE” you guys keep referring to? I don’t remember ever giving you the authority to speak for me. I would wager a large sum of money that if you took the whole of church hill and walked them past a few of these dreadfully ugly houses with the inaccurate…blah blah blah ad naseum… the vast majority would be happy that a new, clean, safe, house was there. The block looks better, property values are higher….
“We”… I don’t think this means what you think it means…
Despite Eric’s repeated use of words like ‘we’ and ‘us’ (especially in conjunction with words like ‘want’, ‘advocate’ and ‘frighten’), he does not represent my attitudes or opinions, nor those of most of my friends and neighbors here in CH. As a matter of fact, I find the continual us-versus-them rhetoric irritating.
Nice timing, mike…
My point is made…
These kinds of covert neighborhood “covenants” are highly problematic.
Who decides who is a bad element?
Let’s just throw up a gate with a checkpoint.
That will keep out them out.
p.s. So the owners of small lots are just screwed? They have no right to build on their property? Does that also mean that they are free from any responsibility to maintain their property?
Mike… I think it is YOU who speak for the few and not the majority.
Eric
A Good Neighbor, I was going to ask that Laura Daab volunteer at our school. We have very talented kids who love performing on stage and we could use a good after school drama program or club. Matter of fact, I believe Bellevue at one time was the model school for performing arts. I looked into one drama program at Fox school and it costs $6,000 for the year which is way out of our range. The Daab’s input here would be greatly appreciated.
As everyone knows, Bellevue is on the chopping block to be closed and then converted into condo’s. We need a higher in district enrollment and I believe innovative programs could draw in some folk. To loose this historic school and museum to private developers would be shameful.
“lose” not “loose”
I’m debating the inconsistencies in the CAR guidelines and the rulings regarding two specific situations.
Financial hardship was brought forth to the CAR by the applicants as a reason for one person to not follow their original plans and the other to not have to replace something the CAR wanted replaced.
One applicant was granted their request, the other was not. Why?
When is the CAR a financial review board? Their job is to make decision on design. I have not received an answer from the CAR despite my repeated attempts to ask.
I am not holding anyone’s feet to the flames except the CAR.
Again, it is not my intention to make someone not feel welcome in the neighborhood. I’m asking the hard questions that need to be asked to the CAR. Citing specific cases is necessary to do that.
And, for the record, I sent a letter to the CAR supporting the house at 512 N. 28th Street before it was approved. I did so with the knowledge that the original metal roof was going to be used, and again, I was given assurances that it would. I would not have supported the house otherwise.
My letter HELPED Ladonna get her design approved by the CAR.
I now contend that the CAR did not keep to what they told me they would do. I am questioning how they conduct their business.
Gray:
You have my email and phone. Give us a call, we’d be interested in helping out as we have for many, many projects in the neighborhood.
I surprised that your asking given the dark, terrible portrait being painted about Jim and I.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. At least for that particular task!
I feel I have to weigh in here, and get back to what I consider to be the original point of this conversation; the CAR’s responsibility to maintain the architectural integrity of the neighborhood.
Ladonna’s house was the first one built in the new Church Hill North Old and Historic District. Laura and I were shown the plans by Saul Gleiser, when we stopped by his office to talk about another matter. While not pleased with some aspects of the plans, we were told that the best and most appropriate materials would be used, including metal roofing. By all CAR standards metal roofing is the ONLY appropriate roofing material that could be used on our block for a roof visible from the street. All of the houses there had metal roofs where visible.
When we saw that an asphalt roof was used, we inquired to the CAR office as to what had happened. We were told that the applicant came in and pleaded financial hardship and was granted permission to use the asphalt. To be honest I don’t begrudge Ladonna for asking, and at this point the roof is a done deal. She worked within the system, and did exactly what the system asked of her. I’m happy we have a new neighbor and truly welcome her.
HOWEVER, I do have a problem with the CAR’s decision.
CAR means Commission of Architectural Review. The key word here is “Architectural.” It is not their job to determine anyone’s financial resources. Whether Ladonna can afford a metal roof is not my concern, Laura’s concern, or the CAR’s concern. The CAR’s job is to determine what is architecturally correct, by their own guidelines, and they seem to have randomly ignore those guidelines.
In the very recent past another neighbor went to the CAR and pleading financial hardship. He had bought a house at auction without realizing that the previous owner had installed inappropriate windows, and there had been a complaint filed with CAR. He was told by CAR that he had to replace the windows. The financial matter was not their concern. Where is the consistancy in this?
This is not a debate on whether or not a new neighbor put a “bad” roof on her house. It is about the CAR’s lack of consistency and adherence to mission. The sad part is that the CAR’s failure have put all involved in a terrible situation. Ladonna feels victimized when all she is trying to do is build a home, and those demanding that the CAR do their job come across as unwelcoming neighbors.
Jim Daab
p.s. The neighbor with the windows, appealed the CAR’s decision to the City Council. and the CAR’s decision was overturned. That, I believe, is how the system was designed to work.
My vote is with the Mikes. All I see happening here with CAR is the expansion of an economic divide. That is the real cancer in the neighborhood. Clay Street (#57) presents a great argument. To have CAR stand alone is a great risk to creating a diverse, vibrant neighborhood. Laura has just outlined why CAR is problematic (#72), and while I don’t always agree with her takes, I do appreciate her clarity with regard to being frustrated with CAR and not necessarily an individual owner/developer.
I feel a better tribute to neighbors long gone is to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of the urban space. CAR is not the answer to preserve the old feeling of the neighborhood. The buildings do not create the neighborhood, the people do. Moderation must be sought, otherwise, how is Church Hill any different from a cookie cutter subdivision.
“The CAR’s job is to determine what is architecturally correct, by their own guidelines, and they seem to have randomly ignore those guidelines”
Actually it says in their guidelines that “alternate materials can be used if the same material is economically unfeasible” [para]
And good lord if you want to see an example of awful infill look at the one they reference as a shining example… shiny indeed..(page 43 of the guide)
Mike ,
That is correct. But that raises the question of what is meant by economically unfeasible. It is usually entirely feasible for an applicant to change the designs of a new structure, before that construction has begun. Does that mean that a person can bring in plans and say, ” I want to build this house but can’t afford to build it within your guidelines so please set aside the guidelines so I can have what I want.” I do not want this to be a debate about one individual’s financial means. But in general, I believe under this zoning overlay, when concerning NEW construction, it is the CAR’s duty to adhere strictly to their guidelines, and an applicant’s obligation to bring in plans that both satisfy the O&H guidelines and their own budgetary restrictions.
#76:
You are reading the guidelines incorrectly.
You quoted:
“alternate materials can be used if the same material is economically unfeasibleâ€
This is referencing “roof repair and reconstruction” NOT “new construction.”
Under new construction:
pg. 41 “Materials used in new construction should be compatible with original materials used throughout the surrounding neighborhood.”
This may seem like technical hair-splitting, but it is important to the argument.
Laura … I’m not interested in getting into a debate with you or to address what the CHA has or has not done. I was and am objecting to making an incoming neighbor feel unwelcome. As much as you say it’s not personnel it feels like it borders on an attack on her. Live and let live does not equal indifference. I think Church Hill as a whole has a great deal of acceptance for differances which is why I like living here. Say what you will I’m not going to make any further replies on the subject. A couple of us felt the need to put out the welcome mat to a lady who is willing to invest in the HIll.
It appears that the issue here is not so much CAR, but the lack of firm, objective standards that leave no room for interpretation and inconsistency on CAR’s part, and this issue applies not only to in-fill, but construction involving renovations, additions and out-buildings (CAR’s record on rulings concerning existing buildings/properties is debatable, to put it kindly). Adding another subjective layer of review in the form of a ""design review" conducted by the community" is not going to address or resolve issues associated with a lack of objective standards. Until the arbitrary nature of the review process is resolved, the conflicts we are witnessing in this discussion thread are going to continue unabated.
True, Thanks Chris.
Eric
Gray… come up with some examples we can see for ourselves what you have in mind? Just curious for comparison sake.
Eric
Lisa:
Right on! Me too, believe it or not. But you did attack a neighborhood institution that deserve more respect regardless of your personal opinion.
I welcome Ladonna too.
To Mike/Mike B,
I believe the “we” used in Eric’s and other’s posts refers to the overwhelming majority of homeowners (owner-occupied homeowners) who voted “yes” to the zoning ordinace which created the Church Hill North City Old & Historic District.
I do believe this is a very important discussion we are having about the CAR and its interpretation of the ordinance regarding in-fill/new construction.
I do not think an “us versus them” atmosphere has been created by this conversation amongst neigbors and soon to be neighbors. This is a healty. Let’s continue talking it out. We may not argee on all things, but lets have the conversation out in the open so everyone knows what to expect from CAR and it’s mandate to supervise City Old & Historic Districts.
Besides CAR restrictions, the Historic Richmond Foundation holds easements and rights of first refusal on CH properties. It appears that some of you may not know that you have an easement and have to get prior approval from HRF before making structural changes.
Their website is historicrichmond.com. Click preservation and then property summary.
Well said, Elaine. I couldn’t agree more. I have received at least 30 emails from folks since this post supporting a CAR review AND supporting O&H districts.
I’m always hesitant to take some of this stuff into a public forum, but know that this is a community-wide issue and needs to be aired as such. As a result, I’ve received some good feedback and support. I also think that this has been a good conversation.
Despite my displeasure with the CAR right now, I still am an avid supporter of O&H’s and the role that CAR plays in them.
In response to post #51
“I find it very difficult to tell a difference between the picture of your house and that of #2 that is being praised.”
That house was built before the O&H was in place. However, the style of the house does fit in with the other houses in Jefferson Mews. The BHC did a good job of blending here. I don’t like the asphalt shingles on the roof, but again no, O&H at the time. I guess and argument could be made, however, that most of Jefferson Mews has asphalt roofs, so this house does compliment that.
A few commenters have also talked about how costly it is to build “historic.” It’s not. The Carver neighborhood has many fine examples of good in-fill that were built for lower income families. I’ll stop over there later today and take some pictures to illustrate.
You can build good stuff on a limited budget.
Post #77:
“…when concerning NEW construction, it is the CAR’s duty to adhere strictly to their guidelines, and an applicant’s obligation to bring in plans that both satisfy the O&H guidelines and their own budgetary restrictions.”
YES, YES, YES!
Ladonna, CAR screwed up, and the neighborhood is just now realizing that. Unfortunately, you are caught in the middle, and you really shouldn’t have been put in this position of defending your home.
I read you post #35. about the roof estimate. And the reason a metal roof was $20K more was because CAR approved a house design (and with it a roof) that is inconsistent with the existing architecture on the 500 block of N. 28th street (picture #8. post #22.) Sorry, that’s CAR’s fault, not yours.
If CAR had taken the time to really look at your block, they would have recognized that it is populated by Italianate/Federal style homes from the 1860’s. The roof lines are MUCH simpler than your house as designed at 512. In fact you don’t even see the main roofs of the existing houses on your block. There are some decorative mansards, and front porch roofs visible.
If CAR had done it’s job, and encouraged you to design a home in keeping with the surrounding architecture, your metal roof estimate would never have been so high; you’d have a shed roof, or a flat roof with a slope, and maybe a smaller decorative front porch roof.
Instead, CAR ok’d a house design that is more appropriate for a younger era (Victorian) with combination of Queen Anne/Gothic design that is more appropriate for neighborhoods like Fairmount and Highland Park. Aesthetically, its a perfectly nice style, just inappropriate for this block.
By definition, the roof lines of this inappropriate design are of a more complex hip/gable style which is a helluva lot more expensive to surface than the typical shed roofs on the block. The roof at 512 is steeply pitched and more difficult to work on, and has more square footage. Labor and materials are MUCH more expensive on a roof like this.
So it’s as simple as this: CAR never should have ok’d the current structure design at 512 N. 28th. The whole house is inconsistent with the architectural styles, scale mass and fenestration on the block.
Could it be that CAR originally said yes to this design because the roof was to be surfaced in metal? We don’t really know the answer to that, and may never know.
What we’ve learned from this is that CAR needs steady citizen-oversight and that just because your neighborhood becomes a O&H district, it doesn’t mean you can hand CAR the keys and go on holiday. It is now apparent that an O&H district is only as good as we (the citizenry) make it.
I want to thank everyone who extended well-wishes to me on my new home. Despite the seemingly contentious remarks, I welcome a good spirited debate on issues that affect our community.
I look forward to meeting and working with each of you. Housewarming details to come! 🙂
Ladonna, I’d like to join those in welcoming you to our community. There are, indeed, a spirited bunch of people here. But, as Lisa states, most of the population live quiet lives with low profiles. Welcome.
RE: #53 and related
So, I have a house beside one of the these 19×150 vacant lots. The post of ‘why not just leave them be’ would be a great answer if the city made it easier for an adjacent landowner to purchase the property and absorb it into his/her own property as a yard or garden, etc.
My concern w/building on these vacant lots when there are existing structures on both sides, is the structural integrity of the houses already there. I worry that all the commotion caused by the machinery, etc. would cause harm. Even when the house on the other side of the empty lot from me was being restored, I came home every day to crooked pictures. So I wonder what happens when all the activity is now much closer than the 20some feet away that my neighbors house is from me.
VCS:
That’s another great point and something we at the very end of Marshall and Broad Streets worry about as well. The amount of contruction vehicles it would take to clear out the lots over here for the 33 condos would have the propensity to cause harm to our house as well as ruin our foundation, especially on the one side where the grade dips pretty low toward the front (something we would need to re-establish quickly if construction were to start).
I’ve seen the way some workers drive those vehicles and that scares me as the condos would be right on the property line, a mere 3 feet from me.
elaine… thanks for understanding where ‘I’ am coming from 🙂
annen… excellent point and one we overlooked but not forgotten about. I am sure new home owners may not be aware of this as it is kind of buried info. In fact, when Dan Harrington bought our house in 1985 to restore, it was from HRF who has first right of refusal.
Ladonna… I don’t have any quarlms about the design of your house because like UnionHill RVA said, you are caught in the middle because CAR screwed up.
And as Laura said, sometimes historic style can be made cheaper than complex designs. Often all it takes is a change in windows and doors as well as the correct embellishments to make a difference. Other times it takes a little more.
We who are concerned with the shortcomings of CAR should and will get together with them soon to see what can be done to clarify the guidelines and enforce them.
Eric
Ladonna… one question though and please don’t take offense… just trying to find out….
Why the series of small windows on the side of the house? I think it would look better and not so out of place with standard size windows. They have the look of late 1950s rancher basement windows or a remodeling afterthought. Just curious.
Eric
The foregoing discussion (?) helps to illustrate the complexity of a zoning overlay in an ever evolving urban landscape.
For some, it is all too easy to say “CAR” screwed up, when they either don’t want to maintain historical integrity (inappropriate new windows – contrary to the Guidelines) allowed on appeal pleading “cost” while acknowledging the CAR did not err; or when a plan is presented that meets the Guidelines for new construction but one neighbor would rather design the site to their ideal for the space.
Being within a Old & Historic District has NEVER meant that ANYONE other than the applicant comes forward with the initial design for REVIEW, and being in an O & H District is definitely NOT the abdication of the rights of the property holder for a wholesale design by committee. The CAR is not a design or development firm, and the property holder retains their own right to put forward their plans. The decision is made in the CAR hearing, and not by staff (otherwise we could dispense with the nine appointees and the hearings altogether). The due process allows for an appeal by “any person”. There is a time limit to that period, which is only fair to the applicant who is making the investment, and the community. This approval was not appealed. A new neighbor has substantially built her home. And now you don’t want to abide by the process you asked for. How fair is that?
The CAR is made up of experienced architects, builders, etc. of people who are required by the state to take on-going training and who work very hard and steadily with an area of about 3,000 properties.
We are not self appointed bastions of personal taste. We are appointed by City Council, and are a certified local government entity. We serve without compensation, and very largely without thanks. Rightfully, we come out of a democratic process.
Be very careful when you throw about “CAR screwed up” in your subjective opinions. You are entitled to your opinion, but until you have a group of property holders that say they will cede their individual property rights to your own conception of what the Guidlines mean or should be changed to, then at least acknowledge that the system we have now is a hell of a lot better than the permissibility of the wholesale demolition of existing historic fabric.
I personally would not cede my own property rights to an ad hoc group of untrained, non-architects who happen to live across the street from me, but feel they know best on how I should design my house.
Frankly, if you honestly took a long walk throughout Church Hill, and even the 28th street corridor, you will find tremendous variety in both style, uses and setbacks. It is not even consistent amongst the remaining fabric of the 28th Street block in question. In fact, unless part of an infill development of a large scale at one point in time, very few blocks in the area have identical setbacks.
In the issue at hand, I am still of the opinion that the CAR did not err in anyway, and very much welcome the addition of this house to the street scape. I do wish that the discussion had been more civil, and the view less self-interested and wider term. For any of you who feel they could do a better job, I will gladly put out that my term expires in July 2011. If someone is to deal with all this flack, at least let them put forward their name, time, and dedication to this public service of no immediate personal reward.
For myself, I have been very pleased that my own property has the review of the APVA, DHR and CAR. I much prefer their educated and time-tested views to those of recent self-appointed arbitrators of taste.
Ladonna, You are doing the right thing, you followed the rules, and it sounds like you intend to complete this project as planned. I think it’s a step forward in an area of church hill that has fallen behind, a definite improvement. One question I ask to the historically correct; why is it that late 19th century and early 20th century is the only short period in history that can be considered historic? Is our generation too insignificant to leave our own mark on history? Thank you Ladonna for actually accomplishing something, instead of complaining on a blog page about someone else that has a different opinion than you.
Jean… I think you are missing the point. We need to see how other historic districts around the country dictate guidelines and follow suite. Think Laura just last night sent one for Philadelphia and cited certain pages within it. In other words if there are flaws, fuzzy or gray areas, and loopholes in the CAR guidelines then they need to be changed so that “everyone” is treated the same so the “same” outcome is achieved. Strict guideline that are enforced. And people educated about them.
You and others keep citing what has already happened within neighborhoods. This we can not change until the property changes hands BUT we can intervene any new construction or renovations that will only add to the mis-mash of designs that are out of place and character for a community that is mainly 19th century architecture.. as cited by the Church Hill North Historic District approved by the government.
Too many hands in the pot and no one on the same song sheet… these are things that need addressed rather people like them or not. Yes, some people’s toes will get stepped on but that is just the way it is when enforcing rules and it isn’t a popularity contest in doing so.
This is why a meeting of the minds in person is needed to air out our differences and make changes.
Eric
And no, am not saying any of us are contractors and/or architects. But we do know right from wrong when things go too astray from what else is right in front of you on the same block. Each house don’t have to be cookie cutter yet you will see sister houses on many streets even side by side built in the 1880s.
All one has to do is look at all of the houses on that block. Absorb the design differences and characteristics that make them unique. Find out when they were built (most likely before 1900) and design something that have those same features even if mixed, that will blend in but have NO design features that doesn’t fit in before the newest house on the block. That is provided the newest house wasn’t a fill-in built in the 1930-50s, etc… That is where common sense comes in to play.
Eric
Jean Wight,
Thank you for bringing sanity to this discussion. I learned a lot from your thoughtful comment.
This is not quite the forum for my very specific and perhaps boring issues, but I have a bit of a problem with CAR, and I’m wishing that I wasn’t such a lazy ass and could have gotten all the work I needed to do on our house done before the neighborhood went O&H.
I discovered that many of our windows needed to be replaced. It took us forever to find someone that could do a decent job, using solid wood windows, and not try to convince us to put in vinyl. When we finally found someone, they went through CAR to determine what exactly they could do. CAR decided that new wood windows weren’t enough. On upstairs (emphasis on “upstairs”) windows facing the street, they said we couldn’t put in new wood windows that look exactly like the old ones. We had to have the old ones taken out, repaired/refitted/redone, and then put back in. This is a really expensive process, and I’m not a wealthy person. (Besides that, the new retrofitted windows will be tough to open, etc. God, this is boring. And whiny.)
I’m betting that if we didn’t go through CAR and just put the new wooden windows in, no one could tell from the street which was which. And even if they could, I would be impressed, but who really cares that much? Would it bother you guys to have a house in the O&H with windows that could possibly be new but you weren’t quite sure without a telescopic lens? Would it enrage you? Would it impact the historic fabric of the neighborhood?
I realize that if you let one thing go, then another thing could slip through. However, I don’t want stupid vinyl windows or even storm windows. Nor do I want to wear lacy Victorian clothes and read Herodotus by lamplight. I just want something solid, that is not rotten, and looks good…like the old ones but better. I don’t need a committee to tell me what’s the best window to use or not use. I already know what to do.
Another thing that bothers me is that if someone who is even less wealthy than me needs new windows and has to go through the same process, they won’t be able to afford such changes, and will either have a rotting house or have to sell. This is a perfect definition of gentrification, imposed by a review board. If someone has to choose between putting vinyl windows in their house and having to leave, I say let them put the damn windows in. When it comes to people’s lives, do we choose history? I’m not being sarcastic. I’m just not sure.
For Criminy Sakes – Get off LaDonna’s back!!! No matter what comments others make, Eric, you do not seem to be able to see anyone’s point of view except your own. This is a big problem and the fact that you don’t recognize it as a problem only illustrates how big of a problem it is.
Totally on the same page with you, Anon.
At what price do we achieve the “look” of a neighborhood?
Many of my neighbors could not afford to replace/repair anything along the lines of what you are describing.
Also, navigating the committee process is intimidating and requires filling out forms, etc. This has the potential to be seen as an arm of white gentrification, something which older blacks are deeply suspicious of.
Someone telling you to fix their house a certain way, after you have been maintaining it your own way for years, is incredibly offensive.
Jean,
There have been several posts by many people hear stating very specifically how the CAR did not follow their own guidelines. You have not said one thing to refute those points. None of us are architects or contractors, but then again, neither are you.
You come on here shaking your finger, saying “Don’t tell me I screwed up, I know more than you do.”
Jean you as a CAR member allowed the first new house be built in this new O&H be built with an asphalt roof, on a street with historicalyl NO asphalt roofs, and approved that construction with ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION OF THAT FACT. I have seen the minutes of that meeting Jean. I addition we were told by Jim Hill from the CAR office that the CAR chairman was :”appalled” when he realized that asphalt roof “slip by” How can you defend that? It “slipped by” ???
I know there will be people back peddling and deny this, those are words that were spoken. In my opinion letting something “slip by” means SOMEBODY SCREWED UP
I would love to see my area of Woodville once and for all demolish Fairfield Court and all the apartment buildings nearby and reconstruct was demolished or moved. There are a few original houses left and it would be grand that if anything on vacant fields or if Fairfield is demolished, be replaced with new houses that look like the old ones. I’d love to see Woodville look like Carver and Newtown. However, Woodville isn’t and probably couldn’t be an old and historic district since most of it was destroyed, but it would be much welcomed to rebuild it.
P.S I KNOW IT’S SPELLED “HERE”
Jean –
In response to your remark in post #94:
“I personally would not cede my own property rights to an ad hoc group of untrained, non-architects who happen to live across the street from me, but feel they know best on how I should design my house.”
I would not be willing to cede my property rights to any such group, either, Jean. In my opinion, that is the LAST thing this community needs, and if you are reading this post, please note that there is opposition within this neighborhood to said proposal.
Beth,
Just a note. We are not on Ladonna’s back. We are on the CAR’s back. I’ve met Ladonna. She is a very nice person who did everything she was asked to work within the system. I just feel that the CAR failed the system.
Y’all are just ridiculous….took a drive by the house with the “ugly” roof and was pleasantly surprised. The project looks like it is being accomplished in a quality manner. It is well on it’s way to being the nicest home on the block once complete. It is certainly an improvement to what was there. Hey Daab’s… no so sure that bright yellow (with the fire-engine red roof)you folks are sportin’ on your crib over there is consistent with an O&H or the CAR guidelines for that matter. Maybe LaDonna hates yellow….get over it! Move on to something more important. It’s a wonder that anyone doing some good in this community continues with all of the armchair critics around here.
I stand by my own comments.
Annon, My new retro-fitted windows were rebuilt & replaced by local contractor BTR-Derek Metzler. He and his crew took out the 3 old windows, and completely rebuilt them. They are of the curved “belly glass” style popular on Queen Anne period homes.
These rebuilt wood-frame windows open and close beautifully and are in the original window tracks. Both sashes opperate smoothly. You might want to contact Derek for an estimate…as long as you keep em painted, the wood windows will last longer and look better than vinyl.
I wonder if comments on this post will eventually out number the ones on /2007/11/02/orange/ ?
Orange, which incidently has a lot on CAR, is in second place for the posts with the most. Interesting to see what we all like yammering about here on the hill.
Jean
Your comments say nothing. Defend your decision. Many people have cited specific problems with the CAR’s decision Set back, lines, improper materials. All you do is scold us and tell us not to question the CAR because you know more than we do. I challenge you to go through these posts and defend, point by point, the CAR’s decision. And please start with the approving of asphalt shingles in an O&H with metal roofs, with (and I repeat myself here ) NO DISCUSSION of the matter.
Jean, like it or not , you are a public official. Whether appointed, elected, paid or volunteer, public officials have an obligation to answer to their constituency. Are you saying that we should never question the decisions of our public officials, because they tell me they know more than I do? Or should I just not question until your term is up in 2011?
Even if it “slipped by†???”, which may or may not be the case, to err is only human and to be so dramatic over one’s opinion of an ugly roof, and or what’s approriate is a bit over the top. As Jean stated, its a thankless job with no compensation.
William:
With all do respect, you are the KING of armchair critics. Have you changed your underwear lately? Those racing stripes are beginning to show through.
Jean:
Intersting that you are defending the in-fill that you and your collegues have sanctioned.
I was at a few of the many meetings that have heard the Oakwood Condo project. You are against that development as it was presented at the moment (Feb?). The house at 3106-3108 look EXACTLY like the plans that you opposed at Oakwood. AND, you referred to them as “cheap married student housing.”
Why the 180 now?
You also hate the house on North 30th Street. You have repeatedly, and publicly railed against the design of that house. That house fits in much better than both the houses that we are concerned about.
Why, again?
You have a lot to answer to, and I intend for you to answer to it.
Jean:
You also rallied against the Oakwood condo project because you were renting a house next to it while your house on the “pristine” Grace Street was being renovated.
Interesting how you are a champion for change when you HAVE to live near it, but once you’re back in cushy “Graceland” you’re back to the pretentious CAR persona.
And, for the record Jean, you are an untrained, non-architect. You are one of the few commissioners on the CAR that are at large and a “citizen” commissioner. You’re insulting yourself.
Some one has gotten into the wine. . .
Armchair???? No…Just experience. Now I know the true meaning of “Minnesota Nice”.
Huh Laura? Skipped the meds today?
Bob,
I realize it is a thankless job, but that does not relieve these people from their responsibilities. At times they will need to answer for their decisions. If Jean is as qualified as she claims to be, it should be a fairly easy task for her to back up her decision and answer her (and the CAR’s ) critics. I will also tell you, my wife and I have received many many emails from several architects and builders who questioned how this design got through the CAR. These people have equal qualifications to most CAR members, and I guarantee you, they are MUCH more qualified to talk about design and preservation than Jean Wight
William, I want to address two issues
1. my house is a buttery yellow with a rust red roof. You may want to have your glasses checked
2. yes we moved here from Minnesota, but we are from Illinios. Both from tough talking, straight forward cities where folks are up front. And as for the “meds remark” Are you such an insecure man that if a strong well spoken woman expresses an opinion you disagree with, you have to insinuate that she must be mentally ill and off her medication? Such comments are stupid, misogynist, and at the bottom line, really bad debate. But I will now sink to your level and ask you; Does a powerful strong willed woman making you fell a shrinking sensation in your “nether regions?”
Oh so now you and Laura are the resident experts on everybody’s resume and qualifications? You folks are taking YOURSELVES way too seriously. Stop being so darn rude! You’ve inexcusably insulted a soon-to-be neighbor and you will ATTACK anybody and everybody who challenges your methods! Give it a break!
“But I will now sink to your level and ask you; Does a powerful strong willed woman making you fell a shrinking sensation in your “nether regions?â€
jim…I’m sure you KNOW all about that! LOL
Wow.
William,
For your information, We have spoken to Ladonna, and she said” I understand why you are upset.” She is a fine woman and we are delighted that she is our neighbor. This debate is not about Ladonna, it is about CAR. You have added nothing to the debate, but rather, you come on with some very weak attempt at humor. We have never attacked Ladonna, just the CAR decision. And you have not answered my question, why is it not rude for you to anonymously insinuate that there is some how a mental illness problem here. You are the one who attacked here. And you did not have the integrity to do that and sign your first and last name. That, sir is RUDE and I challenge you say why it isn’t. And you are not alone. The vast majority of posters here do not have the balls (or ovaries as the case may be) to back your opinions up with your full real name. You hide behind some clever moniker. That is a false courage. If you really believe what you say, you should be able to tell me who you are.
William,
“I know you are but what am I?” is Pee Wee Herman’s line
“Have you changed your underwear lately? Those racing stripes are beginning to show through.”
Looks like the meds comment came after the rude, below the belt comment above. Then accuse William of being the one that attacked? All because he had an opinion that you didn’t agree with
Jim: The “meds” part was simply a joke but it seems as though it has struck a nerve with you. I’m so sorry if your strong willed woman is really on meds! For the record, this thread was sparked by Laura posting that she believed a soon-to-be neighbor’s roofing choice “ugly” Regardless of your opinion…that is somebody’s home that was publicly trashed. LaDonna is investing a great deal of money on your block and this will be her home. I’m certain that she, just like any other homeowner, is proud of her home. She does not need to have her choices trashed in a public forum when she is complying with everything that was asked of her. She is making a significant contribution to the block and the comments of Laura and others were uncalled for and simply rude. I’m certain that she did not feel great or welcomed by those comments. If I told you that I thought the color of your buttery yellow house with the not so red roof sucked (in a public forum) you would not appreciate it. Right? (For the record, your house color is perfectly fine with me but I suspect still does not comply with a O&H or with the CAR). I understand your issue is with the inconsistencies in the CAR…but there is a person behind that house. This house will be her home… Have a little respect and human decency in dealing with a sensitive issue. Next, Jean stands behind her remarks about the decision and what do you folks do….ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK….and you have no issues getting personal either. But woe….if somebody returns your dose, you can’t take it.
Why do you find it necessary to defend Laura?? She can’t speak for herself… Oh, that’s right…she’s said quite enough.
Here, here Bob! Cheers.
While I enjoy reading the comments because I find them mildly entertaining, I wonder if some of the people posting have anything else to do with themselves but create a divide in this neighborhood (do some of you have jobs?). While the house of discussion may not “fit in” in its neighborhood it is better than a rotted out or boarded up, weed infested home and lot. I agree with those of you above that are defending the property. An “ugly roof” is better than no roof at all. Good job, Ladonna.
Also about the MN nice thing…I grew up in MN and stand by MN nice. I have lived in Richmond for 3 years and can tell you that MN has a much “nicer” attitude. This is further demonstrated by some of the recent comments above.
Yes…we’re gainfully employed. Hey MidwesternLady….make no mistake here, most of the not-so-“nice”
comments were spewed by a fellow Minnesotan!
William, I know this thread has grown to tremendous proportions but your comment… “For the record, this thread was sparked by Laura posting that she believed a soon-to-be neighbor’s roofing choice “ugly†“… is incorrect and you need to look at the truth by scrolling all the way to the top of this page who by the way, was approved by the blog owner John Murden. It wasn’t started by Laura as a stab against her neighbor but was about CAR’s inconsistencies. She gave some photographic examples of what is right and wrong and only used her neighbor’s house as one of them and “why”.
Also note that the last 3/4 of this thread if not more consists of only a couple of people making comments but do those couple speak for the thousands living in Church Hill?
I understand all aspects of this debate but try to stay focused on the core problem… no set rules are being enforced rather you like them or not. It has to be fair for everyone – just like taxes on your car. Own a 1963 Corvette in mint show quality condition or one that has no engine and sitting in a back field – both pay the same taxes. Fair for the person with the car in the field? Fair for someone who bought a fixer-upper house in Church Hill? Like the car, it was YOUR decision to buy (move) and “invest” in something that has potential and a responsibility to fix it up to certain standards that adds value without destroying the look of the car/house. If not, sell or let someone else to take over who is willing – hence my remark about moving into a historic area. May be a bad analogy but it is late… some will get it and some won’t. But once you made that decision and appreciate the old, then should appreciate the rules to keep things at a certain standard. Gentrification? Yes… aka Change. Or do you want Church Hill to continue with the stigma as being a crime ridden ghetto and you live there?
The childish name calling and innuendos though needs to stop.
Eric
Yes, I have a job at a law firm downtown.
People lowering themselves to name calling and bantering their neighbors is what causes “divides” in the neighborhood – especially done by the type of people who hide behind a fake screen name.
Eric
“Or do you want Church Hill to continue with the stigma as being a crime ridden ghetto and you live there?”
Having a tough time trying to follow the logic that infill inconsistent with the Style-gods leads to Church Hill being mischaracterized as a “crime ridden ghetto”. Huh? Have you and Archie Bunker been hanging out?
And no, again, I am not saying pack up the old established residents already here but they too have to abide with the “looks” rules (that car analogy above) and once houses open up and become available, is a new “opportunity” to restore it if needed.
Sorry, Eric, I was just wondering how you had so much time to post on here (please don’t take this as a launching point to comment back). However, I do not think those (such as myself) that are hidden beind a screen “fake” name are the ones name calling and bantering. My basic point is that I am happy to see that someone is impoving the neighborhood whether it be according to some peoples standards or not.
Church Hill has been going down the tubes ever since the 1930s or earlier and many houses boarded up by the 1980s with crime abound. It is just now coming back (past 10 years) with houses being restored and why stop the momentum? It has had the stigma mentioned for years – even when I moved in. The house next door was owned by a slumlord with a revolving door of bad elements and crime (even crime against us with no less than 5 cars stolen) but has since been restored by the new owner with “correct and original” design elements. My comment is not a NEWS FLASH. BTW… once the houses on our block were restored, the crime stopped. Even an elderly woman who has owned her house for over 50 years said she had never seen the crime escalate like it did during that time before the block was restored.
Eric
Eric, when driving down Broad St., would you not agree that there are a variety of architectural styles from Victorian, federal, Italianate, Greek revival, farmhouse, arts and crafts, commercial, and others that blend well together? Some of the buildings are frame, some brick, some stone block…they all work together. The 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries are all represented here and they compliment each other. There are various roof treatments and designs, window types, and cornice treatments…yet they all work together. What is the prescribed “look” that is the “right” approach to infill?
MidwesternLady
Again, I can understand what you are saying and yes, in a “regular” neighborhood your theory works and is welcome. But we have a unique situation here living in one of the oldest communities in the country, on the historical registry, and also unique to have such a high number of 19th century homes in a compact area. With all of that people should be proud to be a part of that and want to keep things looking historically correct – including in fills. To make sure things don’t go crazy with new construction and/or refacing older homes to modernize them, there need to be a set of rules and guidelines in place that are enforced.
People buy condos every day and love them but they also have associations that dictate what can and can’t be done accepting it without any complaints. What is the difference with a historic district? That is the whole gist of the topic.
Eric
william… we have already addressed that by saying that yes, even in the 1890s in fills were eclectic and out of place for that time and sure new houses built now will be seen the same way in 100 years. But on the other hand buildings already built that don’t “fit in” historically were done during a time that wasn’t under control and we need to put a stopping point somewhere to keep it from getting any worse. To say that any new construction should follow a 19th century design style on the outside to fit in with the original homes already there on the block.
Broad Street is a different situation as Marshall Street is having a variety of commercial and residential building but keep in mind that the “commercial” building filling in or replacing houses torn down to make way for them was during a boom during the 1880s-1890s when the trolley system ran down those streets and people used them to do their shopping. There was no less than 6 businesses in the 2700 block of Marshall in 1925 ranging from shoe repair, auto supply, barber, alterations, dry goods, etc… all now gone and dilapidate building where some stood (blight).
Eric
To clarify the statement ” we need to put a stopping point somewhere to keep it from getting any worse.” is referring to if we don’t place guidelines for new or restorative work that eventually one by one our historic homes will disappear. What would the neighborhood look like in the year 2100 if we don’t enforce preservation now?
Eric
I am going to let this thread rest for a day and post some “correct vs incorrect” design element photos myself Saturday so people can get an idea of what is being spoken about. They say a picture is worth a thousand words (or several thousand with this thread)!
Eric
hey laura, did a carport fall on your head?
annen… strange that you should mention “carport”??? Hmmm… wonder who that could be?
Eric
I have a question about gentrification and why is Church Hill against it? The problem is not new and doing a Google search will find that other cities have been up against opposition as well but eventually won due to the business and tax benefits. Take Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco for example. It was totally opposed to gentrification during the 1960s and now completely gentrified and those in that community who were opposed moved on to other neighborhoods and they too have since been gentrified while the community rakes in the benefits.
Church Hill had its opportunities during the 1980s and flaring up again more recently but during the earlier time, many houses started to open up because the owners died off or became too old to maintain them so became vacant and abandoned. Then developers and contractors started buying them up on the cheap to restore. That is still ongoing but can only think gentrification can only help Church Hill rather than hurt it?
For those who can’t afford it on their own to fix up houses, there is various funding available in the form of grants, tax credits, and tax abatement. Look at this link from a different topic on the CHPN board:
http://chpn.net/news/2008/05/19/grants-tax-credits-tax-abatement-etc-et-al/
Comments?
Steve
I don’t believe most people are against gentrification, to a point. But it’s on a fine line of too much government and too much beauracracy of one’s property rights that gets in the way. This thread of the outbursts “over a roof” is what hurts the case.
what’s strange is that laura had no problems with a friend,who went before city council with her to lobby for the passing of ch north o&h, building an inappropriate carport on an 1818 brick property. it is visible from the street. materials are not brick. the model t came out in 1914.
laura even defended the inappropriate carport in the Orange thread see gray’s post#110. a brick carriage house was the appropriate choice. why is she just now realziing that her precious old and historic designation is not worth the paper that it is written on?
I am not sure about the CH North O&H not being worth the paper it is written on but that is where rules and guidelines come in as well as the community coming together to support it.
I was not a part of this forum when the carport was built at 501 N 27th but I am not saying I agree that it should have been built in that style either. It is out of place in the neighborhood but understand it was approved prior to the designation so was allowed. At least it is partly obscured by a fence.
BTW… there were cars in Richmond prior to 1905 as the buildings that Pritchard Bros owns now were parking garages with the section closer to 28th was originally a cigar factory converted to a 60 car garage.
Eric
OK everyone. This is getting silly. How about working out your differences with a duel at dawn? Sharpened sticks at 20 paces?
Eric,
I got it finally….
I understand why I never seem to agree with your views. I basically think that things here on the Hill are good and getting better (in large part due to our vociferously involved neighbors) while you think “we need to put a stopping point somewhere to keep it from getting any worse”.
I understand where you are coming from now.
eric:
CAR approved the carport.
annen:
To answer you question about Wanda’s carport, I don’t think that it is inappropriate for her house.
First of all, the CAR allows carports up here, that’s a done deal, for now. Secondly, the shape of the roof line follows the peaked pattern of her house. Thirdly, the materials she used are acceptable. The hardiplank matches that of the small addition off the back of her house and the roof is METAL, not asphalt.
And yes, the guidelines are worth it, they just need some tweaking and adherence to them by the CAR.
Rick:
They can all come down to the dog park tomorrow morning and at least wield hammers to get their aggression out, :). Productive anger management we’ll call it!
Sorry Laura, have to disagree this time…
This thing with “carports” being approved in Church Hill that reeks of suburbia and was never a part of the original Church Hill look, is something that needs to be addressed and re-thought out especially if CAR approved it! A carriage house style garage, yes… more appropriate. Carports from the 1950s, no… not a good idea and is too much of a compromise that allows even more inapproporiate architecture into the mix over time. Let one thing slip buy… you have to with another, then another, and yet another and then you have no control and defeat your purpose of guidelines.
Eric
And Mike B… what exactly do you think I am “coming from”?
Eric
colonist!
I agree with William, especially #107.
Some of the CH residents who are most vocal in support of historic preservation are also some of the greatest offenders of historic style, craftsmanship, and not to mention civility. If one’s love for historic preservation is genuine, then yellow and red suburban sunroom additions are simply unacceptable, even if they are located in a back yard. And btw, I don’t exactly recall sliding glass doors in any of the reference books from architectural history class.
I could go on about a choice “renovator” in the neighborhood too—more like greedy house-flipper—but I simply have better things to do.
Some of you keep talking about rules, rules, rules. But if you truly respect and love these old houses, and have goodness in your heart, you don’t need CAR overseeing your proposals. Instead, you will strive to do right by the souls that built the house and honor them, rather than look for ways to get around the rules, or simply follow them. I, myself, don’t need rules, because I have principles instead.
(I pulled a sentence from this comment. You got too personal there, Ruth. – john m)
The historic neighborhood designation also serves the purpose of blending the modern with the old, it does not exclude the construction of buildings with modern elements of style, it requires them to blend in. I, for one, would like to see some modern architecture in Church Hill. One thing to keep in mind is that all of the new “historically accurate” homes are mere facades, they are not historically accurate at all except in terms of surface details, the term itself is a lie when applied to new construction. Show me one new house up here that is framed in 4×4’s or 3″ joists. Anybody doing their whole house in plaster over lath? No, it’s prohibitively expensive for most so it doesn’t get done. The durability and uniqueness of these historic homes is the materials of which they are made more than what style of corbels they had or the window configuration. The fact that the new homes being built resemble them on the outside is fairly insignificant to me when I’m considering the historic quality of the neighborhood. I think it misses the goal of being in an historically significant neighborhood and cheapens it, becoming reminiscent of subdivision-like restrictions that serve mainly to promote conformity and weed out the poor. Other than some people exercising their knowledge of architectural details, or trying to weed out the riff-raff, what is the point of requiring new buildings to look like they’re from the 1800’s? They don’t fool anyone, Hardiplank, fiberglass, insulated windows, etc. are all easy to spot, so it’s fairly obvious what is infill and what isn’t. If you can’t tell the difference, it’s an equally bad effect, it’s like passing off a reproduction antique as an original. This isn’t a cookie-cutter suburb, and one of its strengths is its diversity. Those who push for surface uniformity are missing some of the essential qualities of being here just as they did in discussing “that horrid roof”. The roof can always be upgraded to metal later, when or if the owner chooses. These houses change over time, it’s natural in the lifetime of a house. To only see the snapshot betrays a lack of understanding of residential architecture. I would love to see some modern architecture up here, especially in the under-sized lots. Those small areas are prime real estate for experimentation and an opportunity to add another level of architectural interest to the Hill. It would be great to see something new and different nestled between some of these old houses, it’s much more visually appealing than rows of the same thing. I have no problem with reproduction houses, I just look at them like I would any new construction, and I truly appreciate anyone who makes the effort to produce or live in one, and I feel they have a place in the Hill, I just don’t feel we should limit ourselves to them. Reproduction homes make for interesting historic models but they are not historically significant. Original architecture is the foundation of Church Hill and excluding it for the sake of reproductions is short-sighted and contrary to the spirit of the historic designation. Other types of construction are allowed and I think should be encouraged. I’m all about restoration and renovation and I’m actively doing it every day, and I know firsthand what makes these homes unique. Reproductions by definition do not fall into that category, so why the constant push to make more?
Ramzi, good post. I totally agree.
Ramzi:
You’re comment is really good, and on many levels I would agree with you if the theory of what you say would actually be realized in practice, but all too often it isn’t, especially in Church Hill.
Ruth,
I know the “greedy house flipper” you are referring to. While I know he and I are of completely opposite opinions concerning the appropriateness of the design of the new house on 28th street, I can tell you he has done much to contributed to the revitalization of the neighborhood. He has done many quality renovations in the neighborhood, and, yes, he has made a profit doing so. But this “greedy house flipper” lives in the neighborhood, invests in the neighborhood, and provides work for other craftsmen who live in the neighborhood. If every renovation and new construction in the area were done by people like him, we probably wouldn’t have a need for this discussion.
The thread on this subject reminds me of the uproar that took place some years ago when the modern house was built on short 30th St. If you have not been down that street, off of Libby Terrace, take a look at an example of contemporary infill that matches the mass and scale, though probably not the architecture, of the neighborhood. I am, to a degree, a traditionalist when it comes to architecture, but I think this house is outstanding.
I agree with Bill Harstock on the house on short 30th. This house is high style contemporary without ignoring the mass, scale and traditional materials of the area.
I agree with you Bill Hartsock. I like that house also, and think that it follows the guidelines of CAR faithfully as the rules are laid out presently. I just wish that the current CAR board would have been as thoughtful about the in-fill on my block as they were with the house on short 30th.
Interesting that Jean Wight, of the current CAR board hates the short 30th Street house, yet thinks that the house across from me is O.K. I guess she’s the “self appointed, non-architect, arbitrator of taste” that we are not supposed to question.
I still contend that the CAR makes very subjective, interpreted decisions when it comes to approving in-fill design, and those interpretations change as frequently as the turnover within the CAR board.
Uh Jim, I don’t know if we are, in fact, talking about the same house-flipper, because if he tried to pull the same moves now as he did before the historic designation, he would be up to his eyeballs in citations by CAR. In fact, he probably would have looked elsewhere. And I wouldn’t call the people he employs “craftsmen” either, maybe drywall hangers or labors, but the word “craftsmen” is totally inappropriate.
Let’s have some standards here, for pete’s sake! He ripped off the portico and threw it in his shed, then replaced the dental molding with diamonds. Diamonds? I know dental molding is expensive, not for a true renovator, but for a house-flipper it is. Then the beautiful corbels, carved from the center of a tree, came off of the roof to be replaced by puny brackets. Again, a true renovator wouldn’t have even imagined doing such a thing. And this guy get nominated by ACORN for the rape-job he did on the poor house? It was clear to me at that point that ACORN serves itself and no other. Personally, I think the house had more character when it was about to fall down. At least one could genuinely enjoy the soul of the structure, less it’s shell.
I think the laborers he hires are jerks, too. One owns a pit bull that he allows to go off leash (dumb idea) and who I’ve had to call the police on twice. One time I was on the side of my house and the pit bull ran after me to attack me. The jerk just laughed with his friend. Then said he didn’t care if I called the police because I didn’t know where he lived. Wrong. Trust me, you will never be more scared in your life than when a pit bull is coming your way, and the owner is doing nothing to stop it. The whole experience reminded me of the famous clip on COPS when the animal control officer was being attached on tape, and its fat own was doing nothing to stop it.
Plus, at night, you can see the uneven spray job under the streetlight.
Back to the architecture issue…another example of infill that blends the old with the new is the north side of the 1400 block of West Cary Street. The brick row that Cary Place constructed is quality and has the mass and scale of the neighborhood while allowing for contemporary touches. It’s a good example of what could happen up in Church Hill in the blocks that have more density.
Ramzi… you said:
“One thing to keep in mind is that all of the new “historically accurate†homes are mere facades, they are not historically accurate at all except in terms of surface details, the term itself is a lie when applied to new construction.”
That is the whole essence of the infill issue. We don’t care if it has balsa wood frames, paper-maché walls, or rubber floors inside as long as the “facade” matches what is on the block. That is for “new” construction.
To me CAR focuses too much on the “materials” and not enough on “design”.
Eric
Old and Historic with a modern twist is an oxymoron. If CAR rules are not old and historic,the O&H ordinance should be repealed.
Amen annen. My point is that with “new” construction, facades should match or blend into the block it is being built as well as Church Hill as a whole. If it is an existing building, try to maintain the architectural integrity of the interior as well (minus electrical, plumbing, etc… to bring it up to code).
CAR needs to stop using “double standards” when it comes to enforcing their own published rules.
Eric
I don’t understand how anyone can find the new house on short 30 anything other then a jolt to behold.
Laura is a bright women often taking on good causes. But, she often goes too far and ends up ranting. Shoots herself in the foot and loses the respect she would otherwise enjoy.
Speaking of shooting … I’ve heard of this guy and dog and know of a couple of people who are prepared to shoot it if needed.
Lisa,
I don’t know if you are for or against the house on short 30th. Or what your point was about the dog and the gun. What was your point, or did you have one to begin with?
I do and did. Sorry for your confusion.
I have been out of the country for the last ten days. On the eve of my departure, I learned that Laura Daab had sent an e-mail (without copy to me) to the CAR demanding that I be removed from the Commission for the fault of having posted on this forum.
I find many great qualities in the Daabs, and will continue to do so (and hope to continue to know them as friends) but find this has not been their greatest hour.
When sworn to the service of the Commission, I never in any way abdicated my own personal right to opinion, as a citizen, in a public forum. Indeed, one of the enlightened aspects of appointment to the CAR is that it includes both dedicated and citizen seats appointed by Council, but independent of the politics that might cause mischief should one citizen try to use their bully pulpit to coerce the analysis of review that reaches city-wide to over 3,000 properties.
Some points of clarification are in order:
1.When I last posted, I stated clearly that I stand by my own words. Please, readers, do not give substance to any one else presenting to speak for me as to my thoughts or motivations on any other issues or properties than that presented.
I am perfectly capable to speak for myself.
2.. It astounds me that anyone could seek to discredit our dedication to historic preservation and the good of the City in the wider sense by intimating that our struggles have been any the less just because we have worked so hard to save a threatened property on East Grace Street. After 5 years we have only just now attained the use of ovens in our own home, and unpacked the last box. Yes, it is “Graceland”, but only by the “grace of God” and not by any easy social class sort of attainment. I will be very happy when I can again open a kitchen garden to the children of Bellevue school, and move forward with the plans we had to do special programs for them in our home, just across the street.
Citizen appointee: Yes, I hold a citizen seat on the CAR. Formerly, I was appointed as HRF’s dedicated seat. I resigned around the time that my ceiling fell in. 4 1/2 years of property reviews and continuing education. Long sessions from 3 to evening hours touching on every neighborhood. It was good to have a break.
But then I was asked to put forward my name again. They needed someone with experience and a legal background. I had 4+ years of experience, lived through the whole experience of rehab in an Historic District, and also had a Juris Doctorate under my belt to assist in due process and a fair hearing under the law. Also to assist City Council in understanding the rights of appeal.
It has been argued by some that I should not be on the CAR. I take that as a “given” with the job. I firmly believe in due process and fair procedure from start to finish. I do not believe in post hoc public lynchings of applicant’s projects by posting their homes and citing them as “ugly”.
The process is there for one and all. If anyone has a beef with the ultimate CAR decision, they have the full rights of appeal by stating how the CAR has erred within the time to appeal, and not after an applicant has spent time energy and money to complete their project. Without such a framework, who could ever build anything?
Part of my absence has been to visit and collect materials in Oxford and at Westminster Abbey on infill construction, paint colors, etc. I came back with some very interesting materials. While it has been done almost annually, it is hoped that the CAR will be able to again draw upon professionals in the field to look at appropriate evolutions of urban environments. No one need feel “right” or “wrong” – in fact the greatest threat to “getting it right” is to come into a discussion with a closed mind.
It is good to have a discussion, and on all our heads it is a loss to assume we have nothing to learn or share. I am now into my 6th year or so of looking at architecture city wide, and have found it useful to see how other cities with historic stock carry the conversation.
With this spirit in mind, please judge me by my own words and intent.
Jean Wight
Jean,
Well said. I’m astonished that Laura Daab contacted CAR to demand you be removed from the board. Well ….. maybe not. Although Laura has contributed time and effort to the Hill doing good work, she often trips herself up by her personnal angst mixed with some envy (“Graceland”). I was also saddened at her taking her reaction to the new house across from her to a public forum which did come off as a personnal attack on the owner.
Thanks for your response. D
Jean… Thank you for stating your case so eloquently but I do have a problem with the small closing statement you made. “…While it has been done almost annually, it is hoped that the CAR will be able to again draw upon professionals in the field to look at appropriate evolutions of urban environments. No one need feel “right†or “wrong†– in fact the greatest threat to “getting it right†is to come into a discussion with a closed mind. ”
Urban Development? You make us sound like we are a housing project in Chicago? Historic Church Hill is not “urban” in any sense and should not be seen that way. Nor should “history” and “evolution” be connected. Would you place a fig leaf over the statue of David? Add arms to Venus de Milo? Make Mona Lisa skinny? All because of what is the current trends? NO… history and historical are the key words and both should be respected as such. Church Hill is unique as being one of the oldest communities in the United States and you can’t tell me that there were many houses built past 1900 as property was saturated by that point. So as part of preservation guidelines one should take into consideration that if a parcel of land becomes open that whatever is built on it should not reflect design cues from anything newer than 1900 -or- whatever is on that block be it 1890s, 1860s, 1840s etc… With structures already there they should be “restored” and the interiors as well maintained as close to floor plan and ornamentation as possible (minus modern convenience updates of course). New structures can have an option to do what they wish inside but maintain a exterior facade that does not look out of place (era) with that block. Case in point – the carport at 501 27th. It isn’t enough to say that the materials are correct and design features too but you need to look at the whole picture and note that it is a “carport” and there weren’t cars let alone carports in the 1800s. So that “structure” is incorrect not only for the house or block but the whole neighborhood. It is things like this that raises brows and wonder if CAR is following stringent guidelines like other historical cities across the country?
Then there was the vocalization of your personal beliefs (which you have the right) but should have been more diplomatic when it came to a problem related to your job and not aired publically no matter what your beliefs. I think they saw you as a representative of CAR and making a case against the rules and blasting someone for seeing differently? But in any event, the guidelines do need revised and to conform more towards what other historic cities do to maintain historical accuracy and overall look of the neighborhood from an outsider’s standpoint and CAR open to the community they serve, not shut us out.
Eric
Here is a link to the Pattern Book for Norfolk’s historic neighborhoods:
http://www.norfolk.gov/Planning/comehome/Norfolk_Pattern_Book/index.html
I think something like this would work very well in Richmond and help to take away the inconsistencies and ambiguity within the CAR and it’s guidelines.
Attention All,
For me this is a very sensitive subject matter and I don’t won’t to sound like I am not in support of the matter at hand but I just happen to have an almost two year old brand new from the ground up constructed house at 3411 East Marshall Street that I have never lived in because it is a real LEMON from the inside out. It was built by AMASS, Inc., Class A Contracting business located in downtown Richmond. This house needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It is infested with black mold, has a defective roof and foundation, badly malfunctioning electrical and plumbing systems and more. I could greatly benefit from the assistance of the CAR program or any other assistance I can get.
No Weapon formed against me shall prosper; I am more than a conqueror through Christ. I shall hold on until my help comes.
Debra:
So sorry about your house. The CAR only makes decisions on properties in the City Old & Historic Districts. Your house is not in one of these districts, so they could not assist you.
Have you contacted a lawyer to help you with your problem?
Actually, Debra’s house is in the Chimborazo Park Old and Historic District.
O.K., Chimbo and St. John’s O&H do funny things jogging back and forth between Marshall and Broad. Sorry.
Still, sounds like the inspection process fell short, and time for a lawyer. Maybe?
Here’s another link to an excellent article about Savanna, GA and their use of the Habitat for Humanity Pattern Book for Neighborly Homes to build affordable housing in historic districts:
Oops, here it is:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/home/2008-03-06-at-home-savannah_N.htm
Folks and especially jc…
To j.c. first, thanks for straightening out the matter of my house’s location.
Second, make no mistake about it, this house obviously did not go through the proper inspection process throughout its phases of construction. I have already dealt with this matter through a lawyer only to be told that the city building inspector’s office carries no fault in their actions. Yet, one of their inspectors wrote a list of violations to the contractor within the first thirty days after move-in and required them to fix the problems; then the city did nothing when the company never responded (fixing the several problems-including a faulty leaking roof, black molded drywall throughout, malfunctioning plumbing and electrical systems etc). This house construction process sent up a red flag when I learned that the contractor never filed a request for the installation of a water meter. Even worse, the city asked me almost a year later, had my house only been renovated. I told them that it was built from the ground up brand new.
Debra:
Sounds like you bought the house from the contractor, and that you did not have the contractor build it for you. Right?
I would suggest calling 12 On Your Side, the consumer advocate news segment on Channel 12.
I’d like to talk to you too. Contact me at 649-1913 or laura@mysterydinner.com
I walked by the house at 3411 E. Marshall today, and once again, a perfect example of the CAR not doing their job.
This is new infill and many improper materials used on the facade, including vinyl siding, asphalt roof, and inappropriate front door and fixtures.
It seems that every department in the city dropped the ball on this house. I’d really like an explanation from the CAR, particularly Jean Wight about this property.
So much for CAR members expertise and enforcement of guidelines.
Debra… you are aware of the problems and for that you should be commended. This “inspectors not at fault” statement is a bit alarming as they are responsible for buildings being safe and if they fall down on the job then people are at risk. Even mold is a health hazard. Have you contacted Roy Eidem who is Operations Manager of Codes Enforcement ? He would be where I would start. Roy.Eidem@richmondgov.com
CAR at this juncture is pretty much a joke and needs reconstructed itself and they too oppose “structure” of guidelines unlike other historical cities so they can be lax in their decisions.
Eric
duuuuude, man. please reread all of this and the orange house postings.
wake up people.
today is now. tomorrow is the day after now.
do you like now?
Regarding post 176.. A-Mass Construction built another house nearby on Chimborazo (just up the street from Debra’s). It was started two years ago and is still going. I’m not sure what’s going on but it looks like a mess. In stark contrast to the Chimbo which is just across the street.
jc:
Thanks for the heads-up.
Below is a link to an NYC architect’s blog site. He makes some very valid points about architecture and a “sense of place” and uses the Ayn Rand novel/movie, Fountainhead to make his point.
Good reading!
http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/
Sorry, the entry is “The Way We Build.”