RECENT COMMENTS
Joel Cabot on Power Outage on the Hill
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
Yvette Cannon on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
crd on Power Outage on the Hill
2 houses for Pink Street
07/16/2008 8:45 AM by John M
The foundations have been dug for a new Better Housing Coalition double house on Pink Street. Only one block long, bound by Venable and Carrington Streets, Pink Street has long been a vacant and raggedy corridor.
The building will back up to a Better Housing Coalition house on Carrington Street and 4 recent BHC houses on short Q Street. The double house will be attached version of an existing BHC design already constructed at 1118 and 1120 North 22nd Street as detached units (shown below).
I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that the Better Housing Coalition is doing an amazing job in Church Hill!
Thank you for everything you are doing for new construction up here…it is beautiful, thoughtful, and the best representation of what we need.
Nice job!!
FANTASTIC! Kudos to the BHC.
This is precisely the type of new construction that is appropriate for Church Hill/Union Hill.
Are you listening and looking CAR?
Yes… this is exactly what we have been striving to get others to understand about architeturally correct designs for the block and neighborhoods. I am still not fond of the smaller 1st floor front windows – think many of this style houses had walk-throughs but still has the overall correct look down to frieze designs!
Like Laura… CAR, are you taking notes?!?!?
Eric
We need houses built like that in Woodville… we have some annoyingly suburban stuff starting to pop up here among old Italianates. But what is up with all the double houses? Not everyone wants to live exactly next to their neighbor.
May be easier and cheaper to build a double and with the mindset of people today living in condos and high-rises, they already share walls and floors. The double house is a compromise where the builder/owner can make a bigger profit and the people buying them do so knowing they share an interior wall (which should be a firewall and soundproofed anyway) while having some sort of yard and having the feeling of living in a “house”.
I sure as hell rather see a bunch of Italianate doubles than see a hybrid that can’t make up its mind what style to be other than out of place.
Eric
Many times double houses were built because city lots were narrow – generally 24′ wide – and to allow for more living space it was the best alternative.
Bill… I haven’t noticed but would older doubles that fit into your scenario be only 12-feet wide per side? Seems awful narrow especially when you have a staircase to factor into the front area/room. I have single rooms in my house that are almost as wide as the entire “double house” you describe!
Eric
@ Bill — Same thing on this double. I ran into John Moorefield from BHC and he mentioned the narrowness of the lots in comparison to the other lots.
@ Eric – Each house is on its own narrow lot, each house would be 24 feet wide.
Each side was 24′.
Ahhh… thanks John for the clarification. The way Bill described it I thought people were living in hallways 🙂
Again, just wish CAR would take a few pointers from BHC instead of being so defiant towards what a historic district and its structures are supposed to be.
Eric
Might be nicely made but still boring cookie-cutter products.
Ramzi:
WRONG!
You don’t think they’re nicely made?
Ramzi:
You know what I mean. Of course not. I’m talking about the “boring cookie-cutter products.”
I respectfully disagree with you.
You want cookie-cutter? Go out to the west end of Henrico or anywhere in Chesterfield. That’s cookie-cutter!
Taken individually, these houses are fine, they look good, and I’ve heard good things about BHC’s construction quality. As far as low-income housing goes they seem to be better than most. I would just like to see some variety in design instead of virtually the same look every time a new “historic” frame house is put up. Same proportions, same porch, same windows, same corbels = multiple repeated motifs = fresh cookies.
They look good to me! BHC tends to do a very nice job. I’m acquainted with some of their folks, and have encouraged them to continue doing work in Union Hill.
Some of you may have noticed that some OTHER builders have been jamming real monstrosities into our neighborhood over the past few years….. buildings that architecturally might be described as “Victorian double-wide.” We don’t need more of that….
But not BHC. They’re groovy. Way to go BHC!!!
“Victorian double-wide.”
I love it! Right on, Bugbear!
The only complaint that I have about BHC houses is that they use asphalt shingles on their porch roofs. I honestly don’t think that it would put a crimp in their building budgets to use metal. Not seamed metal necessarily, but metal nonetheless.
Laura… not all houses used metal roofs and I for one am not fond of them hence we took it off of our house. But that was because it was also not correct for the time frame of our house.
Ramzi… I am not opposed to a variety of designs as long as it doesn’t deviate from “historic” looks that replicate those already on the block. HISTORIC Church Hill has no place for modernistic buildings with only “hints” of historic to them. And I am sure replicating 1880’s brick homes is a bit expensive these days over frame structures but I hope that some will incorporate brick where it is appropriate for the block/street/neighborhood.
Eric
As a point of detail, notice that the newer and more prominent BHC houses are using brick in the foundation, whereas they used to do cinderblock only.
I may be a new resident thanks to BHC! I absolutely love the homes and the beautiful neighborhoods are seemingly increasing the peace and bringing back the beauty while decreasing the ignorance. I am a previous CH resident soon to return at the beginning of ’09. I’m a bit concerned about the crime in the area…robberies and such especially around the 26th & O Block and vicinity. I’ve been in the West End for some years now, but I miss the city. Any responses would be helpful…
Eric:
Asphalt shingles are not an appropriate material to be used in OHD’s.
Under the Guidelines section for Reconstruction and Repair of Roofing page 82 it states:
“Asphalt shingles are made of felt impregnated with asphalt and covered with colored ceramic or stone granules. This modern roofing material is an inappropriate choice for the majority of historic structures.â€
Under new construction:
pg. 41 “Materials used in new construction should be compatible with original materials used throughout the surrounding neighborhood.â€
The CAR guidelines clearly state that asphalt is not an appropriate material for original buildings, so asphalt is not compatible with original materials or existing buildings and should not be used in new construction.
@ Back2Hill – Check out the crime map. That specific area seems pretty quiet.
This part of the neighborhood is block-to-block. The 25th Street corridor a little further down has a loitering issue that looks suspicious to me, but whatever is going on there doesn’t affect us over on 23rd and it doesn’t look like 26th & O feels it much either.
That intersection has seen dramatic change in the past 18 months, and the coming redevelopment at Beckstoffers will only solidify and expand those gains.
Back2Hill-Having lived on 26th and M-ish for the past (almost) 6 years, I can say that I have had no problems. Be smart and know your neighbors, just like anywhere else, and you will be very happy living here.
Laura, didn’t say that asphalt shingles are appropriate but metal roofing also isn’t a umbrella cure either as there were various materials used on houses of the 1860s-1890s besides metal. To put red, green, silver metal roofs on every house being built will make it look like cookie cutter housing too.
Eric
Laura…Please don’t take this the wrong way and not wanting to air differences on this thread (and we know the CAR guidelines concerning this material) but I am sure others would like to know why you are so fixated on asphalt shingles? A house can be painted barber pole stripes, have portholes for windows, and tumbleweeds for landscape but if it has asphalt shingles that seems to be the “first” thing you always notice – even on a 2 dimensional sketch. Why? The same for your having a passion for metal roofing as opposed to other materials.
I am all for correctness but to simply say asphalt is wrong put a metal roof on it doesn’t work either. It needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis for design as the house on the block a fill-in or restoration is copying may also have incorrect roofing (or other elements). That is where historical photographs and research comes in.
Eric
Eric:
I realize that there are more materials that were used other than metal, but asphalt shingles wasn’t one of them.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about with the barber stripe poles and porthole windows thing (unless you’re referring to the 512 N. 28th Street house, in which case, I would not describe it as such).
Anyway, shingles are not the first thing I notice and if you’ve seen some of my other comments regarding various in-fill, in particular the double houses at the 3100 Block of Marshall, you’d know that was true.
Metal roofs are used widely up here in Church Hill as is slate and other materials. I am not opposed to a 3 dimensional, high quality slate look or tile look shingles. But for the most part, metal is the main material used on roofs. What’s cookie cutter about it? It’s what’s used over and over again.
Some of the newer seamed metal roofing materials that are colored do not have the nice patina that older roofs have, but you can choose colors that are more muted and not so raw looking. I’d rather see sheet metal or metal shingles on porch roofs rather than the seamed metal that you see on main roofs.
But then again, just because there is a “lot” of houses in Church Hill that have metal roofs doesn’t make it correct – right?
One person may have started a trend or metal roofs may have been a fashion fad for houses at one time (keeping up with the Jones) but doesn’t mean that when the house was originally built this was what was on the roof. It is what was on it “originally” that I am concerned about. If the house was built in 1830 with a wooden shingled roof but now has metal, I say tear off the metal and replace it back with wooden shingles or something that replicates it. I know that sounds a bit anal but at the same time you can’t pick and choose which guidelines to enforce over others especially when stressing historical accuracy.
I was being facetious when talking about the barber pole stripes, etc… just making a point about your zooming in on asphalt shingles over everything else and drive it home each time by quoting the CAR codes (which you and I know are a joke).
I am sure there were houses with cedar shake, slate, ceramic, and other materials as well on these various style houses.
Eric
I also noted that there has been several occasions that CAR has said that it is too late for design changes on various houses. I know when we first moved into Church Hill we lived in fear doing anything outside the rules that CAR or someone would force us to tear it off and redo it to approved specs… guess they don’t actually do that huh?
So, can we as community citizens know ahead of time when a house is going to be built AND/ OR renovated so opposition to design can be made ‘before” it is too late?
Eric
One of the best general information resources about our neighborhood and its characteristics, as well as building materials, is “Living With History” which was created by the Church Hill Association in 1996. One quote from page 33 is, “Most of the houses have standing seam metal roofs. Slate roofs are the exception. The false mansard roofs tend to be slate in colorful patterns and shapes. Some of the Queen Anne houses have patterned metal roofs.” If you would like a copy, contact CHA or let me know at 216-3100. A copy also comes free with a paid membership!
Bill… the key here is that this was written in 1996 – not 1896 so again my statement holds about metal roofs may be of the “norm” in the 20th century but were they true and original in the 19th century?
I am thinking that many of the original roofs were replaced long before 1996 to metal even if they did not come that way? The author was simply making a statement of their observation in 1996.
Guess a trip to the Valentine Museum to look at house photos is in order as well as construction permits and insurance policies to see if I am correct?
But of course one can also look at the old Richmond “house” books and see what were on the roofs of houses listed as demolished long before 1950 – many in the 1890s.
What do you think? You are more of an historian than most of us here and respect your comments and insight to things!
Eric
I believe most houses may have had a wood roof. At least on the insurance policy of our house in 1845, it states brick over wood.
Bob… did it say brick over wood or brick with a wood roof? The Mutual Assurance policies usually distinguish the difference. The way you put it sounds like you have a brick roof on a wooden house and we know that can’t be right. What I am thinking it is actually saying is that the house has a wooden frame covered with brick. What is the policy number and I’ll take a look. I know with ours it says wood shingled roof.
Eric
it says brick covered with wood on the drawing of the house. It also shows a kitchen saying the same thing. But for some reason above that it says, ‘Brick covered with wood, and Brick covered with slate.” 1845, it was part of Henrico County, and Broad Street was known as “H” Street on this policy.
Then it eludes to a wooden framed roof over a brick structure but doesn’t say what that roof is covered with unless the slate is it? I need to see the policy to know. Who was the owner on the 1845 policy?
Eric
Eric,
I have owned and restored over twenty houses in the Church Hill/Union Hill area over the last 30 years. Many had the original roofs dating back to the 1850’s, and they were all metal, turn seam roofs. Many times they had been coated and sealed or just painted several times, but they were all in place as originally installed. I think the 1996 citation reflects the history of the neighborhood, rather than current situations. Read the book for yourself and see what else is there that might enlighten you to the neighborhood.
It just seems odd that so many houses in Church Hill would have metal roofs where I have noted many Victorian era homes across the country having shingles of various materials. And homes from the early 19th century also having different materials. Was it more of a Church Hill thing? Don’t see it as much in places like Williamsburg or points along Hampton Roads. At least I don’t recall seeing it growing up there.
The “replaced” metal I can attest happened with our own house probably when they altered the porch areas around 1903. Maybe earlier for the roof but know it was built with wooden shingles and some how ended up with metal which we ripped off and replaced back to something that had the look of a shingle pattern from the street. In fact, I have seen houses being renovated where the shingled roofs were replaced with tin (or the plastic fake crimped tin design) roof so is still going on.
Eric
Bill… your comment “…Read the book for yourself and see what else is there that might enlighten you to the neighborhood ” wasn’t a jab at me was it? I paid you a compliment yet I sense a bit of opposition in that statement.
Eric
eric, you’re annoying.
Rebecca… who asked you?
Eric,
You should not be so defensive. I have not attacked you in the past like some others, so don’t start getting your back up with me. Metal was a prime source of roofing material in Richmond, number one because of the availablility of iron ore in Midlothian and, two, because of the rolling mills at Tredegar. It was not used closer to the coast because of the salt in the air, which would rapidly deteriorate the material.
Actually standing seam tin roofs were very common in 19th century architecture across the country…not just Church Hill, Richmond, or Virginia. Many architectural styles that have slightly pitched or nearly flat roofs use soldered metal or standing seam metal roofs to ensure a water-tight seal. Slate, wood, or shingles will not function well on a flat or low-pitched roof. In winter-time ice will back up under the shingle or pieces of slate and cause water leakage on the interior space. Metal roofs were not used a replacement–they were the originals. The great majority of the homes built in the Richmond area during the 1800’s incorporated a low pitched, shed roof on some part of the structure (usually the main roof). This is very common in Italianate structures and Victorian era row houses. In northern climates, flat roofs are not that common due to excessive snowfalls therefore, more roofing choices were prevalent (slate, cedar shakes, etc.). Metal is a great choice for the homes in Church Hill..It is cost prohibitive for most. Metal installation is a highly skilled , labor intensive process…but the stuff lasts 80-100 years if properly maintained.
I would like to extend my heartiest congratulation to Better Housing Coalition for making such wonderful houses which are perfect for all kind of families. Really hoping for buying one in the near future.