RECENT COMMENTS
Eric S. Huffstutler on What is up with the Church Hill Post Office?
lanny on then it happens to you...
JessOfRVA on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Updated! Guess what's happening on Mosby/Venable?
Mary on then it happens to you...
Sid on then it happens to you...
Becky Metzler on Church Hill Startup Tackles Insurance for Freelancers
6 houses to soon be demolished
09/14/2008 5:00 AM by John M
It came up at this past week’s CAPS meeting that the city has contracted for the demolition of the houses at the following addresses: 523 North 33rd street, 526 North 33rd Street, 414 Chimborazo Blvd., 418 Chimborazo Blvd., and 3220 N Street.
523 N 33rd St
526 N 33rd St
414 Chimborazo Blvd
418 Chimborazo Blvd
sad
Agreed.
While eyesores, I’d still love to have these part of the neighborhood as renovated homes. I can’t help but think that if the real estate market hadn’t tanked, maybe some investors would have given these houses a chance.
Goe damn it!!! These houses are standing straight up in the air like arrows. They are all TOTALLY good for restorations (tax credits anyone).
WTF!!??? What is the sense in tearing these down? THIS IS MADNESS! It’s INSANE that this city seems to think that tearing down hundred year old houses is a good thing.
I don’t have a trust fund ready to rehab every great house that’s getting ready to be torn down.
THIS IS AN ELECTION ISSUE FOR OUR MAYORAL CANDIDATES.
oh, sorry, typo, i sure did mean GOD, not goe. just so pissed off i didn’t spell check.
I understand why the city wants to tear them down, but they are doing very little (if anything) to encourage their development. If they sold the properties for $1 to investors who are willing to accept strict development conditions and time lines they would save taxpayers the cost of demolition and gain by preserving the tax revenue of a restored residential structure. A historic neighborhood is worth more if the history itself is kept intact. I would love to know where each mayoral candidate stands on the issue of historic preservation. Very upsetting.
Wow- I’d really like to get my hands on a couple of those. The difficulty for investors is getting in touch with the owners to agree to sell. Its a shame the city cant use eminent domain to take the houses and sell them to an investor to who put them homes back into useful service.
I can’t stop thinking about this… What really bugs me is that we should be past this crap by now! This is not 1985! We live in Church Hill BECAUSE of the historic homes and character. The city has to stand behind us if they want north of Broad to look more like south of Broad. Bravo to #4!
Educate me, please. These properties are listed as being in a “National Historic District”, but not in a “City Old & Historic District”. What restrictions/guidelines exist regarding preservation or renovation of the former, if any?
why does the city even own these properties?
All we like to do is demolish. I feel Richmond is going to have two Disneyfied historical spots and they are the Fan and St. John’s Historic Districts. Everything else has no history, kind of like the suburbs.
#9 – a National Historic District listing puts properties on the National Register of Historic Places, and does nothing to regulate demolition, nor does it place any guidelines on renovation, with one exception. The exception being, if someone wants to get federal tax credits for renovation of a property on the National Register, then they have to follow the rules set forth by the Dept. of the Interior. Ditto with state tax credits, if someone wants those, they go to the Va Dept of Historic Resources and follow the rules set forth there. In both instances, the property would have to be on the National Register (or part of an entire district that is so listed).
To prevent demolition of something on the National Register, or to have rules set forth regarding renovation, in all other cases, the property also needs to be in a local historic district. In Virginia, zoning falls to the locality (the city, or if the city is not incorporated, then county). State and federal regs do not prevent demolition. That’s why there was a move recently to include a bunch of properties in a North of Broad Historic District, and a similar move is apparently on now for Union Hill, among others. Hope that helps without being too long.
Wow, wow, wow. I can’t believe those are going to be leveled. It’s very disappointing and frustrating. To Robert’s question “why does the city even own these properties?” – I don’t think the City owns these properties. I think the City is going to tear them down for health and safety reasons and to remove blighting structures. I think the City will then place a lien on the property for the cost of the demolition. The use of eminent domain to take a property from one person to give it to another is highly unlikely to be approved anywhere in the U.S. I wish the City would adopt some sort of large additional tax on blighting structures – which would reflect the impact blighting structures have on property values of adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood and the cost of various City services that vacant structure still require – that would encourage owners to sell the properties rather than sit on them as they decay. Maybe vacant, blighting structures should be assessed as though they were newly renovated (their highest, best use). Once the owed taxes reach a certain level the City could capture the properties (without the use of eminent domain) and auction the properties to individuals willing to invest in our community.
Sorry, I am bit late getting to this thread. Have all these homes been demolished?
As of this weekend they were all still standing.
This is ridiculous. The houses on my block were in much worse shape 8+ years ago, leaning downhill, pieces falling off, and contractors were able to make them into beautiful homes (GO RVA!) Will this city ever work hand-in-hand within the departments or will they always get it wrong in every aspect????
I’d like to hear some city council members input on this issue. The argument from the city is that “they can’t take people’s property and give/sell it someone else”. Since when? Surely someone in council can make a stand here and come up with a plan to save houses like these from senseless destruction. Why not just sell them and put the money in escrow?
how would someone go about trying to save one or more of these houses? does anyone know who/what office to contact?
i know plenty of people who are very capable at historic renovations that would kill for the opportunities these houses present! and even if we could just save one… (preferrably all)…
anyone have any info???
eco_chick…
One place to start is the Richmond Historical Foundation. If it is slated for demolition and falls within a certain historic district, they could be interested in saving it.
Also check on who is the president of the historic district the houses sit in and they can try and route them to the right people.
Sorry.. that should be the Historic Richmond Foundation. I sometimes switch the names around erroneously.
Historic Richmond Foundation
4 E. Main Street, Suite 1-C
Richmond, VA 23219
804.643.7407
Since this demolition is scheduled through the City Department of Community Development (misnomer in this case), the contact should be through the City. Contact the Bureau of Permits and Inspections, Property Maintenance Inspection @ 646-6869. That is the direct line to Earl Weaver who handles Zone 3 which is near this area. The Zone where these properties are located, Zone 10, does not have an inspector assigned at this time. Earl could direct anyone to the person to talk to about stopping demolition. Since these properties are not in a City Old and Historic District it is going to be difficult to stop. This is why the City Old and Historic District designation is so meaningful – it would prevent this wanton demolition activity.
Not being a lawyer, I don’t even know if this is possible … but has anyone considered creating a non-profit, or even a for-profit, that pools community investments (read: all of us), manages renovations, and turns over the properties for enough of a profit so that the enterprise can continue (and of course, to make it worthwhile for investors to risk their funds)? I understand that individually we each would like to see the homes in our beloved Church Hill escape the bulldozers and be rejuvenated instead — but finances prohibit it. Perhaps together, as a community, it would be possible. Government and large commercial interests aren’t always the only solution. Just a thought.
There are a few such entities available, now, though they primarily concern themselves with truly historic properties. APVA (Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities) has a revolving fund to buy properties and then sell them to renovators. This would be the best model. I think Historic Richmond Foundation does the same thing. Historic Petersburg Foundation is another good example. ACORN tries to do this, but I think their funds are limited. Our best bet may be to work through HOME (Housing Opportunities Made Equal) or Better Housing Coalition to put some pressure on the City to stop demolition. They have the credibility and the clout to make something happen. I like the idea of pooling resources. It would have to be done through a community development foundation to really work, legally.
For a good overview of revolving funds check this website:
http://www.apva.org/revolvingfund/#waf
ACORN is great at the logistics of helping buyers acquire and save these sort of properties. If someone has genuine interest and capital, I would direct them to ACORN. They can help track down absentee owners and work with the City to hold the demo.
I’m not sure Better Housing can do much if these are located outside a neighborhoods-in-bloom area.
I have encountered CAPS and ACORN many years ago and at that time found them to be restricted to what they can do – or want to do? I think it all comes down to the bottom line any way you slice it. Unless someone has a genuine interest to preserve a particular piece of property and save it as I am doing with 401 N 27th, then generally it is a hopeless cause for those houses.
I know HRF has first right of refusal on many properties and not always aware of what is happening to them which is one reason why I mentioned them. They also have the capital to invest in buying properties as well.
Eric
Eric,
Re: HRF: http://www.historicrichmond.com/propsummary.html
More photos of 418 Chimborazo, since demolished: http://condemnedchurchhill.blogspot.com/2010/03/418-chimborazo-blvd.html