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
Are historic standards destroying historic districts?
01/16/2009 8:47 PM by John M
The preservation consultants at Old House Authority pose the question Are Historic Standards Destroying Historic Districts?:
If your property is in a historic district or if you are seeking Historic Tax Credits, certain alterations/additions must be approved. […] Often these boards insist on distinguishing architecturally between what is historic and what is newâ€â€meaning traditional design solutions are denied and contemporary ones required even when they are incompatible with the historic character of the property and surrounding area. Perversely, property owners are told to avoid changes that appear “too authentic” or could be mistaken for “having always been there.”
The article’s accompanying video makes a very compelling case against “false historicism” provisions. I’m thankful for OHA’s efforts, that video is a must watch.
Should CAR members be precluded from voting on issues that arise from this neighborhoods? Should CAR be able to override the underlying zoning? If CAR members are found to have exceeded their authority, should they be held personally liable for damages?
A tidbit, CAR has never inforced a correction of a violation that I know of. I’m aware of several situations where CAR was informed of serious violations/noncomforming alterations or additions and years later they are all still in existance. The only downside is if you want to approach zoning for a change in your status. I’m not sure if it’s just because their short handed or it’s something that would not stand up in court if an issure was carried that far.
On the subject of should CAR members be able to vote on issues in this neighborhood …. I do think that it should raise questions when voting on items in their own neighborhoods that they feel is personaly offensive rather then following the guidlines. Does it happen ….. I believe so.
Every historic building must have parts replaced over the years. Over time, many of these homes will have little original materials besides bricks and beams.
If someone restoring a home installs a reproduction light fixture or door handle that matches the historic style, isn’t that a case of false historicism?
If someone completely tears apart a building down to the studs and rebuilds in the same style, isn’t that a case of false historicism?
Yet these are commonly accepted practices in historic districts.
Building a historically accurate reproduction of a home in a historic district is no different, just on a larger scale. It’s using infill to accurately restore a block — or a neighborhood.
Home sellers just need to avoid misrepresenting homes as being historic if they are not.
First of all, quality period-correct salvaged materials should be encouraged, not prohibited! It is beyond comprehension that 1850’s iron work, for example, would be denied on an 1850’s home because it is deemed “too authentic”. Shouldn’t an item be judged by whether it is appropriate to the period, scale, proportion and architecture of the home? A lighting fixture on a Federal home should be judged differently than one on a Gothic Revival. Perhaps of even greater concern to me is how these standards impact infill construction, the examples OHA provided are wholly inappropriate for this area.
Oh, come on, let’s keep this in perspective: the “preservation consultants” at the Old House Authority is Jennie Dotts, who is just mad because the CAR won’t let her tart up her house on Broad Street with a lot of beautiful and decorative stuff it never had.
There is an agenda behind this sudden cry for justice and concern about standards, and Ms. Dotts uses her web site to promote it. I was sorry to see it posted here as well without some kind of context to put the issue in perspective.
Somebody should identify the “Authority” behind this issue as just citing “consultants” sounds like it is coming down from some hugely qualified source. Instead, what it really represents is a famously headstrong resident fighting with a city agency. Business as usual in Big R., but don’t spin it as preservation gospel.