RECENT COMMENTS
A petition on new development in Richmond Old & Historic Districts
Laura Daab, the organizer of 2007’s move to establish the Church Hill North City Old & Historic District, has posted an online petition asking the CAR Task Force to amend the CAR guidelines, saying that
[…] the Old & Historic Districts of Richmond, Virginia Handbook and Design Review Guidelines must be revised to ensure that new construction of additions, alterations and infill reflect and relate to the context in which they are located. As currently interpreted and applied by the Commission of Architectural Review, the guidelines undermine the original intent behind the creation in 1957 of the City of Richmond Old & Historic Districts, which is to protect and preserve the historic resources in these districts. Specifically, by prioritizing differentiation at the expense of compatibility, the CAR ensures additions and infill that are in obvious opposition to their historic settings.
TAGGED: Laura Daab
The petition has been up less than 24 hours and has gotten tremendous support.
You don’t need to live in an Old & Historic District to sign the petition. Everyone benefits from the protection and preservation of our historic resources.
Our districts are endangered by how the CAR review guidelines are written and interpreted. The CAR task force will be investigating and reviewing the CAR process from now until February of 2010. This may be the last opportunity that the community has for any formal input into the CAR process.
Compatibility over differentiation will promote architectural harmony and wholeness within the district and allow buildings and districts to evolve in accordance with their historic patterns and styles.
The ultimate goal is to ensure continuity of character over time.
Please sign the petition today!
http://www.petitiononline.com/saveohds/petition.html
Also, please forward the petition via email to your friends and neighbors that may not frequent CHPN. Thanks!
http://www.petitiononline.com/saveohds/petition.html
I liked the first part of the petition, but I’m concerned that removing phrases like “mimic” and “false historicism” will tilt the CAR priorities too far towards an innappropriate standard. I don’t want Williamsburg to be the model for how we protect our city’s architectural character.
Is there room for making changes to this petition, or does this mean that a rival petition needs to be circulated? Just putting it there for the sake of dialogue.
This looks excellent, Laura!
I just signed… let’s keep the signatures rolling in on this one folks!
In answer to your question rockett88, “Yes it does!”
I agree with rocket88, the first part of Laura’s petition is great we do need old and historic districts to protect our historic neighborhoods. By removing those phrases it implies that all new buildings should replicate what is there. The value of our districts is their authenticity and that would be diluted by encouraging cookie-cutter historicist infill.
It is a complicated issue and requires a more balanced approach.
I think Laura has done a good job of making a particular point. Another that should be considered is the questions of conflicts. I would suggest that any member of CAR who lives in and O&H District be precluded from participating in any consideration of a case arising from that district.
well said all the fighting just creats stagnations many cities have done in as little as 3 years what richmond cant seem to do at all because of small groups trying to impose arcane ideales on the whole , what needs to be done is feed them more rope such as the matter being litigated now over restrictions of height along the perimiter of church hill many buildings have been built one story higher for the distant view, many with widows walks for observation of the ships coming up river to be able to muster stevedores to unload so dont bring these things up till after the stagnaters have commited to spending their money and court .
I’m confused – Ms. Daab spent countless hours to get her neighborhood designated a City Old and Historic District but now she wants to have the rules drastically changed? It looks like changing the CAR guidelines as proposed by LD would preclude someone from getting tax credits if they have any kind of addition proposed since it would not be able to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards and these proposed revised CAR guidelines. This would really reduce the number of people interested in moving into and improving historic houses in Richmond.
#3:
If you like the first part of the petition, then you are in agreement that the CAR guidelines and the interpretation of them are undermining the original intent of the formation of the City of Richmond Old & Historic Districts.
The language used in the guidelines such as, “mimic” and “false historicism” are at the core of the current problems concerning new construction in our OHD’s and should be removed as they mandate design that emphasizes differentiation over compatibility. This erodes the historic character of our communities and does not preserve or protect those resources.
One only has to look at the various new infill in Church Hill North & Chimborazo to see how the CAR has slavishly adhered to the notion that traditional and classic architecture built in the present is somehow a lie. so instead they have mandated “Frankenstein” structures to be built that have no architectural style or significance that are not compatible and do not compliment its historic surroundings.
Those words are prejudicial in inappropriate. They promote a bias that is a perversion of the Department of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. In my opinion it is academic jacking-off.
Look at all the wonderful infill that the Better Housing Coalition has built in our area. All of those structures have classic/traditional styles that are of the same era of significance as the surrounding original housing stock. They are built using the Department of Interior Standards for Rehab. yet they don’t pervert the interpretation of those standards like the CAR does.
I wish the Better Housing Coalition would take over the CAR.
#9:
Yes, I did, and yes I do. FYI: Most historic Districts are intact. They don’t have any empty lots in them, hence no new infill. Church Hill North is the first District to have dozens of empty lots, so we are seeing very graphic examples of how the guidelines are being used and interpreted that other districts do not have to endure. CHNOHD is an anomaly among the other districts in that sense.
It’s a shame to have to use the argument that having an OHD is “better than nothing.” Is that really the most that we can ask for in our community?
RE Tax credits: read my previous post. People use tax credits all the time and build with continuity in an out of OHD’s.
Laura–appreciate the response. I agree with you about some of the cheap-looking infill that has been constructed.
Still though, I wonder if there is a way to express these concerns to the taskforce without undermining a very important aspect of historic preservation–that new construction in historic districts be distinguishable, and not misleading. I agree that there are many examples of new construction that are distinguishable for looking cheap and in poor taste. Nonetheless, I fear that getting rid of guidelines against “false historicism” is leading us down a path to creating mini-colonial williamsburgs out of our historic neighborhoods. This isn’t some arbitrary standard that Richmond adopted–preservation organizations all the way up to the National Trust place a lot of importance in ensuring that new construction or additions not be so “compatible” that they create false historicism. This is, of course, reflected in the Secretary of the Interior’s standards (“new work shall be differentiated from the old…”).
It is something of an academic argument, sure, and I’d love to support the first part of your petition since I agree with its sentiment, but I fear that removing language like “false historicism” and “mimic” is overcompensating in a potentially dangerous way. I would support an effort to change CAR’s interpretation of the guidelines rather than deleting some of this very important language.
Looking forward to the public hearing tomorrow.
Laura,
I’m going to be out of town and cannot attend the CAR Task Force Hearing. Please attend and make your arguments, and take fifteen copies of your remarks to make sure the record is complete. You are completely on point.
O.K. Let me put this another way. let’s use this analogy:
My two front teeth are knocked out and I want to replace them. Using the current CAR guidelines as the process for replacing my teeth, I put in a certificate of appropriateness for the work. I go to the CAR staff with the application and drawings and specs for the work. I want to replace my teeth, which I have no previous physical record of, but my plans show that I want them to look like what the teeth used to look like according to what my remaining teeth look like.
The CAR staff and the commission deny my application because replacing my teeth to look like they belong there and look like my other teeth would be mimic-ing and false historicism. It would be a lie and take away the authenticity of my remaining teeth.
They tell me that they will work with me on suggestions for appropriate teeth. They tell me that they would approve two gold teeth. The gold teeth would be differentiated, of their time and not create a false historic appearance – thus preserving the authenticity of my remaining teeth.
Do you see where I am going with this?
I understand your point, which is exactly why we need to urge CAR to change their interpretation of the guidelines. I worry, however, that you don’t understand mine. For every “gold-teeth” example, I could counter with a disney-world historical fantasy land example. It happens all too often when people who don’t understand historic preservation think that re-creating or re-imagining the past is appropriate. False historicism and mimicking are a real threat to historic districts.
But you’re right, I think the real concern is that the CAR needs to be very careful in ensuring that new construction or additions are indeed compatible, and that’s what I hope is emphasized at the meeting tonight.
Some of the most vibrant neighborhoods that I have had the pleasure of living in and visiting are those that have a variety of housing styles and choices. While I fully agree that there should be guidelines for size, proportion, massing, and placement on the site, I think it would be a shame to dismiss the opportunities for creative infill.
My neighborhood is not considered Old and Historic, and there are some really neat houses and additions that add so much to the character of the neighborhood. In fact, those houses are a big reason I moved to the neighborhood.
Best of luck to you in Church Hill as you figure this out.
#16:
Church Hill does have a variety of housing styles and choices, but they encompass and represent a particular period of time. when these designations are applied for, a tremendous amount of research goes into the staff reports to identify those style and the period that makes the area eligible for an Old & Historic District.
My argument is not about stifling “creativity.” But, expressing one’s creativity at the expense of continuity in our districts. Old & Historic Districts should not be a laboratory for experimenting in and letting loose with one’s creativity – there are plenty of other communities for doing so, including your own, it would seem. Again, this is not an argument about styles as much as it is “continuity of character over time.”
#15:
I do understand your argument, but that type of argument usually make me chuckle, and I’d don’t mean to be facetious. I’ve actually been trying to ignore portions of it. It’s just that using Colonial Williamsburg in the pejorative seems silly to me, and comparing theme parks to residential neighborhoods equally so.
Church Hill is not and never will be a commercial attraction or theme park.
Colonial Wiliamsburg is one of the premiere cultural tourism destinations in the country. Tens of millions of people have visited to see the old section of Williamsburg precisely to connect with not only our cultural and political past, but our architectural past. Yes, there are buildings that have been constructed that are not exactly what existed (The Governor’s Palace was wood). But the old section is a wonderful example of a snapshot of that place in time, and people like it, just as people like and choose to live in our Old and Historic Districts. Personally, I like Williamsburg and the Governor’s Palace, but I guess I’m an uneducated low brow along with all the other millions of people. Should Colonial Williamsburg tear down the Governor’s Palace and build a contemporary structure so that folks know that it’s not original?
I think we agree more than not. The problem is that for the most part, applicants and the CAR are not currently building or approving good infill in our OHD’s. You say that the CAR needs to change its interpretation of the guidelines rather than change the language. Well, in order to do that you will either have to give all CAR members a brain transplant, or replace the members of the CAR – it’s that simple.
An easier and more realistic solution would be the use of a Pattern Book. Pattern Books provide the best instructional guidebook for historic districts concerning additions and infill, renovation and repair. They take the human factor out of the equation so that whenever there is a new “regime” in place that the review process, based on pattern books, is not open to interpretation like it is now. It’s simple: the designs and patterns are there for what is appropriate architecture in our districts, so follow them – period. The fact that there is use of a pattern book in a municipality in VA ( Norfolk, VA) is also a very good argument for Richmond having one. Precedent has been set in VA already. The Norfolk Pattern Book is well received by the community there and its working well.
The thing is, and this is very central to my argument, is that these pattern books are used with the Dept. Of Int.Standards for Rehab, so yes, you can build authentic historic structure anew AND comply with the DIS standards.
The Norfolk Pattern Book is a valuable tool. It takes the subjectivity out of the equation and addresses the predominant styles native to the landscape and the character of the neighborhoods.
http://www.norfolk.gov/planning/comehome/norfolk_pattern_book/styles.html
Click on the tabs to the left. It’s a well thought out guide to building and renovation.
I was intrigued by the reference to Norfolk’s pattern book so I have just searched through Norfolk Historic District Guidelines on their website and there is no mention of pattern books that I can find. There are separate guidelines for each district that talk about massing, features, siting, etc. In fact, on page 5 of the Ghent guidelines there is a statement under Figure 6 that says “New construction should be compatible with the neighborhood and should never exhibit false historicism.”
If I have overlooked something please point me in the right direction as I am curious as to how pattern books are used.
#19:
On the same page that you references in the design guidelines for Norfolk (Ghent) Under “Building Design” it states:
“In new construction, contemporary adaptations of historic building elements, such as porches, bay and oriel windows, and turrets, can help the new building blend into its already established surroundings.”
The key word here are “contemporary adaptations of historic building elements” and “help the new building blend into its already established surroundings.”
Norfolk wants people to use historic building elements in their designs and for the designs to “blend in.” This is language completely different that Richmond’s.
There’s a “how to” page to the Pattern Books if that’s what you mean.
http://www.norfolk.gov/planning/comehome/norfolk_pattern_book/howto.html
surroundings.
I’m 100% on board with everything Laura has said so far in this thread (and in the petition). It seems to me that the core original intent of Richmond’s Old & Historic districts was simply to preserve the historic character of these neighborhoods.
However, the standards associated with this fundamental objective have been so totally perverted by CAR that homeowners / developers who want to include historic design elements in their O&H district homes are now actually prevented from doing so (the exact opposite of how a O&H district should operate).
For a ludicrous example, see this Style Weekly story of Church Hill resident Jennie Dotts. Dotts, a preservationist, attempted to install a beautiful, historic wrought iron fence (made at Tredegar, no less) at her Church Hill home, only to have CAR get in the way because the fence looked “too historically accurate.”
http://www.styleweekly.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&typ...
O&H districts are relatively small and should focus on maintaining their historic character. If someone wants to put in a split level, rancher, or a Frank Lloyd Wright knockoff, go for it! Just do it in the 90% of the city that is NOT designated as O&H. That’s the whole idea.
Choosing a pattern from the Norfolk pattern book simplifies the permit process, but it is not required. You can still build structures that are not in the pattern book, but they have to go through a special use permitting process.
In addition, the Norfolk pattern book process is ONLY for those lots that are 25-feet wide or less. These small lots are “leftovers” from when the city of Norfolk mandated that residential lots be at least 40-feet wide (prior to that, residential lots were typically 25-feet wide). The result of the 40-foot wide lot requirement is that many neighborhood were left with vacant land that could not be developed.
The pattern book is an attempt at facilitating development of these narrow lots that until recently, were not developable under Norfolk’s regulations. The pattern book is not a citywide requirement; it is only used in neighborhoods designated by the city that have an abundance of vacant 25-foot lots.
The Norfolk-model pattern book does not prevent the type of larger-scale development that seems to be a topic of great interest in Church Hill, since that type of development is on larger lots.