RECENT COMMENTS
902 North 25th Street facing demolition
Notice of Pending Demolition of Imminent Hazard to Public Safety
In accordance with Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia, as the Commissioner of Buildings for the City of Richmond I have signed the attached imminent hazard order. The building at 902 North 25th Street has deteriorated to the point that its immediate removal is necessary. As a result of this order, the building will be removed, as soon as possible, by either the City of Richmond or the property owner.
If you have questions about the unsafe conditions and the code enforcement status of this building, please contact Michelle Coward, Acting Engineer III (at MICHELLE.COWARD@RICHMONDGOV.COM or 646-6357).
Please keep in mind that the issuance of the imminent hazard order means that in accordance with City Code Section Sec. 114-930.6. (j), for those properties in City Old and Historic districts demolition can proceed without a certificate of appropriateness being issued by the Commission of Architectural Review (CAR). Also if the building is an area identified for Federal funding, in accordance with the terms of the Richmond Programmatic Agreement, the City will complete Section 106 review of the property on an emergency basis.
If you have questions about these historic preservation programs please contact T. Tyler Potterfield (at 804-646-6364 or Thomas.Potterfield@richmondgov.com). Tyler can also add or remove people from the distribution list for future imminent notices.
Douglas Murrow
Commissioner of Buildings.
This is good news…finally one of the biggest eyesores on 25th street will be gone. Now we just need them to take similar action on the townhomes on O Street between North 25th and North 26th Street and on the decrepit graffiti covered home at the corner of O and 25th Street.
While I recognize that the Commonwealth’s property rights laws do slow things down, I wish the City would be more aggressive with ridding the area of blight like this.
This building is in the Union Hill City Old and Historic. 902 N. 25th is a contributing ante-bellum structure to the district.
Per the nomination, this 1859 Greek Revival single dwelling is known as the Elizabeth Wyse House. It is a 2-story, 3-bay frame house which transitions between Greek Revival and ltalianate styling.As such, it helps to tell the architectural and cultural story of our neighborhood. It has a gable -roof and a bracketed cornice. The 1-story, 3-bay porch has turned posts and balusters and sawn brackets.
This is a part of the City’s historic fabric and workforce housing that cannot be replaced. Demolition, if necessary, needs to be approached thoughtfully, and used only as a last resort. There are a number of other buildings in the area that are in worse shape than this one and have lingered for years.
Hey wait, I cannot change my mailbox without approval, but the city can wreak havoc whenever it wants. Boy, this Historic District thing has really paid off.
I wonder if any of the 12 people that actually wanted an Historic District care? I somehow doubt it.
We don’t have too many of these houses left… the city’s site says it was from 1910 but it looks easily 1860s. After all Richmond has St. John’s Church being built in 1900…
Cadeho,
There was a fire that destroyed the land records… everything was dated to 1910 when they re-cataloged the houses.
I’ve been hearing a variant of that ever since I got to Church Hill and became fascinated by the old houses. What I’m unclear on is why the records aren’t ever updated when new, valid information is put together.
The National Park Service/Secty of Interior records date the house to 1859. It’s a beautiful little home that tells an important story about our neighborhood. Deserves better than demo.
There was no fire that destroyed land records. The City Record Room in the John Marshall Courthouse has records dating back to the mid 1800s. Prior to that, records are available in the Va State Library.
As well, the City has Assessor property cards dating prior to 1910 available in the Va State Library.
That’s a shame they are going to take it down. The assessor’s office shows Thomas C. Perkins as owner, with the mailing address of 902 N. 25th. From the photo it doesn’t look so bad to me, but maybe there’s something the city’s been looking at that causes it to be such a hazard. Houdon #2, it spells out in the order that there is no CAR involvement if it’s deemed a hazard. However, I agree with you completely.
I’d like to know the owner’s story. Are there delinquent taxes? Is it owned by heirs or by a flipper? Can the City stay the demo for enough time for an investor to save it? Or for the City to institute a tax sale action?
The parcel mapper doesn’t show a transfer of the property, so most likely the last time it was sold was long, long ago. The owner is most likely deceased.
This is exactly the sort of situation that the recently enacted Derelict Building Receivership legislation is designed to avoid. VA Code 15.2-907.2 enables the City, under certain circumstances, to pursue an alternative to demolition for a house that has been declared “derelict.” Essentially, a judge could appoint the City to be a receiver for the purpose of renovating the house to habitable condition. It offers a relatively efficient complement to the City’s Spot Blight Abatement program.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-907.2
Lane #12, the last time I remember something being saved from demolition was when 11 1/2 North 29th Street was saved. That was back in about 1988 or so (I’m vague on the exact year but it’s prior to the nineties). It belonged to someone who lived in the Buckroe area of Va. Bch. and was constantly late on his taxes. BUT, BUT, it was in an established historic area, fronted on Libby Hill Park, and had a LOT of wrought iron porch and trim. Basically what happened was the city condemned it, the APVA took title, and sold it to the highest bidder who could prove the financial ability to fix it within a fixed time frame.
I am not familiar with the legislation you describe, but I can’t see the city as owning a house and renovating it. Would the city contract with someone to do the work under that legislation? I’m curious, thanks for saving me the reading of the legislation. And if you think it should happen, can you make it happen?
Read the notice. It is very clear. The house is being torn down because it is a safety hazard, not simply for being vacant or blighted. Drive by and take a close look at it. I have because I live a block away from it. It is about to fall over.
It is wonderful to want to preserve historic properties. We should always try to do that if it is at all possible. There is a finite amount of historic housing stock and every unit we remove shrinks the pool even further. But if there is no one offering to rehabilitate a property–including the city–and the property deteriorates to the point where it becomes hazardous to the safety of anyone who happens to step foot on that property as well as a hazard to neighboring properties, then it has to be torn down.
There are scores of homes throughout Church Hill, Church Hill North and Union Hill that are vacant and blighted. Right now it would seem there are not enough investment dollars out there to take those on–and many of them are active real estate listings. I have one right across the street from me that has been on the market for months without an “investor” showing interest. If you cannot find a sufficient number of buyers to absorb all of those properties for which renovation makes financial sense, it seems to me that that hoping for an angel investor to swoop down and take on a house that is about to fall down is a real long shot.
Sometimes you have to cull the herd of the weakest in order to save the herd. It is hard to make a block attractive to investors and renovators when some properties on that block are beyond feasible renovation–those properties will hold down property values on the block even if other homes are done over—undermining the return on investment. No one wins then and it dampens enthusiasm for investment overall.
You cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a perfect world some angel investor with more money than sense would swoop in and take on an expensive renovation of this heap that would likely cost more than it would sell for on that block—one which is not exactly one of the hotter spots to buy right now. Since that is not likely to happen–I don’t see anyone here volunteering to put up the cash and take the project on–then the best thing to do is to mitigate the safety hazard and eliminate the blight in order to protect the value and viability of nearby properties that CAN be saved.
One more thing…note the open windows on the second floor that are clearly visible in the photo. The code requires that all openings be properly sealed and secured. These windows have been out for a while. I suspect that has allowed for water infiltration–and possibly pest infiltration. That would mean the home may well be infested with mold or insects. It also means that rot and water damage could well have weakened the structure. Add in these issues with some of the exterior features as noted on SeeClickFix and it is not hard to see why the City feels it needs to come down.
http://seeclickfix.com/issues/426302-condemned-house-dumping
Church Hill house faces demolition; area residents push for renovation
http://wtvr.com/2013/03/11/church-hill-house-faces-demolition-area-residents-push-for-renovation/
This house looks to be in better shape on the outside than the inside – it’s pretty far gone from what I’ve seen in photographs. That being said, if a structural engineer can determine it can be saved, it should be saved. The likely issue is, as someone mentioned earlier, that the property is probably buried in back taxes & code enforcement liens with no heirs or other party to take responsibility for this building. If it does end up being demolished, the City should attach a development agreement to the property when it does transfer at a tax sale auction that a similar house be constructed based on the original building. I think some Union Hill residents might remember a similar situation where A.C.O.R.N. did just this with a house that had to be demolished at 2116 Cedar Street. A new house was built honoring the architectural style and is very close to the original building – go have a look! This practice would be a good way to ensure the architectural integrity of the neighborhood remains intact rather than eroded. This would be the least the City should do when significant historic properties have to be demolished for imminent structural failure. In the meantime, Lane Pearson is correct regarding Derelict Building Receivership as he worked for 2 years to ensure this was a tool in the City’s tool box. The Receivership Ordinance is in draft stage in the City Attorney’s office – stay tuned to support this important ordinance when it is introduced. This will be one of the City’s most important tools to fight blight in our historic neighborhoods.
I love this quote comparing the house to a book. It’s like poetry:
“Although neighbors have mixed feelings about the home, Barbara Terry, who has lived in Church Hill for 33 years, wants to see it saved.
“I would love to see something happen to it other than tear it down,” said Terry. “That’s like throwing away a book.””
@17 As I understand the receivership ordinance, it allows the city to make the repairs. This is all well and good, but does the City really have the financial resources to make these repairs on property after property? Is there money in the budget to actually take on that responsibility given all of the other competing needs in the City? I am not expert on the budget, but it seems that with all of the existing maintenance responsibilities that the City has on its plate that this might be biting off more than it can chew if the ordinance is used more than very occasionally. Am I wrong in my understanding of this?
Also, this raises another question. What happens to property that becomes derelict and run down when there are no known heirs to a property and the owners have passed away? This is a problem with the crumbling green home with graffiti on it that is at the corner of O and North 25th (about 100 feet from this property).