RECENT COMMENTS
Agenda for the 8/27 CAR meeting
The agenda for the August 27 Commission of Architectural Review meeting (PDF) includes a number of local projects: 424 N 25TH ST ?
Construct privacy fence and pergola; 2608 E CLAY ST Rebuild and parge missing section of block wall; 2120 M ST Construct new storage shed and privacy fence; 2520 E FRANKLIN ST Remove non-historic front porch, construct new porch; 418 N 25TH ST Renovate building and construct new addition; 20 N 24TH ST Replace siding; 306 N 31ST T Replace windows.
Also, the Commission will be posting electronic copies of applications scheduled for review on an FTP site in advance of future meetings. You can access the site here: ftp://ftp.ci.richmond.va.us/PDR/Commission%20of%20Architectural%20Review/. A full agenda packet with staff reports will be posted the Thursday prior to the meeting.
The request on 2520 E Franklin is one of the most impressive architectural research projects I’ve seen in a while. Kudos to Deanna Lewis.
Alex, how is it impressive research? The photo in Mary Wingfield Scott’s book and accompanying paragraph indicate that the porch at that time had been unfortunately altered. Now, with no building permit and no permission from CAR (this agenda item will give it the CAR permission but the owners did the work with no permits), the porch has been changed to look like the photo of the unfortunate alteration. I am not understanding how it is impressive research. I would like to hear how it comes to be impressive, and I have no sarcasm intended at all here, many thanks.
crd – If you have a moment, go to the Clerks office and Library of Virginia and pour through the micro-films to find 210 years worth of the Turner House deeds and Wills. In those, you’ll discover the May 7, 1957 deed between Fred Morris Hickey and The Historic Richmond Foundation (Mary Ross Reed). Included in that deed is a plat of the property created by Chas Fleet & Associates – Civil Engineers and Surveyors, dated March 29, 1957. That plat shows that an 18 foot wide porch existed on the face of the house on March 29, 1957. The 1905 Sanborn map shows the same 18 foot wide porch.
Fred bought the house on June 15, 1940. The first entry on the old City Assessors card was his, dated July 10, 1940. Fred installed heat for $700. He lived there for 17 years. All other alterations; porches, window and bathrooms were recorded after December 12, 1963. The front porch that we took down had a plywood roof, a plywood facade, a plywood back, modern milled joist and rafters. It was built after 1963.
The comment of “unfortunately altered” by Mary Wingfield Scott in her book was made in 1940 when her book was published. Considering how long it takes to write and publish a book, the original sepia photo of the house in her book was taken in the 30’s. Regarding the porch, she was more than likely referring to the addition of the “tin roof”, as the original roof was a shake roof, like the John Woodward House on 3017 Williamsburg Ave. She was a purist who adhered to history. Why else would she write a book praising and lamenting the loss of so many beautiful historic Richmond homes? She researched the Turner House’s deeds back to the land purchase, as I did. She foot-noted the same October 15, 1813 insurance policies that I found. Those policies stated the home and porches had “wood roofs”.
The 20 or so 8 5/8 to 9 1/2 inch long bricks that I dug out of the ground are a perfect match in color, shape and size to the 8 5/8 to 9 1/2 inch long bricks found in the main body of the house and the original right side of the porch we saved. They were made at the same time the house was made. Those bricks in the ground told me the original porch foundation was 18 feet wide. The ghosts on the brick of the 18 foot long flat roof line told me the roof line was straight and how tall the porch was. The ghosts on the brick, flecks of paint and badly mortared joints told me how tall and thick the posts were. Counting the courses of bricks in a clear 1957 black & white photo told me the pitch of the roof. The 1930’s Houses of Old Richmond photo shows a shed roof, not a Victorian hip roof, with a built in gutter.
Every phase of the restoration has been submitted and approved by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the National Park Service. I proceeded with the restoring of the porch after a miscommunication, not understanding the process outside of those entities.
I understand all too well the gravity and importance in restoring what truly may be the oldest surviving home in Church Hill. When completed, we will have peeled back the alterations that have caused extensive deterioration over the past 70 years and restored the structure to its original design. The text above is but a glimpse into the research I’ve done on the history of this home, the techniques that went into building it and the methods necessary to restore it.
I take nothing lightly. I did my homework.
Thanks Alex.
Seems this puts to rest the discussion on the Anthony Turner front porch with all the details, documentation and citations provided. I would say that Deanna – did do her homework and then provided all such in an open and respectful format/forum.
All of CH is looking forward to the finished restoration and having the, Queen of the Hill, returned as beautiful and sound, as when she was built in the early 1800’s.
Ms. Lewis,
It is clear you did your homework on this, and it is reassuring that you are putting this kind of effort into restoring a one of a kind property in Church Hill. Thank you.
Based on your research, it is clear that there was an eighteen foot wide porch on the house as early as 1905 and up until the 1960s. Could you clarify why you think that porch was original to the house’s early 1800’s design? It would be unusual for a federal period house to have such a wide porch or turned columns. While you did find bricks that match the house’s original brick, there is nothing to say that those bricks weren’t recycled from one of the many outbuildings that were built on the property. Mr. Turner owned his own brick yard, so there were plenty of his bricks floating around Richmond. To assume that the foundation and ghost lines you found are indicative of an original 18 foot wide porch seems a little weak. While the 1960s porch that you tore down was indeed of 20th century construction, there is nothing to say that it wasn’t an effort to return the house to it’s original federal period design. I’m not against restoring the house to it’s original design, but I’m not convinced that the 18 foot wide shed roof porch with turned columns is original.
Also, is CAR aware that you have already started work on the porch? The “current facade” image (#2) that you included in your application is a little misleading, since the current facade is a half completed version of the porch you would like to build.
@5 John, the porch was done without notifying CAR. That is why it is on the agenda for the forthcoming CAR meeting (actually I believe it’s on the consent agenda, unless you show up and ask the same pointed questions at that meeting). Someone else with a long history of reconstruction in the area also had mentioned to me the issue of the turned columns.
Apparently the state dept of Historic Resources approved the porch design. Ms. Lewis and the owner apparently thought that negated the need to notify CAR (and to get a building permit), I believe that is what her comment is about: “Every phase of the restoration has been submitted and approved by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the National Park Service. I proceeded with the restoring of the porch after a miscommunication, not understanding the process outside of those entities.”
There was a stop work order issued due to the lack of a building permit for the porch, too, in addition to the permission from CAR.
I will be interested in reading Ms. Lewis’ response to your questions. I think they are pertinent. Good luck attending the meeting and asking the same things, though, as I understand it would be rare for CAR to go against Historic Resources. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
So much for research. She doesn’t research what approvals are necessary and then the drawing does not even match the photo of the alleged porch. Sloppy to say the least
John,
If you and I were to stand in front of Reed square and I told you that four substantial brick row houses once stood there, then grabbed a shovel, dug down and showed you remnants of their brick foundations, shared with you a 1905 deed showing brand new houses, a 1905 Sanborn map and produced a photo to prove that four homes existed in that spot as recent as the 1960’s would you say that evidence was weak? If so, I have all of the above to prove they were there.
I did not write that the turned porch columns were “original” in the circa 1930’s photo. I wrote that they were evident in the photo.
There is no evidence to say that the bricks I dug out of the of foundation “were” recycled from any of the four outbuildings on the property. I was told that the 1850’s addition was built using the bricks taken from the outbuildings. If that is true, please note that the addition bricks do not match the bricks of the 1800’s original house.
There is no evidence to say the 20th century barrel roof porch “was” an effort to return the house to “it’s” original Federal period design. Surly you know that shed roofs were also of the Federal period.
I’ve found several examples of Federal houses throughout Virgina and Maryland with shed roof porches that span the front of the house. The evidence here tells me that the original porch was 18′ long with a shed roof. Anthony Turner had the materials, the laborers, the means and the view to inspire a substantial porch. A master brick mason with his own foundry…. bricks to him were like meat to a butcher; plentiful.
Of course CAR is aware that the work has started. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources submission with the photos # 2 in the CAR package is dated May 23rd. CAR was aware of the plan in June.
crd – I have always had a great deal of respect for CAR, the staff and the overall work they do. There was a miscommunication. There is no reason to speculate on a myriad of scenarios, motives or what you may think, I think. In the end, we are all human.
Ms. Lewis,
Thanks for your response. Is your goal to restore the house to its (thank you for your grammar checking) original early 19th century design, or to the design that you see in the early 20th century photos you have included in your applications. It seems that on one hand that you are arguing that the 18 foot wide porch was original, but on the other hand you are only saying that the turned columns were “evident”. It feels like you are mixing centuries a little with those two elements.
I agree that there is no evidence that the bricks you found were from the outbuildings, but I also think that your assertion that they were laid as the porch foundation at the same time the house was built is at best an equally unfounded assumption. My point in referencing the outbuildings was only that there are other explanations for the bricks than just that they are part of the original porch on the house. As you noted, Mr. Turner’s bricks were plentiful.
It would be helpful if you could share a few links of the Federal Period houses you reference that also had similar porches and shed roofs in their original construction. There is the Rock Clift/High Banks house that you included in your application. Are you certain the porch and shed roof on it was original to the house? Could you share a few others that have that style porch as part of their documented original design?
Also, it would be helpful if you can share a few more details of the “miscommunication” that led to you proceeding with neither CAR approval nor a building permit. As a principal at a company (Urbanity) that specializes in old houses and navigating the city bureaucracy, I think people are surprised that you overlooked those basic steps. A little more elaboration and evidence from you might help dispel the perception that it was done on purpose.
I am not trying to pick a fight with my comments. I am just looking for a little more information to help me, and possibly others, be comfortable with the route you are taking with this particular part of the restoration.
Like us for our oldest house in Church Hill, there is very LITTLE as far as knowing how the house looked prior to the 1920s. We have to piece it together by descriptions as well as peiood houses in the area.
One helpful source would be the book “Old Richmond Neighborhoods” by Mary Wingfield Scott which is also available online, which shows tons of homes destroyed before 1930. Another are the Tax Assessor’s records at the State Library which shows cards on each property in Richmond and a photo attached taken in the 1920s-1930s.
I too would hope that you read my replies in the calmest of tones. I am not offended by your questions. There are 10 months worth of research behind this project.
The restoration is bound by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to use the photos, plats and deeds (the evidence) as my guide. In this case, we’ve been guided by the early-20th century images and my discovery of the original brick foundation.
Let’s separate the porch into it’s elements to avoid confusion.
I’m arguing that the original 19th century porch foundation was 18′ long. The evidence tells me that the original foundation was 18′ long. The 1930 photos shows an 18′ solid brick porch foundation, therefore, I have to go back with a solid brick foundation modified slightly (partial block, stepped back 1 brick width off the historic brick, sheathed in vintage brick, 17’ 6” wide so as to not create a false sense of history).
If you have an 18’ wide porch foundation, then you must have an 18’ wide porch and roof covering it. We see an 18’ wide shed roof with a built in gutter in the 1930 photo, therefore, I have to go back with a shed roof with a built in gutter.
We know that the roofing material in the photo was not original – it is tin. The original was wood shake. I do not have a photo of the wood shake roof, therefore, I have to go back with metal, as shown in the photo.
The porch posts in the photo may, or may not be original. The posts in the photo show that they are turned. The posts approved by the DHR are “contemporary compatible” to what is shown in the photo – not an exact match. The posts in the photo have a longer turned area (approximately 60”) than the “contemporary compatible” posts approved by the DHR.
In reply to your second paragraph: equally unfounded assertions.
Bricks… a little history. To complete the interior and portions of the exterior restoration I harvested bricks from three houses – one in Ashland, circa 1830, one in Mechanicsville, circa 1840 and another in Midlothian circa 1840. Putting a sampling from each house side by side – none of them were a perfect match. Color, thickness, height and width varied and none of them were a match for the Turner House bricks. Close, but no cigar. The biggest variance was the overall size, then the color; one house more brown, the other reddish brown, the other more garnet.
Captain Turner bought the land in 1803. As you know, the home first appeared on the 1810 census. Sadly, he died in April 1819. He had a foundry and at the time of his death he had 50,000 fired bricks (enough to build a house) and about 40,000 ready to be fired. Those bricks and many of his belongings were auctioned off in May 1819 to settle his estate. The home remained his wife Lucy’s property until it was sold in May 1829.
If you use the census date as the completion date of the house, Anthony Turner had just 9 years of brick making ahead of him before he passed away. 9 years worth of wooden brick molds, clay sources, wood, firing techniques, laborers, etc. It is doubtful that any brick lot created after the Turner house was built or the 2000 bricks needed to build the foundation scattered throughout Richmond would be identical to the bricks found in the main house.
If you throw out the brick foundation I discovered you could argue that any size porch or style could have stood in front of the house prior to the 1930 photo. However, we can’t. The bricks were identical in every way to the bricks in the main house and we have photos, deeds, surveys and insurance maps that verify an 18‘ wide porch existed as a part of the house up until the 1960‘s.
The pictures I mentioned are on my hard drive. I’ll look for those photos/sites I found them on. In the meantime, a home I remember from my youth. Firestone Farm – circa 1828, altered in 1882 – http://gfv1929.blogspot.com/2009/02/firestone-farm.html
Eric – I’ve poured through Mary Wingfield Scott’s book. The Turner house is one of a kind.
Thanks Deanna, could you also take a second to address my last question regarding details of the “miscommunication” with your CAR approval and building permit?
@12
John- What business is any of this to you? Mind your own business…one would think you’re stroking the check for these renovations!
Deanna has been very gracious to even respond to you…most would tell you F*** Off!
Ditto what Laura said
Alex # 14 and Laura #13, I think John’s question was on point, why no building permit? I think he’s been extremely nice in his posts.
To John, who is asking really important and really intelligent questions, my question now is, has historic resources actually approved the porch? Or is this something that has been submitted but not approved? I think it takes months to get approval.
And Laura #13, it is the business of every neighbor who lives in a city recognized and regulated historic district to help their neighbors realize the importance of abiding by their regulations. There are only a few people on staff at CAR, and they rely on the neighbors to help them in their efforts. I ran into a former neighbor who is a roofing contractor in a grocery store recently, and he said he always calls CAR when he sees potential violations, and encourages others to do so. His comments included that there are only three or so staff people there, and they need all the help they can get. I realize you might not like my comments. Sorry.
crd – @15
You directed a question to John: “… has historic resources actually approved the porch?” Isn’t that a question you should be directing to me? I have those answers, not John. John, as Laura pointed out, is not “stroking the check” on this project 😉
Take a moment to read my first reply again. Your question was answered in my first post. But, to be clear, I’ll answer again; Yes, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and National Park Service really did approve all elements of the porch restoration. My plan submissions, at best, were approved within one to three weeks (not months) depending on the complexity. The staff at the DHR are some of the finest, dedicated, diligent and thorough historians I’ve had the pleasure to work with.
………………………………………….
John – @12
I’m sure we’ll be addressing the miscommunication at the CAR meeting. If you attend, I’m sure it would be a pleasure to meet you. Since that was your last inquiry I hope the answers, research and reasoning I provided to address your questions prior were helpful.
More examples of Federal period homes with shed roofs and wide porches.
The Sully Plantation – Chantilly VA circa 1794 http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/sully-historic-site/history.htm
The Joshua Lowe House c. 1830. – http://mht.maryland.gov/nr/NRDetail.aspx?HDID=1264&FROM=NRMapCE.html
The Philip Alston House c. 1772 – http://jmpeltier.com/2011/02/28/north-carolina-the-house-in-the-horseshoe/
Tabb House, Yorktown – http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpb.03818/
Utzman-Chambers House circa 1819 http://www.octobertour.com/tour-sites/43-utzman-chambers-house-c-1815-116-south-jackson-street
Deanna’s research is good and compelling. Walking by and seeing the construction workers eyballing everything without permits is less compelling. The construction team seemed a bit off to this layperson passerby.
Sorry if I just can’t get more worked up over Deanna and crew mistakenly missing a step or two. We’ve got failing schools, crime picking up and hell, most of the guys on CAR push through much more offensive stuff than this on a good day. That’s not to mention national issues.
Want to know why Deanna missed a step? My guess is its because the process is an unnecessarily complicated clusterfuck. What are you guys planning to do with that information?
Let’s all cheer for the contractors who use the CAR process to gain a competitive advantage too! Forget the teachers, these guys are the real heroes.
@15… You said- “I think he’s been extremely nice in his posts…” The reality is…he’s been a real busy body in his posts. crd- you have no special right to having any sort of opinion about this project (or anyone else’s for that matter) that should be deemed credible. When you start putting your capital at risk…then, you’ve earned the right…otherwise, you, John @12, and the rest of you nosy a**holes should mind your own damn business. What gives you the right?
There’s a process (provided by city government) for this … CAR, the planning commission, city council and the mayor to address these issues. If you have an opinion, express it during the forum provided. Deanna and the homeowner owe you no explanation! You should be thanking your lucky stars that so many people have poured thousands/millions of their dollars into this neighborhood to improve it for everyone! Why don’t you say Thank you instead of trying to complicate their project based on your self-important views.
Deanna ,unfortunately you will never please the busybody asshole division of the church hill naysayers club. Those secret critics dont have the courtesy to even identify themselves so why bother replying to their anonymous muttering? They arent pertinent or,necessary to the success of your project.Good luck with CAR and thanks for the hard work and research. To you anonymous twits? How do you type with one hand in your pants?
Deanna, thank you for your thoughtful answers and research. My point in having the conversation in this forum was to avoid having it in front of CAR and endangering your coveted Consent Agenda standing. I appreciate your forthcoming replies and will not challenge your request today.
Laura, Alex, and Buddy, this sort of thing is everyone’s business. That’s how the CAR process works and why their agenda and her application are published for everyone to see prior to the CAR meeting. When you purchase property in an Old and Historic District, you open yourself up to the scrutiny of your neighbors. It’s just part of the deal.
Laura, all of us are helping pay for this project. She’s using historic tax credits, which is your money as much as it’s mine.
Alex, given your seemingly compulsive need to comment on anything posted on CHPN, I hope you appreciate the irony of your new found interest in people minding their own business.
Buddy, given the number of typos in your reply, I’m guessing that you might also only be using one hand.
John –
Thank you too for asking such diverse questions. I shared all of the above freely to answer the questions or concerns I might have raised with the porch restoration. I’ve found that conclusions are easily and more often jumped too rather than rationally arrived at without discussion, communication and facts.
Since you will not be challenging my request, I’d hope to see you there at my side supporting my request today. I’ll be bringing 210 year old bricks, plus some young’uns at a mere 173 and 183 years old, respectively. A site not to miss, indeed.
You have to respect properly directed passions and this blog is full of people that truly care about this little spot on the hill. That said, it is sad to be the subject of negative missives, integrity and motives questioned and my crew insulted. With the exception of you John, Nearby Neighbor and the Careful individual who does not know the limits of a CAD program, I know and have met all who have posted on this thread.
Thank you Alex, Laura and Buddy for being supportive and John, thank you for being a gentleman.
Deanna,
I am a bit confused because I see your mention of 210 year old bricks and also see mention elsewhere at a reality site that the house was built 1803. I believe that is erroneous. From the account of the 1965 Richmond Esthetic Survey and Historic Building Survey it says between 1803-1810. But the 1936 Madge Goodrich report lists it as the Richard Adams house and Plat Book SB 185C Page 347 says the “land” was sold in 1810. Then there was another transfer from Adams to Anthony Turner in D.B.6, page 435 H.C.C. But like you have also found, the Mutual Assurance policy issued in 1813 is a NEW policy for a new property so this would mean it was actually built (finished) in 1813.
Have you anything to support the above to believe the house predates 10 years earlier opposed to the deeds and 1813 insurance policy for a “new” structure?
Eric