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
Plans for 307 North 21st Street
07/09/2014 10:05 AM by John M
Via a reader via Catherine Easterling with the city: the CAR application for the demolition and reconstruction of 307 North 21st Street (PDF)
CAR approved the application on May 27, 2014, with the following conditions:
- the three-foot front door shall be a single door with a transom, if possible
- the windows shall be wood as indicated by the applicant
- the front porch roof may be membrane and not standing seam metal
- final color selections must be reviewed and approved by Commission staff
- the building foundation may be rebuilt or parged
- significant cornice details shall be salvaged and reused
- and open or enclosed side porch that references the existing building’s porch must be incorporated into the design of the new structure
Emily, I say it looks like something from a German Expressionist painting or movie. Take a good look at the siding especially around windows and doors. Only a drunk could stand up straight in it 😉
This is great to see…was worried that corner might just be left empty if the house was only demolished, but nice to see plans for a new house going up in its place. Does anyone know what happened to the two houses that used to be on the corner of 21st and Marshall? I noticed from some old pictures it looks like there were two other houses there….probably suffered a similar fate as this one?
I see that Peter Megyeri of Historic Richmond Renovations, LLC is the proposed contractor. I have not seen much of his work but do know he did remarkable things with half of a double house at 415 N 27th after it was burned to nearly a hollow shell on March 5, 2012. The owner had no insurance and no intension to fix it up while hampering renovation of the other half by a different contractor (which still remains unfinished). The city was ready to demolish the shell side until Peter bought it to fix back to its pre 1968 so-called facelift then sold it to the people who live there now. I know he worked with Elder Homes years ago. He is BBB Accredited with a A+ rating since 2011. Only problem is that the S.C.C. shows his company name license has been cancelled as of April 30th. Odd.
There are key elements that make a house like this stand out and as long as he gets those spot on, the rest should fall into place. Things such as the porch especially roof, proper size and pane number windows, decorative cornice and corbels replicated, and correct narrow width siding.
Looking at the plans though, there are no interior walls noted for rooms?
Eric, he probably hasn’t shown interior walls because CAR only rules on the exterior appearance, not the interior. And also note that CAR has attached certain conditions, as listed in the top of this thread (stuff like cornice details to be salvaged and reused.)
I’d prefer a renovation but this pretty much replaces the original except the walls will be hardiplank.
Why can’t everything that’s been demolished recently have a replica?
Why can’t 2119 Selden St get a replica?
I am seeing a whole lot of backseat real estate developing going on here….you guys are doing great
Cadeho: everything that’s been demolished can’t have a replica because of…math. When you actually do real estate development – you know…like with your own money…math sort of plays a role. And it doesn’t work out in every case to replicate what was there
Cadeho, this is something that concerns the CAR. Some people have even been through court battles concerning what they consider “false historicism”. It was a catch phrase on these threads a couple years back when new in-fills were planned and structure alterations being made. I am glad that they seem to have come to terms with this somewhat and replicated building are now being built. But if you look they are not 100% exact to keep a bit of “new” to it to distinguish new from old.
I need to talk further with Catherine Easterling about this to get some CAR updates.
backseat… even so, there are certain guidelines with plans to be approved by the CAR prior to construction. One is that a new or replaced structure has to fit into the immediate neighborhood designs which is why the 3-story atrocity on Broad near 21st was such a controversy. It doesn’t fit in and someone let this fall through the cracks.
The Better Housing Coalition is one group that seems to be on the right track with designs fitting in and have for years.
Eric, CAR is bi-polar. The reasoning behind their existence is to preserve architecurel harmony.
Jimmy at Carvattie’s has clashed with them on numerous occasions when someone trying to restore a house wanted to purchase and reuse salvaged materials. The CAR opposed this because, ” a hundred years from now it should be apparent what is old and what has been replaced”. When I first heard this I didn’t believe it, but sadly it is true!
A recent example of this “logic” is the iron fence at 28th and Broad St. CAR fought these people tooth and nail. However, the fence is up and looks great. But they had to fight for it!
When a governing body dosen’t follow their own rules, they lose ALL credibility!!
@ Jean McDaniel
– Trying to find a source for this/I’m not describing this well, but:
There are a couple of interesting articles floating around the web that deal with this “distinguish the new from the old” idea. There are at least a few architects and architectural critics who have basically said that it was a load of nonsense that first made it’s way into the Federal Historic Rehab/Reno tax credit to satisfy a lobby of contemporary/modernist/whatever architects that were opposed to anything that might hinder their plans to remake the world out of glass and concrete boxes.
Again, trying to find a good link/not explaining this well, but get my drift?
I’d be curious to know if historic neighborhoods in other cities (e.g. French Quarter in NO, Beacon Hill in Boston, the Battery area in Charleston, etc.) follow this same logic. My bet is no. I would imagine that when work is done in the French Quarter, every effort is made to make it fit / blend into its historic surroundings. And if this is the case, then why does Richmond’s CAR take a different approach?
jean, I know Jennie Dotts and her husband Walter who had to fight the city to put up that beautiful iron fence because there was no “photographic” proof that it existed or one in that style. If you can prove it was a part of the original architecture or style then you can add it but they were going on the fact that it fits the “time” the house was built and similar fences. They won but not without having to dish out $$$ in battles. They also had a battle about a porch roof too. Oh, it would have been fine if they wanted to add a white plastic fence from Lowes, just not an original ornate iron one. Go figure.
Lee, if you find something please let us know. I can point you to the CAR manual about building designs having to fit but if you can find other references that would be great.
Kai, I lived in the French Quarter almost 5-years in the late 1970s-early 1980s and know that they are very protective about what can and can’t be done. Such as no air conditioner units showing street side. No altering of façades, certain wood has to be used, and they have charts of approved paint color samples. I have seen where building have collapsed but they prop up the façade and reuse the original. Behind those street side walls and gates are open courts and what is in there or what you do with that is your business unless it is public access. A couple years back I did some investigating of what other historic cities do and posted some findings then. Will have to search those out.
Lee… here is the link to the Old & Historic guidelines that the CAR follow (or supposed to) plus some key passages about new construction.
http://www.richmondgov.com/CommissionArchitecturalReview/documents/Old_Historic_Dist.pdf
Page 41:
As authorized in Section 930.7 of the City Code, the Design Review Guidelines also contain additional standards for rehabilitation, new construction, demolition, site improvements, and signage. These additional standards are used by the Commission and staff for further interpreting the standards contained in Section 930.7 and are used in the review of applications for Certificates of Appropriateness.
Page 5:
9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Page 44:
FORM
1. New construction should use a building form compatible with that found elsewhere in the immediate area. Building form refers to the specific combination of massing, size, symmetry, proportions, projections and roof shapes that lend identity to a structure. Building form is greatly influenced by the architectural style of a given structure. (The building around the corner doesn’t follow any of this)
Page 45:
SCALE
1. New construction should maintain the existing human scale of historic residential and commercial neighborhoods. The inappropriate use of monumentally-scaled buildings that overwhelm pedestrians at the street level is strongly discouraged. (This would also reference the 3-story modern building around the corner)
We should be happy that the CAR is approving a structure that is basically identical to what is there rather than some plain slab-sided industrial or modernistic piece of crap building. Going against all that is written as a “guideline” that they stress, the CAR could if they wanted to as we know. But this time the architect saw it fit to replicate and Catherine Easterling approved it so a BIG Thanks to her since she makes the final approval.
And the fact that the current owner as of June 25th is also the contractor and architect who submitted the plans and respects historical architecture while doing the right thing… doesn’t hurt.
Eric
Thank you for the info. Since you explained the iron fence situation I remember just how ludicris it was at the time. What if I have a photo of a chain link fence from the turn of the century surrounding my house?.., does that mean I can put it back ?
I must say, when we did our addition, we had no problem with CAR. I think in part because we hired Walley Mills as our architect.
Jean, yes. If you have a photo from 1900 that shows a chain link fence but you wanted to put up an iron or wooden one, you couldn’t but can put up the chain link style. Ugh. That was part of their bullying during the time when “false historicism” was such an issue. But think it was also during a time when a certain board member was there pushing his modernistic and “Frankensteinish” designs since he is an architect. And that is probably why you were able to get your changes done without grief. It depends on who is on the board who votes on the plans and who was the person who gave the final approval decision. And the rule book was updated a couple of years back changing up some of the wording in their favor to allow them to be more free with interpretive decisions on a per case basis rather than restricted to set rules and leaving a few loopholes in the mix. I think I reported recently that Charleston, SC uses the guidelines set by the National Parks for the Historical Registries rather than making up their own like the CAR’s “Old & Historic”.
Also noted by Charleston, using the National Registry for their Historic Districts doesn’t allow for doughnut holes or voids between district borders like we have. Theirs was more planned out to avoid them and you also eliminate the mismatch of boundaries like we also have between CAR’s Old & Historic Districts versus the National Registry of Historic Places (ie Church Hill North Historic District). The monstrosity of a convoluted house that sits at 3314 N Street has every unconventional detail you can imagine on the house and two Italianate houses were demolished to make way for it because this block sits in one of the doughnut holes.
What is the latest on this house? I have now notes some lower siding removed but no demolition yet?
Looks like they’re reusing the foundation from the old house. Anyone have idea why they’d do that? Are they able to claim tax credits if they keep the foundation?
Alex, they might be reusing old bricks, but it’s a new foundation.
crd, I’m not trying to be argumentative but am genuinely curious what makes a new foundation? It seems like they’ve basically taken the bricks that were there and filled in the gaps / added a few CMUs to the back. That doesn’t seem new to me so I’m curious how you’d define “new foundation.”
In general, I’m just wondering if it’s really cheaper to reuse? I’d have assumed it would be easier to just clear that lot off entirely and start from scratch.
Alex, I’ve driven by but not regularly. Seem to recall that they poured cement at some point, added CMUs and possibly bricks. What I meant was they might not have bought new bricks. I have no clue if they’re used bricks from the old building. I do know that they have to rebuild it as it was when they tore it down, that was what CAR told them. I’d have to go over and look to say any more right now.
The hole remained for so long that I quit looking but do seem to recall that some of the exterior wall brick was still standing and that they may have built the rest around it – but I could be wrong. It does look bad, patched looking and sloppy in places which is probably why it looks like the old one is still there? By design or was patched… does anyone know for sure?
I am glad to see this getting close to completion and looking like the original structure. Siding is already going on.
I live across the street and have been watching. I believe if they use the original footprint the new owners can get tax abatement? Eric would probably know. Worried because it went up fast, then sat for a month tyvek-ed. I wish the siding was a more lively color. Kind of looks like everything else in a one-block radius. Not that I’m looking for a Skittles rainbow… Now if we could do something with the remaining 21/Marshall block, that would be exciting.
@dontmincewords… I was a bit worried when I saw 2nd floor walls free-standing without a proper room frame structure and wondered how this whole house is going up? But it eventually was blocked in, by whatever means. I suspect weather had some factor with the building spurts? The siding is hardiplank per the plans and already colored to look like the original color of the house that was there. I like the Victorian colors too but I rekon there is a reason outside of CAR approval? I am just glad it isn’t some modernistic monstrosity replacing the old structure like around the corner from it and the developer has some appreciation towards preserving our historical neighborhoods. I am just curious as to why the CAR didn’t cry foul (or false historicism) as they would have 5-8 years ago?
Where are the decorative attic vent panels that goes between the corbels as were on the original house and add the Victorian flair the original had? I don’t see them on the house being built.
Plans attached above, show the double side porches like on the original but there is some sort of odd designed panel over that area where they are supposed to be. What is going on with that?
FWIW, builder waved me in to do a walk-thru today. Nice place, great little details and bonus storage in the attic front. I believe he said they plan to list at $335,000 based on the recent sale of 320 N. 21st. Open house TBD since it’s Labor Day weekend. 2-car off street parking.