Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is a topic that my neighbors and I have discussing, and there are different opinions on the subject.
Is any entity - whether a local neighborhood homeowner's association, the city or county government, or even the National Park Service - entitled to create a "historic district" which seeks to preserve and maintain the historic character of a place?
Many people feel that their home is their castle, and that their rights and freedoms are abridged if they are required to maintain the historical character of their property. It's an issue when a homeowner owns, say, an 18th Century colonial brick townhouse and they want to modernize it with floor to ceiling glass windows and stainless steel trim.
Locally a real estate developer wants to tear down an entire block of two story 1870 stores and build a multi-story student housing apartment building. The developer has stated they own the property and they seek to maximize their profits. The local homeowners are livid and in a state of extreme consternation ... but do they have a right to dictate to the developer what he can do with his property?
I live in a residential neighborhood that is entirely Victorian homes built between 1860 and 1900 with ornate porches and fancy 19th Century architectural styles - "Queen Anne" homes with corner turrets and wrap-around porches, "Italianates" with fancy bracketed cornices, "French Second Empire" homes (which mine is) with slate mansard roofs, "Flemish Revival" homes with fussy gables and so on. About two decades ago a very slight majority of my neighbors voted against having our neighborhood designated "historic." It was felt that if it becomes a registered historic district in the city and county (it already is a federal registered historic district, but that is practically meaningless - it places no responsibilities or restrictions on the property owner) such a designation would come with restrictions.
One neighbor of mine who voted against the historic designation explained to me "I don't want anyone telling me what color I can paint my house!" Interestingly, ten years ago I needed to have my house painted and I decided to go with colors that were authentic, historically accurate and appropriate for an 1890's Victorian house ... I only had about 288 color choices and the only ones not on the color charts where bright shocking pink, day-glo neon green, and fuschia.
I love history, and love visiting historic places. But I differentiate between historic places and old places. If some place is truly historic, then I would hope it would be saved. But if it is just old, who cares. A good example would be my hometown of Palmyra, NY. There are very few truly historic places on Main Street...perhaps the building where the first Book Of Mormon was printed. And of course, the apartment where I was born!! The rest of the buildings, though most date to the 1800s, ought to be torn down and new buildings put in their place.
On the other hand, developers don't need to take our history away from us just to maximize their profits. There are plenty of old buildings that don't have any historic value, or open land that has never been built on. Seems like they could use a little restraint, too.
I support them, but I think they have to allow reasonable waivers approved by a board composed of residents.
It's obvious to anyone buying a property in a historic neighborhood that the value of the property there is contingent on the historical aspect being preserved. There are plenty of other areas available for modern construction.
Here is a topic that my neighbors and I have discussing, and there are different opinions on the subject.
Is any entity - whether a local neighborhood homeowner's association, the city or county government, or even the National Park Service - entitled to create a "historic district" which seeks to preserve and maintain the historic character of a place?
Many people feel that their home is their castle, and that their rights and freedoms are abridged if they are required to maintain the historical character of their property. It's an issue when a homeowner owns, say, an 18th Century colonial brick townhouse and they want to modernize it with floor to ceiling glass windows and stainless steel trim.
Locally a real estate developer wants to tear down an entire block of two story 1870 stores and build a multi-story student housing apartment building. The developer has stated they own the property and they seek to maximize their profits. The local homeowners are livid and in a state of extreme consternation ... but do they have a right to dictate to the developer what he can do with his property?
I live in a residential neighborhood that is entirely Victorian homes built between 1860 and 1900 with ornate porches and fancy 19th Century architectural styles - "Queen Anne" homes with corner turrets and wrap-around porches, "Italianates" with fancy bracketed cornices, "French Second Empire" homes (which mine is) with slate mansard roofs, "Flemish Revival" homes with fussy gables and so on. About two decades ago a very slight majority of my neighbors voted against having our neighborhood designated "historic." It was felt that if it becomes a registered historic district in the city and county (it already is a federal registered historic district, but that is practically meaningless - it places no responsibilities or restrictions on the property owner) such a designation would come with restrictions.
One neighbor of mine who voted against the historic designation explained to me "I don't want anyone telling me what color I can paint my house!" Interestingly, ten years ago I needed to have my house painted and I decided to go with colors that were authentic, historically accurate and appropriate for an 1890's Victorian house ... I only had about 288 color choices and the only ones not on the color charts where bright shocking pink, day-glo neon green, and fuschia.
What do you think?
And this is why I won't live in an HOA. Same thing, but at least a historic district would be preserving and upholding something, not just dictating asinine rules to collect money.
I thought proof of a significant occurrence was required to dub something "historic" to protect it?? In any case, we definitely should be preserving old structures for future generations. Seeing things in person has a much greater impact that just photos. I think the condition of the structure should be taken into consideration as well as any historic relevance. As pointed out above, some old buildings are special, some are just old.
Individual rights actually cover a lot less than many people choose for typically no or selfish reasons to believe. Property rights are defined and defended by the state. The state is free to add controls and conditions to whatever such rights they extend to individuals. HOA's are free to establish similar controls through contracts willingly entered into. Marlboro Man Machismo does not stand up against the law.
Historical significance meanwhile need not be tied to any significant event.
the city of New Orleans has embraced the notion of maintaining historic context in the feel of the French Quarter and other areas of the city...
the feeling is that the archietecture and vibe are critical for maintaining the tourist #s, etc.
While I personally appreciate the old buildings and the vibe that comes with being in the area,
I would not want to live in a place designated as such...
the costs and constraints that come with that sort of situation is just too onerous for me to consider living in these areas.
Getting period correct moldings and other details "right" comes with a sometimes exorbiant fees.... sure I understand that a craftsman fabricates much of this sort of stuff by hand, and that time equals money... but that sort of mandate can get out of control fast....
I can understand running a business in such a designated area, if you have deep pockets and don't mind contributing to the preservation of very unique areas -- it helps that the costs of maintaining and preserving the historic context in a business setting gains preferrential tax treatments when compared to the treatment of personal homeowner expenses.
Here is a topic that my neighbors and I have discussing, and there are different opinions on the subject.
Is any entity - whether a local neighborhood homeowner's association, the city or county government, or even the National Park Service - entitled to create a "historic district" which seeks to preserve and maintain the historic character of a place?
Many people feel that their home is their castle, and that their rights and freedoms are abridged if they are required to maintain the historical character of their property. It's an issue when a homeowner owns, say, an 18th Century colonial brick townhouse and they want to modernize it with floor to ceiling glass windows and stainless steel trim.
Locally a real estate developer wants to tear down an entire block of two story 1870 stores and build a multi-story student housing apartment building. The developer has stated they own the property and they seek to maximize their profits. The local homeowners are livid and in a state of extreme consternation ... but do they have a right to dictate to the developer what he can do with his property?
I live in a residential neighborhood that is entirely Victorian homes built between 1860 and 1900 with ornate porches and fancy 19th Century architectural styles - "Queen Anne" homes with corner turrets and wrap-around porches, "Italianates" with fancy bracketed cornices, "French Second Empire" homes (which mine is) with slate mansard roofs, "Flemish Revival" homes with fussy gables and so on. About two decades ago a very slight majority of my neighbors voted against having our neighborhood designated "historic." It was felt that if it becomes a registered historic district in the city and county (it already is a federal registered historic district, but that is practically meaningless - it places no responsibilities or restrictions on the property owner) such a designation would come with restrictions.
One neighbor of mine who voted against the historic designation explained to me "I don't want anyone telling me what color I can paint my house!" Interestingly, ten years ago I needed to have my house painted and I decided to go with colors that were authentic, historically accurate and appropriate for an 1890's Victorian house ... I only had about 288 color choices and the only ones not on the color charts where bright shocking pink, day-glo neon green, and fuschia.
What do you think?
Ten years ago or so Hillary Clinton came to Troy to visit an old house which had been the home of an early women's movement person. It was in a slum. It got all fixed up, because it was a slum itself, repainted, etc.
She gave a speech and left. The building is a slum again occupied by welfare people.
There are a lot of interesting old neighborhoods around. But the key word is old. They are outdated and people don't want to live in them after the initial charm rubs off. Things wear out, become obsolete and people don't want them anymore, except in the abstract.
This is going on in Albany now where they are trying to preserve some dive hotel because it's old. Apparently, some famous politicians stayed there a long time ago. Now it's no more than an anachronism and always will be.
Its all about property rights and putting your money where your ideals are when it comes to preserving historical districts.
If enough people (investors) believe in maintaining historical districts and put enough money together to purchase all of the 'historical' building in the area, and keep them that way, then it acceptable.
But claiming that an area needs to remain a historical district, while not having any vested monetary interest in the properties in the area while attempting to get the city and/or state to require that the are continue to be a historic district in direct violation of the property rights of those that currently own the land/buildings and have other plans for it - is a direct violation of the property rights of the current and future owners.
As someone else said, there is a difference between "historic" and "old." My house was built in 1950, but it's not"historic" in any way - it holds nothing of value from the 50s and only represents what was low to mid-range building standards in the post-war period. If I had the money I would bulldoze it and start over. I can't stand that people of that time did not find closet space important. It's very obviously built for a "woman in the kitchen" era because the space is dominated by a spacious kitchen where the women must have spent most of their time.
I think it depends on the quality of construction. If it was high quality construction from the time, it's probably worth protecting and enhancing. If it's just an older neighborhood that low-to-middle class people lived with normal for the time materials, I would leave it up to the homeowners to decide whether to keep that or change it. I see two reasons for keeping it - it there's some sort of communal agreement in place like what they've got in New Orleans where the people have decided to preserve the character of a place, or if the place has some sort of local or national historic significance.
Otherwise I don't see any reason to restrict updates that property owners want.
I love history, and love visiting historic places. But I differentiate between historic places and old places. If some place is truly historic, then I would hope it would be saved. But if it is just old, who cares. A good example would be my hometown of Palmyra, NY. There are very few truly historic places on Main Street...perhaps the building where the first Book Of Mormon was printed. And of course, the apartment where I was born!! The rest of the buildings, though most date to the 1800s, ought to be torn down and new buildings put in their place.
On the other hand, developers don't need to take our history away from us just to maximize their profits. There are plenty of old buildings that don't have any historic value, or open land that has never been built on. Seems like they could use a little restraint, too.
Many people have different ideas on what "old" means. It's all relative.
People also cannot agree on a precise definition of what "historic" means.
The concept of "historic preservation" is a rather modern concept ... dating only to the 19th Century and it started in this country with a ladies society that sought to save Mount Vernon, the home of George and Martha Washington (I learned this at a lecture I attended). A group of ladies were anxious to raise money to save Washington's home, which had fallen into disrepair and the plantation was being sold off parcel by parcel. The house could very well have been demolished.
For many years a building was only deemed historic if a very famous person lived there or some thing very important in the history of the country took place there. I don't think anyone would argue that Thomas Jefferson's Monticello and the McLean House were Lee surrendered to Grant is "historic." Nowadays there are a few other reasons why a building is protected from demolition - it might be an outstanding example of a certain type of architecture, it might be unique in some way, or it might be the last surviving example of a certain type of building and so on.
Last edited by Clark Park; 09-14-2015 at 05:01 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
