Ricky Burgess moves to gut city historic preservation... (Pittsburgh, McKeesport: neighborhood, construction)

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by erieguy

Ummm, no complaints about National Parks. Private individuals don't own them.

Right, but with this line of thinking:

Originally Posted by erieguy

When you can write the check, buy it and then you can have a say.

it's a slippery slope. Just look at what's happening with regards to allowing drilling in National Parks.

[erieguy]

Originally Posted by tclifton

It means that I'm glad that the historic look and feel has been preserved in that area.

It doesn't boggle my mind any more than a community voting to not allow junked cars in the front yard in a suburb. We all live in a society, and what one person does effects other people whether we like it or not.

If that's what you like there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I wouldn't deal with it and won't be surprised to see some things change pertaining to those specifications.

[SteelCityRising]

All I know for certain is that as of a couple of years ago there were two very decrepit rowhomes across the street from me that had been vacant for many years. They could have been torn down and left to sit as empty lots. Instead they have been handsomely restored and are now listed for nearly $400,000. Assuming they do sell for that much (and I saw someone touring it with the realtor the other day) historic preservation, in this case, would be a MUCH greater boost to adjacent property values than NO historic preservation.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

All I know for certain is that as of a couple of years ago there were two very decrepit rowhomes across the street from me that had been vacant for many years. They could have been torn down and left to sit as empty lots. Instead they have been handsomely restored and are now listed for nearly $400,000. Assuming they do sell for that much (and I saw someone touring it with the realtor the other day) historic preservation, in this case, would be a MUCH greater boost to adjacent property values than NO historic preservation.

Were they on the historic register for the city or is this just a case of "I assume without historic preservation statues everything nice will be destroyed?" And what about the cost that it took to restore them vs replace with a new row home? Investments in old structures can sometimes exceed building new, hampering area redevelopment. And having lived in a structure that others may have decided needed historic preservation, depending on the extent the city went to "preserve", it could have rendered the building uneconomic to redo because wooden period details are incredibly expensive to redo.

[PreservationPioneer]

I am having the tree removed as priority #1. It is on my property, as the lot extends beyond the cliff. I have already saved the money to have it done. It just...sucks. But so far it was the only hidden problem I have encountered. I hope for no more $4k surprises. Lol

[ferraris]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam

If the tree was already there when the insurance policy was bought, probably not.

The idea of insurance is to provide coverage for unforeseen future occurrences, not things that have already happened. Can't purchase a policy on a burning house, or on a car that has already been wrecked or life insurance on a corpse.

The current laws which prohibit insurance companies from not covering pre-existing medical conditions are an anomaly from usual insurance company protocols.

So do you think the tree falling would even be covered? I'm just thinking it can't hurt to ask. Go to them with the reports from several arborists and have the insurance company send out their own arborist. If it's deemed a "when" rather than an "if" it would make financial sense for them to pay it out, unless of course they wouldn't pay out even if it did fall.

Originally Posted by PreservationPioneer

I am having the tree removed as priority #1. It is on my property, as the lot extends beyond the cliff. I have already saved the money to have it done. It just...sucks. But so far it was the only hidden problem I have encountered. I hope for no more $4k surprises. Lol

Do you have any long term plans or dreams of doing something with the cliff portion of the property? Could you install a deck or something and a walkway from the upper floors of the house?

I spent about that much on boring concrete work on my house's walkways and porch. And indeed it does just...suck. Still, it's a lot better than having a tree crash through your roof or having your front porch collapse one day!

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by eschaton

California Kirkbride is on the National Register of Historic Places as the Old Allegheny Rows Historic District. However, it isn't a city historic district. The difference is important, because national recognition doesn't offer any legal protection from demolition or facade changes. All it does is provide for federal tax incentives to maintain/preserve the property.

In San Diego, if something is on the NATIONAL REGISTER, it automatically qualifies for the local register, and City approval is pro forma. I believe most of California operates this way in regards to historic properties. If it's nationally significant, which is deemed to be a high honor, it's locally significant.

We would be SHOCKED that a nationally registered historic resource would be treated so cavalierly.

[PreservationPioneer]

This is a great point! I'm thinking about it now. How many National Register Historic Districts and individual buildings are there in the city of Pittsburgh, that are not recognized as city-designated historic districts? Old Allegheny Rows is one. Here is the (complete?) list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...,_Pennsylvania

Some that are on the National Register, but NOT among city-designated historic districts (meaning they have no protection) include:

The Strip District Historic District
Old Allegheny Rows
East Liberty Commercial Historic District
Firstside (downtown) Historic District
Fourth Avenue Historic District
Highland Park Residential Historic District
2501-2531 Charles Street
Brightridge Street Rows
Pittsburgh Renaissance Historic District (downtown)
many individual buildings also

Incidentally, many historic buildings have been lost downtown and in East Liberty recently, for new development. The buildings lost in East Liberty were in the National Historic District, which was not recognized or protected by the city.

Originally Posted by kettlepot

In San Diego, if something is on the NATIONAL REGISTER, it automatically qualifies for the local register, and City approval is pro forma. I believe most of California operates this way in regards to historic properties. If it's nationally significant, which is deemed to be a high honor, it's locally significant.

We would be SHOCKED that a nationally registered historic resource would be treated so cavalierly.

[RogersParkTransplant]

Sigh. Look, I am 100% sympathetic, but San Diego has a) many fewer historic properties, b) even fewer that are pre-1940, and none that have been through a Pittsburgh winter, c) virtually no blight, d) an extremely expensive housing market, and e) an extremely wealthy local population. I mean, yes, I would also be shocked if an historic building in Hillcrest, La Jolla, Point Loma etc were torn down, but the comparison is a little unfair given the vastly different circumstances. (I grew up in coastal North County, San Diego, FWIW, and would probably chain myself to the yellow house Pannikin if anyone tried to tear it down.)

I wish Pittsburgh could do more for preservation, but I also try to see it as a glass-half-full, and I try to recognize that there are certain harsh realities here.

[tclifton]

Originally Posted by RogersParkTransplant

Sigh. Look, I am 100% sympathetic, but San Diego has a) many fewer historic properties, b) even fewer that are pre-1940, and none that have been through a Pittsburgh winter, c) virtually no blight, d) an extremely expensive housing market, and e) an extremely wealthy local population. I mean, yes, I would also be shocked if an historic building in Hillcrest, La Jolla, Point Loma etc were torn down, but the comparison is a little unfair given the vastly different circumstances. (I grew up in coastal North County, San Diego, FWIW, and would probably chain myself to the yellow house Pannikin if anyone tried to tear it down.)

I wish Pittsburgh could do more for preservation, but I also try to see it as a glass-half-full, and I try to recognize that there are certain harsh realities here.

Sorry, but I just wanted to recognize how happy I am that you used "an historic" as opposed to "a historic"!