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.
Love the house, but to tell you the truth, Oakwood would be the last place I'd want to stick it
I have some ideas on where it should be stuck .... Where's the city employee in charge of this fiasco? "Drop trousers sir, your retirement gift is ready"
A 2 minute perusal of the RHDC guidelines would have thrown red flags all over to this project, that someone would have to be going out of their way to see how big of a cluster-stuff they could turn this project into by ignoring them... some specific items:
Raleigh Historic Development Commission Guidelines
4.3.2 Design new construction so that the overall character of the site, site topography, character-defining site features, trees, and significant district vistas and views are retained.
4.3.6 Design new buildings to be compatible with surrounding buildings that contribute to the overall character of the historic district in terms of height,
form, size, scale, massing, proportion, and roof shape.
4.3.7 Design the proportion of the proposed new building’s front facade to be
compatible with the front facade proportion of surrounding historic buildings.
4.3.8 Design the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of
window and door openings in proposed new construction to be compatible
with the surrounding buildings that contribute to the special character of
the historic district.
4.3.11 Design new buildings so that they are compatible with but discernible from
historic buildings in the district.
The house doesn't violate any of these. If you think it does, then virtually nothing could be built on a empty lot in an historic neighborhood. I think there are some awkward aspects of the house that I really don't like, but it doesn't violate any of this.
Again, "compatible" doesn't equate to "looks like", and the Secretary of the Interior's standards are pretty clear about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcstef
There should be completion of training certification required for any home builders and permit seekers on a course on architectural consistency, just to help prevent this kind of thing from happening.
Funny thing, the seven test, 33.5 hour Architect Registration Exam includes questions on the Secretary of the Interior's standards about this stuff...
The homeowner went through the prescribed process, including submitting initial plans to and then going before the Historical Commission at a hearing where members of the community had prior notice and attended, making comments for and against. The commission then considered those comments and recommended changes to the design. Those changes were incorporated into the design prior to resubmitting to the HC and getting approval before submitting for and receiving the permit.
Doesn't really sound like an idiot homeowner to me. Which honestly I would expect given the homeowner's 30 plus years experience as an architect in this area.
30 years experience as an architect, in my mind, means he should know better than to throw a monkey wrench into the architectural continuity of any existing neighborhood, and he has less excuses than someone inexperienced in real estate matters. Homes that are vastly different from surrounding homes, depending on proximity to those homes, typically comes with a lot of problems, such as being hard to sell in the future (not just because nobody likes the design but because lenders get freaked out by them), negatively impacting the actual sales price of comps in that area. That's not my opinion, it's a fact.. there's lots of reading available out there on the subject, here's one for starters:
I will agree that my assessment that he's an idiot is just that, my assessment. If in fact he did cross all his t's and dot all his i's then I stand by my assertion that the city is on the hook for this, top to bottom, and he is only guilty of dumb decision making (and also IMO poor taste.... an architect of 30 years builds that ugly monstrosity?). If he did slip up during the process, and omitted some step that resulted in this, then he is not only an idiot of the first order, he should be permanently banned from the home building industry, just as a doctor who gets lung cancer from smoking should.
This is an historic district and the new structure is way outside of the time of history that is being honored.
That is, by how the standards are worded, how it's supposed to be. See post 12.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses
The rule of thumb is that an original historic structure should maintain it's historic facade, although a new addition in the back of a property should not try to copy the historic period but rather blend with it.
It's not a rule of thumb. There are specific standards that some folks choose to misinterpret.
The house doesn't violate any of these. If you think it does, then virtually nothing could be built on a empty lot in a historic neighborhood.
I don't think you're paying much attention to what I've said so far. I'm fully aware he was given the go ahead on the grounds that "his design was not incongruous with its guidelines" as they worded it. Is that the best stamp of approval you can get from this organization? He apparently had to make a bunch of changes based on their assessment, I didn't see anywhere that said he got approval that the changes would suffice, but I'm assuming the above statement came after those changes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOD
Funny thing, the seven test, 33.5 hour Architectural Registration Exam includes questions on the Secretary of the Interior's standards about this stuff...
Kinda makes you wonder if he got that one critical question right, ...you know, the one that said "Making sure you have approval in writing from all organizations that could potentially impact approval later is (a) a good idea or (b) not really needed"
.... or did he just get a minimum passing grade?
I don't think you're paying much attention to what I've said so far. I'm fully aware he was given the go ahead on the grounds that "his design was not incongruous with its guidelines" as they worded it. Is that the best stamp of approval you can get from this organization? He apparently had to make a bunch of changes based on their assessment, I didn't see anywhere that said he got approval that the changes would suffice, but I'm assuming the above statement came after those changes?
Kinda makes you wonder if he got that one critical question right, ...you know, the one that said "Making sure you have approval in writing from all organizations that could potentially impact approval later is (a) a good idea or (b) not really needed"
.... or did he just get a minimum passing grade?
You're really, really misunderstanding how the approval and permitting process works.
For those of you referring to "post #12", the compatible feature of new construction is for additions, not the entire structure. And don't confuse scale with size. Scale is the relative proportion of all of the external components, often following the golden ratio, in common use pre 1950.
With that said, of course this is a travesty, to approve something then to take back the approval. But did this really happen? What significance is the certificate of Historic...? My suggestion is just that the original architect review his plans for the exterior and determine a way to best make small changes that will allow the home to not look like a beetle sitting on a casserole. Color and landscaping can go a long way. Oakwood is a treasure.
For those of you referring to "post #12", the compatible feature of new construction is for additions, not the entire structure.
This is another common misunderstanding of the Standards. Since they cover several aspects, including renovation and alteration of historic structures, additions to historic structures, and working in historic districts (including new buildings in historic districts), the grammar gets a little squirrely at times. But they do apply to new structures in historic districts.
Another relevant quote:
"Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use."
Building a house in 2014 that looks like it was built in 1914 would be clearly against that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses
And don't confuse scale with size. Scale is the relative proportion of all of the external components, often following the golden ratio, in common use per 1950.
"scale" in architecture is something of an evolving term through history, but this is a very narrow use in any context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv4horses
With that said, of course this is a travesty, to approve something then to take back the approval. But did this really happen? What significance is the certificate of Historic...? My suggestion is just that the original architect review his plans for the exterior and determine a way to best make small changes that will allow the home to not look like a beetle sitting on a casserole. Color and landscaping can go a long way. Oakwood is a treasure.
Everybody realizes the final color isn't green, right? The siding isn't up yet.
Maybe all he would need to do in order to satisfy the purists is to add a styrofoam turret (for imprisoning wenches), tack on a little bit of Victorian bric-a-brac, and infest the new structure with mildew. Perhaps taxpayers could pick up the tab.
This whole thing is as nutty as a fruitcake.
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.
