Rivera House Likely Saved
Per the Herald-Sun this am, the State Historic Preservation Office has designated the Edwards-Rivera House across from NCCU a state landmark - seemingly halting the ability of North Carolina Central to tear the house down, by finally empowering our own Historic Preservation Commission with the power I think they should have anyway - to deny demolition of the house.
I've never heard of such a thing happening, and it would be a highly welcome intervention by the SHPO to stymie NCCU's planned destruction of significant swaths of the College View neighborhood, although it's rare for buildings to be given the state designation, so this is unlikely.
But kudos to the folks leading this fight - it is an all-too-rare victory.
Posts
11 comments:
Note: Preservation Durham, at the request of the Historic Preservation Commission, completed the Statement of Statewide significance. The Historic Preservation Commission does not receive any funds nor does it have sufficient staff to provide this costly work. Preservation Durham, with financial support from the community supporters, is able to do this. We rely on the support of concerned citizens to be able to provide these services. Please consider donating to Preservation Durham to allow important preservation work like this to continue. Other ways you can help include: attend the Annual Home Tour on
Saturday, attend a walking tour or Lunch and Learn program, contact City
officials and let them know that you value the work of Preservation
Durham.
What Preservation Durham does to help Durham:
*Helps preserve endangered structures like the Rivera house. Negotiated a
plan to save the Tate House, at 1704 Markham Ave (to be moved in June)
through the Endangered Properties program. Have been instrumental in saving 25 historic buildings threatened by neglect and demolition
*Have helped raise the tax base of Durham County by over 3 million dollars by facilitating the sale and rehabilitation of neglected properties.
*Promotes the Rehabilitation of Historic Neighborhoods -Held a Home Tour
of Historic East Durham with Uplift East Durham, are working with the Burch
Avenue Neighborhood and College View Neighborhoods to nominated them to the National Register for Historic Places. Have assisted more than ten neighborhoods to pursue National Register listing or expansion.
*Provide opportunities for Durham Residents to learn about Durham History
through the Historic Walking tours, Old Home Tour, and Lunch and Learn
Programs,
*Provides the public with opportunities to learn rehabilitation skills. Offers the renovators network program monthly and has held job training programs with Peach and DAHC to teach lead safe historic rehab practices.
*Has recognized over 225 properties since 1976 with the annual Pyne Architectural Conservation award. Recognize individuals and programs with the Neighborhood Conservation award. Honor individuals who show outstanding leadership & sustained involvement in historic preservation with annual Bartlett Durham award
*Provides opportunities for learning about Historic Preservation Practices
throughout the country through the Preservation Leadership Lecture Series
*Helped establish the Historic Preservation Commission, the Historic Stagville Foundation, and St.Joseph’s Historic Foundation and Hayti Heritage Center.
We, like many nonprofits in this economy, are suffering financial hardship. If you support our mission, please consider making a contribution.
Ellen Dagenhart, President
Board of Directors for Preservation Durham
Who exactly owns this house? Who pays the taxes on it? Is it currently occupied? Does state protection mean that the people of Durham have to maintain and preserve this house no matter what it costs?
Neither the Durham Herald-Sun newspaper nor this blog has anything to say about what are obvious questions to 99% of the people in Durham.
In my opinion, you preservationists have really picked the wrong fight here. The expansion of NCCU is necessary for the future prosperity of North Carolina. Where do you think this state would be if 50 years ago UNC, Duke and NC State were worried about tearing down those ridiculous mill houses.
I really think you'd be happier in Italy. Nobody cares about the future there so they just let old houses sink into the ground.
Yeah, everybody hates Italy - despicably ugly place that no one visits.
Afraid you're going to have to prove to me that tearing down this house is key to the prosperity of North Carolina. And your analogy of Duke's expansion is rather poor - after all, the only mill houses demolished by Duke in its expansion were on Central Campus - a bleak, ugly place that the university is going to spend a whole lot of money trying to remake into something more vibrant. Doesn't exactly bolster your argument.
Everything you say - these dire, sweeping statements about the future of North Carolina - hell, let's just say the future of our nation, the world economy, global warming, etc. - are the same tired rhetoric that has been used to destroy places for a very long time. The thing is, it really hasn't panned out that way. I don't think someone stopping the demolition of Hayti would have been ridiculous.
While I take some issue with the growth of universities in general, I don't particularly have an issue with the growth of NCCU. I simply think it's a bad plan to decimate the College View neighborhood to do it. Grow high, and grow towards Alston. We don't need a sprawling campus to displace good neighborhoods.
GK
Well said, GK.
While our state statute on historic preservation is not everything many who value preservation would hope it to one day be...
It is very often overlooked that our General Assembly has provided every town, city, and county with the perfect solution to their historic preservation desires -- eminent domain.
That municipalities rarely put their money where their mouths are (and instead attempt to shift nearly the entire cost of the community's desire for preservation to the current owner), may tell you more about local priorities rather than the State's (or SHPO's).
PS - We were recently part of a successful effort to have a landmark home in Raleigh declared of "Statewide Historic Significance." (Don't hate the player, hate the game, I say.)
When did UNC tear down any "ridiculous" mill houses? If there was a mill adjacent to the UNC (Chapel Hill) campus, please come forth with the original information as I'm sure the town would like to know that it once had a mill...
Previous anonymous: don't be an ignoramous
Sorry, but I have to ask these questions again since nobody was willing (or able) to respond to them:
Who exactly owns this house? Who pays the taxes on it? Is it currently occupied? Does state protection mean that the people of Durham have to maintain and preserve this house no matter what it costs?
This man might have been a fine photographer but surely a permanent exhibition of his work at the Duke or NCCU art gallery is a better tribute than the preservation of a 90 year old tract house.
This is where you preservationists go off the rails. "Old" is all that matters to you. You think that there was some wonderful "urban America" that existed a hundred years ago where everyone cared about their neighbors and had dozens of friends within a 5 minute walk.
The fact is that the tone of the old urban neighborhood was set by the loudest wifebeaters and the loudest drunks. Everyone who has ever lived in an apartment complex knows this. Americans are taught from birth not to snitch to the cops so nothing is ever done about it.
As soon as cars were available in the late 1940s, people got out and created new communities. Communities noted for their lack of drunkenness abd wifebeating.
When you can assure this kind of atmosphere, maybe your dreams about Durham will come true. You have a long row to hoe.
I don't really need to respond to your rhetorical questions, do I? I'll correct you on one, though, which is that the state of North Carolina is the governmental body involved - so the "people of Durham" would be substituted with the "people of North Carolina." As it's owned by NCCU, of course they don't pay taxes on it. Because our taxpayer funds are funding all of this activity, and the house is owned by a state entity that is tax exempt, we, as the people of Durham (and North Carolina) should of course have a say in its future. (Especially since NCCU plans to take a large quantity of land off the local tax rolls.) Perhaps that helps with your you're-not-a-stakeholder argument.
Your description of neighborhoods dominated by drugs/alcoholics/thugs/domestic violence doesn't really have anything to do with old buildings - you've made this point in your own argument by saying "anyone who has ever lived in an apartment complex knows this." I'm sorry if your experience or knowledge is dominated by neighborhoods that were overpopulated with ne'er-do-wells, but it has nothing to do with preservation. Old neighborhoods can be as idyllic or as decrepit as the people inhabiting them/their local government allows. I've never heard any of the residents of Hope Valley, Forest Hills, or Trinity Park complaining of public drunkenness or rampant domestic violence as their major neighborhood issues. Should every neighborhood be Trinity Park ? - absolutely not. But the common factor between those neighborhoods and the picture you paint are the old buildings. How can these disparate conditions exist between such neighborhoods? The logical conclusion is that the old buildings don't have anything to do with it. Economics has everything to do with it - and that is a tough problem to solve. But it simply doesn't have anything to do with whether the houses are old or new. I can work on economic disparity, economic development, job creation, etc. (much of which I do) - but my point here is to remind people that the old buildings don't have anything to do with it - so don't knock 'em down just because it's easier than fixing entrenched poverty.
And I'll go ahead and counter with what would be a smart rejoinder, which is that the university provides educational opportunity, which correlates with economic success - so isn't the expansion addressing the very problem I've ID'ed above? Ah - now that's an interesting argument - but the question is whether the buildings proposed actually will change the educational attainment of North Carolinians, and since folks from NCCU come from all over, is the loss of the College View community worth that broader goal for the state?
The best answer, of course, would be to expand more wisely. Taking out blocks of Fayetteville St. is just an approach of convenience - and ironically, probably motivated by the fact that it's a nicer neighborhood. I'd argue to grow more towards Alston, and to grow higher, reducing the expansion footprint of the campus.
"Old" is only part of the calculus of what neighborhoods or buildings are worth preserving. It's a combination of historical relevance (which tends to ride shotgun with old), urban form (the relation of the buildings to the other buildings in their immediate environs), and individual craftsmanship (including unique/irreplaceable materials.) I'd say that people arguing for the preservation of this particular house are a broad cross-section of people with varied motivations - they're people, of course.
But the idea of expanding towards Alston would take out old houses as well - actually some housing that is older than what is in College View. But context, relevance, and urban form win out in that case - College View has it, and Alston, not so much.
GK
Umm, actually there *was* a fair amount of discussion in Trinity Park (and Trinity Heights) over the issue of public drunkenness and the quality of life issues it affected. Led to Duke buying up a bunch of houses, most of which have since been resold, and are in various stages of renovation. The discussion matters and can be fruitful.
And I haven't been to Italy, but it sounds very nice. Especially the part about old buildings. ;-)
Right, my error. (Although one can argue over when drunkenness becomes public.) The point is that the age of the houses didn't have anything to do with a bunch of drunk college students and a permissive landlord.
GK
Also, it's not that there is (necessarily) less drunkenness, domestic violence, and other forms of unhappiness in suburbs--only that with houses farther apart, with less of a sense of community, and with less public space, it's harder to see and thus easier to ignore. Dense urban neighborhoods--with buildings old or new--mean tighter, stronger communities that can help prevent such things.
Post a Comment