Weekend Random-Collection-of-News
* Durham County has issued a bid solicitation for contractors to demolish the two block area surrounded by East Main, Elizabeth, Ramseur, and S. Dillard Streets. The demolition of these structures, which includes ~3 historic buildings on East Main St. with renovation potential (one of which is a notable piece of early 20th century commercial architecture) will create a two-block surface parking lot for the new Human Services Complex on the west side of S. Dillard St. (Peabody Street east of Dillard will be closed to expand the parking area.) I've written about this several times before, and pleaded with the county to at least save 526 East Main St., but it appears that those efforts will be for naught. This is a major mistake in urban development, compounded by the fact that the need will be temporary. The county plans to build a parking deck in the 300 block of East Main St. that will obviate the need for those spaces in a few years.
* Dominion Ministries, last heard from when their plans to build a Level IV treatment center for violent youth at the Dillard/Holloway corner were averted by the Cleveland-Holloway neighborhood, appears to have gotten themselves in trouble with the county. The group that county mental health officials praised as the best of their providers during the contentious proceedings surrounding the land transfer is the subject of a complaint filed in Durham County Superior Court. The Durham Center alleges that Dominion owes $149,168.87 for services not rendered, and that Dominion failed to provide support services as specified in a contract that was amended at least five times over two years. Dominion's response has been to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) - subsequently converted to Chapter 7 (liquidation.) All the more reason to feel good that Cleveland-Holloway dodged this bullet.
1512 Fayetteville St., 07.24.08
*A demolition on Fayetteville St. that proceeded without the required Certificate of Appropriateness from the planning department/historic preservation commission was evidently, per sources, given a reprieve when Neighborhood Improvement Services deemed the property retroactively 'unsafe', allowing the owners to proceed with demolition of the structure in the Fayetteville St. local historic district without penalty.
*The Historic Preservation Commission hearing of Greenfire's request for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the structures at 118, 120, and 122 West Main has been deferred to the September 2nd meeting.
Posts
13 comments:
Jesus Christ. To seek forgiveness instead of permission to demolish a property in a local historic district is deplorable. Durham's Historic Preservation Commission and in particular it's historic preservation planner, along with committed Council members, and our legislative representatives need to figure out a way to get Durham's rules for demolition in a local historic district strengthened. Neighborhood Improvement Services should not have carte blanche authority to overrule this quasi judicial body known as the Historic Preservation Commission. In my hometown of New Bern the 365 day rule for demolition deferral was changed to indefinite deferral by its Historic Districts Commission, thanks to legislative action.
If Durham wants to look like the old man with several missing & broken teeth (analogy for empty lots and neglected historic structures), then we seem to have enough folks around who can get us there. If Durham wants to look like a city that treasures its architectural history by preserving its history & historic structures (large & small, ornate or modest), and mixing in appropriate scale & design new construction, then more people need to join in. Let's create a political will amongst a larger population of the Durham citizenry that puts preservation issues at the forefront and ask our representatives to enact policies to that end. And for all of those who have serious interest about the environment and about being green, I ask you to note Preservation North Carolina's mantra...."Historic Preservation, the ultimate recycling."
www.presnc.org
Myers
Old does not equal historic. True the area is a historic district and permits should be pursued according to the law. But in this instance the structure in question was not historic. It was old, dilapidated and not economically viable. So do we want a policy that precludes a property owner from moving property to an economically viable use? It was already a broken tooth. Historic Preservation should be a value in Durham but not the only value.
Anon:
Are you the owner of this property? Please share how you have made the assessment that this structure was of no value? Although I don't have the listing of each of the contributing properties in the Fayetteville St Local Historic District, I would be surprised if this property was not listed as contributing, and thus historic.
There seems to be a mindset that older structures like this one, or even the commercial properties like those in the much debated previous post are not significant because they are not ornate, grand, in good physical condition, etc. Do you know that the majority of "historic" structures in North Carolina are a part of a historic district, and not individually listed? Why is this? It's because collections of structures from a particular era are more common compared to something like Ayr Mount in Hillsborough. Historic districts are likely to be architecturally diverse, from grand to perhaps something as simple as a mill house. They likely share a common history, and were likely built with similar materials, of better workmanship than is used today.
If you lose sight of the past, then there is a missing link to your present and future. If you want an area devoid of history, then ride over to Cary. You will find neighborhood after neighborhood of what I call "pick it out of the plan book" communities. There is no sense of the past. Granted a lot of that land had never been developed before, but the point is, they never had the chance. We do, and should strive to incorporate it whenever possible.
I, along with other neighbors, previously purchased and subsequently sold a teens house in my own neighborhood. It could have easily been called dilapidated. The kitchen floor had rotted and was sitting on the ground, because the previous owner had allowed it to rain inside for an extended period of time. The original interior moldings had been removed, original doors had been replaced with hollow core doors...there was little redeeming to the eye. What ended up happening is the person we sold it to did a comprehensive rehab, including removal of the aluminum siding (exposing German siding), rebuilding the support structure, adding some detailing, and in the end came up with a nice 1600 square foot house on a large corner lot in an older established Durham neighborhood. HIs total commitment was $130K, including the purchase price.
So, please forgive me for having a hard time buying the argument that dilapidated and old are two excellent reasons to bulldoze an older structure. The term "economically viable" is too subjective.
Myers
There need to be better policies in place to govern the work of NIS, and the permission granted for tear downs. Those who care should probably arrange for a meeting of a reasonably sized group (3-6 or so) with the new City Manager Tom Bonfield in the first few weeks after his August 11 arrival.
It would also be nice to have the option of following failed orders to repair by forced sale or auction of the property, should the owner fail to repair, to a new owner who takes the property with a requirement to repair in a timely manner. And the new owner should get enough time to repair.
Myers,
I stand by my comment that old does not, alone, automatically make a structure historic. Old might make a structure historic if it is really really old.
I grew up in this area of town and have been familiar with the area for over 50 years. However, my asssessment that the building was not historic is multifacited. In my view, the owner of the property ought have a presumption regarding the economic viablity. Presumably he wouldn't go through the expense of demolitiion unless there were a higher and better use.
It bothers me when government or folks like you who have no economic intererst in the property get to dictate what happens with a property without clear and convincing proof that the property is in fact historic on some level.
I applaud your effort to preserve properteis for rehab where you use your own money to bank the land until someone with an interest in doing the rehab comes along.
However, this particular area of Durham has been economically depressed by Jim Crow segregation and "urban renewal" etc for probably 100 years. With the growth of NCCU and several other large development projects in that part of town, many of these property owners will now have the opportunity develop their properties, economically, or cash out with appreciatetion. Homeownership is a huge source of economic growth for families. These individuals should be able to access this value as they see fit unless their is clear and convincing evidence that the property is in fact historic.
Clearly this area will never be what Cary has become. Hopefully it will also not be locked into being a low income/ low wealth community either.
I also beleive that preservation and economic development, community economic development, can work hand and hand. To do so, neither side can see thier specfic interest as being the only interest.
Mr or Ms. Anonymous:
I suppose you and I will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this issue. Please forgive my bluntness, but your comments sound selfish to me. The whole "it's my property, and I'll do with it what I please" mentality is indicative of the me, me, me generation. It helps define us and lots of the US as a place where we care only about the here and now. The notion that we are mere stewards of our properties with an obligation to maintain them and make certain they can be functional for another generation is seemingly non existent in your eyes.
I do agree with you however that this area does not deserve (any area for that matter) to repeat it's cycle of low wealth, low income. How we prevent that from recurring by finding new and innovative ways to foster appropriate investment is where you and I likely part paths.
Myers
so, will this also include the former 305 South, and Rosa's II? The rumors on that have been looming, and i have to say both are structures that really could have been made into something. attempts to purchase Rosas were always averted, and the actual owners of 305 building just didnt want to be bothered with any of the upkeep or renovations, one of the many reasons the business failed, and the leasees had to pull out.
the area is simply stigmatized, and people really do want to make it safe and approachable, but if no one wants to sell or lease the spaces to you, what do you have? a completely isolated part of the city that just languishes.
TSQ75
Dear anonymous,
I agree with you to an extent.
What you are missing, however, is that there IS a presumption in favor of the landowner that their use of the property is appropriate. The evidence is designed to be heard in a quasijudicial hearing so that those opposed to the demolition can have an opportunity to refute the position of the landowner with competent evidence under oath.
The complaint here is that the landowner (you?) broke the law (violating state statutes and local ordinance). Why? We'll never know. This building never had its day in court.
Bigger question of course is how in retrospect, our City rolls over and chooses to waive hearing requirements for certain properties. Without a hearing, we are left to speculate - Who got paid off? Staff? Commission members? Elected officials?
hmmm
Tar Heelz,
Well we do agree on something. Great. Now let me at least ask you to examine your assumtions. First, I am not the land owner of any of the properties that have been discussed here. Second, I am not a developer nor do I have any pecuniary interest in any of these properties or their development. Third, your presumption that public officials have been paid off is really inappropriate. They are people who work full time for our community and are under paid and over worked. Those that accpetp graft risk jail time, as they should. If you don't have facts to assert against them, then it is unfair to simply make a broadside attack on them. Finally, I am not one of those officials. All of my comments here have been based upon principals that I believe in but not on my personal self interest. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that in these expressions you are simply expressing your true feelings without any pay off. Hmmm -- I guess that's is remarkeable to you?
Myers,
Your blunt suggestion that I am being selfish misses the mark. I am not the property owner. While I agree with your view regarding stewarship, I don't this this is the way to get there. The question is not about whether we share that value. The question is how do we make that value affect the behavior of property onwners.
Folks who put their money in the property are the ones who will make it better. Government is not going to do it. Hell the central business district in Durham is more than 40% owned by government, City & County. Government torn down the buildings that used to sit on the many surfice lots downtown. Without private developers like Greenfire or Captial Broadcasting, downtown's future would be as bleak and vacant as its past.
I don't believe that property owners should be able to do anything that they want with properties, historic or otherwise. There are zoning requirements and site plans that have to be approved at multiple phases. The public has it's chance for input.
I just believe that more folks will be willing to put their money at risk on properties if they can have some confidence that they will be able to do what they want with their investments rather than haveing know nothing do-gooders come in after the fact and throw a flag on their plans by characterizing the property as "historic" when, in fact, it is just old. The standard for making something historic ought to be high enough so that it is obvious to everybody concerned.
I point to the Rivera house at Lawson and Fayetville Streets. Nothing about the house is historic. The orignial owner sold the house to NCCU years ago and understood what their plans were for the strucuture. The architecture is reminicent of the late '50 and early '60. Clearly there are many similar strutures in Durham that are economically viable from this relatively recent era. Yet it is now being characterized as historic, not becauses of the structure but because of who the owner was. The owner was a photographer. His work stands for itself and is safely archived. He was not a brick mason or architect. He simply lived in the structure for most of his adult life. Well if "historic" applies to that then were do we stop. No one can say and that is the problem.
Anon who is glad that the Fayetteville House was torn down -
These structures have been deemed historic through review by historians and architects at the State Historic Preservation office. I doubt that's proof enough for you, though. I'm surprised that you would invoke urban renewal as a problem, since it seems that you are echoing the dominant argument of urban renewal (which is why it was supported by a diverse coalition of Durham folk at the time) - clear away the old to allow the development of new, 'modern' buildings.
Anon who asked about Rosa's and 305 S
It includes Rosa's, but not, as of the last renderings, 305 South (no plans to demolish on the south side of Ramseur, although this may change if the county decides it needs more parking.) Very unfortunate - there is a lot of possibility for these structures. I think one of the difficulties is that the TNT made everyone's life so miserable for so long, people were/are ready to blow up the block just to get rid of them.
GK
I think that's exactly the case, Gary.
TSQ75
"Historic" is currently defined as anything that was built pre-1958 [as in, 50 years or older]. There are rules and regs that have been put into place even on the national level [i.e. Section 106 and etc.] that has rather clear definitions.
A property owner shouldn't and isn't allowed to deem a structure historic or "insignificant" or whatever just because they have owned it for 15 years or whatever.
Also, if you want to buy a property and destroy a historic structure that is on it, just don't buy that property and buy one without a historic structure; it's not the community's problem that you can't make thousands (or more) dollars because of interested parties like the rest of the community or the HPC are "interfering" with a property owner's "rights."
The big problem here is, that the NIS let the property owner get away with the structure destruction retroactively... when you set legal precedents like that, it's gonna bite you in the arse one day. Plus, they could have made some $$ with the fines!
Post a Comment