Well, they should have at least put some "knock-out" panels below the downsized windows (and kept the same width), like you see in some commercial buildings in old downtowns. But here, they widened the windows as well, further adding to the horror. And once it is all sided over, you won't be able to tell where the original windows are at all.ludes98 said:Hmm must have been a price break on that size.
Since I live in house with some overly tall/long windows, I can say they are sometimes a pain. Try placing furniture when the wall has a floor to ceiling window, or windows that are only 24" from the floor. When you have the luxury to waste space it is nice, but when you have to put double beds and desks in the kids' rooms, it is hard.
Because it looks so absolutely ugly. I'm not asking them to preserve in an historic sense of the word, just keep the window openings the same (or put panels below downsized windows so you can at least tell where the original openings were)el Guapo said:Q. - Who gave the preservationistas the right to place a financial burden on individuals to support what they think is a grand idea?
A - Normally I agree with most of your rants SAC. But this one is different. Why is it a "shame?"
Before I was here, this town made the mistake of having a local historic district in a very working class neighborhood. It didn't go over well, and the designation was revoked. If a community wants to be strict about preservation guidelines on homes, most owners need to have the means to pay for the extra costs.BKM said:While I agree with the "ughs," I also agree with Guapo on this one. It may look "ok" when done. I have a problem with rigid preservationist regulations.
Modesty of means to me is allowed more leeway...
Why does zoning have the right to tell the common person how many sheds i can have on my property?el Guapo said:Q. - Who gave the preservationistas the right to place a financial burden on individuals to support what they think is a grand idea?
According to National Trust and other preservationalist groups, historic design regulation and district designation often ensures property value stability in declining areas and greater property value increases than adjacent, undesignated neighborhoods. I'm too lazy to find links, and I can't verify this. But it's a claim that's used.Will keeping a crappy house looking like a crappy house increase its resale value? Will keeping a crappy house "in-period" do anything other than please a Preservationista? Will dumping big money in to the house to stay with NHS suggested design critera in any way enhance the resident's lives? No, thinks I.
The new windows actually appear smaller than the old windows to me and would permit less light. The new windows are being put in for two reasons, energy efficency and the affordability over windows of the same proportion.You don't know the owner/resident's economic or life circumstances. The people may need more light from bigger windows because they are older and have failing eyes. There could be many reasonable and rational reasons for what they are doing to that home.
I agree. Community preservation can only be successful if the preservationalist own the property to be preserved. Unless their are government subsidies, grants, and other.To the presercvationistas I say "If you don't like the way a property is being managed - buy it"
Believe me, there's nothing I like more than trashing Yuppies, but to be fair, I have to hold the working class accountable for remuddles such as this and the attending destruction of neighborhoods. Sure, screwing up this house is preferable to some fresh-money a-hole in places like Hinsdale, Illinois or Stone Harbor New Jersey tearing it down and put up some $750,000 gaudy piece of crap, but the fact remains that this house has been turned into a shell of its former self.BKM said:While I agree with the "ughs," I also agree with Guapo on this one. It may look "ok" when done. I have a problem with rigid preservationist regulations.
Modesty of means to me is allowed more leeway.
Save the real focus of your rants for the mega-mansions. (God you should see some of 'em in my town. If you have $750,000 to spend, couldn't you hire someone besides Billy Bob the Local Yohkel to design your house) You do Yuppie rants so well, Cat.
As far as I know, this is a private rehab, but you're right in a way. Outside of historic districts, community development projects can pretty much do anything they want.Dan said:Looks like a Community Development Department rehab job of some sort. If it's subsidized by a local government., don't expect any sort of attention to architectural detail.
Well, it doesn't have to be pretty to be historic. This style of house is what I would call Minimal Greek Revival: Two story gable front with three bays and a minimal of architectural detail. Literally hundreds of them were built in cities like Toledo during the 1840s to early 1870s.It does look bad ... but IMHO not because there's siding and plastic windows. The new architectural elements are horizontally oriented, while the house is vertically oriented. A rhythm is broken, and it's a problem that could have been easily solved by using more vertically-oriented windows, even if they're plastic and have fake mullions.
The house was never a beauty to begin with. It wasn't a textbook Queen Anne Victorian, Italianate or shingle style, but rather a simple vernacular style that was considered plain for the day. The house seems typical of a style popular among simple German working-class immigrants, who probably built it with their own hands. Note the two front doors - it was a two-flat, which meant the original owners were probably not that well-off, using rent from a tenant to help pay the mortgage.
You must not be talking about CDBG. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would not permit a remodel of this nature with CDBG funds. If CDBG were used and the HUD CPD office visited this rehab, the sh!t would hit the fan in these parts.Super Amputee Cat said:As far as I know, this is a private rehab, but you're right in a way. Outside of historic districts, community development projects can pretty much do anything they want.
Exactly right. Perhaps if someone had gone to the homeowner and told him that by getting vinyl windows that were the same size, it would retain at least some of the character, and a lot of this disaster could have been mitigated. The result would have at least preserved the temple-front, three bay appearance with long-narrow dignified windows instead of the hole-in-the-wall pieces of crap you see here.Gedunker said:Replacement windows are not always the best alternative. Modern single-pane glasses can achieve very high energy efficiency without the destruction of architectural elements that are important to defining the structure and its environment. (An important fact, particularly if you are a neighbor that has invested in the sensitive rehabilitiation of a historic structure.) Interior storm windows are another possibility that would have been both cost efficient and architecturally superior to replacement windows. Those wood windows lasted at least 100 years -- will the vinyl perform that well for that long?
This looks to me like putting a Hundai grille in a Volvo. It's just not right.
Preservation that does not go hand-in-hand with education is not acceptable. These homeowners might have saved money and ended up with a better project if they had consulted a preservationist, IMO.
Yes, but this house, despite its age is not in an historic district, so such a rehab would be determined to be "No Effect" and we could do nothing to control the type of window being installed and only offer recommendations.Gedunker said:You must not be talking about CDBG. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would not permit a remodel of this nature with CDBG funds. If CDBG were used and the HUD CPD office visited this rehab, the sh!t would hit the fan in these parts.
Why don't you think this house is worthy of being preserved? Just because it isn't "high style." In Toledo, there were a lot more of these houses built throughout the working class ethnic neighbhorhoods during the mid 19th Century than the rich enclaves of high style Italianates or Gothic Revival, so I would argue that this house type is more significant for Toledo as it was home to such a large strata of working class residents.michaelskis said:To quiet an extent, I am in support of historic preservation on homes that deserve them. This house does not.
You're right about that. The housing violation file on this puppy was over an inch thick!michaelskis said:This house.... no... one that might be in better condition... yes.
From many of the indications in the picture, (apathetic attempt and a wrap around porch, abandoning of the window styles, and obvious neglect of the yard as well and maintenance) make me think that this house might be just this side of disrepair.
I disagree SAC. Any building listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP must be protected under 106. Rehab would qualify as an undertaking, triggering 106 and my SHPO would determine that this remuddle would have "an adverse effect". (Fortunately, we operate on a Programmatic Agreement, so SHPO and Advisory Council don't look over my shoulder on every project.)Super Amputee Cat said:Yes, but this house, despite its age is not in an historic district, so such a rehab would be determined to be "No Effect" and we could do nothing to control the type of window being installed and only offer recommendations.
Boiker, you found me out: Preservationist wolf in planner sheep's clothing :-Dboiker said:Gedunker: planner of historic preservation? Our SHPO would react exactly as you described, and in fact, has before.
That is a real problem. When nothing but the scale and massing remains, and when such a situation goes on for block after block, it is a valid question as to the historic integrity of an area. Our updated survey was done with a pretty sharp eye for integrity and, when it was largely gone from an area, the neighborhood was not determined eligible.boiker said:It is a contributing structure to a larger district. However, liberal use of the contributing tag would mean that practically all of the old housing stock in my town would qualify to be included on the national register.
Yes, but that's the point. This building would be classified as Not Eligible, even before the alterations. It is located in an area that has not been determined to be Eligible for the National Register. The area that this building is located in has undergone a significant amount of alteration and demolition over the past 50 years, compromosing integrity to the point that the area does not meet the criteria for eligibity in terms of integrity. Also, no historic context could be found for the neighborhood. It had a somewhat noteable German population in 1880 (40 - 50%), but many other neighborhoods (in more original condition) had much greater German elements during that era and would thus trump this neighborhood based on that merit.Gedunker said:I disagree SAC. Any building listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP must be protected under 106. Rehab would qualify as an undertaking, triggering 106 and my SHPO would determine that this remuddle would have "an adverse effect". (Fortunately, we operate on a Programmatic Agreement, so SHPO and Advisory Council don't look over my shoulder on every project.)
We have surveyed many neighborhoods over the past nine years, and I even got one listed on the National Register. As far as the neighborhood in question goes, the surveys were incomplete and based on windshield survey data documenting demolished structures.SAC: Do you guys have a survey of historic sites and structures? Indiana has nearly completed all 92 counties (and updated many, including my City). Outstanding resource. Unfortunately, not on-line |-)
I would have classified this house (before recent alterations) as contributing too if it had indeed been part of a listed or eligible historic district, which it is not.michaelskis: I would rate this house as a "contributing" resource to a historic district (based on the b/w photo), meaning that, by itself, it is probably not eligible for the National Register. However, if more research showed that it was a unique example of its style or construction, or if it had an association with a historic event of person, a possible "notable" rating. Notable means that it may be eligible for listing in the NRHP (but is not a sure thing). In Indiana, "Outstanding" resources are individually eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Yeah, I just scrolled back and saw the more recent phots. I would have been contributing in the b/w photo, but later alterations removed too much fabric, IMO.Super Amputee Cat said:Yes, but that's the point. This building would be classified as Not Eligible, even before the alterations.