City Guidelines Hurt Old Neighborhoods, Preservationists Say
An ideological battle over how best to preserve Richmond’s architectural history has gone digital. by Chris Dovi
Church Hill resident Laura Daab is circulating a petition asking the city to revoke guidelines that don’t allow historic-looking construction in historic neighborhoods.
An ideological battle over how best to preserve Richmond’s architectural history has gone digital.
Laura Daab is one of a number of people calling for reforms to the city’s method of approving construction and housing renovation applications in designated old and historic districts. She’s launched an online petition that asks City Council to consider changes in how those applications are approved. There were 113 signatures as of Monday.
Guidelines for historic districts prohibit new construction or additions from mimicking the historic look of an area. The approach is to make such new construction appears modern instead of faux historical.
Daab, a Church Hill resident, says such an approach could dilute historic districts by overwhelming them with modern architecture. The guidelines should be changed, she says, before new construction dramatically alters treasured historic city neighborhoods such as Church Hill, Jackson Ward and Shockoe Slip.
Decisions on new construction and renovation in the city’s 15 existing old and historic districts are made by the city’s Commission of Architectural Review, an appointed body made up of local preservationists, architects and other experts in the field.
Daab’s petition — at www.petitiononline.com/saveohds/petition.html — asks the city to remove clauses in guidelines requiring that “new construction should be contemporary in style, yet compatible with surrounding historic structures,” and prevent construction in the districts from attempting to “mimic previous architectural styles in such a way that creates a false historical appearance.”
That approach to historic preservation — which seeks to avoid Williamsburg-style proliferation of new structures that appear historic — follows established federal Department of the Interior guidelines.
But it’s also an approach that over time could dilute neighborhoods like Church Hill, Daab says, where an abundance of vacant lots means old homes could be outnumbered and overwhelmed by new construction.
“Old and historic districts belong to all of us,” Daab says. “We all benefit from them and enjoy them.”
City Councilman Bruce Tyler is leading a task force reviewing the city’s guidelines for preservation in old and historic districts. The group is soliciting public comment on possible changes to the guidelines.
Editors' note: In the print version of this story, we misspelled Laura Daab's last name. Style regrets the error.
Mateo I know of no one advocating for cheap knock offs of historic homesor modern ones, for that matter. Some of the most offensive infill in historic districts these days is not traditional, it is contemporary (metal cladding, overhead garage doors, vinyl windows, etc). Whatever one's preference, it seems odd to have modern design forced on people who've chosen to live in a historic district because of an affinity for the architecture of the past. Some of Richmond's most beautiful neighborhoodsBellevue, Ginter Park, Windsor Farmswere built in Revivalist styles popular in the 1920s &' 30s. No one accused these architects/builders of "false historicism: for appropriating earlier styles. (You might note, too, that none of these neighborhoods are City Old & Historic Districts and consequently, have not had modern infill/alterations imposed on them). Rather than rigidly imposing contemporary design on historic districts, the CAR should adopt a more expansive approach to differentiating old from new by admitting there are options to stylistic differentiation. How exactly does the instrusion of modernist design in historic districts protect historic character? I'll admit it satisfies other imperatives, but not the one for which CAR was established.
I don’t see how filling a neighborhood with cheap knockoffs of beautiful historic homes does anything to enhance a neighborhoods appearance. What so many cities have already learned is, the best way to showcase the beauty of an historic property, is to make sure only modern structures are built near them. This highlights the beauty of both structures. No one has ever been able to explain to me how a building built out of Plaster Coated Styro-Foam in the form of stones or vinyl siding does anything to increase the beauty of the neighboring historic home. Modern design is all about making the most out of the minimum. A modern house on the small lots in the historic districts would seem to be the best way to go. Not to mention the fact that with todays codes many of the lots will not hold a house that fits the historic requirements.
Buildings need to function differently than they did in the 1800’s. We neither live nor work in the same manner as we did in 1860 or even 1960 for that matter. If we only consider the way a building looks on the outside and not the way it needs to function on the inside, we will end up with even more empty buildings in the downtown area. Everyone complains about Richmond having a dead downtown. In part the reason is because the buildings don’t function the way we need them to. I do applaud the city for working out a master plan that may truly work towards making Richmond a great place to live and work. Just remember, you cannot reconstruct the past, nor should we.
Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:24:12 AM by Anonymous
Those Preservationists (Terrorist) are at it again!
Wanna see photos? Laura posted photos to a thread on this topic on CHPN a while back at http://chpn.net/news/2008/06/01/a-proposal-to-revisit-new-construction-in-oldhistoric-districts_1686/
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:15:15 PM by Anonymous
The "old" City Hall and the "new" City Hall sit on opposite sides of Broad Street. Broad has historically been the dividing line between the business sector and the black community and has been the scene of more than a few skirmishes concerning Civil Rights and the rights of the business community that still thinks it "owns" Richmond and the black politicians who think they own this city. If one is wealthy, one can imagine that they have all the resources possible to maintain the old ways. Similarly, if one is not wealthy, one must make do with what is and work to create a better future. Historically accurate buildings matter little when someone has to concern themselves with affordable housing. Get it?!
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:23:27 PM by hist arch
If you think there is no difference between 'genuine' and 'false' then this discussion won't go far. A dictionary would help you understand the difference
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:15:58 PM by Vitruvius
hist arch What's the difference between "false historicism" and "genuine historicism?" Do you disapprove of what early preservationists did, for instance, in Church Hill in the 1960s when they created St. John's Mews with salvaged fencing and pseudo-Wmbg pavillions? Do you disapprove of the Branch House on Monument Ave (is that a mockery of the British manor house after which it was modeled?) Do the period-looking wings of the State Capitol offend you?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:56:05 AM by hist arch
Part of my point is how poor of an article this is - show me some pictures, give me specifics.
Anon - I have stood at Broad and 10th but I don't see what you mean by the 'realities undergirding this whole debate' - how far do we go with the false historicisim, at one time that area was probably cow pastures, should we recreate that?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:22:42 AM by Anonymous
Symbols are important. All one needs to do is stand at 10th and Broad Street and gaze at Old City Hall and New City Hall to understand the philosophical and political realities undergirding this whole debate.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:48:32 AM by Scott Burger
I am sorry to say that despite one or two good eggs, City Council overall has shown very little regard to Richmond's old neighborhoods and citizens, for that matter. VCU and developers have final say, according to them.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 9:48:23 AM by Vitruvius
Williamsburg is a heritage tourism destination because of all those "false historical" properties owned by the Foundation and, mercifully, outside the purview of city historic guidelines. The federal guidelines, upon which Richmond's (and Wmbg's) are based, were developed decades ago when Modernist design was ascendant. Culturally, we've moved beyond that to an appreciation of classically informed, "New Traditional" design. The CAR needs to acknowledge that and move away from its rigid insistence on contemporary design as the ONLY way to differentiate old from new design elements. That goal can be achieved with subtlety and grace, allowing for a harmonious blend of old and new in our historic districts. If you want to see where CAR's fossilized thinking is taking us, head to Shockoe Bottom and look at the appalling new construction they'e approved at and behind 213-215 N. 18th St. and 213-215 N. 19th St. These structures stand in complete and jarring opposition to adjacent historic buildings and degrade the character of the entire district. Wasn't the preservation of historic character the purpose behind creating historic districts in the first place?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:05:57 PM by hist arch
If this is such an 'ideological battle' why was no one with the CAR included in the story? Not very good reporting (also spelled her name incorrectly - sloppy Style) Even the city of Williamsburg uses the same wording and guidlelines for their historic districts (except property owned by the foundation). If she continues with her crusade she may surprised at the changes council will enact.
