Comments on HPRB denies S Street addition - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Committee of one for an emphasis on the future

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:08:32 EDT

Curiously, I can't agree with any of these points of view, neither the proposal nor the arguments against it. I suspect the basis of the debate must be founded on the absurdity that history might in any way be "preserved".

Comment by crin

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 06:45:34 EDT

The owner could have taken her design proposal to HPRB as a contract purchaser. She could have had her answer to whether a third floor addition could be approved BEFORE she bought the property.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:19:53 EDT

@Mike, Sorry to hear the Post didn't get rid of Marc (sic) Fisher completely. At least they've apparently put him where he can do far less harm. (Or so I hope.) I got some clarification about the Lucases. Yes, you are correct, the had indeed lived in that house for many years ... And the son had moved them into the basement some 3 years before the Marc Fisher's story.

Below is an interesting comment posted on Marc Fisher's own online column that provides us with the rest of the story.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2008/01/preservation_update_lucas_fami.html

Originally, we were all led to believe that D.C.'s historic board just turned down flat an elderly couple, rendering them incapable of exiting their basement apartment, in order to keep a porch--or out of just plain cussedness. Over time, the truth trickles out.

I remember well the revelation that Mr. Fisher failed to contact the historic preservation division for his first story on this property. And so we eventually find out--not through any effort of his--that it was not possible to build a ramp in front of this house in the first place, because there's not enough room in the front yard to build one that would nearly comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. And we find out that the historic board, recognizing this, recommended from the beginning a wheelchair lift in the front of the house (Mr. Fisher has now conveniently forgotten all about the ramp). About a week ago, it came out that the couple has been in the basement for at least three years and that the space was not properly prepared for them prior to that move, with a bedroom with no window, for instance (see yesterday's Mary Ellen Slayter article, "What You Call a Bedroom Might Not Be One"). Finally, Fisher blames a delay in getting permits on the government (and takes credit for a resolution), but it now appears that it was attributable to the owner's failure to consider all available options or present blueprints that met building codes! You may share my opinion that the taxpayers should not be paying for that (but with the backing of a large newspaper, one can hardly be surprised that the son goes after the deep pockets).

This is indicative of a larger problem. Too many "journalists" today choose not to let the facts get in the way of a good story. The standards for research and corroboration are, in practice, amazingly low, the usual excuse being the pressure of deadlines. Writers less talented and less ethical simply cannot resist the temptation of writing the story that they imagine in place of the one as it truly is. One can look at the evidence provided by the proliferating critiques and exposes of print stories, mostly available online. Or one can simply compare some event with which one is familiar to the press accounts of it. It can be really sobering how sloppily and tendentiously the "facts" and conclusions can be presented. It's no wonder that readers are sniping at each other here, given the obfuscation of the truth. In the confusion, readers often cleave to their own prejudices. Such stories thrive on conflict--other people's conflict--real or ginned up. Thus, the false choice presented between preservation and the needs of the elderly, or anyone else. These stories need victims and they need bad guys (and, let's be honest, don't we all like to go after "bureaucrats"?). The methods and aims are ultimately manipulative.

In this instance, the Post can presumably hide behind the idea that Fisher is an opinion columnist and need not be held to a high standard, despite the conspicuous play many of his pieces have received--sometimes without clear identification as opinion (the editors would do well to turn the scrutiny of its "Fact Checker" column on some of its staff). But such a columnist exemption would not apply to all the Post's employees, and its readers do not need journalists to obscure the facts of stories in order to juice their impact or, in retrospect, to protect their own "credibility." Perhaps Mr. Fisher, for one, should stick to series about (and with all the complexity and drama of) trouser-related litigation.

We are witnessing the slow death of a medium and of this particular outlet. The kind of budget and staff cuts evident at papers elsewhere are at play here. In the last few years, the Post bought out a lot of its longtime, highly paid columnists and replaced them with the likes of Fisher--the Post apparently feeling that the suburban-white-guy perspective was underrepresented on the paper. But he's really no better or more valuable than any other guy sitting on his sofa yelling at the television--except that the Post presumably and remarkably pays him money for this. In a place like Washington, you could hardly chuck a rock without hitting someone who would do a better job. Heck, there are dozens of bloggers who do so on a daily basis, free. So, in the same spirit of free, online contributions, I offer the Post the following motto: "'Raw Fisher': Not even half baked." For you, fellow readers, I offer: "Don't believe everything you read in the papers."

Posted by: Briggs | January 28, 2008 11:54 AM

Comment by Mike

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:11:46 EDT

Lance,

Wrong again. Mark Fisher is still writing - and editing - for the Post. He heads up a SWAT team of ten writers who have traveled around the country reporting on how economic changes have transformed lives and communities. Today, they are finishing up a series of reports from local coffee houses about the mood of the District, or some such thing. By the time you read this, the stuff will probably be on line. At least that's what someone named Mark Fisher told me when I called the Post switchboard and asked to speak to him.

So you were mistaken about Lucas' parents living in the house that was their home for 47 years, and mistaken about Fisher no longer being at the Post. Wanna go for the trifecta, my friend?

Comment by Lance

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:28:51 EDT

@Mike, That Washington Post piece was written by Marc Fisher. His articles were always long on sensationalism and short on facts. Fortunately he's no longer writing for The Post.

Comment by Mike

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:16:44 EDT

@Andrew:

"The Lucas case was tricky for a variety of reasons, but when there is misinformation on all sides, it is virtually impossible for residents to understand the facets of the issue."

Bingo. You hit the nail right on the head. And that should be the last word on this subject.

Comment by Andrew

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:42:03 EDT

@Mike

You realize that the ramp proposed by the property owner was not ADA compliant?

Did you know that the HPO suggested a number of alternatives which were rejected by the property owner because they suggested that the alterations be temporary and not permanent?

The Lucas case was tricky for a variety of reasons, but when there is misinformation on all sides, it is virtually impossible for residents to understand the facets of the issue.

Comment by Mike

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:43:50 EDT

Lance,

It drives me nuts when historic preservationists rewrite history. Here's from the 2008 Washington Post piece, which should prove that your friends are willing to lie to you when they tell you the parents never lived there.....

"For more than a year, Richard Lucas has been trying to win permission to cut through his elderly, infirm parents' front porch so they can get from their living quarters onto the street without climbing stairs. And for more than a year, the D.C. historic preservation authorities have found reasons to say no to a ramp.

After all, as the city's architectural historian put it, "repeating porches of similar height and depth create a notable pattern and rhythm" along the Lucas family's Mount Pleasant street, and the District wouldn't want to let that rhythm be broken just to accommodate a couple of old folks who have lived in their house for 47 years."

For those who wish to read more - and there's PLENTY more about how OHP and HPRB used to operate, simply google "Marc Fisher Washington Post Mt Pleasant," and go to the article with the headline "Human Dignity Needs Preserving Too."

As I have said, they're a lot better now, but had they not cleaned up their act, they would have been put out of business by the Feds.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:22:50 EDT

@Mike. That had been a rental for many yrs. The parents never lived there.

Comment by Mike

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:52:37 EDT

Lance,

Oh, please. The applicant in Mt Pleasant had been begging OHP to address the ADA issues for more than six months....and it wasn't until Marc Fisher wrote a scathing piece in the Wash Post - and an Assistant Secretary at HUD started a 45 day clock on OHP/HPRB and began a federal investigation that things started happening.

His parents, who were 89 and 91 years old, were in desperately poor health. My strong recollection from the article was that they had lived in that house for more than 40 years. That, plus the pictures of them with oxygen masks, are the two things I remember most clearly from the Fisher piece. I am not sure they lived long enough to move into the renovated home or how it all ended.

I would also point out, in fairness, that OHP/HPRB were marvelous when Gil Hill suffered his terrible fall and an elevator had to be installed to allow him to remain in his S Street home. They couldn't have been better. I DO think OHP/HPRB learned from the Mt Pleasant case and some very necessary reforms were quickly instituted.

@ Julie: My recollection is that Gray forced the HPRB nominees to meet with representatives of DCPL and C100. I'm not sure what other groups - if any - were represented at the meetings. Perhaps Lance can help with this, because he may know some of the people who were there.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:17:21 EDT

it seems be illustrative of the inside dealing and why individual homeowners and disability rights groups and first amendment groups have had so many issues with HPRB and OHP.

This is such a broad-stroke of half-truths that I'm not sure I want to get into taking a defense against it. For example, I know Mike is referring to a case in Mt. Pleasant where an owner of a rental house wanted to dig out the front yard of a two-story front-porched Wardman style house to effectively turn the house into a 3 story rental building. He claimed it was to allow his elderly parents to access the basement apartment. In fact, the parents had never lived in the house. Additionally, there was 'level' access to the basement from the parking spaces behind the house AND HPO had offered a lot of other solutions to the access issue. But this wasn't what the owner of the house wanted because simply put all he wanted was to be able to put a 3 story rental building in the middle of a historic neighborhood filled with front porch Wardman-style homes. Mike calls this 'an issue with disability groups'. It's only an issue with them if they didn't understand the facts of the case. The ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) always trumps historic designation protections when they come into conflict. And part of HPOs and HPRB's job is to determine if they really are coming into conflict.

Comment by David Alpert

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:40:05 EDT

I can't agree with Mike's criticism against asking the nominees to meet with preservation groups. All they had to do was meet with them. As I recall, the nominations still went ahead regardless of whether the preservation groups liked them or not.

In many cases, not a lot of thought seems to go into many Fenty nominees, as we discussed recently about the Zoning Commission. I don't think this was a nefarious power play by Gray to try to pressure Fenty into having more anti-change nominees. I think it was just an attempt by Gray to get Fenty to be less unilateral all the time. I don't think that's such a bad goal.

Comment by Lance

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:17:06 EDT

@Julie I just thought I was buying a great house with a lot of potential.

I think you're bringing up an interesting issue 'potential'. I'd bet the agent(s) that sold you the house said something like "at this price this house has great potential" ... The truth is that zoning regs notwithstanding, 'expansion' potential for properties is limited ... Limited because inherent to a historic district designation is that a property not outgrow the 'scale' of its neighborhood. It can have 'potential' in other ways ... but in terms of 'expansion', that 'potential' is indeed limited because your interests must be balanced with those of your neighbors. You paid the price for a 2 story house for that property because that's what the historic district designation did. It essentially said 'the expansion potential for this property is limited'. Hence when the seller put it up for sale, they didn't price it with the thought that someone can come in and put a 3 story house in here ... or a 4 story apartment building in here as the zoning code would otherwise allow. Take a look at the selling prices of the 3 story homes across the street from you ... Or at the assessment values at:

www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Search.jsp?search_type=Assessment

You'll find that the values of those 3 story homes with the mansards roofs across the street are considerably higher than what you paid for your home.

In a nut shell, no one 'took' anything from you. You didn't pay for that extra expansion potential. It really would have been a bonus for you had you gotten it. And likewise, I think it would still be a bonus for you if you worked out something with your adjacent neighbor to be able to build bigger by doing it in a way that didn't create a valley of death for them.

It's always easy to blame others when you can't get what you want. But it's harder to admit you had no right to it in the first place.

Comment by Julie

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:37:14 EDT

@Mike, thanks for clarifying. I didn't think anything illegal had gone on -- just a political power play. (I'm a political consultant, so I know about political gamesmanship.) Would the Dupont Circle Conservancy be considered the type of preservationist group they had to meet with, or are there more hard-line preservationist groups wreaking havoc out there? You know, as much as I have heard, "Well, she knew she was buying in a historic district, she should have known better," the more I really wonder how much regular people do know about the process. I'm a pretty astute person, but I had no idea I would get caught up in all this nonsense. I mean, yes -- do the right thing, put in proper windows, conform to the architectural norm, but I was not prepared for this buzzsaw. I just thought I was buying a great house with a lot of potential. Sigh. Thanks for all of your insights.

Comment by Mike

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:02:16 EDT

Julie wrote: Finally, @Mike, I admit I didn't quite follow all of your points with the ABRA analogy, but one thing I did want clarification on is the role of Vince Gray with the HPRB. Denise Johnson, whose personal mission it was to kill my project, is a huge supporter of Vince Gray. Did Fenty have to compromise on HPRB appointments to satisfy Vince Gray? Is that what I'm hearing? I imagine Denise is angling for a new appointment to the Board if Gray is elected.

Julie, Vince Gray did nothing illegal here. But it was unprecedented for a Council President to refuse to grant the Mayor's nominees a hearing until he forced them to meet with preservation groups. Council members were not permitted to hear from the nominees in a public forum nor could they vote on them until preservation groups could first grill them behind closed doors. That's the kind of power play that leads individual homeowners like you to feel locked out of the process.

It happened quite a while ago and, as I said, it was not illegal, but it seems be illustrative of the inside dealing and why individual homeowners and disability rights groups and first amendment groups have had so many issues with HPRB and OHP. Things are getting better, but the playing field is far from level and some groups and opinions always seem to be more worthy than others.

Comment by Lance

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:38:40 EDT

@TwoCents, While HPRB is citywide, the 'rules' they were enforcing were the local and federal 'rules' that apply to the specific historic district that this house sits in. Not all of the city is in historic districts (at least not yet), and each of the historic districts have their own 'rules'.

Comment by TwoCents

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:21:04 EDT

Many of the commenters here tell the owner to move to a "friendlier" neighborhood that would allow the change. Please note that this addition was not put up to a neighborhood vote. I am sure there are mixed opinions among the neighbors. The Dupont Circle Conservancy (which is the local voice for preservation issues) gave this project the thumbs up, along with support from the Dupont ANC at their last meeting. It was the CITYWIDE HPRB that said no, so if you want friendlier neighbors you will have to leave DC.

Comment by Lance

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:38:54 EDT

@Julie, Thanks for the explanation. I think you did the right thing 'trying' ... 'Pushing the envelope' can be a good thing. It makes people think through their rationale for why they do things as they do ... instead of just saying 'we've always done it that way'. Reviewing your circumstances, I suspect one thing that really made it hard for your house to be the one to 'change the rules' is that it has a specific history attached to it ... And that's something you can't do much about unfortunately.

If I were in your position, I'd still explore the Tom C. option ... Yes, I'd bring the adjoining neighbor into the discussion though. You don't want to create a 'valley of death' for them ... But you don't have to if you work with that neighbor. (Btw, I am currently in a similar situation as your neighbor, but am working things out with my new neighbor, a developer, who is nearly tripling the size of the house next door to me ...)

Comment by HistoricShaw

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:44:49 EDT

Sorry for your troubles Julie. The architects plans look really great, and I'm a big fan of that roof/3rd floor style. I think it would have looked great.

I personally don't find new construction that is appropriate to the historic aesthetic of the original building to be an issue at all. The house would not have been an anomaly if that exact same addition had been made in the late 1800's - so I don't see why it would be inappropriate now.

It seems that this project really did a good job trying to maintain that aesthetic, and increase the value and attractiveness of the house at the same time.

To a much lesser degree, I feel your pain Julie. Just dealing with the HPRB and the permitting staff on a much smaller project in Shaw has been a nightmare.

We should start a HPRB support group for homeowners in historic districts.

Comment by Julie

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:00:10 EDT

Wow -- a lot has transpired since I went away for the weekend. I would like to clarify a few points.

@Lance -- neighbors in the three 2-story adjoining houses to mine, and perhaps more, all enthusiastically supported my addition. I would need to check all of the supporters' addresses from our listserv correspondence to confirm if there were others in the immediate row, and I suspect there were. Also, I did meet with the HPRB staffer way back in February and he was discouraging, to say the least, and said that he was certain that the DCC and ANC would both oppose it, as would he at the staff level. At that point, I decided to seek a second opinion, just to be sure, and I met with the DCC President -- who was a complete stranger to me, btw, so no cronyism involved. She recognized the unique situation my property presented as a corner that was not currently given the prominence corners typically are, and she encouraged me to proceed. So I did go into this knowing it would be challenging, no question. But after receiving the support of all but one of the DCC and then the unanimous approval of the ANC, I thought that rational thought just might rule the day.

Regarding the HPRB staffer: First, I don't want to put words in his mouth re "he had no choice" but to oppose it. That is a characterization my architect made to me as well as my observation of his testimony. I think it's accurate, but I don't want to misrepresent him. And this was a key part of his staff recommendation (the part that HPRB seemed to ignore, in my view): "The BoardÂ’s published design guidance (Â“Roof Decks and Roof Additions: Design Considerations and Submission RequirementsÂ”) discourages but does not outright prohibit visible roof additions:

In rare cases, a visible roof top addition may be acceptable if it does not fundamentally alter the character of the building and is sufficiently designed to be compatible with the building."

He went on to say: "In the instance of a corner property, the setback approach to make an addition not visible from the street obviously is not an option. Accordingly, the applicants have developed a handsomely-designed and well-proportioned mansard roof, a form found on the block and within the neighborhood. The argument for its compatibility is based on the propertyÂ’s corner location, in which other corners in the historic district are cited as precedent Â– immediately across S Street and on the adjacent block at 15th and Swann Â– where similar Italianate styled houses historically had third story mansards. Strictly from an urban design perspective, this argument has merit; grounding corners with taller buildings or with structures that have a picturesque profile may result in a more interesting streetscape. The proposal is further enhanced by the restoration benefits that it would bring to the property and by the architectÂ’s skillful design. The use of the concave shape, as an example, softens the profile of the proposed roof and modestly reduces its mass." And then he went on to make arguments against this exception. But to me, he did make a strong case that if there were ever to be an exception, this might well be it. And that is what is so frustrating to me -- he outright asked for guidance from the HPRB and got none and they just glossed over the notion that this proposal had unique merit and then hid behind the staff report.

@Lance, as for the Tom C solution, we rejected that idea because that would leave my immediate neighbor locked in a "valley of death" situation as my neighbor two doors down has a very large extension at the rear of his property. We did not think it would be fair to sandwich my immediate neighbor in. The DCC also strongly discouraged this -- they do not want to see zoning variances handed out and huge extension built on the rear of buildings. In fact, one of the ironies here is that in the end, doing the 3rd story would have been the MOST sensitive solution for the neighbors.

Finally, @Mike, I admit I didn't quite follow all of your points with the ABRA analogy, but one thing I did want clarification on is the role of Vince Gray with the HPRB. Denise Johnson, whose personal mission it was to kill my project, is a huge supporter of Vince Gray. Did Fenty have to compromise on HPRB appointments to satisfy Vince Gray? Is that what I'm hearing? I imagine Denise is angling for a new appointment to the Board if Gray is elected.

@Aydin, I do think you're a jerk and a hypocrite. You live in a three story house virtually across the street and yet you don't want me to have what you have.

And here is why I feel so very strongly about Denise and Aydin and the others who opposed my project. Would a third story affect their lives materially in any way? Really? Because it has a huge impact on my life and my ability to someday raise a family in this home that I love in the District that I love (and of which I'm a 20 year resident). So they attacked my home and as much as they want to adopt a faux-friendly "agree to disagree" approach, that doesn't cut it. You can't get much more personal than attacking someone's home. As far as I'm concerned, they launched a personal attack on me that I will never forget -- all because historic preservation is their hobby. And for the record, there were only four opponents on the block listserv vs. 20 supporters (some of whom emailed me directly and not via the listserv), so the opponents were out-numbered 5-to-1 by supporters.

Finally, @Lance, I do appreciate that you are trying to offer constructive solutions to me (the Tom C approach), but I have already spent many, many thousands of dollars and extra months on this (granted, a risk I took knowingly), but I don't relish the thought of spending many more thousands on a complete reconfiguration of the plans. We considered all options as my architect testified to and really thought this was the best, most sensitive way to achieve my goals. Now I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.

Comment by David Alpert

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:40:19 EDT

Lance: Denise Johnson attended the DCC meeting and presented her opposition, I assume very similarly to what she told HPRB at their meeting.

Comment by Lance

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:21:24 EDT

Mike, I wouldn't be so harsh on OHP/HPRB. Like the old saying goes, there are always 'two sides to every story'. I don't think we (or the members of the Conservancy present that evening) had heard 'both' sides prior to recommendations being made. I don't know if there was anyone at the Conservancy's meeting representing those opposed to the 3rd story. As Tom Coumaris' posting here as well as Aydin Tozeren, it's clear that there was at least some opposition from closeby neighbors.

I used to belong to a similar organization in another neighborhood where no 'presentation' was made unless ALL effected parties were notified of the meeting and invited to participate AND no one would leave the room (including the applicant and those 'opposed') until a solution had been hammered out that everyone could live with. In a few instances no agreement was possible, but that was rare.

Comment by Mike

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:57:33 EDT

Lance,

I never said it's unfair, and my thoughts are virtually identical to those expressed in the DCC resolution.

They almost always oppose third floor additions. They feel this one has particular merit, especially because it is a corner house. The rhythm of the block (or in this case the S Street block AND the 15th Street block) would be enhanced by this corner addition. Corners are special. But it would be totally inappropriate to seek a similar third floor addition in the middle of the block. I agree with all of that.

And while there are no third floor additions on this block, it is my recollection that there are third floors additions across the street. I'm not certain, but I think there's one on her friend Mr Tazeren's house.

Again, I agree with you it's not a matter of fairness. But I agree with the Conservancy that the proposal was of special merit and would have enhanced the neighborhood. And I repeat OHP/HPRB won itself no friends by siding with the staffer (who said he had "no choice" in the matter) over the "neighborhood volunteer groups" - the Conservancy and the ANC.

Comment by aydin tozeren

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 02:35:55 EDT

I own 1442 S St, a three story row house adjacent to the corner unit across from Julie's.

I received the following email from Julie:

"And for the record, Aydin, I think youÂ’re a pompous jerk and a hypocrite. IÂ’m sorry if thatÂ’s not civilized enough for you, but those are my sincere feelings. If IÂ’m going to tell Denise how I feel about her, I might as well be direct with you, as well.

Be well,

Julie"

I never really met this lady as she moved in about a year or so ago and I teach in Philadelphia. I have been in and out of DC due to my travels in Europe for my sabbatical. It goes without saying that I opposed the addition.

Best

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:30:40 EDT

forgot to close an italic sorry ...

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:06:15 EDT

@Mike, "In this particular case, a well-meaning neighbor who went through an expensive and tedious process and did all the right things seems to have been alienated." ... (Bolding added) ...

I was first tempted to say she DIDN'T do all the right things because had she FIRST conferred with HPO she would have learned that in the 25 odd years that there has been a historic district in Dupont, NO ONE has been allowed to add a 3rd floor on to a row house where that 3rd floor is visible from one historic street ... much less 2 historic streets. BUT upon second thought, I realized that can't be. Julie is a smart cookie from everything I've heard. She knows exactly what she is doing and has acted in a manner that puts her in a position where she'll get much more than if she hadn't proceded as she has. Like Tom Coumaris explained, this house which is the end of a row with no other 'Victorianized' row houses any where near it ... and with a real history that makes its S Street appearance almost sacrosanct, really never stood a chance of getting permission for a 3rd floor. The HPRB acted appropriately within the constraints which the law sets out. BUT Julie pushed the envelope and triggerd an 'angered public response' (i.e., you and others) and can now stand a VERY good chance of getting a variance on lot coverage ... which will in turn allow a far larger and far more spectacular house by with a redone 15th Street facade ... a la 'Tom Coumaris'. She's miles ahead of someone who would have just accepted the quarter century old rule that you can't add a 3rd floor that is visible from the street ... especially where at least a half dozen contiguous row houses adjoining it are similar to the existing 2 story row houses.

Now let me ask you a question. You keep saying how unfair to Julie it is that she can't add that 3rd floor. Would you like to be the one to explain to the adjoining neighbors why you think it's fair to totally change the end unit to their row of 2 story Italianate style houses ... by letting it grow into a 3 story Queen Anne Victorian with mansards and all? I.e., Have you ever thought of the 'fairness' issue in respect of the neighbors?

Comment by Mike

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:28:07 EDT

Lance,

OMG, after all this, it seems like we are in agreement.

As David has said numerous times in this blog, Historic Preservation is a political movement. As such, it is important that they not alienate large segments of the body politic.

In this particular case, a well-meaning neighbor who went through an expensive and tedious process and did all the right things seems to have been alienated. And the Board ignored the recommendations of the Conservancy and the ANC.

Julie was certainly the big loser here, and I sincerely believe her proposal would have enhanced the neighborhood. But there's no doubt that the HPRB took a hit here as well. And that really is a shame.

Truth is HPRB has made important strides in recent years. They no longer try to kill ADA requests by delay. They no longer fail to post grant opportunities. They no longer make a mockery out of the ANC "great weight" requirement.
And two board members actually voted for Julie's project.

I am upset by the outcome of this matter and the fact that a staff member told Julie that he "had no choice" but to oppose the project in his staff report. That's precisely the type of rigidity that leads to loss of public support.

But I am NOT upset that HPRB has made real progress and that even the most ardent of preservationists are coming to realize that they can no longer ignore the weight of public opinion.

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:37:24 EDT

@Mike I believe they must balance many issues - including Federal civil rights protections and have a decent respect for public opinion. And it is clear that we disagree completely on that issue.

Correct, we'll have to agree to disagree on this as I believe HPRB's job is simply to 'foster' the preservation laws (as you just defined 'foster' in regards to ABRA) and that IF Federal civil rights are at issue, then those rights need to be 'held to be valid' by the authorities competent to do so; and the HPRB is not in the least competent to decide that kind of issue. (I suspect that you're thinking of 3rd Church of Christ Scientist which some individuals thought should be exempted from the historic preservation laws because of 'separation of church and state'. I did't, and don't believe a court would either if it ever came to that. But since it's never made it to that point, let's leave it that it isn't HPRB's right or responsibility to be making a judgement on this claimed constitutional exemption about which reasonable people can disagree.)

I can agree with you somewhat though about the public opinion. As a smart ANC commissioner explained it to me one day in a dog park, ultimately all power derives from the governed. And if the governed see historic preservation as burdensome, then via their representatives they can just change those laws ... or abolish them altogether. And you see, that's what makes historic preservation so hard to effect. In the short term, we're probably all better off 'as individuals' not having to abide by any historic preservation laws. We can build bigger houses, use cheaper materials, sell off valuable church property to fund our programs, etc etc. But in the long run 'as a society', the benefits of protecting the essence and histories of our neighborhoods and historic buildings is without question. The problem is, how do you get individuals to buy into something in the here and now that won't necessarily help them in the here and now, but be good for the rest of us in the then and there ... ? The right of 'public opinion' needs to be balanced with the rights of our neighbors ... and those who come after us. It's not an easy feat. And politicians whose rewards are in the 'here and now' aren't apt to want to help with that balance. It doesn't get them votes.

Comment by Mike

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:55:38 EDT

Lance, you ask "since when did ABRA's job start include "helping" the hospitality industry. Actually, my exact words were "help foster" and that refers to the issuing of licenses to permit the legal sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages....and the enactment and enforcement of regulations to ensure that the sale and consumption of said beverages is in a safe environment and in compliance with the law.

ABRA helps foster the hospitality industry by definition, as it licenses and regulates. The hospitality industry is Washington's number two industry, right behind government. It is a cash cow and the cash-strapped DC government cannot do without it. But it still must balance the tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue with the need of residents and other businesses for peace, order, and quiet.

I believe it's telling that you say the HPO and HPRB have "not pretended they need to 'balance' anything in order to ensure that preservation laws in DC get followed." I believe they must balance many issues - including Federal civil rights protections and have a decent respect for public opinion. And it is clear that we disagree completely on that issue.

Let's just leave it at that. We disagree on the issue that I call balance and you call sell-out.

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 14:13:59 EDT

Mike, And ABRA's job is to regulate the legal use of alcohol, and to help foster the hospitality industry,

Since when did ABRA's job start include 'helping' the hospitality industry? It is the watchdog OVER that industry in regards to alcoholic beverages sales. If you believe that part of ABRA's job is to 'help' the hospitality industry while at the same time 'oversee' that industry's alcoholic beverage sales operations to ensure they conform with the law, then I can understand why you wouldn't like HPO or HPRB.

Fortunately for us, HPO and HPRB have taken their responsibilities seriously and not pretended they need to 'balance' anything in order to ensure that the preservation laws in DC get followed. What you're describing as 'balance' I think many of us would see as 'sell out'.

ABRA should be willing and able to shut down the entire hospitality industry IF that's what it took to ensure 'peace, order, and quiet'. (Though, I sincerely hope that would never be the case ... ) And while it shouldn't be 'standing in the way' of legitimate business interests, it also should not be willing to sacrifice its responsibilities in some misguided attempt to 'help' the hospitality industry or to seek to 'balance' that industry's sales potential with ABRA responsibilities to enforce the ABC laws of the District.

Comment by Mike

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:11:27 EDT

Lance,

OHP and HPRB provide the grants that keep these groups busy and put money in the pockets of certain members. The inside dealing has been well documented. The Intowner had a series on this shady practice, focusing on specific instances.

In several cases, they didn't even bother to post a public notice of grant opportunity until AFTER the application date expired...in another case, it was posted hours prior to expiration. But somehow, there was a single application for each. Certainly no double dealing.

And ABRA's job is to regulate the legal use of alcohol, and to help foster the hospitality industry, which provides tens of thousands of jobs and nearly two hundred million tax dollars to the District every year. ABRA's job is to balance the needs of the hospitality industry with the needs of the District's residents and other businesses for peace, order, and quiet. The key word here is balance.

You speak only of reaching out to the preservationist community. Where the hell is the balance? That's why there will never be another historic district established in the District. Your argument shuts out the people who will be regulated, who own the property, pay the taxes, and often seek only to modify their own property, often for reasons of handicap accessibility or environmental (energy saving) concerns.

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:21:04 EDT

Mike,

The anology you're missing is that HPRB is supposed to be looking out for the citizenry's 'preservation' interests in the same way that ABRA is supposed to be looking our for the citizenry's 'peace, quiet, and order' interestes. In the same way that ABRA reaches out to community volunteer groups on the front lines (e.g., the ANCs) to recruit its board members, HPRB similarly should be reaching out to those community volunteer groups doing the daily business of 'preserving'. Tersh Boasberg, the recently resigned chair of the HPRB was able to accomplish as much as he did because he came out of the community volunteer groups. He understood what the objectives of the HPRB was, its interests, and was neither a part of or beholden by the development folks over who the HPRB has oversight. It worked. Who's the current chair of ABRA? Would it work well (or even make sense) if they came out of the very group that ABRA is entrusted by the District with overseeing? ... i.e., if they came out of the 'tavern owners' group, as you call it?

To put it more bluntly, the HPRB's job isn't to oversee the volunteer community preservation groups such as the Committee of 100 on the Federal City ... It's to oversee the developers who's immediate financial interests sometimes conflict with the objectives of the federal and local laws governing historic preservation in the district.

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:24:31 EDT

*preservationist groups

Comment by Lance

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:22:20 EDT

Mike, Again you have it backwards. HPRB judges projects coming from developers and others. It works WITH volunteer reservations groups to ensure local and federal preservation law is enforced.

Comment by Mike

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 01:01:45 EDT

Lance,

Not only do you have it backwards, but you rose to the bait.

Certainly the Mayor has included both developers and preservationists on boards. You are welcome to criticize those nominations.

But he does NOT require that ABRA nominees meet with the Board of the Restaurant Association of Metropolitan Washington, nor that nominees for the Board of Zoning Adjustment meet with and get the approval of developers or the Board of Trade. And yet Vince Gray forced Fenty's nominees to HPRB to meet with the leadership of those groups that do the most business with HPRB. And groups that, incidentally, apply for and receive grants.

Mr Gray did NOT insist that they meet with civil rights groups or disability rights groups or community and neighborhood organizations that have had issues with HPRB. Only with those groups that routinely get their way and happily suck off the public teat in the grant process. There's a certain amount of insider dealing here. In fact, one helluva lot.

I hope you are able to comprehend the difference between nominating someone - and forcing that nominee to meet with and gain the approval of those groups whose applications the nominee must judge.

Comment by John

Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:30:22 EDT

Lance, you mistyped "Citizens" for "handful of special interest activists". Hope that helps!

Comment by Lance

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:22:47 EDT

@Mike, It really is sort of like having the tavern owners being given veto power over ABRA Board nominees.

Your analogy is backwards here. The developers (who Fenty is stacking the boards with) are the equivalent of the tavern owners ... and not those volunteer organizations that are the advocacy for the citizens of the city.

Comment by Mike

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:05:38 EDT

Aw, c'mon Lance. Vince Gray refused to hold hearings on Fenty's choices for HPRB for months....doing the bidding of the preservationists and his own top aide Rob Miller. Wouldn't even give them a hearing until all his nominees met with and sought the favour of DCPS and C100. And that was in the first days of the Fenty Administration, long before the current unpleasantness.

The same people who back then were caterwauling that the current Chair was unqualified had the temerity to say - with a straight face - that Kathy Henderson WAS qualified.

No other District nominees have ever been forced to meet with special interest
groups as a condition of getting a hearing. It really is sort of like having the tavern owners being given veto power over ABRA Board nominees. Yet that's what DCPS and the C100 were able to get Vince Gray to give them.

Comment by Princely

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:46:18 EDT

No rhyme, no reason. These things get passed on one street, blocked on another. Capricious and unpredictable. Depends, too, on who you know and who knows you. HPO has 1 or 2 who been there way too long and operate it as a fiefdom.

Comment by Greg

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:36:49 EDT

From the dais, when she served on the HPRB, Ms. Johnson often advised residents to accept and adapt to the changes that come with denser development. She sings a different tune when change comes to her street...

Comment by Lance

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 14:05:00 EDT

... and the rules they enforce are codified in the District's and the federal government's historic preservation laws. They don't have nearly as much leeway in their decision making as people here are assuming. Though you could make an argument that the Mayor could use them to push through his agenda, they'd be severally constrained by historic preservation regulations in carrying out his requests if they were counter to such regulations. I think the bottom line is that that intricate network you're seeing, isn't an intricate network of unaccountable boards and groups but instead an intricate network of rules and regs that mean decision get made via the 'rule of law' vs. the vagaries of politics.

Comment by Lance

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:57:32 EDT

@Jasper, The HPRB is appointed by the mayor and thus is accountable to the citizens of the District via the Mayor's Office.

Comment by Jasper

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:12:57 EDT

a rare reply to Lance: they're not 'voted in' nor are they are a neighborhood group

Aahhh, they are totally undemocratic. That makes me feel better. Nothing better than unaccountable people telling other people what not to do.

I have so much to learn about this country. I was under the impression that this is the land of the free. A country with less rules and the socialists that I grew up under. But it appears that Americans ~~waste~~ use their freedom to create intricate networks of unaccountable board and groups to paternalize its citizens. Call me a funny foreigner, but I think having politicians that flat-out admit 'they are protecting citizens from themselves' are more honest.

Comment by Mike

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:22:18 EDT

@ William: As a result of the HPO actions, there will likely never be another new historic district in Washington, DC.

Spot on. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing either, but the 77%-23% vote against a Chevy Chase historic district was something OHP and HPRB brought upon themselves with decisions like the one handed down this week.

It is particularly distressing to hear the same old mantra about how they had no choice and were forced to do whatever they did. That's not just cowardice, it's a lie. And people don't buy it, and those affected will never forgive them for it.

David is right that the Preservation movement is weakening as its elderly members die off. These elderly members established a wonderful and robust answer to the developers and their midnight teardowns. They saved buildings and neighborhoods that help define who we are as a people. But somehow, "Don't Tear It Down" morphed into "Don't Do Anything" and "We Know Better Than Anybody Else" and "The ADA and Constitution Don't Apply to Us." and the movement's membership is dwindling as its opponents multiply.

So long as these elitists continue to insist that they know better than anyone else and ignore community sentiments, they will continue to weaken. Only if they open their ears and listen to what people are saying can they halt their downward spiral.

Comment by William

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:17:47 EDT

In light of what happened in Chevy Chase, the HPO has now set the standard of putting any new historic district nominations to a vote. How that vote is conducted is apparently up to the ANC, whether it is flawed or fair.

As a result of the HPO actions, there will likely never be another new historic district in Washington, DC.

I am not sure if that is a good thing, or not, but it is the reality of its actions.

Comment by David Alpert

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 04:10:12 EDT

I support the Dupont historic district (though I also supported Julie's project), but I would note that there is no vote to establish a historic district. Someone makes a nomination, does a historic inventory of the area, and then the HPRB makes the determination whether the area is historic or not. Typically there has been strong resident support for them, but it's incorrect to say that the residents get to vote to establish a historic district in their area. They don't.

Comment by Anon

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:42:57 EDT

The anti-preservationists should investigate a little more about how historic districts get created. The residents get to vote whether they want to become historic or not. Some neighborhoods decide not to. Once it is a historic district, it is "protected". Doesn't mean it can't have changes. All those new buildings on 14th Street, Church St. are in the historic district and they're really modern. But there are restrictions. SOunds like HPRB treated Julie's project like they would in any other historic district in DC.

Too bad Julie didn't check this out more carefully before she bought her house. It is a shame to have the plans rejected, but it is a historic district, like it or not.

Comment by Lance

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:38:32 EDT

@Andrew, Stupid, stupid, stupid. By casting votes like this, these people are undermining the legitimacy of their organization, and are in all likelihood, driving residents out of their neighborhood.

@Jasper, Another issue with ANCs, these historic boards and HOAs is that they are not truly democratic. Yes, they are voted for, but because turn out is usually very low, the legitimacy of these elections can be questioned. Unsurprisingly, I tend to find that such organizations tend to do very little to increase voter turn out.

HPRB, the Historic Preservation Review Board, is a board appointed by Fenty ... and has jurisdiction in these matters over all of the city's historic districts and historic buildings. I.e., they're not 'voted in' nor are they are a neighborhood group. The local historic preservation group, The Dupont Circle Conservancy, actually voted to support the proposal ... as explained by David in his post yesterday.

Like David, I'm a member of the Conservancy. I was out of town and couldn't make the meeting, so I didn't get to see the presentation, nor to vote on it. Initially, from what I read on here I thought it was a great idea. But when I learned that the other 3 story 'Victorianized' homes were across the street ... and that this house had a specific history attached to it, I started realizing that this wasn't going to happen.

@Julie, Re-read Tom Coumaris' comments from the other day. Tom has been involved in historic preservation for a long time ... and understands it well. You're really in a position to get what you want (assuming it's extra space you want) ... just not in the form of a Victorianized house. (That's how I refer to the 2 story homes across from you that grew mansards roofs in the early 20th century.) You could have lots of space in the house, and a second facade on 15th. (And I think Tom's idea of making that 2nd facade a modern one that complements the historic S Street facade is definitely worth exploring.) I suspect when all is said and done you'll look back on this as a good thing. That 'blank slate' (as Tom described it) on the 15th St side is an opportunity for you to do something with that'll make your mark on the neighborhood. Good luck.

Comment by jcm

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:09:35 EDT

@Julie I feel for you, because you clearly spent a lot of time and money planning a handsome addition. That said, you knew when you bought the house that it was in an historic preservation area. If you want a three story house in an h.p. neighborhood, you really need to buy one. Alternatively, you can buy a two story in a neighborhood that isn't restricted.

Comment by Julie

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 17:02:03 EDT

@pinkshirt, you raise interesting questions. In all honesty, I did not find the HPRB to be particularly deliberative or contemplative. The HPRB staffer who wrote the recommendation against the proposal essentially said that based on precedent and a purist interpretation of historic preservation, he had no choice but to oppose the project. However, he took pains to praise the proposal and seemed to suggest that if there ever was a good case for an exception, this would be it. He ended by saying (essentially -- and I hope I'm not taking excessive liberties here) that even though he was recommending against it, the staff welcomed guidance from the Board as to whether 3rd story additions should ever be permitted. In other words, he opened the door for them to support it despite his recommendation and he asked them for guidance. In response, most of the panelists simply hid behind his "no" recommendation. I found them cowardly, to be honest. They offered no compelling arguments and certainly no helpful guidance to their staff going forward. Disappointing, to say the least. And they completely disregarded the very thoughtful recommendation in favor of the project by both the DCC and the ANC. In my view, those recommendations offered ample political cover for them to take a modestly bold stand, but that is something they are clearly not interested in.

Comment by pinkshirt

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:42:58 EDT

Is there some sort of report or meeting minutes published in which HPRB justifies it's decisions?

I am so glad GGW is covering more of these kinds of issues that impact, one drop at a time, our whole city. My perception is that right now HPRB are the only group who has design authority over buildings in the District. Ostensibly they make decisions based on a combination of factors including the property in question and potential impacts on public space and other properties near and far. In aggregate, their decisions have a huge effect now and far into the future, and it's a lot of responsibility for them.

With due respect, they are not qualified to be the only qualitative authority regulating buildings and urban design in the areas outside the realm of NCPC and CFA. We need some group that can look at the whole and remember that small and large changes can be a very good thing.

Comment by Bianchi

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:42:10 EDT

@andrew - did not know that about "Historic" Williamsburg. Thought it was a village of Old Stone House's (NPS OSH, Georgetown).

@jimble -no its not about what "will look pretty". Its about staying true to the historic design and perhaps materials of the era i.e. stone or wood instead of vinyl.

"Historically correct" doesn't mean just something from that time. A historically correct replica of an object is a perfectly legitimate form of honoring the design style of an era. Doesn't have to be an object. Could be a music or dance style, way of speaking or recipe.

The notion that we today can't come up with forms that honor and even enhance style designs of earlier times because someone doing it 'now' instead of 'then' somehow mars the historicalness (is that a word?) of the thing created in the past is ludicris.

Comment by jimble

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:13:13 EDT

If "historic preservation" means nothing more than being able to make changes to a house when a majority of your neighbors think it will look pretty, then it has no meaning at all. Part of the historic fabric of that block is the modest scale and detailing of its houses. The proposed modifications, lovely as they would have been, would have fundamentally altered the house and the board was correct in rejecting them.

Comment by andrew

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:07:56 EDT

This ruling is ridiculous. This isn't Wiliamsburg.

That's an interesting point. I used to live in Williamsburg as a matter of fact. Colonial Williamsburg was a 1930s-era reconstruction of what historians at the time thought the colonial village looked like. There are very few structures in Williamsburg pre-dating the 1930s, and virtually none predating 1900.

Much of the town was demolished to make way for the historic tourist trap, including several "actually historic" buildings that didn't fit in with the colonial image. Other structures that had portions or foundations existing from the colonial era were restored to their perceived original appearance, wiping out traces of any "history" that took place between 1777 and 1930.

When all was said and done, the construction of the historic village destroyed the town, and enabled the suburban sprawl of the surrounding areas. Williamsburg no longer has a functioning downtown, thanks to the historic village.

The fact that Georgia Johnson lived in this house is significant, although I question the extent to which we need to immortalize our history, as the US gradually accumulates more and more of it. Historic preservation in Europe takes on a much different tone, thanks to the fact that several-hundred-year-old buildings are actually quite common, as age alone is not a particularly distinguishing factor.

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:39:50 EDT

So, does historic preservation also mean that nobody can grow older, buy a newer car? What about young trees growing old? Do those have to be restored as well?

I'm sorry Julie, that you live in a neighborhood with such fine neighbors. I assume they send you the final decision calligraphed on parchment paper?

Comment by Julie

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:26:21 EDT

Hello, I am the homeowner of the house in question. @Anon, I suppose I was a bit naive with this purchase. I formerly lived in the 1400 block of T Street, where I knew there were restrictions on 3rd floors and which became my primary reason for looking elsewhere. When I found this house around the corner and saw that the houses across the street from it were 3 story houses, along with numerous other houses up and down the block, I figured I had found my solution -- a house in the neighborhood I love on a street I presumed to be 3-story "friendly." I had no idea I was walking into a "hysterical preservation" buzzsaw. And to the poster who neatly summarizes the debate as "Historic Preservation means preserving history," I can only say that the debate on this blog and elsewhere demonstrates that there are many, many interpretations of what "Historic Preservation" means. I would suggest there is a thoughtful approach and a knee-jerk reactionary approach, but of course I have rather biased views on the subject by now.

Comment by Anon

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:06:25 EDT

Good thing is that it's a democratic world and no restrictions on where you can buy a house, other than how much you can afford. It's a choice to live in a historic district.

If someone doesn't want to deal with the rules and regs, then they can choose to live somewhere much more flexisble that's not a historic district. DC offers a wide range of choices.

Comment by Eric

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:05:09 EDT

Stupid decision. Should've been put to a vote by the people of the Dupont Historic District or otherwise allowed to happen.

Is there anything the homeowner can do to get around this?

Comment by Jasper

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:49:41 EDT

Another issue with ANCs, these historic boards and HOAs is that they are not truly democratic. Yes, they are voted for, but because turn out is usually very low, the legitimacy of these elections can be questioned. Unsurprisingly, I tend to find that such organizations tend to do very little to increase voter turn out.

Democracy is supposed to represent the people. All the people. Not only those who care to show up.

Comment by Haydn

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:46:07 EDT

Btw, Aydin, sounds to me like the only "peer pressure" going on was the pressure that Denise "former HPRB member" Johnson applied to the Board. What a laughing stock they are. And I think the PPs might be interested to know that you own one of the 3-story homes directly across the street from the house in question. True? So a 3-story house is great for you, but no one else can have one. That kind of hypocrisy speaks volumes about you, sir.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:32:26 EDT

@Charlie

+1. Exactly. If we want to be historically accurate, for a large part of the city's history most of Washington was full of slums, had dirt roads, and lacked a sewer system. Seems like a fair trade-off to make sure the neighborhoods look like they did then. I also oppose the addition of air conditioning to any historic buildings.

Comment by Bianchi

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:19:28 EDT

apologies for the unclosed italics.

Comment by jcm

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:14:53 EDT

Historic Preservation means preserving history. Whether or not Historic Preservation Districts are a good idea is certainly debatable, but not making huge changes like this is part of the deal.

Comment by Bianchi

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:13:41 EDT

"History is not pretty, it is what it is."

Preserving all the ugliness of history is the purpose of museums. The city is not a museum. The design is historically apropos and, as many others have noted, an improvement on an otherwise historical anamoly regards to the end house design in the row. This ruling is ridiculous. This isn't Wiliamsburg. The judgement of the HPRB is comepletely wrong on this.

Comment by Charlie

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:04:33 EDT

I am getting an ominous feeling that those poor folks on S St. will be faced with building back the outhouses that were out by the alley once upon a time. "History is not pretty, it is what it is."

Comment by Haydn

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:50:42 EDT

Oh great -- another luddite weighs in. I've had it with this backwards thinking.

Comment by aydin tozeren

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:47:10 EDT

Congratulations to The Historic Preservation Review Board and my kudos to Denise to be able to speak her mind despite the huge peer pressure on her. The issue was never how pretty the addition was. Nobody argued that the proposed addition wasn't pretty. But it was not part of the history. and it was not the history of our block. History is not pretty, it is what it is. I think this discussion was very helpful and hopefully educational. It was to me.

Comment by Haydn

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:44:46 EDT

Oh good god, was Georgia Johnson against progress? I'll bet she would have been delighted to see what her house could have become. PP has the right idea -- just put a picture of the "original" house up on the historic placard and let the homeowner proceed with what were truly outstanding plans to improve the neighborhood and the house. And what's with Denise Johnson? PP mentions her "agenda." Anyone know what that is? Or just the typical luddite thinking you find among the "hysterical preservation" nazis?

Comment by Anon

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:31:50 EDT

While I was in support of this project I found a comment interesting from the original thread that seemed to go unnoticed:

"This house is a case in point. It was the home of Georgia Johnson and many Harlem Renaissance writers, including Langston Hughes, gave readings there. Georgia Johnson did not live in a grand mansion with mansard roof and fancy rear additions. She lived in a humble two story."

I didn't know who Georgia Johnson was so I did some googling and found the house in question is even pictured on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Douglas_Johnson

Now I am viewing this in a slightly different light. If the point of a historic district is to protected the history... Well this house actually has a history to protect. Imagine if the picture on that wiki page was of a huge Victorian mansion. At the very least the trade off could be to have a small sign similar to the historic trail markers placed in front of the house showing its original size.
Again I was in support of the homeowners right to build as well as my own in MTP. But then the most interesting thing to have gone down in my house was probably Greek potluck.

Comment by Charlie

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:26:30 EDT

Denise Johnson's agenda -- whatever that could be -- is counterproductive to making the neighborhood more attractive. If I were the homeowner in question I think I would sell it "as is" and move on to a more friendly area.

Comment by Adam L

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:52:49 EDT

I agree with andrew. I'd also note that the homeowners did receive approval to make the changes to the rear addition, but that seems unlikely given how integrated the plan was.

Is there any recourse available for the homeowner?

Comment by Lynn

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:52:02 EDT

And, that proposed addition make the house much more attractive. That house is pretty ugly right now, and does not look very "historic".

Comment by andrew

Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:46:02 EDT

Stupid, stupid, stupid. By casting votes like this, these people are undermining the legitimacy of their organization, and are in all likelihood, driving residents out of their neighborhood.

I feel for the resident who invested a not-insignificant amount of time and money drafting those plans, which were categorically rejected for reasons I cannot fathom. I'd be pissed if I were her.