Comments on Book review: Capital Losses - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Scott

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:50:33 EDT

Those are in the seller's disclosure form. Which I a glad to see.

I was wondering if there is a form that buyer's are required to sign that acknowledges that they are purchasing in a historic district and therefore will be held accountable to restoring property as required.

Comment by AR

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:32:43 EDT

The Seller's Disclosure Statement, required by the District of Columbia Residential Real Property Seller Disclosure Act, includes three disclosures relevant to historic preservation:

6. Does the seller have actual knowledge that this property is a D.C. Landmark included in a designated historic district or is designated a historic property?

7. Has the property been cited for any violation of historic preservation law or regulation during your ownership?

8. Does the seller have actual knowledge if a facade easement or a conservation easement has been placed on the property?

More information here: http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/RuleHome.aspx?RuleNumber=17-2708

Comment by Richard Layman

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 12:42:33 EDT

I tend to doubt that there is a disclosure form that is more descriptive than legalistic for deeds in historic districts in DC, but I have never owned a house in a historic district. I'll ask a realtor I know.

Comment by Scott

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:52:23 EDT

The major complaint I have now is that DCRA's postcard permits are not available in historic districts, even if all the work is interior and not related to HPRB review. This means a visit to the much improved but still dreaded permit center is required for everything.

I am happy that I am in a historic district, as it forces owners/developers to think about what they are doing, rather than just proceeding with towering pop-ups, that look horrendous.

I agree that we need to do a much better job of connecting people to good resources. Has a historic district disclosure form been added to real estate sales transaction documents. This is a critical step required for awareness to become more universal.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:15:17 EDT

JC -- I don't agree with you. I'd like some examples, or classifications.

For the most part, it's not an issue for most buildings, which change minimally. In those cases, the issue with change/rehabilitation (e.g., windows) is not so much about regulations but money, and it is reasonable for the city to provide some tax credits to people of lesser means. There are some instances I'd agree with you about "fungibility" of materials, at least in better specifications so that people know what they can do, more simply. (E.g., new "slate" products are a lot cheaper than slate, etc.)

(Note that in cities that have weak real estate markets, this discussion would be completely different. In DC, you can monetize the extra expense of maintaining buildings to HP standards. In many other communities, e.g., Albany, New York, Cleveland, St. Louis, Detroit, etc., you cannot.)

Similarly, we do a piss poor job about linking people with the right resources (including craftspeople) so that they can do cost-effective repairs. E.g., with indoor storms and some judicious repair, it's easy to maintain historic windows. E.g., we are repairing some of ours. The cost for new cords, panes of glass, even reconstructing a couple sashes, is minimal. The storms are much more expensive comparatively speaking, but still far cheaper than getting new windows, especially to historic standards (although our house isn't in a designated neighborhood, it is 82 years old).

The projects that get the most public attention in historic districts are the toughest ones, maybe there could be some improvements to the process. But most projects sail through HPO without HPRB involvement, because there are no significant issues raised by the project.

Anyway, with regard to non-historic districts, holy s***, not having regulations is terrible in terms of how buildings get wrecked by people who don't know squat about the value of maintaining to the extent possible, architecturally significant materials and design. It's what convinces me that we need design standards for the entire city, whether or not specific areas are historically designated.

WRT quaintness of the idea of historic districts, there's legitimacy to your statement (e.g., see the discussion of what I call identifying, selecting, naming, and claiming historicity and authenticity, in S. Osman's book _Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn_) but on the other hand, as what my best friend in college used to say about religion, "whatever gets you by" (in how people cope with various hardships).

I can't think of a better strategy for neighborhood stabilization and improvement in center cities than historic preservation.

Therefore, I wouldn't ever give it up. Not willingly. Otherwise, there is almost nothing else in the toolbox.

Comment by JC

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:01:28 EDT

The entire concept of the historic district is quaint, but fundamentally broken, "historically" inaccurate, and is an allergen to most Americans.

The problem, as always, is the fungibility of standards and the extra hoops required to get *anything* accomplished.

Perhaps HPO's need to move beyond the NPS guidelines and really codify localized knowledge with a stronger nod to what's realistically available on the market. Additionally, moving beyond the "all old windows are salvagable" mantra and the "anything you do requires Historic review" belief would help.

Streamlining the historic district permitting process to match the process in non-historic districts would go a long way to gain better compliance. Ideally this would create a situation where all homeowners would use the same standards regardless of their inclusion in an actual historic district (why should a house in Capital Hill be repaired any different than a house in Eckington).

Currently we have the worst of all worlds. HPO's prevent meaningful repair on beautiful old homes so that they languish and fall to ruin, while interminable pop ups appear with shoddy exterior grade materials.

Comment by Geoffrey Hatchard

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:52:48 EDT

B: My fiance's old neighbor did architectural work for Taylor's other locations. I don't know if he's still on board with them, but if so, based on past work, I'm sure they'll attempt to incorporate what they can of the old building into the design.

Comment by Richard Layman

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:10:23 EDT

DK if it's accurate to say that Capital Losses "created" historic districts. More like the stuff that happened that it described got people to organize and led to the process of creating historic districts.

HOWEVER, in the early days historic districts could be created with limited requirements for survey and a vote of citizens wasn't required.

Most of the city's historic districts were created when the laws were different. Now that there are stronger requirements, especially about citizen vote (at least, every property owner gets a ballot, but non-votes should not impact the decision), the number of historic districts that have been created has slowed to less than a trickle.

Comment by Ron

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 13:05:25 EDT

Keep an eye on Amazon with this book, I was able to get it on sale from them a couple years ago for around $30.

Comment by B

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:59:20 EDT

...don't know who owns it but that's the building where Taylor Gourmet is going to open a new shop.

http://www.washingtonian.com/blogarticles/19698.html

It would be cool if Taylor incorporated some of what you are talking about into their design...

Comment by CJ

Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:38:55 EDT

Does anyone know who owns the building pictured in this article? Rough and Ready has been there for decades, and I've been wondering if they are also the owner of the building, which does look like it's about to fall in.

That building has one of the old industrial lifts in the basement big enough to drop a car from the sidewalk, and some very interesting industrial fittings. I'd love to know what it once housed.