Parent Pages
Sibling Pages
Child Pages
7/1/99
Tim sent me his posting. I thanked him for the preview and told him he could
have the last word. I've made all the points I had to make - perhaps some
other folks will join in. Again - you do a great job with the website!
Cordially,
The Crank on Avondale
(known to the rest of us as Charles Pyle)
6/30/99
>I'd be most happy to respond. I also hope that the Bellevue website will
>maintain civility, and we should be sure to exclude letters that get out of
>hand. But while it is probably not uncivil, the condescending tone of
>writing off historic preservation as the "fancy" of those "who's hearts go
>pitter-pat for old houses" is not productive either, and ignores the fact
>that preservation is cited in a long list of state and national studies as
>one of the most effective economic development and neighborhood
>revitalization strategies available. (I'd be happy to cite or share any of
>those studies, including a 1995 study by the Preservation Alliance of
>Virginia, a 1986 study by State of Wisconsin Extension Service, additional
>studies by Indiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, HUD, etc.) If we are serious
>about keeping and increasing the numbers of residents in the City, this is
>one obvious opportunity to offer a truly unique housing option that is not,
>and will NEVER, be available in Wyndham, Woodlake and Brandermill.
>
>I agree with Chuck that the School Board apparently doesn't want the house,
>but I disagree that finding a user is unlikely, and my trepidation over
>using terms such as idiots, lazy and ignorant is far superceded by my
>frustration at the aborted planning processes that are evident in this
>entire project and most others in Richmond. The principal barrier to
>finding an appropriate use is the lack of an appropriate process for
>identifying and prioritizing the possibilities such as residential,
>cultural, educational, etc.. When the public was given an opportunity to
>speak about the house, there was clearly strong support for preserving the
>structure at the community meetings that preceded the design of the new
>school. I summarized the 400+ uncategorized comments from those meetings at
>Holly Anna's request, and I don't recall a single person saying they
thought
>the old house should go. I'd be happy to share the written comments as
>recorded by the City. The City's Commission for Architectural Review voted
>unanimously (I believe) to deny the School Board's request for a demolition
>permit, ("hysteria" is not at all what occurred at the CAR meetings - I
>attended at spoke at them, and it was a very rational discussion that took
>place), and I also believe the Hermitage Road association is on record as
>supporting preservation. This is FAR from "one man's fancy" as Chuck
>incorrectly characterizes it. Let's not repeat the mistake made in Norfolk
>last week when the City demolished the 1920s Taylor Elementary (next to
>which a new school had been built) despite neighborhood residents having
>secured a commitment and funding for a music academy to take over the old
>building. What a stupid and avoidable loss for the neighborhood and the
>kids.
>
>Second, those who have gained access to the house say it is NOT in
"decrepit
>condition", and I understand the School Board has spent a significant sum
of
>our tax dollars in recent years to maintain the building.
>
>Regarding the surrounding properties and the view to and from the house: Is
>Chuck suggesting we spend tax money to demolish the house because we made
>what may arguably be called design and siting mistakes by allowing the '60s
>townhouses and the new school to be built in proximity to the house? Should
>we spend tax dollars on destroying something tangible, valuable and unique
>on this basis?
>
>Regarding the cost of moving the building. I did not say the City should
pay
>for the move, but the money they've budgeted for demolition could be freed
>up for a wide variety of other uses if it wasn't used for demolition. Those
>uses include additional equipment and programs in Holton School, and if the
>will is there, to cover the onetime public cost of moving the structure
>(staff for street closings and traffic control, utility issues such as
>overhead lines, etc.). I would suggest the best use(s) of the building
would
>be public ones such as community, cultural, educational, etc., but in the
>absence of those what I would propose is that, rather than demolition, the
>building be made available to the highest bidder who agrees to move and
>renovate the structure, as decribed in a similar Hanover County situation
in
>the Times-Dispatch June 18th. A Hanover woman bought a 1908 Sears house
from
>a church that wanted to expand and would have otherwise demolished the
>house. She paid $1,000 for the house, and $80,000 to move it. That's the
>kind of expense that is likely to be involved here, and an even better
>financial deal could be struck through the bidding process. Let the buyer
>pay for the move. If they want, they can lop off the boxy rear additions
>that have no architectural merit, to keep moving costs in line. The City
>gains (conservatively) a quarter million dollar property that will generate
>$3,500 annually in real estate tax revenue, not to mention utility taxes,
>and other spending. The owner has the opportunity to use the City's real
>estate tax abatement program in the short term (though that could be waived
>as a condition of sale), and can recapture up to 45% of the renovation cost
>by doing a certified historic rehabilitation that's eligible for a 20%
>federal income tax credit and a 25% state income tax credit. That's a
>win-win-win situation that makes far more economic sense than demolition,
>and is more fiscally responsible for the City and its taxpayers. It also
>gets the School Board off the hook for a property they don't want, which
>seems to be there only objective. Everybody ends up happy, and we can move
>on to trading jabs over another issue (which you know will arise - they
>always do!).
>
>Lastly, I referred not to myself but to others as educated, and yes, I
>believe that it would be idiotic to demolish the building. Hell, I'm an
>idiot sometimes (perhaps often - who isn't?), but I feel like preserving
>that building is sensible.
>
>I'd be happy to approach the Mark Emblidge and David Baugh with these
>thoughts, either as an idividual, or if it is the pleasure of the Civic
>Association board. Someone needs to get this off center, and quickly,
>because the discussion is never productive when it occurs at the eleventh
>hour with the wrecking ball in place.
>
>Let me know what you think ...
>
>Tim (Tim Pfohl)
6/29/99
I hope this forum will be characterized by the civility one expects from residents of an established Richmond neighborhood. Regardless of what happens to the old house, we will remain neighbors. Acrimony is sure to follow if we assume that ours is the position of the educated and those who disagree must be "idiots."
It would be splendid if someone were to buy the house and move it to a new lot. I rebel, however, at the idea of the City paying for even part of the cost of moving the structure. Why should taxpayers subsidize one man's fancy?
This is not an issue of opposing historic preservation. I, too, prefer Richmond to Charlotte. But we are confronted with the fact that the school board doesn't want the building. We are also confronted with the fact that come September, there will be six hundred children attending Holton Elementary School. An abandoned house sitting behind the school is a safety hazard to them, and to other neighborhood children. Again, if you want to see what the future might hold, take a look at the gutted annex building behind Elkhardt Middle School on Hull Street.
6/28/99
How distressing it is to hear educated members of the media and our
neighborhood express such a careless attitude about a structure that:
was repeatedly mentioned as a prioity for preservation (in the community
meetings to solicit comments on the new school); is a fine, substantial
and more attractive structure than most others in Bellevue; has many
incentives to assist in its renovation (including state and federal
preservation income tax credits and local real estate tax abatement);
and could easily be picked up and moved if the City was even remotely
willing to spend the money they'll otherwise spend on demolition to
assist a buyer. The problem is not the building itself. First and
foremost it's an utter lack of vision by the owners (the City), and
secondarily a lack of organized response by those of us who want to see
it saved. Why should we be surprised that the City government and its
entities, which are repeatedly told that Richmond's trump card for the
future is blending historic preservation and creative uses, is oblivious
to the options for this building, regardless of how many times they are
told of those options. Clearly, Archie Harris and the School board staff
are too lazy and ignorant to see and pursue these options. I've come to
expect that. If they had a clue they'd look at that building as the real
estate asset it is, not some pesky pebble in their shoe. If the City
took a fraction of the energy they put into getting buildings demolished
and re-channelled that into getting them renovated, we'd be a heck of a
lot better off. Same effort, better results. But no, that's not likely,
and meanwhile what REALLY boggles my mind is how Charles Pyle and others
who should know better don't have any regard for that building. The
concept of historic districts is that the structures on their own don't
represent any particularly siginificant event or architecture, but that
TOGETHER the structures are an important collection of irreplaceable
period architecture, etc.. Wake up, Chuck, they don't build 'em like
that anymore, and when they're gone, they're gone forever. Charleston SC
Mayor Joe Riley says "We realized early on the bulldozer is our enemy,
because rarely is anything built back with the quality of what it
replaced." At the very least, that building could be moved to a nearby
lot and put back on the tax rolls as a fine renovated residence. No,
wait, check that, at the very least the idiots could prevail and it
could be just a "pile of bricks" being trucked off to our landfills, and
we would have lost a great opportunity and a piece of our neighborhood.
Tim Pfohl
6/10/99
I suggest that Bellevue unify behind the idea of removing the house from the
Hermitage Road Historic District. This would cause the fine folks on
Hermitage to go ballistic - but I think the case for demolition is strong:
No one wants the house.
It is a potential safety hazard to the children at Holton School..
It is a potential neighborhood nuisance.
The school board won't maintain it.
We should take this up with Councilman Johnson and get this moving. I think
the above concerns trump any "historic preservation" issues. The house can't
been seen from Laburnum Avenue; it can't been seen from other homes in the
historic district; and it is across Hermitage from townhouses built in the
1960's.
Tear it down!
Charles Pyle
6/7/99
No. Hermitage Road Old and Historic District is the very reason we can't
save that house. They are insistent that the City save the house and
take care of it. At the same time the City has made it clear they will not
take care of the building absent the neighborhood establishing a use
which will include putting the onus on someone else to take care of it. I
do not live in the old and historic district and I have not been able to
persuade them, so, I give up.
John: I see you are now soliciting comments on 13 acre school building...so here it goes:
I think it is very unlikely that a suitable occupant will be found for the old house at what we used to refer to as "The Park."
I was not surprised to learn that the Richmond Symphony backed out; who would want a decrepit house wedged between the backside of a school and an alley?
Without a desirable occupant, it becomes more likely that we will get something in there that we don't want. I suggest that the Civic Association humbly petition the school board to demolish the house. Unoccupied and unmaintained (look at the mess behind Elkhart Middle School if you need evidence of how poorly the school board maintains what it does not want) the old house will become an eyesore, a nuisance and a danger to our children and children attending Holton Elementary. I know lots of hearts go pitter-patter for old houses; I too am all for preserving historic structures
. But lets get real: there is not a shortage of old houses in Northside. The house itself has no great history attached to it - it is just an old house. Will our neighborhood lose something of its charm if the house were to go? I'd say yes if Holton Elementary hadn't been built. But the house is now hidden behind a school building. Viewed from the east the house has townhomes from the 1960's as a backdrop. Contrary to the hysteria that seemed to overwhelm the architectural review board, the demolition of this old stack of bricks would in no way threaten the lovely homes along Hermitage Road. Most of the folks on Hermitage can't even see the late (and among the children of Bellevue) still lamented park. With the house demolished, a potential nuisance would be out of the way AND there would be more green space for our kids to enjoy; they were left out of the debate before the ARC.
Last updated 02/24/02
Please send questions or comments to John Butcher