INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2

[Ellen Dagenhart]

Pat and all,
Actually, Durham is at as great risk for teardowns as is Raleigh, and 
has already seen a number of them in Trinity Park and Hope Valley, as 
well as Cleveland-Holloway and East Durham. Just this past week 403 
Watts, a contributing structure in Trinity Park, was demolished to 
make way for the owner to build a conservatory. Trinity Park is in 
the Trinity National Historic District, and there is nothing to 
prevent an owner from tearing down property. Local Historic Districts 
such as Watts-Hillandale provide the means to delay, but not to 
prevent a teardown. The same is true of Neighborhood Protective 
Overlays. At the present time, the only way to prevent teardowns is 
with protective covenants placed on individual properties. 
Preservation Durham is able to assist any property owner who wishes 
to place such covenants on their property. An example is here 
http://www.preservationdurham.org/epf/covenants.doc Below is an 
article about what New Bern has done, that Durham should consider.

"Aldermen list requirements to demolish historic district buildings
Francine Sawyer
Sun Journal
August 14, 2007

"Residents of New Bern's historic district applauded Tuesday night as 
the Board of Aldermen adopted an ordinance to require permits before 
demolishing buildings.

No one spoke against the ordinance, which is effective immediately.

Anyone aiming to demolish a structure in the historic district must 
first go through a checklist of standards.

Those standards are:

- Architectural Integrity.

- The structure has maintained the integrity of its original 
architectural form.

- Changes made to the structure over 50 years have gained historical 
significance.

- Architectural Style.

- The structure has a distinctive architectural style.

- It has superior craftsmanship.

- The structure is the last or oldest example of a certain building type.

- It is one of a cluster of buildings that are significant as a group.

- Cultural Significance.

- The structure is culturally significant due to factors such as its 
historic use, an event, a person, a building or architect associated 
with the structure.

The ordinance was developed in partnership with a local grassroots 
organization known as the Preservation Legal Action Team.

Last year the General Assembly gave the city authority to adopt the 
ordinance. The Historic Preservation Commission and the city planning 
and zoning board both recommend that the aldermen adopt the 
requirement for a permit.

Before the adoption of the land-use ordinance the city could only 
delay demolition for one year. "

This courtesy of 
http://endangereddurham.blogspot.com/2007/08/kudos-to-new-bern.html 
with my thanks to Gary Keuber.

Ellen

At 01:44 PM 12/4/2007, Pat Carstensen wrote:
>A lot of the houses that are being built in south Durham cost $300K 
>or more.  There's a lot of market for $150K houses (small enough to 
>fit on those small lots), but apparently no-one has figured out how 
>to provide that kind of housing at a profit that will support the 
>mansion the developer aspires to.  I've also heard from Self Help 
>Credit Union folks about how well designed sub-prime loans were for 
>taking out all the increase in value of a neighborhood and what a 
>mess the melt-down of that racket is going to cause in some areas.
>
>One of the great things about Durham is the diversity of inner-city 
>neighborhoods that are stable, and the UDO is designed to make it 
>possible to build new housing in existing neighborhoods as long as 
>it keeps the character.  We shouldn't face the kind of mess they 
>have in Raleigh about tear-downs to build things that loom over the 
>neighborhood.  And we have seen neighborhoods stabalize and turn 
>around, tho there are areas in Durham that have a lot further to 
>come back and bigger barriers (I would look really closely at the 
>school serving the neighborhood before investing, for example).
>
>The concern everyone I know has is that anything new in their 
>neighborhood has to keep improving the area, not have a lot of icky 
>cheap duplexes coming in.  So density is not going to be easy issue, 
>but I think we are talking about increasing something we already are 
>doing, not trying something we have no clue about.
>
>Regards, pat
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 02:14:28 -0500
> > From: randy at 27beverly.com
> > To: inc-list at rtpnet.org
> > Subject: Re: INC NEWS - INC-list Digest, Vol 36, Issue 2
> >
> > There are a lot of reasons for developers to not look toward rebuilding
> > the Durham inner-city neighborhoods. The first thing that comes to mind is
> > lot size. In many older neighborhoods in Durham, the current lot sizes
> > would be non-conforming by today's standards. And on these small lots, you
> > can't build the size of homes that the folks moving to Durham are looking
> > to buy (or moving up to buy). Even if you tore them down a block at a time
> > as Bill suggests, you could still only build a certain size house on the
> > lot due to the setback requirements. And if everyone wanted small houses,
> > then this would work. But that's just not the case.
> >
> > The perks offered in a new home are much more desirable to the young
> > working families moving here. They either like old houses, buy one and fix
> > it up or they buy a new home that doesn't require much effort to move in
> > and enjoy. The boarded up homes tend to be in the neighborhoods that
> > suffer a great deal of blight. The current target zone for the Police
> > Dept. (a 2 mile radius out near and around Angier Ave. I believe) comes to
> > mind. If you ride down these streets and look what the neighborhood has to
> > offer, normal folks looking for a new home wouldn't think about buying one
> > there (even if they didn't know about the other troubles in that hood).
> > But there are some large lots with bigger older homes there.
> >
> > Yet, you see things like the Barnes Ave. Project being done. It's a
> > beautiful neighborhood still surrounded by trouble. It wasn't done by a
> > developer because no developer would have touched it. It's a City project.
> > So what's wrong with the City doing the development? They have all the
> > resources we can pay for. It's not the new homes, new streets, or redone
> > properties that change a neighborhood. It's the neighbors who develop a
> > sense of pride in where they live that make a neighborhood desirable.
> >
> > I was delivering a load of firewood I was donating to Urban Ministries
> > last week when I really saw the contrast. Right behind the properties they
> > own is Barnes Ave. Looking past some of the run down properties in that
> > neighborhood, I could see the new construction being built on Barnes. No
> > one wants to own a new home and look out your window and see a mess like
> > that behind them. That's why developers like to set the tone for
> > everything that goes into a new development. They give it a fancy name,
> > coordinate the street names and signs. They might even go so far as
> > choosing period style lighting to add to the character they want to have.
> > Then all of the homes are new and of the same caliber and their views are
> > of the same. It's like this in every neighborhood new or old. A developer
> > built the neighborhood at some point in time. As time has gone forward,
> > development demands have changed; larger lots, more yard space and other
> > amenities like pools and tennis courts. It's what people want.
> >
> > The depressed housing market in the blighted areas of the City offer some
> > bargains for those who are willing to work to change the neighborhood.
> > Increasing property ownership, ridding the neighborhood of drug dealers,
> > and repairing these run-down properties all have an up side. It increases
> > property values and creates a neighborhood others enjoy living in again.
> > But in the process, it displaces those who once rented homes, sold drugs
> > on the corner, and generally didn't care what the neighborhood looked
> > like. These folks have to go somewhere. So they move to another area and
> > the cycle repeats itself. A City will never rid itself of blight because
> > those folks who support it have to live somewhere. There are larger
> > societal issues that will have to be addressed before this ever changes.
> >
> > Walltown is another example. A large portion of Walltown underwent a
> > phenomenal change. But there are still boarded up houses and still drug
> > dealing on the corners. And it if never makes it over these humps, it'll
> > find itself back to the way it was again. Because getting back there is
> > easier than changing. St Theresa is the newest redevelopment project. It's
> > beside Rolling Hills which was a complete failure. There the money was
> > spent and nothing happened. It looks like a run-down ghost town. And now
> > the City has decided to waste yet more money and try it again. Will it
> > work this time? Who knows. Who even knows where all the money they spent
> > last time went and why none of it is being repaid? As I recall, it was
> > somewhere around a million dollars. Now it looks like SBER is leading the
> > charge to do something. Maybe getting someone in here from out of town to
> > redo what should have already been done will be the trick. Time will once
> > again tell.
> >
> > My neighborhood of Forest Hills could have easily gone another direction.
> > Had it not been for a new generation of homeowners who wanted to fix these
> > big old houses up instead of making them rental properties, it could have
> > all been a different picture over here. Instead of a neighborhood in
> > decline, we have a historic neighborhood that takes pride in their itself.
> >
> > Northgate Park has to be one of the prettiest parks in town. I have been
> > going there every day since the dog park opened. It is a much prettier
> > park than ours in Forest Hills. But the difference in the homes will never
> > change. You couldn't buy 2 houses, tear them down and build one large one;
> > current regulations wouldn't allow it. So the neighborhood will remain a
> > neighborhood of those smaller type homes on smaller lots. Even with the
> > $5+M of park improvements that are coming, it won't change the housing
> > stock to any extent. I would believe that a developer, if he could, would
> > love the chance to buy a large portion of Northgate Park houses, tear them
> > down and build really nice large in-demand homes overlooking the park. But
> > that'll never happen. So if you want to live there, what's currently there
> > has to meet you wants and needs. Otherwise you have to look elsewhere.
> >
> > None of this addresses the clear cutting going on out in Southern Durham.
> > Having been a developer of large tracts of land, it's easy to understand
> > why it is done this way. We never did clearcut because we only built
> > subdivisions. So the extent of clearing we did was primarily for roads and
> > water/sewer out falls. This has a lot less impact than the current
> > discussion. The planned communities pretty much call for reshaping the
> > land they are built on. Why? Because they are planned that way. I look at
> > other developments now being built (or finishing being built) and it's
> > easy to see why they did what they did (or are doing). It was planned that
> > way. Could they plan it any different? Maybe, but if Melissa goes around
> > to any neighborhood where new homes are being built (where the lots have
> > not yet been cut or graded) and then goes back a year after it all gets
> > finished, she'll notice a number of trees that were left didn't make it.
> > This type of land disturbing activity also takes its toll on the trees
> > that are left. Often they die within the first year from now being exposed
> > to the daily sun or from root damage during construction.
> >
> > At some point in time, at each of our homes and neighborhoods we live in,
> > the same thing was happening. Trees were bing cut, roads were being built
> > and the face of the landscape was changing. Often we forget that because
> > it happened before we arrived at where we currently live. 15 trees were
> > taken down this fall around our park. I've taken down more than 60 trees
> > at my house. Townsend is taking down trees off Alston Ave. Then we read
> > about the trees being planted last week in TLA neighborhood; everybody is
> > planting more of them as well. Is there a net gain or net loss? I don't
> > know anyone who is keeping track. But I'd say we're about even over here.
> > Erosion is different than trees being cut and there are currently strict
> > enforcement of those laws. I know, because we helped change them in the
> > eighties to become something that hurts a developer where he feels it; in
> > his pocketbook.
> >
> > Development always spreads out when it can (when not limited by boundaries
> > such as water or mountains). Durham started as train stop by the railroad.
> > If you believe what you read, we're one of the best places to live. So
> > being so popular (at least on the national front) has it's drawbacks. More
> > people, more places to live, more traffic; they're all part of the success
> > story. And if we're all lucky, we'll live here long enough to see it just
> > get better and better. But only if we work to keep it that way. It's our
> > regional economy that has made it such a great place to be. And it
> > doesn't look like that'll change in the near future.
> >
> > RWP
> > 27 Beverly
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>
>
>----------
>Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. 
><http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_powerofwindows_112007>Power 
>up!
>_______________________________________________
>INC-list mailing list
>INC-list at rtpnet.org
>http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20071204/b3866f93/attachment-0001.htm