Back in March, I wrote about the mysterious construction project around the corner from my house, on the corner of Winter and Chestnut Streets. The entire outside, the entire inside and much of the frame of the house was removed and then construction stopped. It’s now a month later and it still looks like what you’d see the day after a bad fire.
It turned out that, as suspected, it had to do with problems between the developer and the Upper Falls Historic Commission. The building is indeed a historic building from the 1800’s and under the Historic Commission’s jurisdiction.
I don’t all know the details but the case does raise general issues about the Commission’s approach to historic preservation. When this building project is completed, there will not be a single shred of the original historic material visible from either the outside or the inside of the building. The only original wood will be buried deep within the walls.
Two years ago, the building next door was rebuilt the same way – stripped to the frame and then totally rebuilt. The resulting building is a replica of the original building.
I understand the value of building a replacement that is a replica of the original, when the original is too far gone to preserve. Building a replica while preserving the internal wooden frame has no additional value to the neighborhood though. It’s only effect is to unnecessarily drive up the costs and construction schedule of these kinds of projects.
Even more puzzling, when doing any work on my own house, I only need Historic Commission approval if I change something that’s visible from the street. So why in this case, is the Commission concerned with, or have jurisdiction over, invisible wood buried inside the walls?
What do you think? Is there any valid rationale for driving up the cost and complexity of these kinds of projects, just to preserve original, but invisible, building materials … or is there something I’m missing here?
Among the few votes I regret as an Alderman were those in favor of creating new historic district commissions. While I am in favor of preserving historic structures and neighborhoods, the district commissions regulate every house within a district, whether it has some historic significance or not. So the restrictions on changes made to a pretty ordinary gambrel colonial or split level ranch house are just as strict as those which apply to a truly historic Colonial, Federal or Victorian era home. That not only costs homeowners money, but I have seen first hand that it may also prevent them from adding garages or porches that are visible from the street only because they live in a historic district, while the same rules do not apply to a virtually identical house a block or two away.
The Moon & Sixpence building in Upper Falls was in pretty rough shape when the owners came before the Land Use Committee a few years back, and one of the concerns was that it might not be possible to preserve the building whether the proposed renovations and additions were approved or not. An architect who is on the historic commission consulted with the owners and helped them come up with a plan that would preserve the facade while allowing them to upgrade the residential units. It is too bad that the building was in far worse shape than originally believed, but to me it seems the height of folly to preserve the parts of the building that no one will ever see to satisfy some notion of historic preservation.
Unless the parties come up with an economically feasible solution, Jerry, you could be looking at an eyesore for many months if not years to come. Meanwhile, the owners are losing rents and saddled with carrying costs until the building is reconstructed. And that is a lot worse than having to look at it.
If those that grew up in Upper Falls or otherwise lived in the district for a time can come back in 25 or 50 years and have that nostalgic feeling of coming home, then the Upper Falls Historic Commission filled its charge. The idea in my mind to to preserve and improve. This Six Pence building is a good example of something that people remember. How could you not remember a building that literally sits in the street! That template that remains will ensure everyone that the general height, and roof pitch at the most visible point will remain.
As another example, there’s nothing inside the Biltmore (cafe) that reminds anyone of it’s former self. Yet it’s new presence fits perfectly with the “New and Improved” Upper Falls.
The idea of only preserving “truly historic” major residences/buildings is not what Upper Falls is about. The district sits tightly between Waban and Needham, yet the influence of neither has taken over. There’s the value.
@Hoss – I agree with you about the value of insisting that the quirky Moon and Six Pence building not be leveled and replaced with something different. I believe though that there are far simpler, cheaper and sensible ways to get that outcome than insisting on maintaining original internal wooden framing structures.
To me, it seems like the focus is micro-management of the construction process rather than preserving the design of the building. It appears to be motivated by some kind of fetishistic attachment to invisible timbers rather than by preserving the fabric of the neighborhood.
The other open question for me is the one of legal authority. I understand that the Commission has the authority to dictate the appearance of the completed project but not the method by which you get there.
Hoss, I believe you live or lived around the corner and are very familiar with the neighborhood (unless I am very much mistaken about your secret identity). So rest assured that whatever replaces the existing hulk will look very much like what was approved by the Board of Aldermen and the historic commission.
The special permit plans, which are incorporated into the board order, show renovations and additions that maintain the general look and feel of the original building (which of course was modified many times over the years). And those plans were more or less what the Upper Falls Historic District Commission had approved.
The problem with the Moon & Sixpence building is that the original structure was falling apart and when the owners went to do their renovations, there was not much that was structurally sound that could be saved. If I understand Jerry correctly, the added problem is that the owners want to raze the building and build what was originally approved but not use all of the old building (maybe none of it) because of the cost. The commission, if Jerry is correct, wants the owners to keep as much of the original structure–which no one will see when the building is finished.
Again, my problem is that a homeowner, who may have bought long before the district commission was created, is handcuffed when they want to make any sort of changes, regardless of the age of their home or what other additions have been made over the years.
The Newton TAB has a story about another house in Waban that has sparked a controversy. There is no district commission, but neighbors want to prevent the homeowners from demolishing and building a new house. The house was originally a barn, and it was refitted to make it habitable. Later, some not additions that are not really architecturally or historically consistent with the original house (which was originally a barn). I drove by the house myself, and while it has some charm to it, it is also located right next to the property line, offers little privacy to the owners or their next door neighbors, and, IMHO, does not really add to the historic nature or charm of the neighborhood. That is, of course, a subjective opinion–which is more or less my point about historic districts, i.e., that determinations about what is consistent with the historic character of the house and neighborhood are inherently subjective.
As I often have to tell people who complain about what their neighbors are allowed to do by right, the only sure way to keep everything in your neighborhood exactly the way you want it is to buy it yourself.
Ted, How handcuffed was the developer (or agency) that put in a low income development down the street from this building? (Same street, behind the condo complex at Elliot) Isn’t that proof positive that really drastic improvements can be made w/i the rules?
Hoss, I do not know the answer to your question. I only know about the Moon & Sixpence building because it came to Land Use for a special permit after haven gone to the historic district commission.
If you mean the CAN-DO houses, then I do know a little something about that. The original mill house had to be mostly preserved and moved over a little and the new houses had to be similar in scale, size and design. I was no longer president of the board of CAN-DO at the time (I resigned after I was elected alderman to avoid a conflict of interest), but I know the developer was held up in the BOA for CPA funding for a long time. It ended up costing CAN-DO a lot of money for carrying costs while waiting for approval.
Circumstances are very different for non-profit versus for-profit developers and for individual homeowners, so one should be careful about drawing conclusions based on comparisons between them. Non-profit developers of affordable housing survive on an incredibly slim margin. In fact, some of my colleagues and I are locked in a battle with the Mayor’s office right now over procurement policies connected to CDBG funding that isnot required by CDBG or HUD regulations, but which the Mayor wants to impose that would will make creating affordable housing economically infeasible for nonprofit developers. Indeed, at least one developer (not CAN-DO) has already walked away from a project for that reason, and another (also not CAN-DO) has indicated that i will probably follow suit. For profit developers and homeowners have their own separate sets of financial constraints.
I should also have mentioned that the CAN-DO project was subject only to the demolition delay ordinance, and not the district commission because it was located outside the borders of the Upper Falls Historic District. Under the demolition delay ordinance, owners must apply for a demolition permit. If the house is 50 years old or older and is found to be preferably preserved, a demolition permit will be delayed 12 months. An owner also has the option of submitting plans for approval by the Historic Commission (not the district commission) in order to avoid the delay. Different, less stringent rules apply to the demolition delay ordinance than to the historic district commissions.
For those as ignorant about this stuff as I am, the Newton website has this map of the Upper Falls Historic District (which I just found). http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/29690 Ald Hess Mahan said that the row of very nicely placed houses that I mentioned was not in the Upper Falls Historic District. I couldn’t figure out how that could be true. But the map shows that the district stops at Elliot St. The Upper Falls Historic District appears to have been craft-fully placed for some reason? Any backstory here?? Why didn’t they call it the Partially-Inclusive Upper Falls Historic District??
I was kinda expecting that a Ward 5 Aldermanic candidate would love the free ad space here… Upper Falls? Down by the river? Ward 5…
I respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague Alderman Hess-Mahan. One of the things that I’m most proud of in my political career is to have led the approval of the Chestnut Hill, Newtonville, and Auburndale Historic Districts as Chair of the Zoning and Planning Committee.
(The Upper Falls Historic District was established before I was in office but with my support.)
There may be better ways to preserve historic neighborhoods, but historic districts are the ones on the books in Massachusetts. I’ve encountered several citizens and colleagues from across the city who are frustrated that the neighborhoods they love are not protected and honored in this way and that the process of studying and documenting the historic significance of a proposed district is very elaborate. The
The original boundaries of the Upper Falls Historic District Commission were set after a study by a distinguished study of city preservationists including I believe Thelma Fleishman, the author of several books about the history of Newton, and with the active support of Kenneth Newcomb, the author of “Makers of the Mold”, a history of Upper Falls that is available online at the Friends of Hemlock Gorge website (www.hemlockgorge. org) and in print from the Friends for $18 or from local book stores. The Study Committee recommended boundaries that focused on the oldest sections of Upper Falls associated with the mills. An effort to expand the boundaries later probably overreached and did not win approval although some of the opponents may have later regretted their decision when additional development took place with the proposed expanded boundaries.
I believe Hoss and Alderman Hess-Mahan are referring to the new construction on Chestnut Street across from my house. The new homes and replicated houses are attractive and the residents are good neighbors. (One of the new residents helped shovel out my driveway after one of the storms this past winter.) However, I can’t shake the feeling that the destruction and replication of one of the former homes was somehow counter-productive. The rear of the other house was demolished and a beautiful job done renovating the remaining section. However, this structure that previously housed a family of at least ten people now appears to house only one person. Even with the residents of the two new units built on the formerly vacant land to the rear, this lot seems to have fewer residents now than before. How was this a prudent use of funds intended to increase the housing supply?
As the Moon and Six-pence building, I believe this is an example of overreach leading to disaster. For years, the Moon and Six-pence was a tremendous success using virtually every nook and cranny of this funky building to sell an eclectic assortment of esoteric goods. It probably could have remained in business to this day. Unfortunately, the owner got sick of the long commute from her North Shore home and closed down the store. She probably could have sold the contents and the name to another entrepreneur who could have continued it.
The store was replaced by several tenants in the existing structure as it was. At some point, owners became convinced that the structure could and should be upgraded and went to the Land Use Committee for approval of renovations and waivers of conditions on the site that predated zoning by more than a hundred years. The tenants were removed and the building sat vacant for months, a tempting target for vandals as the junk mail accumulated on the floor inside the mail slot. Unfortunately when the work to come into compliance with modern codes began, the full extent of the problems with the structure became apparent and the current situation developed. It’s a product of attempting to do too much with an old structure. The knick-knacks formerly sold there could probably have endured decades more.
The story of Jerry Reilly’s house below is instructive. Had he and his family or any other owner attempted to correct the apparent defect of the support in the cellar, the results would probably have been major damage to the house and at best costly repairs. As it is, the experts he consulted told him that the house was sound and needed no major improvements. He and his wife UFNAC Councillor Marie Jackson and their daughter Jayla have enjoyed the house for years and contributed immensely to the community. Sometimes old houses and old commercial buildings just need a good leaving alone.
With all due respect to my equally esteemed colleague Ald. Yates, wattle and daub thatched roof houses are also historic old houses. Preserving the original structures and making them habitable in 2013, however, is probably just as unrealistic as trying to preserve the remaining structure of the Moon & Sixpence building and rebuild the rest of the structure around it. For one thing, it is hard to find enough of the high quality animal dung to make the daub, which was readily available when Europe and America were primarily agrarian societies. But I think it would satisfy the spirit, if not the letter, or the historic district’s mission to allow the owner to demolish and replace the existing hulk with a virtually identical replica which will be structurally sound and meet the needs of families living in the 21st century. Of course, at some point, with replicas as stand-ins for the original buildings, the old neighborhoods begin to take on a Disney-esque, faux quality. But, you have to strike a balance somewhere. Is the historic district commission going to make it so expensive to preserve this neighborhood that the owners totally abandon the project? I hope not.
Again, I do not have a problem with preserving the streetscape in historic neighborhoods, of which Upper Falls is a prime example. With respect to the historic districts that have passed since I have been on the Board of Aldermen, however, I believe that many of the houses that are included in the boundaries of the districts do not really contribute to the historic character of those districts, and may even detract from it. Take Auburndale, for example. In among some beautiful examples of late 19th century Victorian, Stick, Queen Anne and other grand houses that reflect the heyday of that neighborhood, there are a number of pre and post WWII houses that were built on subdivided lots by developers, which do not really reflect any particular style of architecture, nor do they contribute to the Victorian era “streetscape” of Ye Olde Auburndale, other than the fact that they have been there since before the historic district was approved. To apply the same rules to those houses just doesn’t make sense to me.
@Brian Yates and @Ted Hess-Mahan – Since we have two knowledgeable alderman on this thread, I’ll post my question from above again in hopes then one of you know the answer.
Its my understanding that the historic commission only has legal jurisdiction over what can be seen from the street. Is that correct? If so, how/why are they able to dictate that the internal wooden frame be preserved on a building that’s being gutted inside and outside.
This seems to happen pretty regularly. In fact it’s the 2nd building on that corner that’s been rehabbed that way in the few short years I’ve been in Upper Falls. It seems to me that it adds nothing to historic preservation of the neighborhood, it drives the construction cost up, and it appears (to this non-lawyer) to be beyond the Historic Commission’s statutory authority.
One other thought, I often hear it said that “they just don’t build houses like they used to.” Sometimes, that is a good thing. I grew up in an old house built in 1820. The original builders did some things that led to major structural problems later, like building on a stone foundation that settled and shifted over time. Or insulating the walls with old newspapers, which made lovely nesting material for various critters and was a fire hazard. Later modifications to add what anyone would consider to be indispensible today also took their toll on the old house. Like drilling or sawing clear through joists to install indoor plumbing, leading to sagging floors in virtually every room of the house. Or building an addition by connecting the original house to an outbuilding that once served as the chicken coop. You know, that sort of thing.
I am sure there are some people would love to live in the style that they did in the 1800s, using an outhouse, pumping water from the well and heating it in a cauldron in the fireplace for the weekly bath. Not anyone I know, but I am sure they are out there, somewhere. Perhaps they have a reality show on Ye Olde History Channel.
@Jerry, I cannot really answer your question, but the city website has an FAQ page regarding the historic district commission review process and rules.
I tend to agree w both Alds Hess Mahan and Yates with some reserve. I have not lived in a situation where a historic district was established while I owned a home in the district. Ted’s reserve is quite a powerful one, how does a small community take over to the point where I can’t improve my existing investment exactly to MY liking? Particularly when my investment might be rather small and my home not as elegant as I’d like to own I’d be handcuffed.
But having purchased property in a historic district understanding both my limitations and more importantly (to me) my neighbor’s limitations, the concept is very much a good thing. The large stunning homes that Ted describes (in other neighborhoods) and some of our Upper Falls oddities to me have the same value in preservation. Without a historic district, what if some corporation wanted to use federal grants, buy the Mills building by the Charles and utilize the power of the Charles but not preserve the current building? What if the catholic church sold Mary Immaculate and it become the locaql offices of Citigroup? …the Stone Institute as a condo development?
I don’t see how you can put certain buildings in a protected mode and not others. I thought one way to do that was the National Register route — but the Waban example says that’s not the case at all
@Ted
We have a friend who fits the bill … but he doesn’t live in Newton
Ted, There’s a old book called “Thirty Tons a Day” by Bill Veeck (the sports team owner). He once owned Suffolk Downs thus the title describes where to get lots of animal dung. (Veeck’s antics in Boston were hilarious– he once told the media that he was giving away a few hundred black cats with paid admission. Boston’s animal rights groups were fuming. There were protests for weeks to try and stop this … then on giveaway night, he dropped the free cats from a helicopter. How did he get away w it?….they were stuffed animals)
Hoss, let me ask you: if you lived in a post-WWII, single-story ranch house built on a slab with the plumbing in the attic because there is no crawl space under the house and you wanted to demolish it and build a house with a real basement and an attached garage so you can stay warm in winter when you get into your car, how would you react if you were told you cannot change the facade, add an attached garage that is visible from the street, or add a second story for your growing family solely because your house is in a historic district? Because that is real life for some people.
Ted, In fairness to me — is that a hypothetical or are there Newton examples? Why wasnt the historic district crafty enough to work with the homeowner? If the homeowner wanted to take that WWII prefab dump and make it more fitting to the district and also achieve more basic objectives, why didn’t they make a plan together?
…Are you saying that there is an example that a historic commission finds it their charge to preserve non-antique buildings??? Which one?
Out of respect for homeowners’ privacy, I don’t want to give out specific addresses, but one can easily get a taste for the kinds of houses that are reviewed by looking up historic district commission agendas and checking the addresses on the assessors database. My example, albeit somewhat extreme, is the kind of house you can find in some of the historic districts, most likely built in the 1950s or 1960s on an empty lot or a lot that was sold off from a larger lot with an older house on it. There are a lot of those houses all over Newton, and they were not built to last. Indeed, many suffer from rot accelerated by the fact they rest directly on a concrete slab.
The most recent example I personally witnessed involved a gambrel colonial, which was in horrible condition on the inside and had to be totally gutted because of mold, etc. The new owners wanted to build an addition and to add a porch typical of other porches in the neighborhood and a two car attached garage with expensive garage doors that look like the kind of doors you would find on some of the carriage houses in the same historic district. The commission refused to give a certificate until the owners eliminated the proposed porch altogether (because it was not original to the house) and move the garage to the side of the house where it was not as visible (albeit still visible) from the street. The house itself was one of three that had been built on contiguous lots during the 1930s by a developer, and are not really all that historically significant nor examples of a particular style. But the commission found they were part of the “historic” streetscape and did not allow the facade to be changed significantly. The three houses have been modified somewhat over the years (pre-historic district), but have outdated floor plans that simply are not what 21st century families want in a house and have detached garages that occupy a substantial part of the back yards on these rather small, narrow lots (just over 10,000 sf with less than 70 feet of frontage). Because it is in a historic district, the only way to build an addition is to add on to the back of the house and either put the garage in the rear, which means a longer driveway from the street that creates impervious surface and occupies open green space on the lot, or put the garage on the side of the house which is what was allowed. It makes for a tight turn into the garage from the driveway, which is up against the property line, but preferable (from the owners’ perspective) to a longer driveway.
Sitting through the proceedings, I was struck by how much control a commission of fellow citizens had over almost every detail of the owners’ plans to add on to and improve their house. While I understood why the commission was averse to an attached garage on the front of the house, I thought the architect’s design was attractive and in keeping with the look and feel of the other houses in the neighborhood, using expensive, attractive garage doors that fit in with the carriage house doors down the block (these are custom made and not available from Lowes or Home Depot). And I did not get at all why the commission did not allow the wraparound front porch, which was similar to what other houses in the neighborhood had but also made the house more attractive and inviting, in my humble opinion.
All in all, I have to say that the commission succeeded in preserving a rather mediocre example of rather average architecture on a street that had some other truly remarkable houses with both architectural and historic significance and denied a homeowner some amenities which would have enhanced their home. To me, that just made no sense at all, and has forever changed the way I will look at future proposed districts.
Why on earth would someone buy a home without first checking out what s/he could do with the property? The idea boggles my mind. In recent years, we went through the process of buying a new (older) home and knew we needed to visit City Hall to check out the zoning, setbacks, limitations to adding or building on the lot with every house we seriously considered and did so. While some of the regulations seemed stringent, they were the regulations, and we knew we had to abide by them. We certainly didn’t expect the city to change regualtions to accommodate us.
The idea that people think they can buy a house, then do as they please without regard to the local laws governing zoning and established historic districts is a pretty recent phenomena in Newton, and it’s not a winning strategy for the buyer or the city.
Jane, the policies of the district commissions have been evolving. There was no written policy forbidding front facing garages in their guidelines, the guidelines actually encouraged porches and in my experience, it depends a great deal on who shows up and which district commission you are in front of as to whether you can make reasonable modifications to your home or not.
New home buyers aside, it really sucks if you are someone who has lived in your home for twenty years and suddenly find out you have to go to the historic district commission because you want to replace your drafty old windows with energy efficient insulating windows which the commission may or may not approve, depending on how they look.
It’s not only historic commissions that regulate appearance, there are lots of evil homeowners associations, etc, that with new developments do that to the delight of new home buyers. Facing those windows really sucks if you didn’t expect ever to see that kind.
Now we’re concerned about homeowner liberties? Leaf blowers for all, then!
Hoss, if only everyone would do as I say, everything would be okay. ;-)
Thirty tons Ted. Lots of historic potential. I love that smell…
Anyone else in the Ward 5 elections want to join Ald Yates in preserving Upper Falls? Maybe we got nothing “built to last”, probably lots built by mill workers meant as affordable… no architectural details…. no flaring shows of area wealth… Is the historic district something you’d support??
Hoss – whadaya talkin about? “no architectural details”? We got architectural details up the whazoo.
Ted – I know a great deal about living in a house for 20 years and finding out that no one really cares a whit about your concerns related to your home or neighborhood.
Ward 5 is whistling Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah out of our historic whazoohs! (said Clark, I think in National Lampoon Vacation…)
Jane, was that the house you bought for $135,000 and then sold for $1.1 million? Yeah, I’m crying real tears for you.
Good news – it looks like the logjam, has broken and construction has restarted on the site yesterday.
I’m not sure if this is a new thread, but did anyone see the globe article on Nonantum getting a federal grant to improve the village. First of all, bravo. Second, it mentions 4 villages that qualify but doesn’t name the villages! Which ones could also get it and when can they apply?
@fignewtonville – It did mention them. They were Newtonville, West Newton, Newton Corner and Nonantum
Jerry Reilly — Your point about this particular project appears to be right on the money. The starts and stops with construction, including setting a new foundation under something that could collapse (that “something” is hard to identify, part of a facade and lots of rotted timbers…) is clearly a sign that this project might become abandoned and with lots of smart people looking ridiculous.
You must be a relative of Claire Voyance?
On May 1st Jerry posted: “Its my understanding that the historic commission only has legal jurisdiction over what can be seen from the street. Is that correct? If so, how/why are they able to dictate that the internal wooden frame be preserved on a building that’s being gutted inside and outside.”
Jerry, we’ve worked on projects in historic districts where, as part of the negotiation between owner and the commission, some external changes are allowed in exchange for the owner attempting to preserve as much of the interior historic fabric of the building as possible. I don’t know if this is the case on the properties in question but it does happen.
This is similar to a town extracting concessions from a project developer. The developer doesn’t have to offer up anything when they are building “by right”, but the moment they require a special permit everything is on the table for negotiation.
Steve, speaking as chairman of the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen, which often deals with residential and business owners who do not have deep enough pockets to do everything the city may want from them, there is a very thin line between “extract” and “extort.” I am genuinely concerned that this historic building will be lost and that at the end of the day the owners will not have the resources to preserve it or replace it with a replica, or much of anything else for that matter.
Leaving aside policies and practices, this site looks extremely dangerous. If someone gets hurt and the city was found to be too demanding w/o particular concern for safety, that would be a terrible consequence of well intended rules. Someone needs to help this effort with whatever can be done to make this safe and profitable. In other words, give them whatever they think they need and quick
Steve – I understand the general dynamic of extracting concession from developers for a variety of public purpose. Like Ted, I think sometime that those concessions can gets overly onerous.
With this property though my questions is something different. Assume that because the property is in a historic district, the city (i.e. Historic Commission) can extract some concessions in how the project unfolds in the interest of historic preservation. As in any project, those concessions come at a price. The cost of the project escalates, the schedules stretches by many months, and the neighbors unnecessarily put up with a torn up property for months and months and months. Now lets look at the other side of the ledger. What is the intended public benefit that would justify all those costs. In this case, the only public “benefit” as far as I can see, is that there will be a brand new building and buried deep inside some walls there will be some invisible original timbers.
I live just around the corner. I know lots of the neighbors in the area. Many people have strong feeling about what sort of building should be allowed to be built on that plot. Many neighbors have concerns that the new building fit in with the neighborhood around it and that the new building preserve the character of the building it replaces. I’ve yet to talk to a single person that puts any value on preserving internal timbers while building a new building around them.
If historical preservation is your mission, internal, invisible pieces of framing are beside the point. Focusing the attention and concessions on that trivia does nothing useful for historic preservation. It’s beside the point. I believe the focus on the building’s framing is losing the forest for the trees.
So by all means, the Historic Commission should have a say in the design of the eventual replacement building. The focus should be on it’s shape, its footprint, its appearance … but not the hidden internal timbers.
I agree with Hoss, the regulatory hurdles and meddling are dragging this project on way longer than necessary. Let’s hope someone can break whatever logjam is holding it up and get it finished sooner rather than later
Ted – I obviously don’t follow these threads much, so I found your comment about my former home today. That would be the house we bought that no one had lived in for 10 years when we bought, had been left to go to seed, the house we put way more money into than we ever got out of it in order to make it livable – that would be considered a tear down in 2013. Did I mention that the mortgage rate was 18% when we bought it? That you have the time and inclination to go into the assessment data about an individual resident, then post it on a blog without bothering to ask that person about the real story of his/her experience in that home is truly something else again.
Ted – Any thoughts on why you think it’s appropriate to post information about individual resident’s assessment data on a blog without first having a conversation about the circumstances about the information with the person involved? Given the new political landscape, residents should know what a potential mayor may see as suitable information to post about them. As I mentioned previously, that you have the time and inclination to go into the assessment data about an individual resident, then post it on a blog shows a disturbing lack of jugement.
I’m relieved that there is finally a roof structure on this project (six months in). I’m hoping that our various historic commissions will never forget what happened here. While it seemed fine in theory, the commission basically mandated that the developer break multiple OSHA rules and work under unsafe conditions, and for no ultimate benefit. Any strong wind could have toppled the rooted front frame and if the project was abandoned, the whole thing would have toppled in time.