Jump to content

GR HPC


GaryP

Does the Historic Preservation Committee have too much control of property located within its boundaries?  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the Historic Preservation Committee have too much control of property located within its boundaries?

    • Yes
      24
    • No
      18
    • Other
      4


Recommended Posts

One other thing that I failed to mention. Most, if not all restoration projects in the Grand Rapids Historic Districts are eligible for tax credits. I believe it is 25% of the cost. This includes window replacements, new roofs, even interior kitchen and bathroom renovations.

These must go through the state office, but it is an excellent way to recoup some of the costs of caring for and maintaining these old homes. It is also a way for the lower income folks in the neighborhood to help offset the costs of properly maintaining their homes.

This kind of benefit is almost never reported in the GR Press. There was a recent workshop on tax credits at the Wealthy Theater. I can't recall an article in the press. I guess maybe it wasn't sensational enough.

As far as the tourist thing. We routinely have out of neighborhood people walking down our street, some of them even snapping photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

One other thing that I failed to mention. Most, if not all restoration projects in the Grand Rapids Historic Districts are eligible for tax credits. I believe it is 25% of the cost. This includes window replacements, new roofs, even interior kitchen and bathroom renovations.

These must go through the state office, but it is an excellent way to recoup some of the costs of caring for and maintaining these old homes. It is also a way for the lower income folks in the neighborhood to help offset the costs of properly maintaining their homes.

This kind of benefit is almost never reported in the GR Press. There was a recent workshop on tax credits at the Wealthy Theater. I can't recall an article in the press. I guess maybe it wasn't sensational enough.

As far as the tourist thing. We routinely have out of neighborhood people walking down our street, some of them even snapping photos.

It sounds to me that the HPC is indeed informing people about making the upkeep of their historic homes more affordable. But the GR Press is leaving that part blank to paint the HPC as evil bad guys. Maybe it would be a good idea for the HPC to invest in a public relations campaign to counter act the GR Press's bad mouthing. But questions about the low income home owner are still outstanding. Does anybody on the inside of this issue know that the low income home owner indeed took steps to get help at reducing the costs to put in the wooden window the HPC insists upon? Also, how does the HPC have the power to place criminal charges on the low income homeowner? That's the part that really makes me cry "Fowl!". I wouldn't want to be hauled to Kent County Jail over something as trivial as a window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds to me that the HPC is indeed informing people about making the upkeep of their historic homes more affordable. But the GR Press is leaving that part blank to paint the HPC as evil bad guys. Maybe it would be a good idea for the HPC to invest in a public relations campaign to counter act the GR Press's bad mouthing. But questions about the low income home owner are still outstanding. Does anybody on the inside of this issue know that the low income home owner indeed took steps to get help at reducing the costs to put in the wooden window the HPC insists upon? Also, how does the HPC have the power to place criminal charges on the low income homeowner? That's the part that really makes me cry "Fowl!". I wouldn't want to be hauled to Kent County Jail over something as trivial as a window.

I think by having a workshop, in the evening, where everyone is invited is a major step in this direction. All of the commissioners were there, the state historic preservation person was there as was the city staff person who assists the commission and does the enforcement end of things.

Criminal charges occur when laws and regulations are broken. That is the fact of a civil society.

But let's be realistic here, I have my doubts that this woman will ever be hauled off to jail. Something will be worked out. The commission has a history of working hard with all people to resolve these issues before they go to extremes. This is not a life and death issue.

There was once a guy (also most likely lower income) who once put new inappropriate windows in his entire house. The commission has given him the flexibility to replace them incrementally over a long period of time. They must be eventually replaced, but he is being worked with, just like this woman will be.

These things have to go through this process. There is a line in the sand and it must be maintained so that the kind of crap that is happening in EGR (from an earlier post) does not happen.

Otherwise, what is the point in having a district? The standards maintain the districts, without them there are no districts.

An example of this is in Three Rivers, Michigan. They have a Nationally registered main street. There is no local guidelines, no city staff and no HPC to regulate this. People have torn down buildings (to access a new parking lot), replaced historic windows with inappropriate windows and generally degraded these buildings. That is not to say it is all doom and gloom, as many people have taken it upon themselves to go above and beyond and repair their buildings to appropriate levels at great personal cost to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, really MJLO? Heartside doesn't seem to have any development going on it, does it?

I have to laugh every time an HPC thread comes up. It's plainly obvious that most of the people making comments about the HPC and what they do have never had to deal with them in any shape or form.

The HPC is bound for the most part by one simple document. You can even go see an illustrated version of it here, Linky. In a real nutshell it says one simple thing, replace like with like. Nowhere in the documents does it say anything about replacing like with crap. It's a pretty straightforward document.

The HPC is charged with maintaining the aesthetic integrity of the districts that the City has deemed historic. These districts are part of what gives Grand Rapids its sense of place. Look through all of the threads where someone says they are coming to visit Grand Rapids, what's the first thing that most people mention? Don't forget to check out Heritage Hill or the Heartside district. Now, imagine the same conversation without ever having an HPC in place. Go and visit Heritage Hill but don't mind those 4 houses on the left that have been beotchized with vinyl windows and vinyl siding. It doesn't quite sound right does it?

You say they have too much power, I say they don't have enough. Then maybe we could keep some of the buildings around that we all miss or are soon going to miss. Israel's, and Schnitzelbank included. You ask where they are when one of these buildings comes down? I'll tell you that a lot of them are quietly sitting off to the side shedding a tear, wishing they could do more.

Redevelopment in Heartside would be nothing without the power of the historic district. With the delineation of the historic district comes the carrot of the Federal Historic Tax Credits. 20% of all the money developers put into the project, not including purchase price of the building, site work, or additions, comes back to the developer in the form of a tax credit that they can use or sell as equity for the project. Free money???, Yeah, that would probably scare me away too.

Nobody understands the dynamics of what the historic districts mean. Without them Grand Rapids would be 10-15 years behind in development in Heartside. With historic districts come controls in the form of the HPC.

Thank God for the HPC. They are the only guardians we have to preserve the integrity of our historic areas. Most of the business I have is due in large part to the historic districts. I need them to stay intact as much as possible.

And don't forget the hard work the HPC did in saving the new city/county buildings. We would be a city lost without it's soul if we didn't have these monuments to point at with pride. :rofl:

Just giving you a hard time, Nitro, you knew I couldn't let this one go without bringing it up. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And don't forget the hard work the HPC did in saving the new city/county buildings. We would be a city lost without it's soul if we didn't have these monuments to point at with pride. :rofl:

Just giving you a hard time, Nitro, you knew I couldn't let this one go without bringing it up. :thumbsup:

One or the other of us is going to keep bringing this up until the end of time. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always a bit confused about the issue of the city-county buildings and their plaza. To me it seems that many on this forum have a strong bias for modern architecture. These buildings are the best example of TRUE modern architecture in the city.

Whether you dislike them or like them, they are a glowing example of pure modernism and even representative of the kind of poor urbanism that this period created.

I personally do not like them. The public realm that they create is atrocious. But they are an example of an era that has passed, a trace element that effected the very fabric of our city, for mostly bad I suppose.

Just because I have such disdain for them, doesn't mean that they should be removed. This would be exactly the same mentality that caused us to lose the courthouse and the city hall.

Now I am going to contradict myself - I would propose that these buildings and their plaza would be far superior if the other trash that surrounds them would just go away and be replaced with a more sensible urbanism. The federal building, the 5/3 building, all the rubish across the street - none of these buildings really represent quality examples of modernism and as such should not merit the same distinction as the city-county building complex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always a bit confused about the issue of the city-county buildings and their plaza. To me it seems that many on this forum have a strong bias for modern architecture. These buildings are the best example of TRUE modern architecture in the city.

Whether you dislike them or like them, they are a glowing example of pure modernism and even representative of the kind of poor urbanism that this period created.

I personally do not like them. The public realm that they create is atrocious. But they are an example of an era that has passed, a trace element that effected the very fabric of our city, for mostly bad I suppose.

Just because I have such disdain for them, doesn't mean that they should be removed. This would be exactly the same mentality that caused us to lose the courthouse and the city hall.

Now I am going to contradict myself - I would propose that these buildings and their plaza would be far superior if the other trash that surrounds them would just go away and be replaced with a more sensible urbanism. The federal building, the 5/3 building, all the rubish across the street - none of these buildings really represent quality examples of modernism and as such should not merit the same distinction as the city-county building complex.

That was discussed ad nauseum many times here, with THIS thread probably being the longest discussion. I agree that the City and County buildings would probably look great if they were surrounded by quality architecture, as part of a "fabric" of differing styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this sound? "Regarding most of the buildings on 28th Street, whether you dislike them or like them, they are a glowing example of pure post-war retail architecture and even representative of the kind of poor urbanism that this period created. I personally do not like them. The public realm that they create is atrocious. But they are an example of an era, a trace element that effected the very fabric of our city, for mostly bad I suppose. Just because I have such disdain for them, doesn't mean that they should be removed." NOT!!!

Whenever and wherever possible, bad things should always be replaced with goods things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's when things like an old strip mall on 28th st. can be protected by the HPC that I think things are a little off balance. A beautiful Victorian home from the 1890's absolutely. A building that houses max10 and a check cashing place build in the 50's not so much. I agree with Civitas. Somethings are worth protecting. Somethings are a mistake. Why do we need them around forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am always a bit confused about the issue of the city-county buildings and their plaza. To me it seems that many on this forum have a strong bias for modern architecture. These buildings are the best example of TRUE modern architecture in the city.

Whether you dislike them or like them, they are a glowing example of pure modernism and even representative of the kind of poor urbanism that this period created.

I personally do not like them. The public realm that they create is atrocious. But they are an example of an era that has passed, a trace element that effected the very fabric of our city, for mostly bad I suppose.

Just because I have such disdain for them, doesn't mean that they should be removed. This would be exactly the same mentality that caused us to lose the courthouse and the city hall.

Now I am going to contradict myself - I would propose that these buildings and their plaza would be far superior if the other trash that surrounds them would just go away and be replaced with a more sensible urbanism. The federal building, the 5/3 building, all the rubish across the street - none of these buildings really represent quality examples of modernism and as such should not merit the same distinction as the city-county building complex.

But the city/county buildings do not even fit the criteria of what the HPC is charged with protecting. By stepping in the fray with these two buildings, they are very much overstepping their boundaries, and this is what ticks a lot of people off. Because as people here have noted, where does it end? 28th street strip mall architecture? 1960's suburban subdivisions? :shok:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you guys are going to love one of the items for the Planning Commission this Thursday... check out the packet, item 6A for a building on Wealthy St. :shok:

Silly me to think that something so beautiful (cough) might not belong in a historic district...

I like it. It's the right scale for that area, its style looks good with the building to the East, and a little modern mixed with the old looks very Scandinavian.

New thread: http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=29140

You guys are getting a bit carried away with the historic district mantra. I thought elitism and exclusionary practices was just reserved to the gated suburban neighborhoods, but apparently not..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it. It's the right scale for that area, its style looks good with the building to the East, and a little modern mixed with the old looks very Scandinavian.

You guys are getting a bit carried away with the historic district mantra. I thought elitism and exclusionary practices was just reserved to the gated suburban neighborhoods, but apparently not..

It's a hot button topic, but I think its valid considering all the HPC bashing on this forum in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does this sound? "Regarding most of the buildings on 28th Street, whether you dislike them or like them, they are a glowing example of pure post-war retail architecture and even representative of the kind of poor urbanism that this period created. I personally do not like them. The public realm that they create is atrocious. But they are an example of an era, a trace element that effected the very fabric of our city, for mostly bad I suppose. Just because I have such disdain for them, doesn't mean that they should be removed." NOT!!!

Whenever and wherever possible, bad things should always be replaced with goods things.

I can really see your point on this. This is a dangerous quandry for the preservation movement, because the lines get a bit fuzzy, especially when describing much of post-war America, which is something like 80% of the built environment. I recently read an article in a preservation magazine where this was broached editorially. I think the question was something like when is the first MacDonalds or K-Mart going to fall under the preservation blanket? If 50 years is the threshold, then we would be soon entering the phase of a huge retail shift in the 1960's, like suburban malls. Should they be protected?

I hope not. But why not, under the current standards? This all just opens pandora's box.

I hope that we do not classify these buildings in the same vein as we would something built in the true modernist mantra. At least the modern buildings had a style. I am unsure of what style we are in today or how it would be classified in the future. It seems as though we are, and have been, very architecturally mixed up as a nation for a very long time. We entered modernism and never really left it, only diluted it to the point of where we are today. Truly a sad state of affairs.

What style are the Bemis townhouses for example? They certainly really can not be categorized as a traditional style, can they?

Interestingly, at the CNU in Pasadena in 2005 there was a session about historic preservation and one of the discussions came up regarding Seaside. Seaside is approaching 30 years old and is suffering through the same things that many other successful places suffer through. Namely tearing down original homes and building larger ones, which are out of scale with the surroundings. Should it eventually be listed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe save a few buildings to reflect the era, But protecting these characterless structures ( as most everything in the 60's were from Buildings to cinema) en masse, would be a mistake. You guys got to remember K-Mart on Alpine? Should that have been spared? To protect its historic integrity. Buildings in the suburbs I don't feel should be protected by any HPC. Of course there are always exceptions. But There are very few structures build in post war suburbia that warant any real significance. Most of them are just glorified pole barns built to be disposable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.