Tear down Historic Houses for Condos?

[Seabreeze]

Is that really considered a mansion?? If so, I live in a mansion too

[dubone]

Is that really considered a mansion?? If so, I live in a mansion too

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, although i tend to the think that buildings that are old that were built that large in the day before cheap construction can be mansions at smaller sizes. that yellow house is similar in size to many on queen's road west, for example.

[dubone]

Okay, so after more than a year of claiming that they were saving at least one house, and even after keeping that house untouched for a while as all the other old houses were dismantled and torn down. And then after letting it sit with its siding off for a bit, as though it was just waiting to be moved.

Kapow.

It is gone. They tore them all down.

That was kind of sleezy in my view.

[monsoon]

Honestly I am not sure why anyone would want that house moved to another piece of property. That is a desirable area but that doesn't mean the houses are that desirable. If they were, there wouldn't be so many teardowns. If I had a piece of property with no house on it, I would rather build something new than have to deal with retrofitting a 70 year old place and then modernizing it to today's standards.

There might be a lot of architectural scrap to be had from it though.

In retrospect in looking at this, there really isn't much left in Charlotte that I would call "historic". I am not so sure that 1920s houses really count in that regard. Most likely only the homes in 4th ward would merit this designation along with a few places scattered around Mecklenburg county.

[dubone]

This house definitely didn't count as historic, despite the thread title. But I do think there is merit to pre-depression housing stock, because it was generally well built, and is more interesting than a modern starter home. For example, there is housing for poor people going up through out the county, even neighborhoods less than a mile away. If the developer agreed to move it (apparently that was a fib), all it needed was a small land parcel and work that would need to be done a new place just the same as an old structure. It was substandard, but couldn't a weekend habitat for humanity project fix it up for a poor family?

The others weren't structurally sound enough to move, so that was understandable that they needed to be torn down. But this one could have been moved and rebuilt.

For the others less familiar... here is the house that was torn down:

It was ~1700sf Dutch Colonial house. It was built around the year 1900.

Compare to a modern day snout house starter home.

So while not historic, it sure as heck is better than what would be thrown up (pun intended) in a tract development. So why not keep the structure, and build a new foundation, roof, siding, and utilities in that old structure rather than a brand new stick structure? It can't be that much more expensive. And it'll keep the 1900 design and structure, which adds value. 1900 might not seem so old to us now, but these are 10-30 years younger than the 4th ward houses, so probably in 10-30 years, these 1900-1920 structures might be considered much more historic and valuable.

[MZT]

Maybe we should give the developer the benefit of the doubt. It does cost something to relocate a house, and whomever they were talking to that was interested in it, probably wasn't coming through on their end of the agreement fast enough.

IE, I don't view it as the developer's responsibility to find a location and put it there. If there isn't community support to save a structure, then ipso facto it wasn't important enough.

On the whole, though I do agree it was a nice enough house to be worth saving.

[monsoon]

To be fair, I don't think you could compare the first house to a starter home of today. Someone who has a piece of property in Charlotte isn't going to be putting starter home on it as that is the province of tract development.

[dubone]

I agree that the market didn't accept the relocation and renovation of that house, thus its demise. I have given the developer benefit of the doubt, and have (throughout this thread) been in support of the demolition of the others. But it was reported that he "promised" to relocate this one. It was structurally sound, had a smaller footprint, and had an attractive design. The compromise allowed for the rezoning of the property.

My argument is that this house is of more value than a starter home, and the market should have accepted it as a shell structure upon which it could have built a valuable middle class home for as much as it would have cost to build a typical starter home.

The fact that the Charlotte market did not accept it is very likely an indictment of Charlotte's culture of demolition. I am VERY accepting of this culture, but in this case, it would have been cheap to make sure a developer delivered on a promise. As for land, there are plenty of spots in low-value neighborhoods within a few miles of First Ward where this could have gone.

1900-1920 homes in this city will be extremely valuable to people the minute we tear them all down. I guess we're working on that.

[monsoon]

1900-1920 homes in this city will be extremely valuable to people the minute we tear them all down. I guess we're working on that.

So where are all the valuable 1880-1900 homes?

[dubone]

Fourth Ward.

In fact, the 1900-1920 era homes are also valuable in Dilworth, Elizabeth, and other neighborhoods that are full of them.

Obviously, they need some level of renovation. But once renovated, the near century age, and the architecture from that era, have added value beyond just pure size.

Not everyone is interested, proven by the vast numbers of people that like to live in exurban tract housing projects. But for the demographic interested in living in the inner city neighborhoods, there is a premium for older homes that are renovated.

[monsoon]

I was under the impression that Dilworth was not developed until the 1920s.

[dubone]

Dilworth was developed in the 1890s and was annexed into Charlotte in 1907 as 8th Ward. Many of the mills in the section of Dilworth now known as South End were built between 1890 and 1910. A significant number of the homes in the historic district of Dilworth are from 1900 to 1920. The larger homes and more famous homes, though, were built during the 1920s.

Then, there are sections built in the 1940s when they reduced the size of Latta Park.

It is hard to find specific percentages of Dilworth houses built before 1920, but there are a significant number.

[MZT]

The city website doesn't seem capable of showing the construction date of homes prior to 1900. I've never found 18xx anything when searching.

[dubone]

That's correct. Pre-1900 buildings show up as "1900" on the tax site. But you can click through Dilworth and other inner ring neighborhoods and see all the 1900-1920 buildings. That was the era that Charlotte's population exploded exponentially.

As for Dilworth, here is some history for the neighborhood:

http://www.cmhpf.org/educationneighhistdilworth1.htm

My favorite is their marketing to sell their first parcels:

The Charlotte Consolidated Construction Company used a series of innovative marketing techniques to attract prospective buyers to Dilworth for the grand opening on May 20, 1891. Salesmen traveled to other towns to spread the word about the new suburb. A "great pyrotechnic display" and a balloon ascension were scheduled for the evening of the twentieth, and the company arranged for a baseball game between a team from Winston and one from Columbia, South Carolina. The most imaginative promotional gimmick was the placement of a deed in a tin box, which was then suspended from a small balloon and launched at the end of the fireworks show. Whoever found the deed when the box fell to earth became the owner of the Dilworth parcel recorded on the document.*

*Charlotte News, May 13, 20, 1891; Charlotte Democrat, May 22, 29, 1891.

[DigitalSky]

that's pretty neat

[monsoon]

But that would suggest there really are not that many homes left built prior to 1900. I am reminded of the mansions that used to line Trade street. Some of those may have predated the Civil War. The last was torn down in the late 1980s approximately in the area the jail is located now.

[dubone]

The loss of the East Avenue mansions was definitely a huge shame. I'm not suggesting that there are many pre-1900 homes left, as there aren't. But there are certainly some. My suggestion is that there are quite a few more 1900-1920 homes, and they are starting to be really valued as they come upon their century anniversary.

I read once that some East Ave mansions were moved out to the suburbs. I'm not sure though. Most were just torn down, which is just awful.

For the machinery that we have to shave off the top of mountains trasport billions of automobiles across oceans, it would be nice to be able to save houses by relocation a little more often. When they're gone, they're gone.

EDIT: East Ave = East Trade St

[dubone]

It looks like people are still voting in this poll. It should be noted that these houses are already torn down.

[Charlotte_native]

I read once that some East Ave mansions were moved out to the suburbs. I'm not sure though. Most were just torn down, which is just awful.

EDIT: East Ave = East Trade St

One of them is on The Plaza -- the big beautiful yellow Victorian at 1600 The Plaza...it wasn't from East Ave, but just off of it on Tryon. The Plaza at that time was definitly considered the 'burbs. It is an 1891 Queen Anne and was moved in 1915. One of the coolest examples of a surviving 1800's home is the big red house (originally a duplex) on the corner of N. Brevard and 7th.

<-- Brevard St.

<-- The Plaza